Environmentalism

Many environmentalists believe that human interference with 'nature' should be restricted or minimised as a matter of urgency (for the sake of life, or the planet, or just for the benefit of the human species),<ref>Huesemann, Michael H., and Joyce A. Huesemann (2011). [http://www.newtechnologyandsociety.org ''Technofix: Why Technology Won't Save Us or the Environment''], New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia {{ISBN|0-86571-704-4}}, 464 pp.</ref> whereas [[environmental skeptics]] and anti-environmentalists do not believe that there is such a need.<ref>Bakari, Mohamed El-Kamel. "Globalization and Sustainable Development: False Twins?." New Global Studies 7.3: 23–56.</ref> One can also regard oneself as an environmentalist and believe that human 'interference' with 'nature' should be ''increased''.<ref>Neil Paul Cummins "An Evolutionary Perspective on the Relationship Between Humans and Their Surroundings: Geoengineering, the Purpose of Life & the Nature of the Universe", Cranmore Publications, 2012.</ref> Nevertheless, there is a risk that the shift from emotional environmentalism into the technical management of natural resources and hazards could decrease the touch of humans with nature, leading to less concern with environment preservation.<ref>{{cite web |last=Vasconcelos |first=Vitor Vieira |date=2011 |title=The Environment Professional and the Touch with Nature |url=http://pt.scribd.com/doc/119009229/Environment-Professional-and-the-Touch-with-Nature |url-access=limited |work=Qualit@s |pages=1–10 |via=Pt.scribd.com |volume=1}}</ref> Increasingly, typical conservation rhetoric is being replaced with restoration approaches and larger landscape initiatives that seek to create more holistic impacts.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mason |first=Matthew |title=Conservation: History and Future |url=https://www.environmentalscience.org/conservation |work=EnvironmentalScience.org}}</ref>

Many environmentalists believe that human interference with 'nature' should be restricted or minimised as a matter of urgency (for the sake of life, or the planet, or just for the benefit of the human species),<ref>Huesemann, Michael H., and Joyce A. Huesemann (2011). [http://www.newtechnologyandsociety.org ''Technofix: Why Technology Won't Save Us or the Environment''], New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia {{ISBN|0-86571-704-4}}, 464 pp.</ref> whereas [[environmental skeptics]] and anti-environmentalists do not believe that there is such a need.<ref>Bakari, Mohamed El-Kamel. "Globalization and Sustainable Development: False Twins?." New Global Studies 7.3: 23–56.</ref> One can also regard oneself as an environmentalist and believe that human 'interference' with 'nature' should be ''increased''.<ref>Neil Paul Cummins "An Evolutionary Perspective on the Relationship Between Humans and Their Surroundings: Geoengineering, the Purpose of Life & the Nature of the Universe", Cranmore Publications, 2012.</ref> Nevertheless, there is a risk that the shift from emotional environmentalism into the technical management of natural resources and hazards could decrease the touch of humans with nature, leading to less concern with environment preservation.<ref>{{cite web |last=Vasconcelos |first=Vitor Vieira |date=2011 |title=The Environment Professional and the Touch with Nature |url=http://pt.scribd.com/doc/119009229/Environment-Professional-and-the-Touch-with-Nature |url-access=limited |work=Qualit@s |pages=1–10 |via=Pt.scribd.com |volume=1}}</ref> Increasingly, typical conservation rhetoric is being replaced with restoration approaches and larger landscape initiatives that seek to create more holistic impacts.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mason |first=Matthew |title=Conservation: History and Future |url=https://www.environmentalscience.org/conservation |work=EnvironmentalScience.org}}</ref>

Others seek a balance that involves both caring deeply for the environment while letting science guide human actions affecting it. Such an approach would avoid the emotionalism which, for example, anti-[[genetically modified organism|GMO]] activism has been criticized for, and protect the integrity of science. Planting trees, for another example, can be emotionally satisfying but should also involve being conscious of [[ecological]] concerns such as the effect on [[water cycle]]s and the use of nonnative, potentially invasive species.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Das |first=Dibakar |date=September–October 2020 |title=When Environmentalism Clashes with Science |url= |access-date= |magazine=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |publisher=[[Center for Inquiry]] |location=Amherst, New York |pages=54–55 |volume=44 |issue=5}}</ref>

Others seek a balance that involves both caring deeply for the environment while letting science guide human actions affecting it.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Tran|first1=Thanh Tu|title=Flying Beyond Didacticism: The Creative Environmental Vision of ‘Wild Wise Weird’|date=2025|publisher=Young Voices of Science|url=https://youngvoicesofscience.org/?p=1963}}</ref> Such an approach would avoid the emotionalism which, for example, anti-[[genetically modified organism|GMO]] activism has been criticized for, and protect the integrity of science. Planting trees, for another example, can be emotionally satisfying but should also involve being conscious of [[ecological]] concerns such as the effect on [[water cycle]]s and the use of nonnative, potentially invasive species.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Das |first=Dibakar |date=September–October 2020 |title=When Environmentalism Clashes with Science |url= |access-date= |magazine=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |publisher=[[Center for Inquiry]] |location=Amherst, New York |pages=54–55 |volume=44 |issue=5}}</ref>

===Anti-environmentalism===

===Anti-environmentalism===