Asked 12th Sep, 2022
  • University of Life

Ecology movements mid 70s - early 80s vs now?

Hi frds,
any comparative research about the differences and breadth of the ecology movements in the mid-70s-early 80s vs now available?
Where is the difference in socio-cultural typology clusters, age, gender, and socialization background?

All Answers (3)

13th Sep, 2022
Andrew Paul McKenzie Pegman
University of Auckland
There is more focus now on habitat protection due to deforestation and sustainable practices :)
13th Sep, 2022
Ron Bunnell
Oregon State University
This not research, but rather, personal observation, having earned my MS in Ecology in 1978. Climate change was not even a topic, except in a theotetical sense. There was more emphasis on basic science and less on applied, more conservation, less restoration. There was no GIS. Remember, this was before the advent of the personal computer. To construct and test a systems model, you had to write code to punch cards and get in line to use the mainframe. I don't ever remember hearing the terms: landscape ecology, patchiness, fragmentation, human ecology. Here is an exercize for you. Assemble a glossary of commonly used terms in the field of ecology and find when they first appeared in the literature. I think you will find that a large percentage appeared after 1990.
1 Recommendation
13th Sep, 2022
Josef Schmutz
University of Saskatchewan
I've found the synopsis provided by Georgina M. Mace very helpful (2014 "Whose conservation? -- Changes in the perception and goals of nature conservation require a solid scientific basis." Science (Insights) 345(6204): 1558-1560.).

Similar questions and discussions

How can environmental protection and biodiversity be improved by using current ecological technologies?
1573 replies
  • Dariusz ProkopowiczDariusz Prokopowicz
Due to the current civilization progress in recent decades, acceleration of the development of industry, automotive, urban agglomerations, intensification of agricultural production, etc. and related greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, ozone layer depletion in the atecologicalecologicalmosphere, increase of environmental pollution, growing problem of smog in urban agglomerations, the increase in pollution of the seas and oceans to which unsorted waste is thrown away is cut out as part of the predatory economy of tropical forests in the Amazon and other largest natural forest ecosystems.
In addition, the secondary effect of global warming of the Earth's climate is the increasing, more frequent weather anomalies, including drought, leading to steppe and desertification of areas that were previously natural forest ecosystems or areas exploited by agriculture.
As a result of the above-mentioned processes, every year many species of flora and fauna disappear forever.
As a result, natural biodiversity diminishes, which for millions of years evolved evolutionally on Earth.
In this way the natural resources of the planet Earth are irretrievably in decline.
In view of the above, the issue of environmental protection and biodiversity is one of the most important challenges of humanity in the 21st century.
Classical economics must change towards a green economy based on the strategy of sustainable pro-ecological development.
Therefore, I am asking you for the following query:
How can environmental protection and biodiversity be improved by using current ecological technologies?
Please, answer, comments.
I invite you to the discussion.
Best wishes
Is it time we shift emphasis from technological solutions to climate change & focus on the 'Human Dimension'?
6915 answers
  • Raveendra Nath YasarapuRaveendra Nath Yasarapu
Isn't the obvious solution and the elephant-in-the-room 'BETTER HUMAN BEINGS'? Shouldn't the focus be on better human beings rather than better technology? Why is it that everyone wants to develop better technology rather than focus on better humanity? Because no one has the answers and no one wants to change themselves? In environmental degradation, is it not obvious that nature can heal itself, if only left alone, and it is we humans who need regulation? Many natural parks managers do just that; seal off the area from human interference to let nature heal and recover. It is classified as 'Strict Nature Reserve"by IUCN. Complacency and inaction are not advocated here, as many have misunderstood, but the shifting of focus from technology to the human being. As technology is no match for human greed, isn't introspection & restraining ourselves more relevant than developing more technology, which caused the mess in the first place, by making it easy for a few to consume more? Since technology is only a short term quick fix which fails after a short time, isn't the real problem our addiction to material consumption & our lack of understanding about human nature? Isn't developing more technology sustaining the addiction instead of correcting it, leading to more complex problems later on, needing more complex technological quick fixes like higher drug dosages, more ground troops & equipment, (along with their debilitating side effects) in the future? Isn't this the vicious addiction circle we are trapped in? As researchers, do we merely buy more time with technology OR go to the very root of the problem, the human being?
A lot of hue and cry is made about climate change and the environment in general. Public and private money is poured into research to study its effects on the environment, sustainability etc. Should we study nature or ourselves?
" Our studies must begin with our selves and not with the heavens. "-Ouspensky
Human activities have been found to have a direct correlation to climate change and its impact on the environment(I=P x A x T, the Ehrlich and Holdren equation), in spite of what some complacent sections say to protect their own self interests.
We hardly know about Human nature. We can scarcely predict human behavior. We need to find out why we think like we do and why we do what we do and why, in spite of all knowledge and wisdom, consume more than what we need, in the form of addictions to consumption and imbalance not only ourselves but also the family, society and environment around us..
Humanity is directly responsible for all the unnatural imbalances occurring on the planet. Yet we refuse to take responsibility and instead focus on climate change, or fool the public exchequer with a 'breakthrough in renewable energy just around the corner'. We scarcely know what drives human beings. If we had known, all the imbalances around us would have had solutions by now, given the amount of money plowed into finding such solutions. Are we blindly groping in the dark of climate change because we don't know the answers to our own nature?
Is it not high time we focus on what makes us human, correct our consumptive behavior and leave nature to take care of climate change? Why focus effort on 'externals' when the problem is 'internal'- 'me'?
Aren't we addicts denying our addiction and blaming everything else but ourselves?
" We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts, we make the world." - Buddha 
IMHO, We don't need to save the World. It is enough if we save ourselves from ourselves. The need of the hour is not vain glorious interventions, but self-restraint and self-correction!
The Mind is the Final frontier.
When will the deforestation of the Amazon tropical rainforest finally be converted to aforestation?
3 replies
  • Dariusz ProkopowiczDariusz Prokopowicz
What needs to change for the deforestation of the Amazon tropical rainforests to be converted to aforestation?
The Amazon Tropical Rainforests are referred to as the 'lungs of our planet'. The Amazon Tropical Rainforests and other highly biodiverse natural boreal areas are one of the key factors in removing CO2 from the atmosphere and are thus a limiting factor for greenhouse gas emissions, slowing the rate of progressive global warming, reducing the scale of the ongoing climate crisis. The tropical rainforests of the Amazon and other highly biodiverse natural forests and other natural green areas are a major reservoir of terrestrial biodiversity. In some but unfortunately still few countries and urban agglomerations, the scale of aforestation exceeds that of forest deforestation. Unfortunately, this does not apply to the tropical rainforests of the Amazon and many other natural forests of the tropical and subtropical zones. It is essential for the future of future generations of people, the state of the biosphere and the planet's climate to protect the state of biodiversity in the natural ecosystems of the tropical rainforests of the Amazon and other natural forests and to convert deforestation processes into aforestation. The state of biodiversity of the planet's biosphere and the rate of progressive global warming depend to a large extent on this. It has therefore been a common knowledge issue for many years to significantly increase the level of nature conservation, including the protection of the biodiversity of the tropical Amazon rainforest and other natural forest and natural ecosystems. It has also been a matter of common knowledge for many years, confirmed by many scientific studies and published scientific papers, that the processes of deforestation of the tropical Amazon Rainforest and other natural boreal, forest formations of the planet must be urgently converted to processes of aforestation. This, if it has been common knowledge for years, is why deforestation processes still dominate many times over aforestation. This problem was already signalled by researchers and scientists in the second half of the 20th century. Unfortunately, large-scale deforestation of the tropical Amazon rainforest and other natural forest formations of the planet continues. In addition, over the last 15 years the scale of deforestation of the Amazon rainforest and other natural forest formations of the planet has increased instead of decreasing. At the UN climate summit COP26, many countries pledged that by the end of this decade at the latest, i.e. by 2030, deforestation processes would be significantly reduced to such an extent that aforestation processes would prevail. But why should we wait until 2030 for this when we know how important this is for the preservation of the planet's biodiversity and for the urgent issue of halting or slowing down the progressive process of global warming. The improvement of conservation techniques and the development of aforestations programmes is fostered by the society-wide pro-environmental awareness of citizens, modern technologies, available financial resources, scientific knowledge, etc. So what is missing, what still needs to change. Is the key problem still the lack of changes in politics and business, i.e. the necessary changes towards pro-environmental and pro-climate reforms, the development of a real environmental policy and environmental protection, the implementation of the concept of sustainable economic development, the realisation of sustainable development goals, the pursuit of sustainability of the development of civilisation with the surrounding nature and climate, the carrying out of a pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the classic, dirty economy of excess towards a sustainable, green economy of moderation, a closed loop economy?
In view of the above, I would like to address the following question to the esteemed community of researchers and scientists:
What needs to change for the deforestation of the tropical Amazon rainforest to be converted to aforestation?
What do you think about this topic?
What is your opinion on this subject?
Please answer with reasons,
I invite you all to discuss,
Thank you very much,
Warm regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz

Related Publications

Full-text available
It is widely accepted that policy-makers (in Nepal and elsewhere) can learn valuable lessons from the way other countries run their health and social services. We highlight some of the specific contributions the discipline of sociology can make to cross-national comparative research in the public health field. Sociologists call attention to often u...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.