“Environmentalists so often seem self-righteous, privileged, and arrogant because they so readily consent to identifying nature with play and making it by definition a place where leisured humans come only to visit and not to work, stay, or live. Thus environmentalists have much to say about nature and play and little to say about humans and work. And if the world were actually so cleanly divided between the domains of work and play, humans and nature, there would be no problem. Then environmentalists could patrol the borders and keep the categories clear. But the dualisms fail to hold; the boundaries are not so clear. And so environmentalists can seem an ecological Immigration and Naturalization Service, border agents in a social dubious, morally ambiguous, and ultimately hopeless cause” (White 173). 

I think this is an incredibly oversimplified view of environmentalism. I couldn’t quite find when this essay was published, but I think someone would have to be fairly ignorant to say that about the environmental movement recently. The sustainable farming movement, specifically, has taken off drastically and it is becoming more mainstream for environmentalists to work on organic farms. Programs like WWOOF have made that even more of a reality for people. Furthermore, fields such as geology, conservation biology, and other science fields generally go hand in hand with environmentalism and involve, quite directly, working in nature. Additionally, conservation hunting is a thing, despite its’ lack of mainstream appeal. Although outdoor recreation and leisure is still a large part of environmentalism, the preservation v. conservation divide is not nearly as intense now as it has been in the past.

“Fast forward to the textbook, which airs plenty of against-the-grain opinions, like the contention that nature is more resilient than most environmentalists realize (Kareiva won’t even utter the adjective fragile when discussing ecosystems) or the unsentimental assertion that the days of pristine wilderness are long gone. Mankind’s fingerprints can be found everywhere on the planet. Get over it, Kareiva would say. And start focusing on preserving what’s left of the good (if no longer great) outdoors” (Dunkel 35).

This passage captures the heart of what is so special about how Kareiva approaches conservation. Its much more realistic, less emotional, and, I think, can do more good than many other approaches. It has been proven that the doom and gloom messages of past environmentalism simply don’t motivate most people. Messages that are more realistic and clearly outline that there is an important role for humans that can result in a positive change are the productive messages that should be more prevalent in environmentalism and conservation alike.