To understand the importance of an interdisciplinary approach toward environmental issues, we must begin by understanding the history of this modern field of science itself. In its broadest context, environmental science is the study of human interactions with the natural environment, and it developed due to the ecological concerns of the 1960s. As Dr. Al-Kandari writes in “The Importance of Environmental Science”: 

     As we can see, inherent in the very development of environmental science was the understanding of the need for an interdisciplinary approach toward the sciences. And, as ecological challenges became increasingly more complex and urgent, such as the climate crisis, environmental science would expand to include even more of the traditional scientific fields. If we look at climate change as an example, as the editors in Environment: An Interdisciplinary Anthology did, we learn that: 

Changes in Earth’s climate are so complex that simply to measure those changes and to understand why they occur requires the methods of atmospheric science, oceanography, planetary science, climate history, mathematical modeling and supercomputing, chemistry, statistics, physics, and other disciplines. But measuring any change is only the first step. Next, to grasp how climate change affects life on Earth involves biological study, including species migration, endangerment, and extinction, as well as ecology, natural history, soil science, forestry, and hydrology. (p.2)

And, climate change is only one example of many complex ecological issues that environmental science addresses.

     However, I am also advocating for incorporating the humanities into these environmental conversations. This may lead one to ask: what role can the humanities play in dealing with ecological issues? Or, why can the science not speak for itself? And, there are several reasons this may be true. For example, scientists are encouraged to present only that empirical data which is accurate, measurable, and able to be replicated by others. This is vitally important to ensuring the accuracy and reputability of scientific findings. However, this often disallows the scientists from presenting potential worst-case scenarios that may be possible, yet not as probable, which may give the public a false sense of security. Additionally, scientists are primarily taught those skills needed for their lab or field work which may make communication, especially with the public or governmental officials, more difficult for them than someone from the humanities. Lastly, the interconnected nature of many current ecological issues, like climate change or global resource sustainability, requires a meeting of the minds in as many fields as possible. 

     This joining of the minds was the driving factor behind the creation of the broader field of environmental studies, as discussed in Environment: An Interdisciplinary Anthology:

As the interconnected character of these and many other issues grew increasingly evident, scientists, writers, and educators looked for ways to study them together. They also searched for a term to describe that kind of study. “Environmental” is a capacious word not tied to one discipline or way of thinking. Routinely and accurately applied to aspects of many natural sciences, “environmental” also characterizes important elements of law, politics, economics, and the other social sciences, as well as approaches and emphases in literary criticism, the arts, ethics, and spiritual values. “Environmental” can refer to the natural world, the world built by humans, or a combination of both. “Studies” in the plural embraces multiple sets of disciplines and problems, areas and issues that by definition are not self-contained. They lead to one another. In the last decade of the twentieth century, “Environmental Studies” became a flexible, common term, perhaps the most common term, for collective efforts to understand the interrelated systems and phenomena of nature, including the human presence in those systems and its effects on them.

Environmental Studies establishes knowledge of specific natural phenomena and specific human institutional beliefs and practices. It then mediates between these. Environmental Studies characterizes complex natural conditions on Earth and describes the interface of human with non-human activity. To establish such knowledge, to perform such mediation, and to promote desirable human action, Environmental Studies relies not only on multiple disciplines but also on key terms and concepts such as “the commons,” “wilderness,” and “the precautionary principle.” (p.2) 

     However, I think the question of the need to incorporate the humanities into modern environmental conversations is most succinctly and eloquently answered by Richard J. Franke in “The Power of the Humanities & A Challenge to Humanists.” He writes: 

Scientists provide us with the empirical data crucial to making decisions, but the data tell us nothing about the implications of our decisions. For that we need artists and writers to bring those repercussions to life, scholars to remind us how others have addressed or failed to address similar problems, and philosophers to help us clarify our responsibilities. In fact, we need to bring the full range of humanistic critical thinking to bear on our most difficult choices. (p.21)

In other words, we need more than just the hard facts to deal with the myriad of human ethical decisions and anxieties that will arise out of the global environmental issues we now face. 

    Therefore, as we continue to examine various ecological problems throughout this blog, I will try my best to include both scientific facts and humanistic inquiry. I will also showcase any innovative new products or policies on the horizon. I hope to inspire interdisciplinary camaraderie, depth of thought, and an innovative spirit in my readers. In closing today, I leave you with a prescient excerpt from a writing by one of the most inspiring people in the history of the environmental movement – Aldo Leopold – addressing this need for an interdisciplinary approach circa 1935, presented in Environment: An Interdisciplinary Anthology (p.13):

“The Fusion of Lines of Thought”

The two great cultural advances of the past century were the Darwinian theory and the development of geology. The one explained how, and the other explained where, we live. Compared with such ideas, the whole gamut of mechanical and chemical invention pales into a mere matter of current ways and means.

Just as important as the origin of plants, animals, and soil is the question of how they operate as a community. Darwin lacked time to unravel any more than the beginnings of an answer. That task has fallen to the new science of ecology, which is daily uncovering a web of interdependencies so intricate as to amaze – were he here –  even Darwin himself, who, of all men, should have the least cause to tremble before the veil… 

One of the anomalies of modern ecology is that it is the creation of two groups, one of which seems barely aware of the existence of the other. The one studies the human community almost as if it were a separate entity, and calls its findings sociology, economics, and history. The other studies the plant and animal community, [and] comfortably relegates the hodgepodge of politics to “the liberal arts.” The inevitable fusion of these two lines of thought will, perhaps, constitute the outstanding advance of the present century.