Anthropology 410k Ecological Anthropology

Stephanie Chambers

Take home test – Anthro 410K

7.10.09

Section One 1 Julian Steward, cultural core and cultural ecology Julian Steward started out as a fundamentalist, wanting to study the effects that nature has on culture and culture on nature. However he developed the cultural ecology. This is a system that states that at the base of societies, the main concepts are formed from the society dealing with the environmental issues they face daily. The Bushmen have this entire system of reciprocity that deals with pigs. Pigs are the base of their social ranking. However the pigs themselves serve a more basic function in the society and the rituals and gift giving that takes up so much of their time can be traced to the balance that must be maintained. Too many pigs owned by one group can be very damaging; too few pigs owned by one group and the waste management and crop care the pigs provide will be in danger. This collectable data is the cultural core, or the adaptive way societies shape the environment they live in, and the way the environment shapes cultural ideas. This way of studying is a middle ground that serves to bridge the gap the ideas that fundamentalism, possibalism, and environmental determinalism because it looks at all facts without too strong from either side. 3. How do western attitudes towards nature affect our perceptions of the environment and ecological relationships? Western attitudes towards nature are about energy, and trying to get as much energy out of our surroundings as possible. We believe that no matter what troubles are caused by our high demand on the planet will be solved by the technologies that our massive intellect creates. With all the resources at our disposal, and the massive numbers of our populations, and the wonderful education at our disposal, there is no problem too big for us to fix. However, we fail to see the basic issues right in front of our faces. We have scientists telling us that there are danger signs, and unfortunately if a politician, or preacher comes by saying things like, this is Gods earth and he will do his will, or this global warming stuff is nothing but a hoax. The truth of the matter is, most of the common everyday people do not have enough information and understanding to know what the truth is, and no will to get the information. As we have seen in a few of the movies we have watched, there are people out there who are trying to make a difference, such as going to Africa and removing the foreign trees; small time farmers making small changes that cut out chemicals; There are even education programs in use to support birth control from a very young age. If the people who are supporting making a difference could get a collective voice louder than the people speaking out against it, and force the public to recognize that they are holding on to old ideas that are based in religion, economics, and old fashioned ideas. This would go a long way to breaking western ideas. Section Two 1. The Ecosystem, Gaia hypothesis, and sustainability An ecosystem is a life support system or organisms and the environment they find themselves in. The Gaia hypothesis was created by Lovelock in the 1970’s and basically states that the whole earth, both living and non-living things are one single organisms and should be treated as so. Sustainability is the subject of much debate in the world of ecology, and basically it is the argument of whether or not the earth will be able to continue to support everything with the demands that are being placed on it. All three of these are different pieces of the larger puzzle when looking at the change that is taking place on this planet. Lovelock was basically getting at that we must treat the planet as a whole, like we would a sick patient. This holistic view is shared by many people, although not quite as inclusive as Lovelock. Brown believed that sustainability needed to be fully explored, and to do so, he laid our 16 dimensions that needed solved together to create a sustainable world. Ehlrich was looking at this when he was worried the population is over running the sustainability of the planet. The line of people agreeing with these ideas goes on a while, but there are also many that argue against it. Simon believes that there are some ecosystems that have been overtaxed, but that we will fix the troubles, and be better off in the end. Many politicians feel the world is sustainable, however we must simply bend the earth some more to fit our needs, and the signs that seem to be in front of us are nothing by the cooling and warming cycles that happen naturally. Moran goes on to say the trouble is that the people making these decisions do not live in the immediate ecosystems, so they do not see the immediate affects those choices have. There is an

Stephanie Chambers

Take home test – Anthro 410K

7.10.09

actual formula to base some of these choices on, the IPAT formula, that looks at the impact, however it seems to not really be used to awful much in the decision making process. Money and economic issues still seem to be the ruling factor, and the price of externalities are not taken into account. 3. Explain the significance of Paul Ehrlich’s “The population Bomb” and its relevance to ongoing debates between neo-Malthusians and Cornucopian’s. Paul Ehrlich agreed with Malthus in that humans are over populating the earth. After visiting India, Ehrlich understands things are in a harsh place. There are entire populations starving to death, and it is no surprise to him that these places have exploding populations. His book brought the over populating of the earth into the fore front of people’s minds. However there are always two sides to any argument and this one is no different. Even Moran states that just population does not have the huge impact on CO2 emissions. North America has a higher CO2 output than all of Europe, and we have a higher population. Ehrlich suggests that the only solution to the dilemma the earth is in, is limiting populations by sterilization. Cornucopian views say that is ridiculous, and were happy to gloat that just after the drought was over, and green revolutions introduced to India, in a short period of time India was producing a surplus of crops. They feel if you limit the population, then you are taking away civil liberties of the people, and the chances of having brilliant people born who will change the world. They feel the more money thrown at a problem the better, and you must have large populations to create all this money. Ehlrich would counter this argument by stating these technologies are creating horrible side effects, such as DDT, and that we have no right to go about changing the entire planet to feed our needs for energy. Bonus Section Southeast Drought Study Ties Water Shortage to Population, Not Global Warming This ground breaking news makes Malthus’s, and Ehlrich arguments so much more clear. The “Go Green!” campaigns are all over the place. I hear it from my girls, my tv, my radio, even my email, but never in any of these ads do they say anything about populations. You hear that you need to by energy start appliances, use the special light bulbs, shut off things not in use, as well as unplug them. I do all these things, but to think that the greatest thing I could do to help was making the choice as a couple to get sterilized. The drought in the southeast was not any dryer than any other drought in the last few centuries, just the first bad drought in 50 years. I remember when this happened; everyone was screaming that it was the warming earth causing it. That is when the newest serge of “Go Green!” gained much of the momentum. Moran seems to be in agreement with the Boserup’s theory that in higher populations brilliant people are born, and that population is not the cause of change, but consumptions. However this looks like it agrees with Malthus and Ehlrich that at the base of the evils is the shear mass amounts of populations. Perhaps Brown has the right idea when he says that there are many, many dimensions that must be dealt with all at one time.