This contradiction is representative of the ecologists' struggle to explain humanity's relationship with nature while considering popular theological views of the time period.
The discussion of Arcadian versus Imperial ecology would continue with prominent figures of the field such as Henry David Thoreau and Charles Darwin.
Sociologists and historians define Imperial Ecology as the standpoint that nature is a force to be dominated in the quest for human convenience.
[6] Ethical and political implications of the Arcadian Ecology viewpoint are ever popular in scholarly and media debates during the twenty-first century.
The debate however, did not begin during the current time but rather has progressed over many centuries as humans attempt to grapple with their short-term and long-term environmental impact.
Max Oelschlaeger remarks, "Nearly 50 years ago Aldo Leopold identified the basic problem of conservation: learn how to live on the land without spoiling it".
[8] A more reflective look at the United States' environmental practices can show in depth the struggle of a relatively new country, with substantial economic means, to come to an agreement on appropriate actions regarding nature.
For classification purposes, those ecologists that saw a need to refuse a developmental and destructive path for Yellowstone ascribe to the arcadian ecology view.
The debate pitted major thinkers against each other including John Muir who thought there was "no holier temple than Yosemite" and Gifford Pinchot who was in favor of damming to provide water resources to San Francisco.