Talk:Ecology movement

Merge
Consider merging with Green movement and Environmental movement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The Green movement is a political movement and the environment movement is a social movement. The article seems to be about the environmental movement. The term "ecology movement" is rarely used. I would suggest that the ecology movement is about a social movement by ecologists and conservationists. Alan Liefting 09:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am becoming convinced that the origianl author did not know the difference between ecology and environment. The two words are often confused. Alan Liefting 21:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't Merge: Ecology is a specific scientific field (although it can be broken down into factions like ecofeminism, social ecology, deep ecology...) that principally uses biology to study the relationship between living organisms and their environments. Environmentalism is a lot more general, and encompasses physical science, but more social science, and usually is only concerned with studing the anthropogenic impact of humans on the earth. Almost anyone can be part of the environmental movement, while to be a Green you might need a specific political affiliation, and to be an ecologist you need some undestanding of the field of ecology. Although there may be some overlap, it would be like merging the DLC with the GOP, just because they are both largely neo-liberal. --Howrealisreal 13:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ecofeminism, social ecology and deep ecology are all a subset of environmentalism rather than ecology. They rely on ecology to formulate the ideas however. Alan Liefting 21:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ecological science and 'ecology movement'
Using the same word for a social movement and for a scientific field is inherently confusing. While many ecological scientists are active environmentalists (not all by any means), most work carefully to maintain the distinction. One agenda -- the social movement -- is explicitly and appropriately value-driven and result-oriented. The other -- the science -- can't be either of these and remain legitimate. Good scientific research is critical for effective support of most environmental agendas (not all; some are really matters of pure faith), and so it is not in the interest of environmentalists to further this confusion. The confusing usage, at this point, permeates general rhetoric, but recognizing this doesn't make it less confusing. I'd strongly prefer that the relevant social, political, economic agendas -- all value-driven, appropriately -- be placed under some heading (environmentalism seems the obvious one) that doesn't use the word 'ecology'. That may never happen, but I will at least do edits, as here, that point out the confounding of these areas. 24.195.103.62 03:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ecology movement is sometimes used to mean the environmental movement. Alan Liefting 21:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ecology was a term that now means Environment
I have stumbled across a book called Ecology in the 20th Century by Anna Bramwell published in 1989. It is all about what we now call environmentalism yet the word never occurs in the book. Does anyone have info on how the usage of the words "environmental" and "environmentalism" have changed in the past 30 odd years? Alan Liefting 21:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The term Ecology movement seem confusing to me also. Is it similar enough to deep ecology or "New Ecology. If so the best name might be the "Deep Ecology Movement which has been around for some time. KAM 10:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge
I vote for a merge with "Environmental Movement." This article is substantially similar to that one and these don't seem to be different in any way. As said before on this talk page, ecology does not equal environment, and somebody seems to have gotten confused. Be bold. Merge, or, yeah, just delete it, there's nothing here that isn't there. Envirocorrector 19:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)