1. Morris, William, News from Nowhere (Peterborough: Broadview, 2003), 219 (my emphasis).
3. For translation see Stauffer, Robert C., “Haeckel, Darwin, and Ecology,” Quarterly Review of Biology 32, no. 2 (June 1957): 138–44, 140. For a more recent account of Haeckel's relation to Darwin, see Richards, Robert J., The Tragic Sense of Life: Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle over Evolutionary Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008).
4. “nature, n.,” OED Online, Oxford University Press, http://www.oed.com (accessed December 1, 2017).
5. Haeckel's work was taken up by nineteenth-century socialism, but mainly for its secularism. Williams, Raymond, “Socialism and Ecology,” Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 1 (1995): 41–57, 41.
6. See Dice, Lee R., “What Is Ecology?” The Scientific Monthly 80, no. 6 (June 1955): 346–55, 346.
7. Morton, Tim, Ecology without Nature: Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 14.
8. Ursula Heise describes how ecological thinking has been generative for media theorists as “a mode of reasoning that foregrounds the whole in its internal interconnectedness,” and yet she worries that the “transfer of vocabulary … at least implicitly invites a perception of media ecology as a replacement for biological ecology,” unless the two spheres can be thought about together. Heise, Ursula, “Unnatural Ecologies: The Metaphor of the Environment in Media Theory,” Configurations 10, no. 1 (Winter 2002): 149–68, 156, 164.
9. See MacDuffie, Allen, Victorian Literature, Energy, and the Ecological Imagination (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014); Taylor, Jesse Oak, The Sky of Our Manufacture: The London Fog in British Fiction from Dickens to Woolf (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2016): Scott, Heidi C. M., Chaos and Cosmos: Literary Roots of Modern Ecology in the British Nineteenth Century (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014).
10. Heidi Scott sums up the problem with such a vision of natural balance: “ecological science has critiqued the balance paradigm as a misleading, quasi-mystical construct that forces economic and mechanical models on the obscure dynamics of ecological interconnection” (Scott, Chaos and Cosmos, 2).
11. As is now widely known, earth systems scientists have introduced the term “Anthropocene” to describe a new geological epoch marked by irreversible human impacts. Some critics prefer “Capitalocene” to convey that it was capitalism, not humanity per se, that brought the Holocene to an end; others have proposed “Plantationocene” for its attention to agricultural, forests, and human labor. On Anthropocene, see Menely, Tobias and Taylor, Jesse Oak, “Introduction,” in Anthropocene Reading: Literary History in Geologic Times, ed. Menely, Tobias and Oak, Jesse Taylor (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2017), 1–24. On Capitalocene, see Malm, Andreas, Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming (London: Verso, 2016); Moore, Jason W., Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital (London: Verso, 2015). On Plantationocene, see Haraway, Donna J., Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene (Durham: Duke University Press, 2016), 206.
12. Devin Griffiths, “The Ecology of Form,” lecture at Wheeler Hall, University of California, Berkeley, November 13, 2017.