My field, environmental science, can be a bit ambiguous at times. No one has ever really tried to define it, and since it's so interdisciplinary, some might say that it defies definition. I specialized in biology. But geologists dominate the environmental studies department at Penn, so their classes felt a lot like earth science. Other schools incorporate a lot more political science, economics, chemistry, the list goes on and on.
I have a theory about the field; I tend to see it as the study of humans actions in the context of a natural environment. How does our search for uranium impact soil erosion? How do populations of flagship species affect conservation initiatives? I'm pretty sure that just living in Alaska, I'll be able to test this theory quite well.
Ever since I accepted this job, I started reading the Anchorage Daily News online. Simply scanning the headlines got me geeked for Alaska-- quite literally. Nearly half of the stories seem to have a fairly direct connection to my environmental science interest. Whether native tribes are debating allowing mining on their lands or the Alaskan politicians are recounting their experiences with the Exxon-Valdez oil spill, it all relates back to humans interacting with their natural surroundings. Even a simple public interest story, like salmon fishing on a river, is fraught with such issues. When will the salmon run this year, how many permits will Fish and Wildlife allow, how many fish were taken, etc., etc.?
Since I haven't met many Alaskans yet, I can't yet rate their perception or knowledge of these issues. But for a people who grow up with human-environment conflict as a constant presence, I wonder if they view it as a science at all. Or is it simply life?
No comments:
Post a Comment