The examination of human views of the environment, both now and in the past, is a challenging task. There is not, nor has there ever been, any one single way that humans have viewed the environment. Never-the-less, it is possible to say that at certain times, various cultures have illustrated dominant perspectives, or ways, of viewing the environment. Of current interest in Australia in the late 1990's is the issue of land ownership by indigenous peoples, who quite obviously see the environment in different terms from those of non-indigenous origins. This article intends exploring four reasonably clearly defined 'world views' (or paradigms) of the environment. It is not intended to be an in-depth analysis.

Individuals and groups holding different views of the environment can clash over these views, and how they should or should not be applied. From the beginning of white settlement in Australia it was clear that the new arrivals viewed the environment in terms of materials, resources, extraction, development and use of technology, in contrast with the original inhabitants who, at the time of white settlement, carried out lower levels of impact and who appeared to have reached a kind of 'steady state' with the environment (basically harvesting resources at their replacement rates).

Recent years have seen, in Australia, conflicts between the Tasmanian Hydro-electric authorities and conservationists over dam construction in the SW Wilderness, disagreements over tree clearing rates in Qld, squabbles over water use for irrigation and ecology in the Murray-Darling Basin, the merits of eco-tourism and development in sensitive areas, mining in Kakadu World Heritage area, and so on. This illustrates that there are major viewpoint differences - but is it possible to proclaim one side right or wrong? This article will not evaluate the arguments of competing groups, but will identify four main viewpoints, and describe some aspects of each, noting that there are variations within each.

The four views can be portrayed to highlight similarities and differences - in this case in tabulated form. They have been shown in sequence from the most technologically-focused to the most naturally-focused. This article will review each environmental viewpoint in this sequence.

Note:

- no country, society, group or individual reflects only one of the viewpoints. A number of viewpoints can be expected to be 'blended', but it is possible to identify the predominant view in countries, societies, groups and individuals.

Western culture at the time of the great advances in exploration, culture, science and technology developed the view that 'modern' people were separate from the environment. While the environment had always sustained people, in modern times it became 'objectified' -as something to be travelled, described and examined, and a resource to be utilised and developed. This view included the notion that the strongest societies would take/develop the greatest share of earth's resources and gain greatest prosperity. Newly discovered 'wild' areas (and their people) were to be 'overcome' or 'tamed' - in other words, changed or altered to suit the needs of society. (Later critical writers have described such changes as exploitative). Such an approach included the use of newly developed inventions and the products of industrial and scientific revolutions to intentionally and unintentionally carry out environmental (and also social) change. Rates of land clearing increased, pollution levels rose, complex chemicals were produced. Within this viewpoint very little questioning arose about the need for preservation of habitat of other peoples or native species, or the results of introduced species. Essentially, the environment (and its inhabitants - human, animal, plant, ecosystems, landforms, and so on) was there to be used for the benefit of development-oriented and 'enlightened' society. Many believed that it was their duty, even their destiny, to act this way - it seemed natural for many then, and still remains a natural viewpoint for some now.

While it may be argued that unbridled exploitation of the environment is hardly the overt 'official' view of any society or group at present, in many nations rapid and thorough land degradation and deforestation for agriculture, mining, urban or other development can still occur with or without permission, indicating a low level of environmental protection and an undeveloped 'environmental ethic'. Developed nations, including Australia, although not protecting the environment to the satisfaction of all citizens, never-the-less have many laws and systems in place to both educate for improved environmental standards and to punish offenders - individuals, groups and businesses. In these nations, while a certain level of environmental protection is offered, it is correct to say that, in general, 'the environment' is still seen as the source of raw materials, the provider of food and much human wealth, and the 'sink' for unwanted products.

Often associated with this view are attitudes in favour of continuing resources use, development ideology, consumerism, and the free market viewpoint. The argument has been put forward, for example, that an endangered species can be protected through the market place assigning it a value; thus it will become worthwhile for people to conserve it, save it, breed it, or whatever, while making a profit at the same time.

Overall, the technocentric viewpoint is optimistic, showing confidence in human ingenuity, technology and economics to find a way to fix arising problems, and tends to label other groups as negative, or even 'scaremongers'. Often a solution to a problem involves the application of 'more of the same' - be it investment, development, money, machinery. The value of a project is mostly seen through its ability to provide jobs, economic efficiency, growth and to satisfy certain quantifiable indicators. Within this viewpoint there are 'winners' and 'losers' environmentally (and socially). Commercial species will survive, useful people will be rewarded. Thus there is an unequal distribution of wealth, certain ecosystems are degraded, and elements of the environment are not accorded 'intrinsic' worth - the only value is that which can be utilised by humans. Generally, adherents of this view advocate competitive individualism, only a small role for government, and considerable freedom for individuals and the business sector.

This viewpoint is a modification of the previous view. While it still holds a technocentric orientation, there is room for its adherents to admit that all is not well in certain environmental (and social) areas, and that improvement - of the existing system - can and should be carried out. This is an environmental philosophy identifying with the view that the environment can be saved/improved/restored through the application of technology, money, smart business techniques, systems, and innovative projects. For example, industrial practices can be improved to reduce particulate emissions (i.e. clean engines, lead-free fuel). While some behaviours and practices may alter, there is little fundamental change, and what change does occurs tends to be economic or technological, and incremental (not revolutionary) in nature. For example, this viewpoint brings about improvements to cars, rather than their replacement. It leads to the placement of sound barriers along freeways to reduce sound levels for residents - rather than solving the underlying problems (such as air pollution, emphasis on vehicle travel, stress on residents, loss of habitat, etc).

Accommodation, in other words, tries to come to terms with our present system, but says that we can move forward by improving systems, their applications and listening to the voices of citizens, groups and consumers who are demanding more environmentally-friendly products and less pollution. For example, this approach, by making use of the concept of industrial ecology, has led to great improvements in technological and marketing issues of recycling, reusing, and reducing wastes. Companies can adopt a 'green face' and gain accreditation and marketing rights through adopting certain standards. Other examples include house construction that allows for better thermal insulation, efficient light globes, cars that reduce emissions and give better fuel economy, and farms reducing reliance on chemical sprays and using more carefully selected strains of crops. Consumerism, growth and urban problems are still prevalent. The gulf between rich and poor still is wide. Any drive to improve/protect the environment comes from utilitarian arguments - such as the belief that it would be wise to protect species/forests/waterways, and so on, ... for our (human) benefit (eg drugs from rainforest plants), rather than recognition of their intrinsic value.

The next two topics, social ecology and deep ecology, consider significant environmental and social change as essential, rather than focusing upon technological progression and working towards incremental environmental improvement. In this, they can be seen as radical as they aim to reform the present Western technology-based viewpoint.

The social ecology viewpoint begins with the proposition that humans need to work together to bring about fundamental changes in the world view that proposes ongoing development and economic expansion. Given the reality of urban life for most people, the reform of urban environments would make a suitable starting point for social ecology. In other words, rather than requiring that humans serve the technology and economy that they have created, this should be turned around so that technology and the economy (as human creations) serve us, without harm to the environment. It implies a softer technology, with efforts going into resource conservation, transport and building innovations, for example. An urban area operating under this system would include shared features such as group heating schemes, a goat or sheep to eat the grass, woodlots, edible landscapes (food trees in streets), and shifts in social focus to enhance sense of community (including accounting for extended families, and real efforts to look after disadvantaged people and groups). Serious attempts, under this view, would be made to reduce the number of those alienated by the present, competitive, individualistic and economically-dominated societies.

A farming area might include organic production and cooperation between neighbours on smaller farms. Surpluses could be bartered, wastes recycled, several property owners might share a wind generator. In business, the focus would shift away from profit margins, with 'ethical' investments encouraged. There would be less private transportation and a focus on efficient, useable public transport. Government, of a truly democratic nature, and genuinely concerned with the citizens' welfare and environmental qualities, and strong at local and national levels, would be necessary for the establishment of this philosophy.

While the focus of social ecology is on humans and human society (thus it is anthropocentric), yet the impact of people and societies on the natural environment would be considerably reduced. City growth slows, urban infill may occur in areas to improve personal transport while wildlife corridors would be established in suitable areas. Consider Copenhagen, Denmark, where many initiatives of a social ecology nature have been instigated - that city has a similar population to Brisbane, but only half the area.

Under social ecology the gulf between rich and poor could be expected to narrow in the quest for a more equitable society. Science, technology and research would be more accountable, serving a wider spectrum of society as well as the interests of the environment. Industry would gear up to sustainable energy use, and sustainable production encouraged. All groups of people would be accorded rights, but with human interests, in general, placed above those of other species and ecosystems. Lifestyle could be described as comfortable, but not profligate. The social democracies of northern Europe have adopted certain aspects of this viewpoint.

Much recent research points to the interconnections between social problems and environmental problems (eg poverty in central Africa has brought about vegetation removal for firewood, enhancing the phenomenon of desertification). In the social ecology viewpoint, society sees the need to change itself as an important step in protecting the environment. There is a move away from individualism and consumerism towards social responsibility and social rights. There is widespread participation in the processes of society, 'localism' is favoured, smaller, softer technology encouraged, community identity developed, tax structures altered to encourage reduced environmental damage by business, and reduced sense of individual and group marginalisation. Note: social ecology is not communism; the basis of its economy is free enterprise, and institutions are democratic, genuinely serving the citizens' needs.

While not evaluating the social ecology philosophy, the question of affordability of various social and environmental programmes needs to be addressed on a national basis when implementation of this viewpoint is considered. On an individual basis, a number of educators, public servants and environmental scientists, managers and planners work in this framework in Western countries. The social ecology viewpoint is sometimes identified with the colour 'pink'.

At the time of white settlement of Australia, the indigenous people could have helped the Europeans to understand this environment, but in general, the new arrivals showed little regard for the specialised knowledge possessed by aboriginal people who had long functioned as part of their surroundings. They moved around, hunted and gathered within their surroundings and carried out practices which in essence guaranteed that food and other resources would provide them with a continuing existence. This 'steady state' situation could be seen as a form of sustainability, with a low population living with the land for a long period of time, with only limited (compared to Western society) ability to alter or reduce environmental qualities. In comparison, European settlers caused large-scale, largely irreversible environmental change in a relatively short time.

Probably very few people live life with just one of the above environmental approaches. A person's viewpoints are a synthesis which likely gives an individual a large part of his/her identity, and which influence his/her attitudes and actions. In a similar manner, no present day society, group or country is entirely one of the four above, but rather it 'finds' a blend (which may have been contested) that operates at any one time. People and societies change. It is possible to think of individuals and groups who are becoming more or less of any of the above at any time in any society. Never-the-less, individuals and groups believe that what they do is 'right', or at least 'appropriate', and try to influence others to adopt (or at least tolerate) their viewpoint. There have been societies with policies and laws favourable towards the environment; some of these have even unfavourable towards people (eg pre-WWII Germany). However, most societies favour people (or at least certain people) above nature, and advocate development and technological advance. Some suggest that we can have both development and environmental qualities at acceptable levels.

A number of concerned writers suggest that in whatever ways humans have viewed environment in the past, for the future survival of humans and other species it is necessary to now move closer to environmental views that enhance ecological awareness, urban life style quality and fairer societies. This includes Australia. To achieve environmental sustainability and long term survivability, a greater emphasis on species, habitat and ecosystem protection, development of renewable energy, shifts to other renewable resources, pollution control and careful farming must come about, and a greater value given to the quality of the environment, especially in urban areas.