Graeco-Christian and Hebraic theologies,
wherein creation for human purpose can lead
to a legitimization of human domination over
the non-human world. There are strong echoes
ofthisformofenvironmentalismincontempor-
ary thoughts and practices, which tend to be
human centred (anthropocentric). The second
environmentalismisunderpinnedbythenotion
that environments act as the major influence on
human affairs (environmental determinism).
Thereductionismand sometime racist inflec-
tions of this mode of thinking have been discre-
dited inregional geography(Livingstone,
1992), yet it is a form of environmentalism that
has enjoyed a new life at a global scale and as a
normativediscourse. The physicalresource
limits of a finite planet and the capacities of
global systems to adapt to human activities
became major environmentalist debates and
causes in the 1960s and 1980s, respectively.
The third environmentalism that Glacken
traces is the attempt to understand human–
environment relations in more dynamic and
co-evolutionary ways. It involves an under-
standing of the Earth and its inhabitants –
including humans – as unfinished matters.
Furthermore, any human change involves
changes to environments and vice versa. The
three environmentalisms are complex and
overlap historically and culturally, but can be
summarized as human mastery over nature,
environmental determinism and co-evolution.
In turn, these can be roughly mapped on to
contemporary inflections, including (1)
anthropocentrism and technocentrism, (2)
ecocentrism and (3) mutualism. O’Riordan
(1976) gave particular attention to the contrast
between technocentrism, which posited faith in
theabilityofhumantechnicalingenuity totran-
scend earthly limits, andecocentrism, which
cautioned people to live within their environ-
mentally determined conditions (see alsodeep
ecology;population geography).Theutility
of the distinction can instantly be recognized in
debates overfoodandenergytechnologies
(genetic modifications versus organics, renew-
ables versus nuclear energies and so on). The
third stream is perhaps where most energies
havebeeninvestedingeographyinrecentyears.
This is in part a reflection of the proliferation of
humans and non-humans in recent centuries,
making firm human–environment distinctions
more difficult. Transgenicanimals, genetically
modified foodstuffs, holes in stratospheric
ozone layers and climate change all undermine
any firm distinction between people and envir-
onment,cultureandnature, politics and sci-
ence. Human–environmentdialectics(Harvey,
1996) andfeministandpost-structuralist
informed reformulations of human–environ-
ment relations (Haraway, 1991c; Ingold,
2000) have produced a range of writing that
attempts to pair together humans and envir-
onments through such varied endeavours as
political ecology(Robbins, 2004),ecofe-
minism and cosmopolitics (Latour, 2004;
Hinchliffe, Kearnes, Degen and Whatmore,
2005). There is a good deal of variety in these
literatures, but to varying degrees they all
move away from a firmly fixed orfounda-
tional view of environment and towards
accounts where the mattering of environments
(which include humans), their contribution to
human and non-human vulnerabilities and to
life chances, become central concerns. There
is recognition in all these non-foundational
accounts of uneven environments, of the need
forenvironmental justice, of shifts in local
and global patterns ofdevelopmentandcon-
sumption. Finally, in this gradual move
towards a non-foundational environmentalism
there are huge dangers and debates. The reli-
ability ofscienceas an ally to environmental-
ism comes under scrutiny once the fixity of
environmentshas beenunsettled, and once
uncertainties and indeterminacies of scientific
ways of knowing become more widely under-
stood. The ability of science to mediate nature
and act as an authority on environmental con-
cerns has become a matter for heated debate
(seerisk society). Environmentalism is there-
fore currently in a crucial political moment as
it negotiates between the uncertainties of
socio-ecological dynamics and the calculations
and arguments required for a shift in the ways
in which humans dwell in the world. sjhSuggested reading
O’Riordan (1976).epidemic A term (derived from the Greek
epi-, uponþdemos, people) used in the health
sciences to describe the unusually high inci-
dence of a specified illness, health behaviour
or other health-related event in a given com-
munity or region; ‘unusually high’ is defined
relative to the usual frequency, orexpectancy,
of the health event in the population under
examination (Benenson, 1995). The term is
often used to describe the rapid spread of
an infectious disease (e.g. ‘an epidemic
of measles’) and may be applied to a range of
geographical scales, from small and highly
localized outbreaks to globalpandemicepi-
sodes. Epic events, such as the Black Death
(ad 1346–53) or the Spanish influenzaGregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_E Final Proof page 205 1.4.2009 3:17pmEPIDEMIC