Meh. I agree with the author that we have a problem with the co-opting of “ecology”, but disagree that it comes from the term being used (or at least, that a change of term is the solution). We can strive to avoid falling into “mystified unity”/“personal harmony”/“planetary consciousness” if we want, but those are not incompatible with literacy or reorganizing society.

If we’re placing so much importance on terms, then I submit “literacy” is insufficient as well. Just because you can read doesn’t mean you understand, nor does it mean you can apply the knowledge you have read. The point of taking about ecological “consciousness”, to me, is to designate the importance of internalizing the approach that ecology demands (viewing things as interconnected systems, notably) and remembering to apply it.

We do need to increase ecological literacy, if only to protect people against falling for co-option. We can also encourage ecological consciousness in those that are already literate. One does not necessarily counteract the other.

I worry that “ecological consciousness” is following the same path [as Buddhist mindfulness]. Instead of dismantling the forces behind the degradation of the natural world—capitalism, colonialism, imperialism, industrial agriculture, fossil fuel dependency, and the list continues—we’re told to raise our “vibration” or return to nature and tap into some ancient Earth energy.

I submit that it’s not the phrase “ecological consciousness” that is the problem, it’s people co-opting ecology to make a buck or grow a following (to then make a buck). Who the fuck hears “raising our vibration” and thinks “ah yes this is clearly someone who knows what they’re saying about ecology and knows how to teach others” except for someone who knows nothing about ecology in the first place? Inversely, the “bad actors” are just as capable of co-opting “literacy” — imagine someone starts selling “ecology cheat sheets”, “green SATs”, etc.

I don’t know that someone who would get misled by “consciousness” would find “literacy” any more useful or illuminating. This reminds me of debates on talking about “climate change” versus “global warming”. From what I can tell, the only concrete result was a waste of time and energy while no progress was made on educating nor solving the actual problem. In software development we have terms like bike shedding and yak shaving for designating debates that give the impression of being meaningful when, if you take a step back, they turn out to be utterly insignificant compared to the work that absolutely needs to be done. Xkcd’s “nerd sniping” is another term I have seen for this.

Coming back to my initial statement, we want to be pushing people to learn, think, and then act. Literacy permits consciousness which in turn drives action. Jumping straight to consciousness is risky, as well outlined by the author. Skipping consciousness (which is what I get from the article’s title and some of it’s content) is just as risky if you care about the actions taking place as a result.

I really dislike how the author, while protesting against what I would call sloppy discourse, ends up being sloppy themselves just in a different way. If they were to read my comment I’m pretty sure they would say they aren’t arguing against ecological consciousness per se, but rather the term being the sole guiding light for the “movement”. So then why lump it all together in your own writings?