Anthropologists engaged in environmental work are finding themselves in a challenging new era framed by the internationalization of environmental problems and policies associated with the globalization of economic considerations. Yet, paradoxically, there is an even greater need for national and local autonomy in defining environmental priorities. It has become clear to decision makers that both top-down and bottom-up approaches involving diverse groups of people are required to solve the environmental equation.The disorders of the ecosphere induced by human activity indicate that something is fundamentally wrong with the cultural adaptations of modern society. Our local and global mindset shape our values, lifestyles, and practices, influencing all that we do no matter how we enhance the efficacy of our institutions or how we restructure legal and moral decision making. Without altering our basic values, we have consistently relied upon institutional efforts to solve problems through technical and technological change and behavioral solutions to modify actions of individual responses.Questions arise out of the failures of the two strategies as we continue the search for viable options (Escobar 1991; Gow 1991). Institutional and individual responses are influenced by the historical, cultural, and economic forces that shape our modern worldview. Yet in order to move beyond this state of affairs, we need new cultural forms that conform to ecological realities. To achieve a common ground of understanding, we must incorporate diverse cultural perspectives into our thinking while keeping the ecosphere as an essential point of reference. As anthropologists learn how to confront the contradictions of mutual interdependence and relative autonomy within the context of ecological systems, they are increasingly finding themselves in positions where the utilization of anthropological perspectives has become essential to effective policy making, program development, and project implementation (Colson