Nature_and_Environment.28

I recently did a Google search with the question, "What is human ecology". The search turned up myriad proposed and highly contradictory definitions -- and some very strange degree program fliers. I just now composed my own definition: ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// {Philosophy.502.507}: More on "human ecology" {rivertree} Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:31:31 CDT (49 lines) {hidden} I've been looking at some of the many various conceptions of what human ecology is -- on the web. There are other institutions with almost as weak and silly a program as the one listed earlier. Others are more serious and grounded. But I've been thinking about what it is to me. First and foremost, human ecology is ecology. It certainly isn't hairdressing or interior decorating. It is specifically ecology as applied to humans. Humans are animals, like deer and elephants, mice and snakes, and we can study humans as organisms in their environment -- how they influence and change their environment, and how their environment influences and changes them. Etc. However, human animals are in some senses unique animals. There are some ways in which humans are substantially unlike deer, elephants, mice, and snakes. We have culture, language, technology... which is important to understanding our biophysical setting and the sort of creature we are. So sociology, anthropology, psychology, history, philosophy, and many other disciplines are deeply relevant to human ecology -- in ways in which they are hardly applicable to the ecological study of deer, elephants, or mice. Ecology is a subset of biology. Period. So human ecology interests itself in life systems in which humans are present, impactful, relevant to the ecosystem.... Some definitions and descriptions of "human ecology" describe it as a subset not of biology/ecology, but of sociology. I think this is almost as wrongheaded as the earlier mentioned degree program which had "human ecology" looking like interior decorating. But social sciences and philosophy are deeply relevant to the human ecologist, for reasons already mentioned. One would like to be well- aquainted with social sciences and philosophy as a human ecologist. So sociology is a very complementary discipline. But human ecology is not a branch of sociology, as many mistakingly believe. Economics is an obvious complementary discipline. I can't imagine a human ecologist worth his salt who is unaquainted with economic thought. In sum, human ecology is a sub-sub-discipline in biology which relates the human organism to its overall environment and studies the myriad systems and patterns of that relationship. As such, it is naturally a highly interdisciplinary discipline. But it is a discipline of biology. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Hopefully we now have somewhere to begin a discussion. I think it is very interesting that human ecology is defined in such incredibly broad and contradictory terms in the world. This tells me that this urgently important discipline is either in chaos or has never achieved much coherence. What do you think?

"the branch of sociology that studies the characteristics of human populations" www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn 1. Human ecology is a representation of our position within a reality. 2. Human ecology is the study of the human species and its interactions with its surroundings. http://homepages.which.net/~gk.sherman/baaaaaay.htm What is Human Ecology? As the interdisciplinary study of the relationships between the human species and its environment, human ecology is distinct from traditional animal, plant or microbial ecology in that it recognises the important role played by culture in shaping human society and behaviour. [Hey, that's not bad!] http://meko.vub.ac.be/~gronsse/gen/intro.html This one really grosses me out!: http://www.tntech.edu/admissions/PDFs/What_is_human_ecology.pdf and more ... http://sres.anu.edu.au/programs/human-ecology/human_ecology.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_ecology http://www.fact-index.com/h/hu/human_ecology.html and more at http://www.google.com "what is human ecology?"

{Philosophy.502.583}: Carl, Earlier, you said you didn't get why ecology was being called "the subversive science". Allow me to offer one reason ecology does tend to be subversive. (I will make my comments brief at this time, but one could elaborate on the point at great length.) Subversive of what? Ecology *can* be subversive of (or toward) economistically oriented theory in economics and other social sciences, politics, business, education, and philosophy (etc.). Of course, rather like anthropology can be so appropriated, ecology can also serve the dominant regime -- which I am claiming to be economism. Look at it like this, for example: "The term was coined in 1866 by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel from the Greek oikos meaning 'house' and logos meaning 'science.'" from http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ecology It is considered a commonplace that a divided house will tend to fall. Economistic economics is not grounded in the common root, the common house, in which economics and ecology would be a continous and integrated approach to 'the household' -- to life in theory and practice. To root [the word 'radical' is rooted to the word root, in Latin] economics, and therefore all of politics and social theory and practice, in a single, undivided, common house -- oikos -- is to be "a radical". To return to the root/s. Radicalism is subversive to shallow economics, and thus shallow social theory and shallow politics. It is radical for a human to acknowledge that she is an animal. This is the fundamental beginning insight of human ecology, without which no subversive science of ecology would be possible or meaningful.

The reason ecology is subversive is because it is holistic or comprehensive rather than strategic. Capitalism is built to facilitate the pursuit of strategy. Strategy is the epitome of rational economic self-interest. In pre-monopoly capitalist descriptions, rational economic self-interest (motivation towards a specific end) is that, rational, understandable, worthy of encouragement. Once giant, capitalism is a fetish of the original understanding of liberty, of rational self-interest. And, its consequences are larger and homogeneous. Like a bigger human male is not necessary less sensitive, nor necessary more harmful by his momentum, a large corporation may be sensitive and humane. But, it takes intention and skill. It does NOT happen automatically in a vacuum. Its more radical for a human to recognize that he/she is a human. Any animal can be animal, but only an omnivore with self-reflection can create a society worthy of the name, a species that simultaneously survives and doesn't abuse. Where an individuals or groups impact is insignificant to the whole, sensitivity and self-reflection is not needed. The larger dynamic prevails, the homeostasis of widespread mutually accountable conflict and cooperation. Where an individual or group's impact is potentially significant to the whole, sensitivity and self-reflection (intentionally yeilding the golden rule) is needed. Its impossible for us to renounce our humanness, as it is impossible to renounce our mammalness, or our physical existence.

For the last million years, hominids have been adapted to living in small groups. We are not a mass herd species like the bovines, and it aint working out very well for us to live like this. Stuart Kauffman, The Origin of Order, discusses the differences in adaptation which occur in mass species like the Zebra, and those which have evolved in small and isolated gene pools. The isolation permitted rapid evolution, whereas any new adaptation in a mass species tends to get washed out. The noble effort to hybridize the races is likely to reduce us all to very mediocre levels, without either significant numbers of the severely retarded, nor any geniuses. This isolation in part explains how a small number of ancient Greeks were able to produce such a large number of genises, but then after they hybridized with other groups, they failed to continue their successes. It likewise explains how the Jews of more modern times, who were also isolated from the indigeneous populations they lived among, were able to produce so many genises, and have been so successful that they have earned the envy and rancor of those less well endowed. Sykes, The Seven Daughters of Eve, shows how all native Europeans descend from just 7 (9 if we include some Northern fringe) original mtDNA lines. In stark contrast to other regions which have 100-200 maternal lines. Recent DNA analysis suggests that hominids were very nearly wiped out by a global climate crisis 93,000 years ago, reducing the total hominid population to perhaps 10,000. This is when Java man went extinct. But wherever we lived, it was in small groups of less than 300, which is about the number of faces that kids can recognize before they havta rely on status symbols to know how to act. As long as we persist in living in masses, we'll have the problem of status symbols. And because we came out of such small gene pools, we instinctively put a high value on genetic diversity; thus it is, that no matter who we are married to, we always have an eye out...

{8}"The reason ecology is subversive is because it is holistic or comprehensive rather than strategic.

Capitalism is built to facilitate the pursuit of strategy. Strategy is the epitome of rational economic self-interest. "

I largely agree with the second paragraph, and I largely agree with the first. So what's my problem?

My problem is this: I'm not yet convinced that ecology is any more subversive of capitalism than, say, fluid dynamics or biochemistry are. Aren't all sciences "holistic and comprehensive"? I can't think of any that aren't. (One might say that economics isn't, but there are lots of reasons why economics should not be considered a science.)

Now, there is some respect in which fluid dynamics and biochemistry have been more smoothly integrated into techo-industrial monopoly capitalism than ecology has been. But that strikes me as saying something about capitalism, not about ecology.

I dunno. Any follow ups?

Fluid dynamics doesn't have intention associated with it. It is merely descriptive. Ecology is the interaction of living beings with will, intent, of varying characteristics of complexity. Human nature (both the part that may be "superior" or capable of more complex strategy, and the part that is capable of self- reflection) is the first species that must be humble or self- restrain in order to survive. That humility is an ecological consciousness, an simultaneous awareness of desire, context, and consequence.

{9}: Carl Sachs: "My problem is this: I'm not yet convinced that ecology is any more subversive of capitalism than, say, fluid dynamics or biochemistry are." ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, A lot depends on who's weilding the ideas and imagry of ecological thought. Weilded just right, with a bit of poetry, ecology becomes the poetry of 'interbeing' (Thich Nhat Hanh's word -- See: "The Sun My Heart"). It is not obvious that ecological thinking *must* awaken the dreamer from his dream of a separate self-I-ego. But it is obvious to me that it *can*, when weilded poetically. And since 'eco' comes from oikos, meaning 'house', it isn't long before one looking into human ecology will see that our house is divided, having walked two different and increasingly separated paths in their becoming. The fork in the road is marked, and one way is economics while the other is ecology. The gap widens as the journey progresses. A house divided cannot stand, right? And so the poetic human ecologist might look for ways of rejoining what was torn asunder. But she will be most apt to be the one to see, through the poetic vision of ecology, that the separation of the two is pure illusion, not a fact at all. That the world is, through and through, undivided, right down to the notion of self-as-object. And that's where it all begins. With seeing clearly, or with seeing confusedly. Clear seeing is subversive to confused seeing, and vice versa. When ecology is as much poetry as science, and as much 'religion' (religare "to bind fast"), http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=religion&searchmode=none , poetics becomes poiesis http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/P0399700.html There are creations born of the dream of separation and narcissistic egoism and there are creations born of prajna (wisdom) combined with lovingkindness, generosity, compassion.... There are ways of living which presume a separate self-object, and there are ways of living which see through separation, into interbeing. My poetics of ecology is the latter.

James, The one thing that confuses me about the adoption of ecological inter-being, is that it is not consistent with identifying "thems", as in us/them. In an ecological view, as you describe, there are none. And yet, especially in this current political season, and in much ecologically rooted politics in general (green party and green movement politics), there is often much "them" orientation. One great inspiration of people like Thich Nhat Hanh, and Dalai Lama, and many many others, is that it is possible to act, retain an "inter-being" ecological perspective, and not demonize. I appreciate your comment on reengaging economics with ecology. I think clearly that economics is a subset of ecology, an aspect of the whole, a descriptive window of the whole (as fluid dynamics or thermodynamics, or poetics, or politics are descriptive windows of reality). I hope that you would then regard values like "efficiency" as ecological values, not the sole or even primary ones, but valid and natural ones; not demonized, not conflicting with engaged community.

{12}: Richard Witty: "The one thing that confuses me about the adoption of ecological inter-being, is that it is not consistent with identifying "thems", as in us/them. In an ecological view, as you describe, there are none." Ultimately, this is so. I see those who wish to live harmoniously with other species, 'the environment', the biosphere..., as like those who desire peace rather than war. You cannot violently force the warlike to be peaceful. What is the equivalent in the peaceful effort to create peace with natural systems and the biosphere? Well, in both cases, you can try to raise consciousness-awareness, including lovingkindness (metta). But we must, if we are to be honest with ourselves and true to what is going on, a war continues to rage against non-human species and their habitats, the 'environment', and so on. The fact that this warlike activity rages on does not contradict interbeing, but it all happens within interbeing! Even individuals and their grief and sorrow and personal responsibility is held within interbeing. So what's to be confused about? We must act with as much wisdom and lovingkindness as we can bring to bear upon our situation. Us/them is an illusion, yes. What is more real is interbeing. But my or your awakening to reality does not immediatly awaken the corporate CEO, etc. "And yet, especially in this current political season, and in much ecologically rooted politics in general (green party and green movement politics), there is often much "them" orientation." Yes. There is a bit of an enigma here. Reality is that there are no ultimate others, that such otherness is illusory. Nevertheless, there are people striving to live in harmony and with gentleness and kindness toward all beings, and there are those who are not -- who are working against the same. I don't have the wisdom to presume to "have an answer" to the enigma. We must have compassion and lovingkindness and welcoming for all beings. But we cannot stand by and passively watch as our neighbor victimizes our neighbor. How do we intervene with lovingkindness toward all? "One great inspiration of people like Thich Nhat Hanh, and Dalai Lama, and many many others, is that it is possible to act, retain an "inter-being" ecological perspective, and not demonize." Yes. True. "I appreciate your comment on reengaging economics with ecology. I think clearly that economics is a subset of ecology, an aspect of the whole, a descriptive window of the whole (as fluid dynamics or thermodynamics, or poetics, or politics are descriptive windows of reality)." Yeah! We agree! "I hope that you would then regard values like "efficiency" as ecological values, not the sole or even primary ones, but valid and natural ones; not demonized, not conflicting with engaged community." "Efficiency" is insufficient information to approve of or disapprove of. It is a generalization looking for a specificity.

""Efficiency" is insufficient information to approve of or disapprove of. It is a generalization looking for a specificity." Your prior posts disapproved of efficiency. Efficiency is normal though. Its defined as attempting to accomplish some objective with the least cost. The open question is what costs or combinations are addressed? For most, money is the reference. There are others that I know that reference other commodities as their reference. Thermo-dynamic scientists reference calories, or even calories in different kinetic states as references. (In western Mass, we considered creating a caloric based alternative currency.) Others reference time. Others reference toxins (as in carbon sink rights per Kyoto). Other questions include what value is created. Is sensual enjoyment equivalent in value to physical needs satisfaction? Is aesthetic sensivity equivalent in value to sensual? Is meta-aesthetic sensitivity (spirituality) equivalent to aesthetic? They are all valid questions, that may be implied in criticism of one- dimensional reference (currency), or some imagination that "them" applies a single common reference, or comprise a single opponent. Efficiency though is natural, real, undeniable. Its what individuals or groups of individuals seek, objectives unless they have enough, in which case they may choose to not seek objectives, and not need to be efficient.

{14}: Richard Witty: "Your prior posts disapproved of efficiency." I highly doubt this statement. I do disapprove of certain notions of efficiency proffered as an unquestionable good. But, as I said, "efficiency is a generalization looking for a specificity". It's like calling the number 2 a general good to call efficiency good. Two bullets in the head are good? I don't think so.

{18}: Richard Witty: "Do you design things?" Sometimes. Usually I don't get my favorite designs past the drawing board, because my designs are intended to be collaborative and I often run into political obstacles. "How do you go about incorporating different needs into the designs? By hit or miss, or some intentional characteristic?" Certainly not by hit or miss! By careful thought, observation, application of design principles.... But "efficiency" in my design conceptions isn't measured or understood as it is understood in most institutions these days -- such as in business or government. I take a much broader spectrum of considerations and principles into my designs than most institutions recognize or even allow. I don't believe the word "efficiency" means anything outside of context.

I got sidetracked with your statement suggesting that I apparently opposed "efficiency". I hope I have made my point about efficiency? Economists, unfortunately, aren't well aquainted with a broad array of perspectives and/or theories of value. Same goes with a lot of institutionalized ecology. It's a problem. If it is difficult for either economic thought or ecological thought to deal with *value*, the question becomes that much more difficult when we attempt to join economic and ecological thought. But where else can we productively begin? Economics and ecology have to become "philosophical" in order to provide a path which allows them to address value. Would you agree?

It depends on what you call philosophical. Economics is largely a reconciliation of what is limited. (For example things become "economic goods" only when they are functionally finite.) I expect that you've experienced some realities as not being economic goods (not finite), and due to side effects of others economic activities, they've threatened to make those formerly free goods (no reason to buy and sell because they are infinite) into economic goods (bought and sold). So, wilds used to be free space, but now there is so few of them, there are now fees to get into unencumbered parks. Or fresh water used to be free, or sunlight that doesn't cause skin cancer, or fresh air. Now economic goods. And, on the other hand, items that are still considered free for the taking (timber or oil or minerals) should be very expensive economic goods, that are costly to extract, and therefore would be extracted only carefully, if at all. Its a form of cultural conflict as much as anything. The ONLY way that wilds/ecology will survive the marketplace is if they are attributed their own property rights, and genuine representation of them. Existential value embodied in a trust. The US government is obviously a failing steward. Patchwork privately owned land alternating with leased land. Not stewardship, no validation of the rights of wilds, even "represented" by a public/social entity. Value is a difficult thing, as it varies from person to person, and definitely should. What you value (in every sense of the word) is and should be different from what others value; with the exception of meta-values like "live and let live". But, as far as reconciling what is relatively important to you, will always be different from what is important to someone else. In that sense, the marketplace reconciles those variabilities. People choose differently, are willing to pay differently for the same worth. There is a concept that is a bit of a monkey wrench. That is that people also have variable abilities to enjoy. Everyone seeks survival, but others actually experience great value from simple and complex things. So you end up with absurdities like someone spending $ of thousands on products that they don't even enjoy, or don't have the physical capacity or enjoyment education to appreciate; while hundreds others may realize really enormous improvement in their lives from one thousand of those same $. I like Paul Hawken's "famous" quote. "The free market would be wonderful." meaning a truly mature and highly functional marketplace valuing the wilds, valuing externalities, valuing experiential value, valuing some existential equality.