The relentless growth of human settlements and the accompanying expansion into natural areas has led many in the environmental movement to view human society as something of a cancer which is growing on and rapidly destroying the natural environment. This way of framing the problem tends to see the environmental movement as a desperate effort to strengthen the barriers which protect the natural environment from human encroachment. In keeping with the cancer analogy, this view sees environmental protection as, quite literally, a fight for survival in which human society is the enemy. The political manifestation of this view is the contemporary conservation movement which is motivated by a philosophy which I call "separation ecology."

Unfortunately, it is an approach which fails the test of sustainability and equity. If people are increasingly separated from their environment then, sooner or later, they are likely to start asking why they should favor environmental protection measures. While alarmist (and often overstated) rhetoric about impending ecological collapse and altruistic appeals to protect natural species for their own sake may answer some of these concerns, the long-term trend is likely to be a continuing erosion of the core environmental constituency. In other words, it is unrealistic to expect to be able to sustain long-term, public support for environmental objectives if the public finds itself increasingly denied the benefits of environmental protection.

The environmental movement should also be about more than simple preservation. It has an interest in promoting human quality of life among a broad spectrum of the population, not just an elite few. It is not enough for environmental connections to be reserved for the wealthy and environmental activists who know how to take advantage of the system. The connection ecology project offers a new way of thinking about the environmental movement -- one which fosters both environmental protection and human quality of life.