in it together

I have been thinking back to our last discussion, and how the question was proposed as to why environmental issues should be approached from the angle of literature; what is its benefit over the less-meandering, more direct scientific route; etc... The idea of the importance of environmental studies belonging in an interdisciplinary arrangement has been brought into my awareness repeatedly recently. I just finished reading Unscientific America for my Environmental Communications course- itself an interesting blend of counter-intuitively compatible academic domains- which addressed the need for the science and mass culture to merge once again in order to address the urgent environmental situations we face. The book is a proponent of broadening the role of scientists to include public outreach and include in their training "receiver-oriented communication skills" (as opposed to source-oriented), meaning most basically that the language with which the information be shared not resemble babble to a layman. Scientists should be versed in the ways of politics, popular media and entertainment (all of which they traditionally mistrust or underestimate the capacity of) in order to make their message readily accessible to all, not just those who already share their common interest. Narrowing this argument in application to our question of the study of environmental issues in literature, the reasoning is much the same. For those not very receptive to science, as many are who study the humanities, even going as far as thinking the two fields incompatible or opposite, there needs to be an array of mediums that resonate the same foundational message: that there is no escaping the intricate entwinement of man and nature (in matter, mind, and spirit), to even hold the two words separate is nonsensical, and the acknowledgement of this inseparability implies immediate responsibility on our part. Our false sense of separation and subsequent ways of living is a holistic problem, and while environmental science may highlight its symptoms, studies in literature, religion, philosophy, etc. may better address the underlying anthropocentric misconceptions and values that brought about those symptoms. We will not heal the earth back to its full potential health by restoring the land grass stalk by stalk on our bellies in the muck (though small symbolic actions for hope are certainly important), we must understand why we weakened it by stripping it bare and injecting it with poisons to begin with. So just as much as scientific understanding yielding technological innovation may be part of the solution to working our way out of this mess, so is a long look inward to try to identify where our consciousness strayed from perceiving truth. Good luck everyone...search hard and don't forget what we've dug up so far. The answers are right under our feet.