The phrase first appeared in an article in the Educational Review in 1914. The author comments that unless science is taught in school, then science is never learnt. He goes on to state that a course in general environmental science would be a good idea. Anyone going to school should have this course as early as possible. This has two key advantages – the child knows more about his environment and consequently wants to stay in school.
Environmental science deals with the interplay between humans and the places they live. With the increase in population, the industrial revolution and a greater ability to gather information, there was a greater awareness of the advantages but also the dangers of progress. Awareness that humans leave a footprint for all time had wide-reading and extensive results.
One of the earliest examples of this realisation was when plague killed millions in the Middle Ages. This resulted in an improvement of public health systems across Europe. Or the realisation that radium or asbestos used industrially harms individuals resulted in their use being restricted. More and more questions could be asked. More and more questions were asked.
And then science moved from being science to being politics. What is the real cost of oil (factoring in Exxon Valdez), atomic energy (factoring in Chernobyl, Fujijama)? What is the cause of global warming? And the political question – is environmental awareness a luxury or a basic human right? (Do rich countries have the right to be more environmentally aware than poor countries? Do citizens in China have the right to clean air?)
It is true – a course general environmental science is a good training for life. This would have two key advantages – an individual wants to know more about his environment and consequently want to stay alive.
Did you like the article? Then please like and share it on Facebook, tweet it on Twitter or add it in Google+.
