We live in a polar world. Our planet has two poles. Our understanding of electricity and magnetism rely on an understanding of opposing forces. Positive and negative charges allow us to model current and chemical bonds. Polarity is a very helpful concept. When it comes to understanding complex ecological dynamics and policy decisions, however, polarity should be invoked only when it reflects reality.
Polarity is helpful in geography and navigation because we do have a North and a South Pole. It is helpful in understanding the relationships between atoms because we do have particles that attract and repel each other. Even polarity at the chemical level, when studied thoroughly, ends up being more complicated than simply positive protons and negative electrons.
Merriam Webster defines polarity as:the quality or condition inherent in a body that exhibits opposite properties or powers in opposite parts or directions or that exhibits contrasted properties or powers in contrasted parts or directions : the condition of having poles. This tracks with penguins and polar bears and sub-atomic particles. It does not track well with thoughtful decision making in the midst of myriad variables.
The more commonly discussed societal polarity is defined as, the presence or manifestation of two opposite or contrasting principles or tendencies. Unfortunately, this societal polarity has become the hallmark of the media’s portrayal of any and all discussion of conservation issues. There is a long history here, one that I have been reading a bit about in the book The Wizard and the Prophet. This history of preservationist vs. extractionist philosophies combined with the media’s obsession of discussing all policy from a national perspective (as opposed to state or local) give most of us an oversimplified, cut and dried, perspective on environmental issues. Its option A (kills all of the wildlife) or option B (kills none of the wildlife). Or its option 1 (regulates private industry to its demise) or option 2 (lets big business run amok).