This period, sometimes referred to as the Resource Conservation period, arose from the ideas of the epoch that became known as the Enlightenment and a corresponding utilitarian position which called for the sensible use of natural resources. The Enlightenment, was an era where it was thought that man (sic) was capable of manipulating and improving nature and it was therefore his duty to do so through exercises of his reason by means of science and technology. It was believed that homo sapiens were the sole species to have the unique characteristics of intellectual capacity, language, organization and culture. By virtue of possessing these qualities, humans were then able to adapt nature to human ends rather than having to adapt humans to the natural environment.

What was to become known as Romanticism developed during this period in opposition to this popular and therefore powerful line of thought. Intellectuals were weary of the optimism of economic liberalism and its pronouncement of social and economic advancement through laissez-faire capitalism. They condemned the materialist society and the conformist obsession with technology, and were alarmed with the destructive capacity of post-Newtonian science. Particularly pertinent to the environment was the industrial threat to ecological systems or the environmental consequences of imperialism. An environmental utopianism arose with the formation of such groups as the Sierra Club, formed in 1892 in the U.S.. Henry Thoreau advocated a back-to-nature way of life, and Peter Kropotkin proposed an anarchist solution of a communitarian existence (Pepper, 1990). This was the rise of Wilderness Preservation which involved a less pragmatic commitment to the environment, instead advocating a more spiritual attitude towards nature. Yet this view was still anthropocentric since it regarded the spiritual utility in relation to humans, that is, only humans were entitled to moral consideration (Mathews, 1987).

Milbrath (1984) also placed the roots of the modern day movement in the conservation movement of the late 19th and early 20th century in the US. During this period, the country was being developed and there was a plentiful supply of land. This often led to exploitation when individuals sought to maximize their profit in the development of land and resources. In reaction to this, and from the interest of individuals who wished to preserve land for public use, such as parks, a conservation movement formed. One of the primary aims was the preservation of nature. Another aim was to end the waste and despoliation and instead develop efficiently, as there was a perception that this exploitation would reduce the capacity to create wealth. The same situation was developing in Britain (O’Riordan 1976; McConnell 1954, 1971). The majority of the members of the movement at this time were supportive of industrialization, and, therefore capitalism. No conflict was evident between conservation and economic growth. The conservation movement grew and eventually attracted those participants of sport, such as hunters and fisherpersons, and recreationists.

These events laid the foundations for the reemergence of an environment movement. The different views are still prevalent among those involved in the movement today. Throughout, the causes and effects of industrialization have been at the center of the debate. We now turn to an examination of the bases for the latest resurgence in environmental concern, beginning with an overview of the events that were taking place in Western societies.

It is generally accepted that the latest phase of the environment movement developed in the late 1960s, the first wave, followed by a second wave in the late 1980s. During the first wave, a realization began to emerge of the connection between population growth and pollution level increases. Up until this time, there was not a general willingness to acknowledge a potential resource shortage as this would have signified a limit to economic growth. Other factors identified as underlying the rise of this first wave were the existence of a growing disillusionment among affluent and educated middle classes with the materialistic philosophy that supported their affluence; the effects of technological advancements; the widespread concern about a plethora of issues, not just those strictly of an environmental nature, such as the fear of the nuclear threat in the use of nuclear power and weapons, with a growing realization of the mass nature of the threats to society; and, the development of a mass movement where environmental concerns entered the mass consciousness of the public through the media and large demonstrations (Pepper, 1990).

Several other movements have been identified at the time this was occurring, such as the civil rights movement and the peace movement. All these movements shared common elements, whether it was the actual members or the philosophies and values that provided their foundation. In particular, the youth of the ‘hippie’ movement were withdrawing from society, rejecting the dominant set of values and connecting with the values of the romantic and wilderness movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

It is important to note that the periods identified thus far have all followed periods of sustained economic expansion, for example during the 1950s and 1960s when social progress, social stability and upward mobility were secure dreams for Western populations, and, more recently, during the 1980s. The downward trend of popular support of the environment movement is seen when the economy is well on the path of contraction. Yet the recession of the late 1980s and early 1990s has not produced the degree of decline of popular support evident in past periods of high concern for the environment. This is perhaps due to growing evidence of the development of a new world view, a new ecological paradigm. The values espoused by the constituents of the movement may be having a far reaching and sustained impact, with environmental concerns becoming ingrained in more people’s consciousness as the status of the environment as a topic of interest grew in the eyes of the public, the media and the educational institutions.

There was a growing awareness and acceptance within the movement that environmental problems could not be solved by technological fixes. A conclusion was being drawn that saw a necessity for society to undergo fundamental changes; the foundations of the modern industrial society had to be challenged. "The environmentalist movement has been forced to change … from a concern with reform within a framework of consensual values to a radical challenge to societal values. The change from a norm-oriented to a value-oriented movement" (Cotgrove, 1982:10).

The environment movement subsequently entered the political arena although not without debate. The dilemma was how to be a movement and be a political party simultaneously, with some believing that no interaction should occur with the existing institutional structures in order to affect change, while others stressing that conventional means of influence should be broached. According to Milbrath (1984), environmental organizations were not organized into political parties, they did not have a leader or organized leadership cadre, they did not have a doctrine, and they did not have an identifiable enemy. Some organizations within the movement had their own bureaucracies and lobbyists, thereby having a significant impact upon policy decisions. The new politics these environmentalists advocated was consultative and participatory. Some other generalizations he arrived at were that the movement was value-oriented and reformist in nature; that there was a very strong emotional component; that it was viewed sympathetically by the public; and, that it was uninstitutionalized and generated opposition although no anti-movements existed. The latter two observations no longer apply in the 1990s as there are sectors of the population which vehemently oppose the movement’s ideals and activities, and there now exists anti-movement organizations.

Pakulski (1991) characterized these movements as advocating deregulation and decentralization; as criticizing the market state with its goals of unlimited economic growth and maximum profit; as anti-bureaucratic in direction and anti-systemic in nature; and, as diverse in the range of ideological and political preferences, philosophical thought, political doctrines and strategies. Heterogeneity in the movement was significant although there was a coalescing of the diverse groups into a loosely integrated unit with an underlying unity of orientation of a highly general nature. The concern was not with particular issues but rather the focus was on the general problems, defined in the value concerns that these issues illustrated and signified. He noted that these values were not new; what was new was the presentation of these concerns with the specific issues.

From this discussion, there seems to be general agreement among many of the writers as to the nature of the movement. The diverse nature of ideological preferences and related factors, the similarity in preached values, and the attack on the current capitalist system, all are cited as common traits in the various studies. Milbrath and others have commented on the idea that the right/left scenario of the political spectrum, that is capitalism versus socialism, was not relevant to the relationship between humans and nature, the crux of the issue.