In one of my other environmental classes, we started the semester by discussing where environmental science fits in terms of its academic field: is it a social science, a natural science, even humanities? But more and more, that seems like a pointless debate, because environmental science encompasses far more than any single field, and to restrict it to solely lab applications or policy proposals or a feature in stories and media is not only unrealistic, but also harmful to the field as a whole.
When I first started studying environmental science, we began with a very scientific foundation — the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the water cycle, atmospheric chemistry. Then we moved on to ecology, and gradually as I came to college, I was exposed to more of the human side of environmental issues through climate change, agricultural processes, and human health issues. But after reading The One-Straw Revolution by Masanobu Fukoka and (re)watching Inhabit: A Permaculture Perspective, I’ve come to hold a different view: permaculture principles and philosophy ought to be the foundation of studying environmental science. Only after first and foremost delving into its ideas and practices should any student continue on to take classes in biology, chemistry, ecology, the humanities public policy, or any other environmental topic.
There are several reasons for this, but I think that the most important one is: taking a holistic approach from the onset ensures that students will be able to apply and contextualize the information they learn later on without having to piece it together for themselves after the fact. When I learned about the nitrogen cycle back in high school, it was hard to muster up any enthusiasm, but if I had known about its importance with regard to soil health and sustainable farming, that extra context would have added a layer of depth and value to what I was learning (and I might have actually remembered it.)
But while it is important to be able to apply scientific principles in environmental contexts, I would argue that it is the human aspect that brings richness, urgency, relatability, and meaning to these topics. It is one thing to go one step further with the nitrogen cycle and understand what it means for soil and farming, but it is another thing entirely to be able to think about those topics in an even broader context through discussion of food security, history, agricultural practices, human health, socioeconomic disparities, and applications in rural, urban, and even suburban contexts. And in a sense, it becomes a loop — permaculture helps us learn to study the environment by looking at all of its parts together, but permaculture in itself is the practice of taking this holistic view of the world. Environmental causes are human causes, and they cannot be dealt with by compartmentalizing their causes and effects. In this way, environmentalism becomes a story not of individual pieces of the puzzle, but of a complete, vibrant picture that captures the complexity and interconnectivity of these issues.
