September 26, 2023

What is the I=PAT equation?

You should write an essay with a clear, detailed, and concise argument based on our course material. Support your arguments and the points you make with specific examples and details from our course material.

Do NOT write an essay that simply strings together a list of loosely-related facts and observations.

DO NOT draw on external sources outside of our course material to write your response. Use our course material. If you draw on outside sources to answer the essay question, which is designed to assess your understanding of our class material, you will receive a 0 on the essay.

Use your own words (i.e. do not plagiarize). Note that Turnitin on Canvas automatically checks for plagiarism (from other student papers and all other internet sources). Do not plagiarize – it is never worth it.

ESSAY QUESTION: What is the I=PAT equation? Using examples from lecture, the authors, articles, and films we have discussed (e.g. Malthus, “The Legacy of Malthus” film, Bodley, Boserup, Machakos study, Cornucopians, Neo-Malthusians, The Atlantic article, culture of consumption, etc.), explain how the ‘P’, ‘A’, and ‘T’ influence ‘I’ in different ways.

Use the preparation time to organize your answer. Again, you should write an essay with a clear argument based on the class material. Do not write an essay that simply strings together a list of loosely-related facts and observations. Illustrate it concisely and appropriately.

Requirements: 500 words

ANTH 353/SUSTN 353Sustainability & Culture“A knowledge of anthropology enables us to look with greater freedom at the problems confronting our civilizations.” Franz Boas, Anthropology and Modern life (1928)

For millennia, the Kumeyaay people have been a part of this land. This land has nourished, healed, protected and embraced them for many generations in a relationship of balance and harmony. As members of the San Diego State University community we acknowledge this legacy. We promote this balance and harmony. We find inspiration from this land; the land of the Kumeyaay.Eyay e’HunnMy heart is good.Land Acknowledgment: We are on Kumeyaay Land

Looking at Sustainability through the “lens” of cultureAnthropological perspectiveCourse OverviewTitiana village, Solomon Islands

Topics/Modules:1.Our Life-support system (earth) & Anthropological Approaches2.The Environment & Human Population3.Industrial/Post-Industrial Society4.Sustainability across Cultures and through Time5.Conserving and Managing the Environment6.Local Sustainability in SDCourse OverviewSolomon Islands, Gizo market, 2012

➢Prof: Savanna Schuermann (she/her)➢Class: W 4:00-6:40pm (OP-230)➢Office hours: W, 1:30-3pm, & by Appointment (AL-478)➢Email: [email protected] Introductions

Introducing our TA…➢Abilene (‘Aby’) Ayala (she/her)➢Anthropology graduate student w/research focus in Bioarchaeology➢Email: [email protected] ➢Office Hours:➢By Appointment (on Zoom) *See Canvas Homepage or Syllabus for Zoom link

My research: cultural anthropology, “natural” disaster impact & recovery, social inequality, traditional exchange practicesIntroductions

Solomon Islands ResearchI lived and worked in Solomon Islands in the 2011 & 2012 summers researching peoples’ recovery from a tsunami that struck the islands in 2007.

The 2007 Solomon Island Tsunami•April 2, 2007, 8.1 magnitude earthquake•Tsunami (6m)•Titiana (Micronesian)➢13 deaths•Pailongge (Melanesian)➢No deaths

Unequal Effects of “natural” disaster tied to Social FactorsGovernment corruptionWantok systemImmigrant/minority status

11✓For every one of you, three or four were not allowed in -You’ve earned a right to be here -Your right is a responsibilityEnough about us, what about YOU??

✓First & most important, our classroom should be considered and maintained as a safe space & learning environment for ALL✓SDSU COVID Policy✓Please be courteous and respectful to your peers✓We will discuss sensitive topics in our class. – When we do, maintain an open mind, assume positive intent, and ask clarifying questions.You’ve earned a right to be here. Your right is also a responsibility. Take it seriously!

Basic Responsibilities:➢You’ve earned a right to be here. Your right is also a responsibility. Take it seriously!➢Some basic responsibilities: 1)Come to class (and ENGAGE!)2)Show up on time, be present, & wait to pack up3)Do the reading (BEFORE our class meeting)4)“Rule of Thumb”: Expect to spend ~4-6 hours a week reading and studying for our course5)Respect your peers & our class environment RESPECT OUR SPACE!☺

Required TextsBodley, J. H. 2012. Anthropology and contemporary human problems, 6th edition. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.Orlove, B. S. 2002. Lines in the water: Nature and culture at Lake Titicaca. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Concept checks (50 points; 10% final grade):8 total, 10 points each, based on Lecture & Readings3 lowest scores dropped & 5 highest countNO make-ups Always: Available by 7pm, Wednesday & DUE by 4:00pm, the following Wednesday (BEFORE our next class begins)Films & Film Reflections (100 points; 20% final grade):5 total, 20 points eachNO Film Reflection scores will be droppedAlways DUE by 4pm, Wednesday (BEFORE class begins)Exams (3) (300 points; 60% final grade):Each exam worth 100 points 2 parts: 1) Multiple-choice (taken in-class); 2) and an Essay (submitted prior on Canvas)Students will take exams on Sept. 27 , Nov. 1, and the final exam day/time, Dec. 13, 4-6pm.NO make-up exams Final Paper (50 points; 10% final grade)Related to iterative class theme – “The Default Frame for Sustainability”DUE Friday, Dec. 15, 4pm (on Canvas)Assessment (i.e. Grading):

Class Meetings, Lecture PDFs, & RecordingsReading questionsFilm questionsCanvasSDSUid emailHomepageModules (#1-6)Due DatesSyllabus/scheduleCourse Tools

Come to class & stay up on the material! (e.g. lectures, readings, films, assignments)The course is designed to be flexible and accommodate different schedules; however, plan accordingly for due dates (e.g. CCs & FRs due Wednesdays., 4pm sharp, BEFORE class starts).Communicate with me when needed! And know that I am here to help!Accessibility: Please reach out to me if something in our course is not accessible to you!Be responsible. Communicate as adults and professionals and treat others courteously. This is a professional academic environment. Conduct yourselves accordingly.How to Succeed in Our Course

Syllabus/ScheduleIn our Syllabus, you will find our schedule, which has class topics, reading assignments, due dates & other schedule info.

View of Module#1, Weeks #1 & #2 (from Canvas Home Page)

View of Week #1 within Module #1 (in Canvas ‘Modules’)

What does “Sustainability” mean to you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4Let’s begin with the clip ‘The planet is fine’ by George Carlin (1992 video ‘Jammin’ in New York’)

Sustainability and CultureANTH 353/SUSTN 3531The Current State of our Life Support System

Announcements:◼Concept Check #1◼Available today, Wed., 8/23, after class @7:00pm◼DUE @4:00pm, the following Wed., 8/30 (BEFORE our next class starts)◼~1 week to complete, but plan accordingly! If you decide to wait until the last minute, that’s your choice, but no make-ups or late concept checks will be accepted.◼Based on Lecture & Reading material for Week #1 & our course Syllabus◼You will find CC#1 on Canvas:◼Go to “Modules”◼Scroll down to Module #1◼Scroll down to under the heading: “Week #1 – Wednesday, August 23” ◼CC#1 is below the lecture and reading material for week #1◼Click on “M1.1 & 1.2: SUBMIT Concept Check #1: DUE by Wednesday, Aug. 30, 4:00pm (BEFORE our next class begins)” ◼From here you may read the Instructions as well as take and submit the Concept Check.◼You may also access CC#1 from our course HomePage (in the Modules #1 summary table)◼Questions? 3

Outline◼The current state of our life support system◼Evidence ◼Agreement?◼Anthropological Approaches to Human-Environment Relations4

We watched a video clip of George Carlin’s comical critique of Earth Day, “The Planet is Fine,” to highlight the point that:A.The planet is completely f**kedB.Earth day and environmental movements have become blown out of proportionC.Everyone should stop cursing so muchD.The planet will be here long into the future, but people may not be if we keep interacting with the environment unsustainably5

Bodley’s framework for understanding contemporary human problems focuses on:A.Cultural representations and meaningB.Scale, cultural complexity, and powerC.Strong governmental regulation of environmental issuesD.Ancient civilizationsE.Principles of market liberalization and informed pricing6

An example of what Bodley is talking about:From “The Guardian,” Arwa Mahdawi (January 22, 2022)SOURCE: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/22/the-super-rich-live-on-a-different-planet-their-thoughts-on-us-salaries-prove-it?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1

9We have entered a new epoch: The Anthropocene (Age of Humans)◼New term to describe our current geological epoch.◼Geological epochs are defined by observed changes in lithology, chemical composition, or some event recognized worldwide.Famous transition between the Cretaceous (lower part) and Paleocene (upper part) epoch

10Simplified schema of the European subdivision of the last 1.2 million years

11Anthropocene◼Humans-plus-technology is becoming a geologic force.◼Our mark will endure in the geologic record long after our cities have crumbled.Dubai, UAE

12Evidence that we’re entering a new epoch

13Evidence that we’re entering a new epoch

14Source: Steffen, W. L. Global change and the earth system: A planet under pressure. Berlin, Springer (2004) By 2021: 334By 2022: 1911# “natural” disasters has increased 500% over 50-year period (~1971-2021)Estimated today to be 90-99%

Evidence these changes are anthropogenic?15

Planet Problems….Do do we go….maybe

17Key West, FL Year: 1957Source: McClenachan, L. (2009). “Documenting loss of large trophy fish from the Florida Keys with historical photographs.” Conservation Biology 23(3): 636-643.

18Key West, FL Year: 1983

19Key West, FL Year: 2007Mean Size declined: 19.9kg to 2.3kg

20Other ways humans are modifying the environment….More Recent Estimates: 96% Source: Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R., & Milo, R. (2018). The biomass distribution on Earth.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201711842.

24As of 2015, 15 warmest years on record btwn 1880-2015 all occur within the last 17 years or so…

26Check out Time Lapse of temp. increases from 1884-2021 Source: NASA (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/#:~:text=The%20year%202016%20ranks%20as,variation%20of%20global%20surface%20temperatures.)

27Methanehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVpQnpWS2wULet’s watch a clip about ‘Burping Methane’…….

Different factors influence each other◼Feedback & total socioecological system◼Climate change -> increased temp -> permafrost melt -> increased methane release -> in turn increasing global temp….AND repeat…◼Linear v. nonlinear changes28

30Current condition of the Earth’s life support systems: CO2

NOAA: Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (2020), retrieved from: https://www.climate.gov/about

32Scientists drill 2.2 miles deep!!

33Ocean acidificationOur oceans are more acidic than at any time in the past 800,000 years or more.421

34Main causes of increased CO2: Burning fossil fuels (75%) Deforestation (25%)

36Who is producing the greenhouse gasses?US (19) vs. Global Avg (6)

37Who is producing the greenhouse gasses?

38Most argue that the Anthropocene started with the Industrial Revolution (circa 1750)◼One key feature of the IR: the rise of fossil fuels.◼Human energy use rose sharply. Industrial societies used four or five times as much energy as their agrarian predecessors, who in turn used three or four times as much as hunter and gathers.

39What are fossil fuels anyway?”Liquid sunshine!”-1 liter of regular gasoline is the time-rendered result of about 23.5 metric tons of ancient phytoplankton material deposited on the ocean floor. 1 metric ton = 2,204.6 lbs – The total fossil fuel used in the year 1997 is the result of 422 years of all plant matter that grew on the entire surface and in all the oceans of the ancient earth.Diatom

40Exploiting fossil fuels allowed humans to vastly expand and accelerate our activities◼For Example, one of the most important: synthesizing reactive nitrogen (Haber-Bosch process)◼Result: Creates fertilizer out of air.◼Has a resulted in a massive increase in reactive nitrogen in the environment.

41Despite these planet problems, hasn’t there also been human progress?EXAMPLE: Julian Simon Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV_38mQ1iG4&feature=player_detailpage

42Despite planet problems, hasn’t there also been human progress?◼The average life expectancy in 1900 was 47 years. Today it is 77, and rising.◼The infant-mortality rate has dropped from 1 in 10 to 1 in 150

43Progress or not?◼””Poor”” Americans today have routine access to a quality of housing, food, health care, consumer products, entertainment, communications and transportation that even the Vanderbilts, Carnegies and Rockefellers could only dream of.◼A farmer a century ago could produce only one-hundredth of what his counterpart is capable of growing and harvesting today.

44Progress or not?◼In the 19th century, almost all teenagers toiled in factories or fields. Now, 9 in 10 attend high school.◼Today’s Americans have three times more leisure time than their great-grandparents did.◼The price of food relative to wages has plummeted: In the early part of this century the average American had to work two hours to earn enough to purchase a chicken, compared with 20 minutes today.

Environmental Problem or Not?….45

46Pew Research Center, 2020

Some continue to challenge the scientific evidence:Example from Jon Stuart Clip: Your elected representatives (i.e. our policy makers)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI

Key point: These distinct worldviews generate different rationalities, and hence solutions to environmental problems.48

49Anthropological approaches to human-environmental relations ◼Interpretive approaches◼Materialist approaches

2Scale, Adaptation, and the Environmental Crisis“[T]hose cultures that we might consider higher in general evolutionarystanding [are not] necessarily more perfectly adapted to theirenvironments than lower. Many great civilizations have fallen in the last2,000 years, even in the midst of material plenty, while the Eskimostenaciously maintained themselves in an incomparably more difficulthabitat. The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.”—MARSHALL SAHLINS AND ELMAN R. SERVICE, EDS., EVOLUTION AND CULTURE (1960)1Many general conclusions of direct relevance to the contemporary environmental crises ofresource depletion, loss of biodiversity, and ecosystem degradation emerge from a carefulanalysis of cultural ecological data in the anthropological record from a culture-scaleperspective. The most striking conclusion is that the speed and scale of resource depletion andenvironmental degradation accelerate with increases in the scale of culture and theconcentration of social power. People living in tribal societies may often have depleted theirnatural resources, and they certainly modified their environments. However, it is not idealizingthem as “ecologically noble” to point out that small-scale, self-sufficient societies with locallycontrolled economies have been better able to maintain long-term, relatively resilientrelationships between human populations and the natural environment than peoples living inlarger-scale societies. Scale itself and the cultural organization of social power are crucialissues that we cannot ignore in attempting to understand and alleviate environmental problems.This is the same advice that an astronomy text offers to help students understand the unfamiliardimensions of the cosmos: “Believe it or not, the solution lies in a single word, scale.”2 Thisgeneralization may seem obvious, even trivial, but the policy implications of the scale andpower perspective are profound. Furthermore, the importance of scale and resiliency may beobscured by the difficulty of operationalizing crucial ecological concepts such as adaptation,conservation, carrying capacity, equilibrium, resource management, and sustainability.Resiliency in this context refers to the ability of systems to avoid collapse and retain theirshape and scale in the face of various stresses or shocks. Resiliency emphasizes the dynamicaspects of human and natural systems and is a more useful concept than balance or equilibriumalone. This chapter explores some of the many reasons why culture growth amplifiesenvironmental problems and why small-scale systems offer important human advantages.Newer ways of thinking about cultural evolution that take into account the significance ofhuman agency, cultural transmission, and scale theory can make our understanding ofevolutionary processes more relevant to contemporary human problems. We explore theseBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

perspectives in the next two sections.Cultural Transmission and MaladaptationBiocultural evolutionary theory helps explain why cultural evolution can become amaladaptive process undermining the resilience of both natural and human systems. Bioculturalevolutionists see genes and culture playing similar roles in the evolutionary process. Culture,conceptualized as the shared symbolic information of a people, directs human behavior in thesame way that genes contain the encoded instructions that create the human body. Bioculturalevolution involves changes through time in the frequency of either genes or culturalinformation in human societies. Like biological reproduction and genetic transmission, culturaltransmission is the most basic evolutionary process that produces changes in the frequency ofthe basic cultural ideas that help produce human behavior. In addition to undergoing theprocesses of natural selection, mutation, and drift that change gene frequencies in a population,individuals can simply acquire new cultural traits. Individuals can produce and transmit novelcultural ideas through rational calculation according to certain criteria, or they can selectivelyborrow and transmit ideas from a variety of sources.3 Much cultural transmission occurs in thehousehold as a social inheritance from parents to children,4 but cultural transmission isfrequently biased. People often accept cultural ideas that are thought to be shared by themajority. More important, people emulate the beliefs and behavior of individuals who appearto be most successful. Emulation, though often easier and more efficient than trial and error,can lead to maladaptive processes, such as runaway economic growth when people emulatepower aggrandizement, conspicuous consumption, or wealth accumulation.There is a striking connection among culture scale, cultural transmission, and the process ofcultural evolution. In small tribal societies, cultural transmission is primarily throughenculturation within the household. At this level each household is in effect a culturalexperiment, discovering and transmitting to the next generation the behaviors that will sustainhouseholds under very specific local conditions. Seriously maladaptive behavior will bequickly punished, and the “right” behavior will be rewarded and transmitted. In such small,domestically organized societies, cultural creativity and emulation are biased toward behaviorthat promotes the humanization process—that is, the successful production and maintenance ofhuman beings. French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss5 pointed out that virtually all theimportant domestic technologies—including tool making, farming, herding, weaving, basketry,ceramics, and food preparation techniques such as brewing and bread making—weredeveloped by Neolithic tribal societies for household use. Levi-Strauss called attention to theNeolithic paradox that people in the Neolithic era did not go on to develop more elaboratetechnologies such as metallurgy, wheeled vehicles, and writing, because they clearly had theintellectual capability. However, these “higher” technologies were not needed by self-sufficient households living in a relatively egalitarian world. Rather, they were later used byelites to support the concentration of social power in larger, politically organized societieswith large, dense populations, urban centers, and standing armies.Cultural evolution beyond the size of domestic-scale culture is fundamentally a politicalBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

process.6 This means that its direction can be determined by an elite subset of a population oreven by a single ruler. For example, in ancient Mesopotamia, Ur-Nammu and his son Shulgiinstituted a series of cultural changes that created the first multinational empire.7 Ancientempires based on a state religion enforced by a written legal code, sacred texts, censusrecords, formal schooling, temples, calendrical ritual, and military power easily overpoweredcultural transmission occurring at the household level. The crucial difference with regard topolitically directed cultural transmission is that it is primarily elite-directed for elite benefit.Any benefits to lower-ranked people would be a secondary outcome. Elite-directedevolutionary change might prove maladaptive for humanity as a whole. Such change might alsobe short-lived, especially if it alienates too many people or reduces cultural diversity. Until themost recent centuries cultural evolution produced increased human diversity, but Europeancolonialism and global capitalism have radically reduced cultural diversity.8 The global mass-communication technologies directed by contemporary commercial elites for power-concentrating commercial purposes overwhelm both household and political cultural-transmission processes that maintain diversity. This makes it possible for a few people, likeRupert Murdoch described in chapter 1, to decide what information billions of people shouldreceive. Cultural homogeneity fostered by commercial-scale culture could be maladaptivebecause diversity is the basis of cultural evolution.Scale and Cultural EvolutionCulture scale is naturally related to evolution and adaptation in other important ways. Sizeitself is a crucial variable in nature. For example, small animals have an adaptive advantageover large animals in the event of environmental fluctuations such as drought. Because smalleranimals can survive on fewer resources and reproduce more rapidly, populations of smallanimals can recover more quickly.9 It is no surprise that bacteria are the most successfulorganisms on earth and perhaps in the universe, considering their total number of individuals,diversity of species, total biomass, overall adaptability, and breadth of environmental niches.10The same scale principle applies to human societies. Small societies can be highly responsiveto changes in the environment, can adapt quickly, and can reproduce quickly. They can alsopractice democratic decision making in ways that would be extremely difficult in largersocieties.Gravity, the laws of geometry, and the functional connections between dimensions in systemstell us that as things grow larger, counterintuitive changes may occur. For example,grasshoppers can jump distances a hundred times their length, and ants can lift objects tentimes their weight. A tenfold increase in the length of a cube results in a hundred-fold increasein surface area and a thousandfold increase in its volume or mass. Likewise, a larger society isnot physically the same as a smaller society, and this affects social structure, function, andadaptation. Disproportions in the size of different parts of an organism as growth occurs aresuch mathematically regular phenomena that they can be described in equations.11 Social powerwill “naturally” be disproportionately concentrated at the top of a social hierarchy as societiesgrow larger, as the Pareto distribution described in chapter 1 predicts, unless people takeBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

specific countermeasures.12Just as the size and shape of organisms are limited by physical laws within relatively narrowranges, the size and form of human societies must also be limited (table 2.1). The size ofeverything in the cosmos can be comprehended within forty powers of ten, ranging from thesmallest subatomic particles (10-16 meters) to a segment of the universe one billion light-yearsacross (1025 meters). The largest living things, giant sequoias, are just over one hundred metersin length, just two powers of ten (102 meters). The size of tribal societies typically varieswithin a narrow range of from two hundred to two thousand people. The shift from hundreds tothousands is an order of magnitude difference of only one power of ten (from 102 to 103).Politically organized chiefdoms, city-states, and agrarian empires ranged from two thousand totwo hundred million (from 103 to 108). Commercial organization produced a global societyunlikely to exceed ten powers of ten (1010, tens of billions).Table 2.1. Scale of Societies, Persons by Powers of TenScale of SocietyPopulation of SocietyScientific NotationStandard NotationText NumberHousehold, band, small village1010TenTribe, large village102100One hundredTribal society, town1031,000One thousandTribal world, chiefdom, city, city state, small kingdom10410,000Ten thousandTribal world, kingdom, state105100,000One hundred thousandMaximum tribal world, kingdom, state, empire1061,000,000One millionKingdom, state, empire10710,000,000Ten millionMaximum imperial world108100,000,000One hundred millionCommercial world state, market1091,000,000,000One billionMaximum commercial world101010,000,000,000Ten billionCross-cultural research reveals that human settlements show scale effects that are notintuitively obvious but that have adaptive consequences. For example, archaeologist RolandFletcher found that population density declines as settlements become larger.13 This means thatlarger societies with larger settlements will cover a relatively larger area per person at lowerdensity than smaller societies with smaller settlements, and will place disproportionately morehuman stress on regional ecosystems. Fletcher uses a geometric law to explain thisphenomenon. The number of social interactions that a person will potentially experienceincreases exponentially as settlement size grows, following a simple mathematical equation. Atenfold increase in population produces a hundredfold increase in potential social interactions.Fletcher argues that such increases would quickly exceed the human capacity for informationprocessing and become intolerably costly. Therefore, people could be expected to reducedensity as settlement size increases in order to compensate for the stress of interaction.Fletcher found that the total surface area of urban settlements—regardless of populationBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

density—and the rate of urban growth are limited by the technology of interpersonalcommunication rather than by food supply.14 The earliest preliterate urban centers, wherecommunication was by word of mouth, did not exceed one hundred hectares and grew at a rateof only 0.5 hectare per century. The development of writing in the ancient agrarian civilizationspermitted a hundredfold increase in the area of cities and a thousandfold increase in the area’sgrowth rate. Electronic communication and mechanized printing permitted another hundredfoldincrease in the size of cities and a second thousand-fold increase in growth rate.Cultural Evolution and AdaptationAmong the popular misconceptions regarding cultural evolution and adaptation is the view thatevolutionary progress has meant greater security, greater freedom from environmentallimitations, and greater efficiency of energy use. In many minds, higher levels of evolutionarydevelopment have also been equated with greater adaptive success. However, asanthropologist Roy Rappaport points out, the increasingly hierarchical structures of morecomplex cultural systems tend to become maladaptive.15 Higher-level decision makers arelikely to be inadequately aware of the local impacts of their actions. This is why elite-directedgrowth is so problematic.The principal pioneer of modern cultural evolutionary theory, Leslie A. White, definesevolutionary progress largely in relation to per capita rates of energy utilization.16 A culture thatconsumed more energy per capita was by definition more highly evolved. Other writers haveelaborated on this theory, arguing that two kinds of cultural evolution were involved, generaland specific.17 General evolution was concerned with levels of evolutionary progress, themore “advanced” forms that interested White. These “higher” forms were defined by higherenergy consumption, greater organizational complexity, and the ability to exploit a wider rangeof environments and to replace cultures at “lower” levels. This kind of evolutionarydevelopment corresponds closely to the concept of culture scale used in this book, such thattribal,- imperial-, and commercial-scale societies represent increasing levels of organizationalcomplexity. Paradoxically, as we are now seeing, general evolutionary cultural progress of thissort may actually reduce security, diversity, and energy efficiency and dramatically increasethe likelihood of environmental crisis. Furthermore, such progress may increase the workloadand reduce the life chances of many individuals. Specific evolution means adaptation to localenvironments, which is what tribal societies excel at. It is clear that small-scale societies atlower levels of evolutionary progress, as defined, are far more efficient in energy input-outputratios and far more stable and successfully adapted to their environments than are more“advanced” cultures.Many of these points were previously disregarded by anthropologists who were particularlyimpressed with the undeniable material accomplishments of industrial civilization and who didnot pay close attention to the differences between general and specific evolution. For example,in an attempt to describe general levels of cultural evolution using adaptation, Yehudi Cohenstated that at each stage of technological progress (he uses hunting-gathering, cultivation,industrialism), people became better adapted for survival, more secure, freer from theBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

environment, and more energy efficient.18 In this view, cultural evolution has been achievedbecause people have sought to gain mastery over nature, and it has been inhibited in certainareas through ignorance of basic technologies. Other research on crucial evolutionaryadvances such as food production and complex political organization suggests that the role ofinvention and discovery was greatly overemphasized by earlier theorists. It is more likely thatcultural evolution occurred because power-seeking elites developed and promoted the culturalinnovations that would produce larger societies by overcoming the natural and cultural limitsto scale. The nonelite majority was forced to adjust to the problems produced by increases inscale. Growth-encouraging innovations included more energy-intensive forms of materialproduction, changes in belief systems to make hierarchy appear natural, institutional changes toorganize larger production and distribution systems, and changes in the construction and designof urban places to promote larger populations in larger settled areas by expandingcommunication and reducing the intensity of social interaction. This understanding of culturalevolution suggests that growth in scale was a risky enterprise and would not have been eagerlysought by most people. The limits to growth that elites had to overcome were primarilycultural, not natural, although larger-scale societies ultimately reach the limits of theirecosystems and natural resources.The doubtful advantages of scale increases can be illustrated by the successive life spans ofeach of the three cultural worlds. The more than fifty-thousand-year duration of the tribalworld was an order of magnitude longer than the six-thousand-year duration of the precapitalistimperial world. The commercial world has so far lasted only a few centuries, but in the past150 years it has caused unprecedented biosphere degradation.19 The direct human cost of thecommercial world has been staggering. During the twentieth century some two hundred millionpeople died in catastrophic wars and political violence,20 and by 2001 more than eight hundredmillion people did not have enough food to meet their daily energy needs.21 This is not aprogressive trend for humanity.Progress, measured as greater technological complexity, has indeed allowed people toexploit more natural resources, but such progress does not mean that we have escaped thelimits of nature. The common belief that progress means “freedom from environmentallimitations” ignores the serious shortcomings of global-scale markets and advancedtechnologies. Chapters 4 and 5 show that commercialization and advanced technologies do notautomatically produce a more effective or more secure food supply. Supermarkets and theability to eat fresh fruit out of season, such as strawberries at Christmastime, may not be“perhaps one of man’s greatest achievements,” as Cohen argued.22 We have supermarkets andChristmas strawberries because they produce greater profits in the global economy, but theycarry hidden cultural and environmental costs that must be measured if sustainability is theobjective. As will be discussed in chapters 4 and 5, global-scale food systems are more costlyand more vulnerable, and they generate more social inequality than local and regional systemsdo.Many twentieth-century writers confidently measured the “higher” adaptive success ofindustrial societies by their apparent reproductive success and their ability to displace andBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

destroy “lower, less effective” societies and cultures. Reproductive success refers both togrowth in human population and to the propagation of culture itself. In this respect, industrialcapitalism has been enormously successful. What such assessments overlook, however, is thetime factor. History shows that growth beyond scale thresholds is accompanied by a new phaseof even more rapid growth, followed by a prompt buildup of new stress, decline, and collapseas the next scale threshold is reached. Both stability and growth beyond scale limits areuncommon events. Natural and cultural systems are inherently dynamic, and stability in eithercan only be viewed as a relative concept. Cultural stability achieved at a level too close to ascale limit could force people to adapt to very stressful conditions, but a breakthrough beyondthe threshold to another growth cycle only postpones the adaptation problem. The belief thatgrowth is progress is entrenched in the popular culture, but this ignores the often cyclical,wave-like nature of growth and is too optimistic about the ability of technological fixes toovercome the limits to growth.As Sahlins points out in the quotation introducing this chapter, real adaptive success can onlybe measured by survival—over the long run. This is genuine sustainability. If we insist onconsidering the global proliferation of the high-consumption culture to be an indication ofadaptive achievement, then we may push our growth to the ultimate physical limits of theglobe, leaving no room for nature. A new law of cultural evolution could then be formulated tomeasure such progress in purely physical terms, namely that culture evolves as the globalbiomass becomes increasingly converted to the human sector.Certainly, a clear trend in cultural evolution has been toward a remarkable increase in thehuman sector of the global biomass (humans and domestic plants and animals) and acorresponding reduction in the earth’s natural biomass of wild plants and animals. Thisreduction in the nonhuman sector is necessary because of the simple ecological fact that a fixedamount of solar energy fuels the planet’s primary producers (green plants); consequently, thereare absolute limits to how many consumers can exist. As human consumers increase, naturalconsumers must decrease. The ultimate pinnacle of human evolutionary achievement, then,would be the point at which every gram of living material on earth had been transferred to thehuman sector and every natural “competitor” had been eliminated. In 1971 biochemist andscience fiction writer Isaac Asimov cautiously estimated that at the then-present rate we couldreach such a point by a seemingly distant AD 2436.23Unless the negative effects of global warming intervene, humanity might succeed inconquering nature much sooner than Asimov suggested. Global plant biomass may now be halfwhat it was ten thousand years ago.24 Human conversion of forests into cropland causes a netloss of global biomass because per-hectare agricultural biomass is much lower than forestbiomass. Ninety-seven percent of vertebrate biomass is now in the form of humans and theirdomesticated animals, whereas as recently as 1900 the biomass of wild mammals may haveequaled the human biomass.25 Biologist Peter Vitousek and others estimate that by 1980 humanswere already appropriating nearly 40 percent of potential global terrestrial net primarybiological product.26 Energy consumption of this magnitude by a top consumer is astoundingand would seemingly place humans outside of nature, because such consumption would beBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

truly unsustainable in a natural ecosystem. When fossil fuel consumption is accounted for,people are now taking the biological equivalent of more than the earth produces.27 These ratesof human energy appropriation reduce sustainability in three ways: (1) They necessarily reducebiodiversity and degrade ecosystems, because the number of species in an ecosystem is afunction of total available energy; (2) They require a subsidy in the form of nonrenewablefossil fuels, which contribute to global warming; and (3) They may depend on poverty-generating unequal market exchanges, which exacerbate social competition and conflicts.Nature and Scope of the Environmental CrisisIn its most basic sense, the environmental crisis is a deterioration of environmental qualitywith a corresponding reduction in carrying capacity due to human intervention in naturalprocesses. At the present, given the existing global social order, we are clearly running upagainst basic limits to the earth’s ability to supply the resources we consume and at the sametime to absorb our industrial byproducts. Later chapters will treat the specific environmentalproblems of food, energy, population, and resources in more detail, but first it may be useful toconsider the general implications of our intervention in the biosphere. In this context it isimportant to stress that people will experience the environmental crisis as social, political,ideological, and economic stress. The environmental crisis is not new. It has developed alongwith increases in scale and complexity, which have included increased ability to influencenature, increased population and per capita consumption rates, and altered distributionpatterns. Tribal hunters created grasslands; pastoral nomads overgrazed their lands; peasantfarmers caused deforestation and erosion. From archaeological evidence it is clear that tribalsocieties and early civilizations at times faced their own local environmental crises as theirresources declined relative to demand and they were forced to abandon certain regions ordrastically alter their cultures. However, the scope and quality of the changes that the globalcommercialization process has set in motion over the past two hundred years make theseearlier problems seem quite insignificant. We now have the potential to disrupt basic life-support processes and may already be inadvertently reducing our own prospects for survival.The following examples should make this clear.Biodiversity and the Death of the Tropical Rain ForestsIn a 1973 article published in Scientific American, Paul W. Richards, then one of the world’sleading authorities on tropical rain forests, very calmly and objectively, with only a slight traceof bitterness, made the following announcement: “It appears likely that all of the world’stropical rain forests, with the exception of a few small, conserved relics, will be destroyed inthe next 20 to 30 years. This destruction will inevitably have important consequences for lifeon the earth, although the nature and magnitude of these consequences cannot be foreseen withprecision.”28Tropical deforestation is an excellent example of the difficulty of understanding andresponding to contemporary environmental issues. Tropical rain forests are the oldest andbiologically richest ecosystems in the world. They have existed continuously for some sixtyBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

million years and typically have tenfold more species per square kilometer than temperateforests. A single hectare (2.5 acres) of Brazilian forest contained 425 species of trees.29 I foundeight species of palm trees in a ten-by-ten-meter forest plot in the Peruvian Amazon. More thanhalf of the world’s plant and animal species are found in the tropical rain forests, even thoughsix thousand years ago they covered only 10 percent of the world’s land area. Destroying ordegrading these forests dramatically reduces biological diversity and eliminates the numerousnatural services they provide. With considerable justification, environmental scientist NormanMyers called tropical forests “the primary source” of human benefits.30 Because of their highbiomass, tropical rain forests are major reservoirs of global carbon, and deforestationcontributes carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, enhancing the greenhouse effect and globalwarming. The loss of tropical rain forests causes regional flooding, decreased rainfall, anddegradation of soils, placing many communities at risk. Rainforest plants are also a majorsource of pharmaceuticals, vegetable waxes and oils, and cosmetics, as well as hardwoodsand edible fruits and nuts. The broad patterns of deforestation are clear, but not everyoneagrees on the causes or what action should be taken, because different groups have verydifferent interests in the forest and different degrees of influence with national and internationaldecision makers.It is always risky to draw public attention to environmental crises such as globaldeforestation, because these are complex matters with many variables that are often difficult tomeasure precisely. For example, we now know that Richards was wrong about the world’srain forests being destroyed by the year 2000, but he was right about the magnitude and urgencyof the threat. As with global warming, even when experts disagree on specifics, it would beimprudent for skeptics to brush aside warnings by citing conflicting opinions or arguing thatspecific predictions have not come true. There is a consensus among ecologists and forestersabout the broad trend of global deforestation, supported by a multitude of studies using avariety of methods. Six thousand years ago there were some 65 million km2 (square kilometers)of forest (tropical, temperate, and boreal) in the world, based on climate and biogeographicpotential.31 Estimates based on aerial surveys and remote sensing satellites suggest that by 1975global forests had declined to about 58 million km2, with most of this decline occurring since1650.32 The 2005 Global Forest Resources assessment by the UN Food and AgricultureOrganization confirms that a precipitous decline began in the second half of the twentiethcentury.33 The 2010 survey shows that only about 40 million km2 of forest remained in the worldby 2010, including degraded forests and tree farms.34 More importantly, only 11 million km2 ofprimary forest, with centuries-old trees and minimal human impact, was preserved. It is theprimary forests that provide the most crucial ecosystem services on which humans depend.These figures suggest that the world has lost nearly 40 percent of its forests, largely in the past350 years, with the expansion of the commercial world, and more than 80 percent of ourprimary forests are gone.Many foresters consider deforestation to be part of an unfolding global forest transitionprocess35 in which: (1) natural forests first shrink in area and then expand in the form ofmanaged forests and tree plantations; (2) forest managers shift from a sole focus on woodBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

production to ecosystem management, recognizing the importance of all the benefits that forestsprovide people and nature; (3) forests are embedded in a single globalized commercial system.In effect, all of this means that forests are being domesticated, or converted from nature toculture. This accurately describes what is happening to forests, but it is an incomplete account.It also does not specify who will make the primary decisions and how costs and benefits willbe distributed. This kind of forest transition is part of a logical global-scale economic growthand intensification process, but it is not inevitable, and it may not be sustainable. It allows afew people to expand the scale of human control over nature in order to extract moreimmediate human benefits, but it also concentrates both decision-making power and benefits,as well as shifts enormous long-run costs, many of which may be unforeseeable and difficult tocontrol, to humanity as a whole.Richards’s projection of the virtual disappearance of tropical rain forests by 1996–2006 wasa general warning, not a precise prediction, of the consequences of this ecosystemtransformation, because there was still considerable uncertainty about how much tropicalforest existed and how fast it was actually disappearing. Even now there is considerablevariation in how tropical forest is classified in different countries, and many details areincomplete. However, Richards’s projection was reasonable given what was known at thetime. Deforestation rates were widely believed to be directly linked to global populationgrowth, which was then still hovering around the historic peak of 2 percent a year. Taking thewidely accepted global figure of 9.7 million km2 of tropical rain forest in 1970,36 declining at afixed rate of 0.2 million km2 per year37 (a high estimate for the time), about 75 percent of theremaining primary forest would indeed have disappeared by 2005, taking thousands of specieswith it. If deforestation increased at 2 percent a year, like population, the forest would havebeen totally converted to other uses by 2004. The average rate of destruction was 1.8 percentper year, suggesting only another fifty-five years or so before Richards’s prediction would befulfilled if the trend continued. In reality, the rate of tropical deforestation was highly variable,because deforestation is not an inevitable force of nature. It is primarily a result of high-leveldecision making by political leaders, corporate heads, investors, and bankers, whose decisionsalso affect poverty levels and population growth rates.The Amazon has more than half of the world’s tropical rain forest, and 60 percent of that islocated in Brazil. This makes Brazil a good proxy for global rainforest deforestation.According to ecologist Philip M. Fearnside, the original Brazilian Amazon forest was some 4million km2, which is approximately the area of Western Europe. Over the five hundred yearsup to 1970 an area only just larger than Portugal (92,000 km2) was deforested, which was only2 percent of the original forest. By 1998 the total deforested area exceeded the size of France,a reduction of 16 percent of the original forest.38 The highest recorded annual rate ofdeforestation in Brazil was over 29,000 km2 per year in 1995.39 This was the approximateequivalent of an area the size of Belgium lost in a single year. Satellite analysis shows thatbetween 1988 and 2010 more than 385,000 square kilometers was deforested (figure 2.1).40This was 10 percent of the original forest in less than a quarter century. Fortunately, theBrazilian government has made a major effort to reduce the rate of deforestation, as part of itsBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

effort to fight global warming, and the annual rates have declined significantly since 2004.Figure 2.1. Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, 1988–2010 (Data from Brazil, Instituto Nacional de PesquisasEspacias [INPE])When Richards issued his warning in 1973, approximately 20,000 km2 were being clearedannually. This alarming increase over historic rates reflected a sudden shift in Brazilian policyto build the Trans-Amazon highway and convert the Amazon from forest to cattle pastures,colonization, industrial agriculture, and logging for the global market. The closecorrespondence between the world market price of soybeans and the pace of deforestation onthe Brazilian agricultural frontier in 2001–200341 suggests that those who direct the globaleconomy also control the future of the rain forest. In this commercialization process, primaryrain forest is replaced by secondary forest, tree plantations, croplands, and pasture, all ofwhich store less carbon and support fewer species but bring a higher return on financialinvestment (figure 2.2). The extra carbon released into the atmosphere by deforestationincreased Brazil’s total carbon emissions fivefold in 2002, moving it from the ninth-largestcarbon emitter to the fourth-largest after the United States, China, and Russia.42 The reduction intotal biomass energy flow caused by Amazonian deforestation and the transfer of biomassBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

energy to human uses means less wildlife, because biodiversity is directly related to availableenergy in an ecosystem.43Figure 2.2. Vegetarian holds a banner that reads in Portuguese “One kilogram of meat equals ten square kilometersof forest plus fifteen million liters of water” during a protest at the World Social Forum in Belem, Brazil, 2009. TheWorld Social Forum is an annual countercultural gathering to protest the simultaneous World Economic Forum inDavos, Switzerland. (AP Photo/Silvia Izquierdo)Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Geographer Michael Williams attributes modern deforestation to “the emergence of anintegrated world economy from the late fifteenth century onward” and estimates that the“developing world” has lost half of its forests since 1900.44 The global economic boom thatbegan in 1980 was particularly destructive. The Worldwatch Institute estimated that between1980 and 1995 as many as 2 million km2 of forest were lost worldwide.45 Economic growth-related deforestation is a problem not just in the tropics. Analysis of satellite images of theAmerican Pacific Northwest showed that between 1972 and 1996 regional forest coverdeclined by 37 percent, from 664,000 hectares to 421,000 hectares in the Puget Sound regioncentered on the Seattle metropolitan area.46 Actual rates and the specific causes of deforestationvary from country to country and from year to year, but from a long-term perspective there canbe little doubt that, globally, all forests, including tropical forests, are undergoing a drasticdecline due to human intervention. This is true even though reforestation means that there maynow actually be more (small) trees in many regions than there were in the recent past. Simplyreplanting trees does not automatically restore complex forest ecosystems and the services theyprovide.Scattered populations of tribal farmers, hunters, and fishermen have lived successfully inAmazonia for several thousand years by relying on small-scale shifting cultivation.47 Theiradaptation rested on their ability to maintain fallow periods of sufficient length to allowregrowth of the primary forest before replanting. Large-scale, commercially driven permanentfarming or ranching systems have destroyed the forest, leaving rain-leached, impoverished,rock-hard soils and degraded scrub thorn forests in their place. Small-scale “shifted farmers”have sometimes been considered the most important cause of tropical deforestation, rather thancommercial logging or ranching.48 Shifted farmers, as distinguished from indigenous shiftingcultivators, are the dispossessed rural poor who do not have the political or economic powerto control enough high-quality farmland to support themselves and are forced to openundeveloped forest lands. In the Brazilian Amazon the poor account for about one-third ofdeforestation, but much of what they clear ends up in the hands of medium and large ranchers,who own nearly 90 percent of the privately held land in the Amazon.49 Thus, while establishingforest reserves and curbing commercial logging play an important role in safeguarding theforests,50 the cultural conditions that make it impossible for rural people to make a living alsoneed to be changed.Ecocide, Soviet Style“When historians finally conduct an autopsy on the Soviet Union andSoviet Communism, they may reach the verdict of death by ecocide. . . . Noother great industrial civilization so systematically and so long poisonedits land, air, water and people. None so loudly proclaiming its efforts toimprove public health and protect nature so degraded both.—FESHBACH AND FRIENDLY, JR. (1992)51“I flew over the Aral Sea by helicopter together with the Prime Minister. IBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

was shocked. It was unbelievable to stand on the shore of a vanished sea—to look out at a cemetery of ships, marooned in the sand. In the distanceI saw a herd of camels. Not long ago, people might have been fishingthere. . . . People are getting sick. The land is poisoned. Storms blow dustand salt as far as the North Pole. This disaster, entirely man-made, is avivid testament to what happens when we neglect the environment? [sic]when we mismanage our natural resources.”—UN SECRETARY GENERAL BAN KI-MOON (2010)52Both free-market capitalism and centrally planned socialist systems have createdenvironmental problems. Concentrated economic power and poorly regulated economicgrowth, regardless of political ideology, can damage the environment and undermine humanhealth. The former Soviet Union offers a frightening, science fiction–like, worst-case scenarioof the consequences of decades of misguided economic development. The 1986 explosion ofthe nuclear reactor at Chernobyl near the Ukrainian city of Kiev spread radioactive falloutover the western Soviet Union and Eastern and Central Europe and as far north as Sweden. Itwas an environmental disaster that could not be hidden from the world or from Soviet citizens(figure 2.3). The smoldering shell of the reactor inspired public demonstrations againstdecades of failed environmental policies. Antipollution rallies turned into mass politicalrallies in which the individual Soviet republics pressed for full autonomy. Even before theSoviet Union dissolved itself in 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy of glasnost, or openness,began to lift the veil of secrecy that had covered the almost unbelievable extent of military andindustrial pollution in the country. While the full details can never be known because evensecret official records were often systematically falsified, it is becoming clear that all of thenow-independent states of the former Soviet Union face severe environmental crises.Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Figure 2.3. Doll lies in front of the “cultural palace” in Pripyat, about 4 kilometers northwest of the Chernobyl nuclearpower plant in northern Ukraine, 2011. The town, where the employees of the power plant used to live, wasabandoned after the nuclear accident on April 26, 1986. Young white birch trees grow inside the building. (Kyodo viaAP Images)Murray Feshbach, a specialist on Soviet health, and environmental reporter Alfred FriendlyJr. chronicled some of the damage in their book Ecocide in the USSR.53 In order to increaseagricultural output, the Soviets poured vast quantities of toxic chemicals on their farmland,while soil fertility actually declined and foodstuffs were often badly contaminated. DeadlyBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

pesticides were misapplied to crops by poorly trained workers in order to meet governmentquotas. Dioxin, one of the most toxic synthetic substances known and linked to cancer and birthdefects, was used on crops freely for more than twenty years. DDT continued to be usedsecretly long after it was publicly banned. Poorly planned irrigation projects led to erosion,flooding, and salinization. Raw chemical waste from government-owned industrial factoriesleft three-fourths of the country’s surface waters dangerously polluted, while industrialsmokestacks spewed pollutants into the air at levels five times or more above minimum air-quality standards for seventy million people in 103 cities. The air in one city showedbenzopyrene levels nearly six hundred times acceptable levels. The soil in many industrialcenters became so badly contaminated with zinc, lead, molybdenum, and chromium that it wasunsafe for children to play in their sandboxes.One of the most visible Soviet ecological disasters was the drying up of the Aral Sea,formerly the fourth-largest lake in the world (figure 2.4). On a visit in 2010, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the Aral Sea “one of the worst environmental disasters of theworld.”54 Soviet agricultural planners recklessly diverted most of the water from the two majorrivers that fed the Aral Sea in order to irrigate newly opened monocrop cotton and rice fieldsin the Central Asian desert. Between 1960 and 1990 the area of the Aral was reduced by 44percent and converted into two small, forty-seven-foot-lower saline lakes that left the fishingport of Muynak forty miles inland from the retreating shoreline. Windstorms carried toxic dustand salt from the dried lake bed over the adjacent land to mix with the toxic agriculturalchemicals. The local climate was disrupted, agricultural soils waterlogged, wellscontaminated, and the regional economy devastated. Soviet geographer Arkady Levintanusincluded the Aral region among the world’s ecological disasters of the twentieth century andproposed an ambitious twenty-year restoration plan,55 but it had to be tabled during the politicalturmoil resulting from the collapse of the Soviet Union. As it shrunk the Aral broke into twosmaller seas, and in 2003 there were predictions that the larger southern Aral in Uzbekistanwould be almost completely dry by 2020.56 Since then Kazakhstan has constructed a new damin an effort to stabilize the smaller north Aral,57 but by 2007 it was reported that the totalvolume of water in the former Aral Sea had shrunk by 70 percent.58Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Figure 2.4. Men walk amid the stranded ships in the dry sand of the Aral Sea near Dzhalanadzh. (APPhoto/Alexander Zemlianichenko/stf)Perhaps the clearest measure of Soviet ecocide is its impact on human health. Even thoughSoviet statistics were notoriously unreliable, it is now apparent that an unprecedented publichealth crisis is under way. While for a time the Soviet Union made enormous strides inimproving living standards in the country, the government’s emphasis on industrialdevelopment at all costs eventually poisoned the environment while simultaneouslyundermining the healthcare system. The economic, social, and political turmoil that followedthe rapid conversion of the communist system to corporate capitalism after 1991 amplified theongoing environmental crisis. The result can be plainly seen in shocking rates of birth defects,malnutrition, cancer, respiratory problems, and infectious disease, leading to reduced lifeexpectancy and elevated infant mortality rates. Nationwide in 1999 life expectancy for Russianmen was just fifty-nine years, and infant mortality was twenty-three per one thousand. Figuresof sixty and twenty-one, respectively, show only slight improvement by 2003.59 In Uzbekistan,under the impact of the Aral Sea disaster, infant mortality rates soared to seventy-two per onethousand. Comparable rates in the United States were seventy-three years for American menand 6.3 deaths per one thousand for infants. Officially only thirty-two people were killed byradiation from the Chernobyl disaster. The real figure will never be known, but the WorldBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Health Organization estimated that 4.9 million people were exposed to dangerous levels ofradiation.60 The disaster led to the resettlement of two hundred thousand people, and fiftythousand square miles were contaminated. Thousands continue to live in unsafe areas, andcases of radiation-related illness seem to be increasing.The Soviet system proved exceptionally damaging because highly centralized controls andhigh levels of secrecy made it difficult for local communities to respond to environmentalproblems as they arose. The powerful central government imposed its own developmentprogram and then did not effectively enforce environmental safeguards. The diffuse nature ofmost pollution problems made it difficult if not impossible to link specific deaths to specificpollution problems even when broad trends became clear with the publication of generalstatistics. The Soviet experience gives us a glimpse of what could happen anywhere anddemonstrates the obvious: uncontrolled industrial expansion is dangerous to health—whetherdirected by a central government or when commercial developers are given a free hand. Thechallenge for epidemiologists is to establish safe levels for industrial pollutants; forcommunity development planners, the challenge is to reduce the need for dangerouscontaminants.Environmental Crisis and Cultural ChangeEnvironmental crisis has been a factor in cultural change throughout human history andprehistory. However, the present environmental crisis is very different from any in the past, notonly because of its scale and scope but also because it is being accelerated by cultural featuresthat never existed in the past. In the broadest sense, an environmental crisis exists when humandemands, or indirect impacts, exceed what the environment can produce. Such a crisis couldbe initiated by a natural climatic fluctuation that caused a reduction in available resources.More likely, it could be related to changes in cultural scale and the associated increases intotal resource consumption.The environmental changes associated with tribal cultures tend to unfold gradually and aremuch more likely to lead to a new, relatively stable relationship between society andenvironment. In contrast, large-scale politically organized and commercial societies areassociated with rapid environmental transformations that arise more and more frequently andimpact ever-larger areas. Prehistoric Europe provides an example of gradual changeintroduced by tribal cultures. Neolithic shifting cultivators began to move into Europe some8,500 years ago from Southwest Asia and gradually reached the limits of their subsistenceadaptation within four thousand years or so. Forest fallow periods were steadily shortened aspopulation density increased and domestic grazing animals further inhibited the regeneration offorests. Eventually, permanent open country and heath lands appeared over large areas of whathad been a vast expanse of virtually unbroken forest that hunting peoples had kept intact fortens of thousands of years.61 As a result of this gradually unfolding environmental crisis,shifting cultivation eventually became all but impossible, the natural fertility of the forest soilswas being exhausted, and a period of population movement, warfare, and dramatic culturechange ensued. When conditions finally stabilized, it was at a higher population density on aBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

different ecological basis and level of cultural complexity. Tribes were replaced by politicallycentralized chiefdoms, and settlements became more permanent.Numerous examples of environmental degradation and cultural changes in societies can becited.62 However, a careful inspection of the archaeological record does not show any clearcases of societies outstripping their resources and collapsing as a direct result. The situation isinvariably much more complex and may often be attributed to extreme climate events and baddecision making by elites.63 More complex societies are, however, more costly to maintain, andthey are more vulnerable to collapse than are tribal societies. There is clear evidence thatintensive agricultural practices in ancient Mesopotamia, where irrigation caused the gradualaccumulation of salts in the soil, were also contributing factors in the fall of Sumeriancivilization after 2000 BC,64 although climatic fluctuation may also have played a part. In theNew World, it was long assumed that the collapse of lowland classic Maya civilization in theninth century AD may have been caused by growing populations pressing on a limited resourcebase and that some kind of environmental crisis either occurred or was developing.65 However,more recent archaeological research and deciphered Mayan glyphs suggest that chronicwarfare between rival kings was a major factor in the collapse.66 It appears that the Mayankings developed intensive agricultural systems that proved unsustainable during times ofpolitical conflict. Thus, cultures under the influence of the politicization process ultimatelymade it more difficult for people to maintain a viable relationship with their resource base.The most important question is: what are the scale thresholds that set limits to growth, beyondwhich human well-being and security declines?Beyond “The Limits to Growth”“We can thus say with some confidence that, under the assumption of nomajor change in the present system, population and industrial growth willcertainly stop within the next century, at the latest.”—MEADOWS ET AL. (1972)67“The basic behavior mode of the world system is exponential growth ofpopulation and capital, followed by collapse. . . . [T]his behavior modeoccurs if we assume no change in the present system or if we assume anynumber of technological changes in the system.”—MEADOWS ET AL. (1972)68This discussion of “the limits to growth” must be prefaced with the reminder that although thefocus here is on energy and material limits to growth, the most ultimately important humanproblems are social and cultural, and they concern distribution rather than production. Theproblem is not “running out” of global resources, it is rather that we will face shortfalls, risingcosts, and social and environmental damage that will become ever more difficult to overcomeif exponential growth trends are not curbed. All limits, whether physical, social, or cultural,must be considered. Even though there are global aspects to many environmental problems, theBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

environmental “crisis” will largely be felt by particular nations, societies, and local andregional communities as they experience their own specific problems of gradually increasingresource shortages, pollution, conflict, and social and environmental costs.In 1798, early in the Industrial Revolution, English economist Thomas R. Malthus (1766–1834) warned of population’s potential for exponential growth and pointed out that, ifunchecked, population would outstrip the ability of a country or the world to produce food. Herevised and refined his basic argument several times in the face of a barrage of criticism thatheld that there was no such tendency or that the potential of the earth was virtually limitless.Many critics, particularly economists and social planners, argued that population growth wasessential for industrial growth and that together these would assure continued happiness andprosperity for humanity. This growth concept is a dominant ideology of the commercial global-scale culture, and perpetual expansion, whether in population or consumption, is in fact one ofthe distinguishing features of capitalist economic systems. However, Malthus was not alone inhis pessimism regarding growth. Other early economists, including Adam Smith (1723–1790)and David Ricardo (1772–1823), also thought that continual economic growth would not bepossible forever because of ultimate limits and inevitable diminishing returns from adwindling resource base. However, any stabilization of the industrial economic system wasthought to be so far in the future that no one need worry about planning for it. Only in recentyears have significant numbers of scientists begun to doubt that continual growth can besustained by a finite planet long into the foreseeable future.In 1864 American scholar and pioneer conservationist George P. Marsh (1801–1882)published Man and Nature, a massive indictment of the deterioration of the naturalenvironments of Europe and America that had already occurred because of human intervention.He boldly warned that a “shattered” earth and the extinction of the species might result fromfurther human “crimes” against nature. This warning was perhaps the first round of a continuingstruggle between environmentalists and growth advocates. Unfortunately, much of this debatewas clouded by the framing of the issue in a way that unrealistically set humans apart fromnature, suggesting to some that the goal of conservation was the restoration of a pristine nature.For the next hundred years after these early warnings, government planners and investorslargely ignored the hazards of constant economic growth in a finite world, thanks to thedramatic achievements of science and technology in increasing production. Few peopleseemed to worry that a sudden switch to nonrenewable new energy sources (coal and oil) andthe imperialist expansion of Europeans into Africa and Asia might only increase thedisequilibrium and temporarily delay stabilization while greatly increasing the cost ofreadjustment and heightening the potential danger.In 1954, as the great effort to achieve global economic development gained momentum, thecombined problems of population growth, industrial expansion, and the limitations of theworld in supporting such developments were posed as serious threats to the future survival ofhumanity in a provocative book by journalist Harrison Brown (1917–1986), The Challenge ofMan’s Future.69 Brown suggested that the most likely outcome would be the irreversiblecollapse of industrial civilization due to its own instabilities and the destruction of its resourceBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

base through inadequately regulated exploitation. The only other likely outcome Brown couldimagine that would permit the limited survival of industrial civilization was careful planningand rigid restriction of individual freedom by authoritarian governments. In effect, newmechanisms of social integration would need to evolve. Similar pessimism and warnings wereexpressed in 1974 by economist Robert L. Heilbroner (1919–2005),70 who a short time earlierhad been an optimistic champion of worldwide industrialization.One of the most ambitious and authoritative early attempts to examine the implications of theinstability of the commercial world was the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth, publishedin 1972.71 This pioneer study was the result of some two years of research by a seventeen-member international team of experts working with a computer model of the global systemdevised by systems theorist Jay Forrester of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Startingfrom certain basic assumptions about the interrelatedness of exponential growth in population,agricultural production, resource depletion, industrial production, and pollution, the team setout to estimate how these factors might interact to set limits on the future expansion ofindustrial civilization. The results of this research were surprising to many people anddistressing to everyone. According to the model, no matter how the variables are manipulated(that is, by technological solutions, assuming twice as many natural resources, solving theproblem of pollution, and so on), the system collapses before AD 2100 because of basicenvironmental limits. Figure 2.5 illustrates how a collapse could occur if then-present trendswere to continue. Stabilizing population extends the system somewhat, but collapse still occursbecause production and consumption are too high. According to these projections, the onlyfeasible solution for maintaining the commercial world as a viable adaptation is to stabilizeboth population and industrial production as quickly as possible.Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Figure 2.5. World Model, Standard Run. (Modified from Meadows et al., 1992, p. 133)The Limits to Growth was enormously successful in calling attention to global limits, butwas soon ridiculed, scorned, ignored, and later copied. It appeared in thirty languages andreportedly sold thirty million copies.72 Limits prompted severe criticism from technologicaloptimists who argued that the long-run limits are still far in the future and indefinable.73 Othersstressed that limiting growth would be immoral because it would hurt the poor,74 or that givenhuman ingenuity and the operation of market incentives, resources should really be consideredinfinite.75 The world model was variously criticized as imprecise, too complex for wideunderstanding, and oversimplified. Critics suggested that it might be dangerous to attempt tobring economic growth to a halt, and proponents of stability were accused of being elitists whowished only to maintain the status quo in their favor.In 1992, twenty years after The Limits to Growth, the original authors issued a sober restudy,Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future,reaffirming their original findings and proposing solutions.76 This work responded to the criticsby stressing that sustainability, not fixing a doomsday date, is the issue. Yet the authorsconcluded that resource consumption and pollution had already exceeded sustainable rates inmany countries. Their updated computer projections continued to show that global declines inper capita economic production will eventually occur unless we choose to design a worldorder that maximizes “sustainability, sufficiency, equity, and efficiency.” The implication is thatBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

we must plan ahead and decide what kind of future we want. A second update of Limits waspublished in 2004,77 this time citing global warming as the clearest evidence that the globalsystem was exceeding carrying capacity. As evidence of overshoot steadily accumulated, thereality of limits became harder for skeptics to ignore. In 2000 Matthew R. Simmon, founderand chair of Simmons & Company International, an independent investment bank specializingin the energy industry, examined the original Limits book and concluded that “all the originalconclusions are precisely on track,” and “The Club of Rome turned out to be right. We simplywasted 30 important years by ignoring this work.”78Assuming that the relationships among trends shown in the world model are valid, manyanthropologists are reevaluating their own positions on the desirability of economic growthand the meaning of development. In the past anthropologists actively promoted economicgrowth throughout the world, without always considering the real distribution of costs andbenefits or the long-term prospect of continued growth. It is becoming more apparent thatdevelopment emphasizing sustainability with social equity is a more desirable goal.Environmental Commissions: Global 2000 and Our CommonFuture“The most knowledgeable professional analysts in the executive branch ofthe U.S. Government have reported to the President that, if public policiesaround the world continue unchanged through the end of the century, anumber of serious world problems will become worse, not better . . . theworld in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stableecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption. . . . Serious stressesinvolving population, resources, and environment are clearly visibleahead . . . the world’s people will be poorer.”—BARNEY, THE GLOBAL 2000 REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES79In 1977 American President Jimmy Carter commissioned a special study of global trends inpopulation, resources, and environment up to the year 2000 to facilitate long-range planning byUS government agencies. The Global 2000 Report to the President of the United States wasover two years in preparation and ultimately involved a budget of nearly $1 million, thirteengovernment agencies, and scores of advisors and researchers. In general this study was similarto The Limits to Growth in its attempt to project the future outcome of present trends at aglobal level. However, Global 2000 was much more cautious than The Limits to Growth inthat some of the subsections of the study, such as food production, did not always take intoaccount losses caused by activities in other sections, such as industrial pollution. Furthermore,the Global 2000 study looked only to the year 2000, whereas The Limits to Growth lookedmuch farther ahead. The Global 2000 study was also quite conservative; it assumed continuedtechnological progress, no major political upheavals, and a continuation of the existing worldpolitical system. In view of all these conservative elements, it is significant that theBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

conclusions of Global 2000 still contained ominous warnings of serious problems in the nearfuture, as indicated in the summary quotation cited. The Carter Commission did not predict acatastrophic collapse of the world system, but it correctly warned of population increases,serious water shortages, major deforestation, deterioration of agricultural lands, and increaseddesertification, together with more poverty, human suffering, and international tension. What itfailed to predict, of course, was the end of the Cold War.The issues raised by these studies, and the increasingly visible evidence of worldwideenvironmental deterioration, had finally become so undeniable that by 1983 the United NationsGeneral Assembly passed a resolution setting up a World Commission on Environment andDevelopment (WCED). Fears over the state of the environment were officially recognized as alegitimate problem by the highest levels of the global culture. The UN commission, whichbecame known as the Brundtland Commission, after its chairman, Norwegian Prime MinisterGro Harlem Brundtland, issued its landmark report in 1987.80 It acknowledged thatenvironmental deterioration and human impoverishment were indeed a threat to the future ofhumanity. The commission cautiously recommended that development should be sustainable.This was not a very remarkable conclusion given the overwhelming evidence already amassed,but from a global perspective the commission was perhaps the highest-level group to reachsuch a conclusion, and it understandably commanded international attention. The BrundtlandCommission’s principal contribution was to redefine development in reference tosustainability and basic human needs rather than strictly in regard to increasing GDP. Thecommission gave priority to the needs of the world’s poor and defined sustainabledevelopment as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising theability of future generations to meet their own needs.”81The UN responded surprisingly quickly following the Brundtland Commission’s report. In1989 the General Assembly called for a major world conference, the United NationsConference on Environment and Development (UNCED), “to devise strategies to halt andreverse the effects of environmental degradation in the context of increased national andinternational efforts to promote sustainable and environmentally sound development in allcountries.” UNCED met in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 and adopted Agenda 21 as its formalaction plan to deal with environmental issues into the twenty-first century. The conservativeconsensus these commissions and conferences reached was that further economic growthwould be needed to reduce environmental deterioration and poverty. World leaders were notyet ready to imagine that major changes in the structure of global society might be needed toachieve sustainability. The World Summit on Sustainable Development, the Rio+10 EarthSummit, held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2002 again endorsed sustainable developmentand the UN Millennium Goals with solemn pledges, but the proceedings were effectivelyboycotted by the United States, and no dramatic actions were taken. Rio+20 is scheduled forRio in June 2012 with the themes of green growth economies and the institutional frameworkfor sustainable development.Positive steps occurred in 2001 when UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan commissioned aspecial analysis of global ecosystems, The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,82 to guideBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

various UN programs concerned with sustainable development. The $25 million projectinvolved some 1,360 experts and produced a multi-volume report in 2005 with six technicalvolumes and six synthesis reports. The assessment was a detailed worldwide accounting of thestatus of nature and of nature’s ability to provide services such as nutrient cycling; soilformation; biological production of food, fiber, and fuel; provision of fresh water; andregulation of climate, watersheds, and disease. Again, the trends that the pioneer Limits toGrowth study described were dramatically verified. The Assessment board, which representeda cross-section of UN agencies, business interests, and organizations including theInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the World Resources Institute,as well as indigenous peoples, issued its conclusions in a separate volume Living Beyond OurMeans, with a “stark warning” that “Human activity is putting such strain on the naturalfunctions of Earth that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can nolonger be taken for granted.”83 They found that nearly two-thirds of natural services were indecline worldwide, and that we were “on the edge of a massive wave of species extinctions.”All of this would make it harder to meet human needs.At this point it will be useful to examine some of the explanations that have been offered forour present environmental difficulties before considering the insights that can be gained fromdomestic-scale societies and cultures.Roots of the Environmental CrisisThe basic cause of the environmental crisis is humans making too many demands on nature.The obvious problem is that resources, whether measured globally, nationally, or locally, arebeing consumed at a rate greater than they are being produced by natural biological orgeological processes, and wastes are being created that disrupt natural cycles. This is aproblem of per capita consumption rates that are amplified by growth in total population.Overconsumption may be defined as consumption in a given area that exceeds the rate ofnatural resource production, which reduces social sustainability. Every society has thepotential to overconsume, and this potential could be realized by a simple increase inpopulation over local carrying-capacity. However, such overconsumption is less likely indomestic-scale societies because negative feedback systems are activated to reducepopulation or because cultural mechanisms to promote better distribution are used. Unusualincreases in per capita consumption rates could also initiate overconsumption, but again suchan outcome is normally prevented by negative feedback mechanisms. Unfortunately, the globalcommercial culture has short-circuited the normal cultural feedback mechanisms that preventoverconsumption in at least four critical ways: (1) dependence on nonrenewable resources,(2) dependence on imports, (3) urbanization, and (4) institutionalized inequality.Perhaps the most critical turning point in the development of the global culture was its shiftaway from renewable resources to overwhelming dependence on fossil fuels, which havebecome substitutes for both solar energy and natural products such as fibers. These resourcesare stored solar energy that has been “banked” in the earth over millions of years, yet they arenow being used to temporarily support consumption far beyond what could ever be supportedBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

by local renewable resources. The danger in this case is that by the time these stored resourceshave become significantly depleted we may well have “overshot” our renewable resourcebase. The problem is amplified because fossil fuels have made it easy to deplete water, soil,forests, and fisheries. These renewable resources can be completely destroyed or drawn downto the extent that they cannot recover quickly enough for human demand. A society that reliedlargely on local renewable resources would quickly recognize an impending shortage andcould take corrective action, either by intensifying its productive technology or, more wisely,by reducing its demand.A second critical way in which commercially organized societies have temporarily escapedenvironmental limits has been through their enormous reliance on large-scale global trade. Forexample, Ecological Footprint analysis shows that trade, especially imports, made it possiblefor the United States to consume nearly double its biocapacity (everything that nature producesin a particular region) in 2001.84 Consuming everything would leave nothing for wildlife,would not be “balanced with nature,” and would not be sustained for very long, but consumingdouble requires a vast external subsidy. Intergroup resource exchange is a cultural universal,and it sometimes follows the economic principle of “comparative advantage,” in whichdifferent regions exchange items that each produces most efficiently. In the tribal world tradewas often limited to a narrow range of raw materials such as salt, obsidian, and ochre thatspread widely along decentralized, reciprocal exchange networks. Often the primary purposeof trade was maintaining friendly relations and encouraging intermarriage between groups thatmight otherwise be hostile. Commercial trade involving highly concentrated economic powerallows resources extracted from poor areas to be wastefully consumed in rich areas. Relianceon imported resources to support growth and consumption could easily become globallyunsustainable.Urbanization creates a similar problem because urban populations must be supported by“imports” from their rural hinterlands. For example in 1997, Hong Kong, a city of nearly sevenmillion people living on a land area of 1,100 square kilometers, was drawing the equivalent ofthe biological product from an area four hundred times greater.85 Likewise, in 2000 Londonerswere drawing the biological equivalent of an area 293 times the size of their geographicalarea.86 Urban consumers are far removed from their resources and are unlikely to becomeimmediately aware of impending shortages or of any other environmental impact of theirconsumption patterns.Institutionalized inequality is socially defined by differential consumption patterns andserves to promote overconsumption at the top of the social hierarchy and underconsumption atthe bottom, while diverting much of its adverse impact onto “lower” classes. Inequalityoperates between and within nations. Prices in the global market thus do not always accuratelyreflect the true costs of commercial products. This inequality diverts and delays themechanisms that would otherwise maintain consumption within environmental limits.In addition to fostering overconsumption, the global commercial culture has greatly increasedthe probability that it will cause environmental crises by disrupting natural cycles andsimplifying ecosystems on a vast scale. Natural cycles have been disrupted by the introductionBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

of new synthetic materials such as plastics and organochlorine pesticides, which have beenused to support overconsumption by replacing degraded natural systems but cannot be readilybroken down by nature into their constituent parts for reuse. Pollution is a cultural product, orproduction byproduct, that does not exist in nature because all natural materials arecontinuously recycled. Furthermore, commercially generated “natural” organic wastes such assewage and feedlot wastes have been created and concentrated in ways that block theireffective recycling and degrade ecosystems. In this regard we have consistently violated whatecologist Barry Commoner called “the basic laws of ecology.”87 Simplification of ecosystemsis best exemplified by the industrial factory farm that attempts to remove all but one or two“desirable” species. This process greatly lowers the biological productivity and stability of anecosystem and can be maintained only at enormous cost in imported energy and by increaseduse of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, which in turn deplete nonrenewable resources anddisrupt natural cycles.Thus, our present environmental crisis is the direct result of overconsumption, disruption ofnatural cycles, and simplification of ecosystems. All cultures seem to have the potential fordegrading their environment by such means, so it remains to be explained why politicallycentralized societies—and commercially organized societies in particular—have been muchgreater culprits in this regard than tribal societies. Some analysts point to a single basic cause,arguing that if we can simply develop better technology, achieve zero population growth, orinvent a new value system, our environmental problems will be over. We will examine thepopulation and technology arguments later, but the values argument may profitably be examinedhere.Capitalism and Ideological RootsIf we define culture as the information in people’s minds that directs their behavior, then ideas,beliefs, and values must in some way be responsible for how people relate to the naturalenvironment. Unraveling the connections between belief and environmental practice is not asimple exercise because the environmentally most important beliefs may be more fundamentalbeliefs about human society rather than beliefs about the environment. During the 1960s aninfluential article in Science, written by historian Lynn White Jr., initiated widespreaddiscussion about the significance of religion with regard to human use of the environment.88White attributed environmental problems to Christian beliefs, pointing out that in the book ofGenesis God gave man dominion over nature, thereby initiating our seemingly victorious battleagainst nature. White concluded that “since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, theremedy must also be essentially religious.” Some environmentally concerned Christiansrejected this interpretation, instead interpreting “dominion” to mean “stewardship,” and sawno conflict between people and nature. On the other hand, some environmentalists assumed thattribal animism, which seemingly makes people part of nature, would prevent the conflict andthus avoid the environmental crisis. This latter viewpoint has had broad appeal for manyenvironmental activists who advocate a “deep ecology” environmental ethic of reverencetoward nature. Some environmentalists envision a spiritual “oneness” between people andBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

nature, blending an idealized view of tribal beliefs with European paganism and in someinterpretations portraying the earth itself as a living thing named after the ancient Greek creatorEarth Mother Gaea.89 Critics of deep ecology dismiss it as escapist mysticism90 or misguidedromanticism of fanciful ecologically noble savages.91Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins places Christianity within a broader European cosmologythat assumes that people are naturally evil and selfish, condemned to perpetual economicscarcity within societies controlled by hierarchical power structures and coercivegovernments.92 These fundamental beliefs justify social inequality, the quest for increasedsocial power, and technological progress, all of which are thought to be natural and inevitable.These ideas are also fundamental to the belief that economic growth driven by free-marketcapitalism and free trade will naturally benefit society. The connection between ideology andenvironmental problems is that ideologies can help motivate people to sustain particular socialpower structures that in turn promote unsustainable increases in the scale of society.Although many anthropologists take a cultural materialist position and argue that economicpractices are determined primarily by material conditions, ideas do “have consequences.”93The beliefs underlying capitalism are the most important ideological cause of contemporaryadverse environmental changes because capitalist commercial practices drive the scalechanges that have most intensified human pressures on the environment. For sociologist MaxWeber (1881–1961) “the spirit of capitalism” was the idea that making money is the ultimatepurpose and highest virtue of life.94 This spirit is well represented by the familiar capitalistdictums “time is money” and “money makes money.” Weber argued that the capitalist spiritbecame a moral imperative and motivating force and was a more important determinant ofwhat people did than the specifics of nationality, technology, or resources. He distinguishedthis “absolutely irrational” idea of perpetually growing money from the natural human impulseof greed for material acquisition to satisfy needs. “Traditional” noncapitalist peoples stopworking when their needs are met. Capitalism is irrational in that the drive to accumulatemoney goes beyond human needs and thus recognizes no natural limits. Evolutionaryanthropologists would explain this as rational emulation of indirect measures of reproductivesuccess.Although Weber thought that the ideas behind capitalism were irrational, he argued that thehallmark of modern industrial capitalism was the highly rational way in which capitalistsorganized economic exchanges for the pursuit of profit. Under capitalism, markets for money,labor, and commodities, along with business enterprises, were all organized in a highlyrational, calculated way to make money grow. Historically, Weber attributed these capitalistideas to the work ethic that grew out of the Protestant Reformation, represented by theCalvinist and Puritan concepts of predestination, personal salvation, and work as a divine“calling.” Protestant Christians became capitalists because they believed that luxury andwasting time were sinful and because economic success demonstrated that one had beenelected for salvation. Weber believed that after capitalism had become the dominant politicaleconomy in much of the world, the original religious ideology that produced capitalisteconomic practice was no longer needed. Modern people were bound to their jobs by theBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

economic and material conditions of industrial production. By 1905, when he completed TheProtestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber thought that under capitalism the way wemust obtain material goods had become an inescapable “iron cage.” He directly linkedindustrial capitalism to unsustainable levels of resource consumption, concluding thatcapitalism had become an “irresistible force” that would perhaps continue to determineeveryone’s life “until the last ton of fossilized coal is burnt.”95Unregulated Self-Interest and the Tragedy of the CommonsSome environmentalists find the roots of environmental problems in acquisitive individualsseeking their self-interest in the absence of coercive cultural controls, or common propertyregimes to protect common property resources (also called common-pool resources [CPRs])that many people have access to, such as grazing lands, fisheries, or irrigation systems. At leastone influential writer, biologist Garrett Hardin (1915–2003), called this phenomenon the“tragedy of the commons.”96 For Hardin, the crisis was the inevitable outgrowth ofindividuals seeking their own self-interest in combination with a failure of appeals toconscience and social responsibility. This implied a repudiation of Adam Smith’s belief that an“invisible hand” operated in the market economy such that self-seeking individuals “withoutintending it, without knowing it, advance the interests of society.”97 Hardin called for mutuallyagreed-on coercive restraints to maintain population and pollution within safe limits andsuggested that these problems, strictly speaking, had no technical solutions. Like Lynn White Jr.he thought that a change in values was required, but he added the important qualification thatpolitical regulations must be strengthened.Elite-directed growth is the real tragedy of the commons. In this case the whole earth is thecommons, and it is the global elite who promote global economic growth that will increasetheir personal wealth, in spite of the costs that it inflicts on the entire world. What the “tragedyof the commons” overlooks is that the need for formal controls is determined by the scale ofthe social system and the way decision-making power is distributed. The problem is not withhuman nature as such, or whether resources are public or private. Hardin was right that insome situations social restraints on individual behavior are necessary, but he did not describehow such restraints often operate in small-scale societies. Societies must, in effect, define“maximum good” and then adjust demand to what their specific environments can supply. Whatis “good” is a sociocultural decision. Hardin argued that no cultural group had solved the“tragic commons” problem because no prosperous population had ever managed to stabilize itspopulation. However, small-scale societies promote resilience or sustainability by defining“maximum good” at attainable levels. Small-scale irrigation systems called acequias haveoperated successfully on the upper Rio Grande in Colorado for centuries.98 Tribal societiesachieved “affluence” without at the same time perpetually elevating consumption, and theywidely distributed decision making and access. They were thus able to avoid the coerciverestraints that Hardin thought would be needed to control the dangers inherent in the pursuit ofself-interest. Even very small nation-states, such as Denmark, that maximize social equalityand endorse “low” material expectations may still enjoy the highest levels of life satisfactionBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

in Europe.99Hardin later observed that “shame” rather than physical coercion could operate to inhibitdestructive overuse of resources in small, face-to-face communities.100 In the tribal world, theabsence of commercial incentives for overproduction is, of course, also important. Under theright cultural conditions there need be no inherent conflict between individual self-interest andthe interests of society as a whole. Based on his survey of small, domestically organizedfarming systems throughout the world, cultural ecologist Robert McC. Netting observed,“Communities of smallholders have the demonstrated capacity for cooperative management ofenvironmental resources without the untrammeled individual competition that brings on a‘tragedy of the commons.’”101Hardin illustrated the “tragic commons” by suggesting that in a traditional herding societyindividual herdsmen would add extra animals to their own herds even beyond the point atwhich environmental damage would result from overgrazing, because they would receive fulladvantage for each additional animal, whereas the costs of overgrazing would be shared by allherders. In his view each herdsman was thus caught in a conflict between social responsibilityand personal self-interest, and only coercive force would make it obviously in his best interestto refrain from expanding his herd. This was a misleading oversimplification. In reality, inmany herding societies grazing is territorially regulated and not an open-access resource. Onarid lands animal populations are often regulated by frequent devastating droughts, as well aswarfare, raiding, and disease. In such highly variable environments, the standard concept ofcarrying capacity may be virtually irrelevant.102There is no necessary conflict between individual self-interest and social responsibility intribal herding societies. Where self-sufficient individual households or small household groupsmust depend on herd animals for their primary subsistence, maximum herd size is determinedby the number of animals a given herder can safely handle, quality of pasture, and daily grazingrequirements of the animals, in addition to sociopolitical considerations such as the size oflocal kin groups and the vulnerability of herds to raiders. A large herd of large animals in anarea of poor pastures would quickly become impractical because the herd would need to moveso rapidly to get enough to eat that productivity would decline.103 It is clearly feasible for agroup to successfully manage a resource without resorting to coercive measures.104 Privateaccess to grazing land may not be a superior alternative, as demonstrated by the experience ofcommercial ranching systems. Commercial systems, which are designed to maximize thenumber of animals sold in order to secure a profit, can increase herd size by drawing on fossil-fuel energy subsidies and imported feed. Thus, with commercial herds there are few, if any,cultural limits to herd size.The successful adaptation of herding societies is clearly illustrated by the traditional herdersof East Africa, Southwest Asia, and the Middle East. Nomadic pastoralism emerged in theseregions as a means of exploiting the vast steppe areas that were created by climatic changesbeginning some ten thousand years ago. Given the particular mix of poor rainfall, poor soil,and rugged topography, these regions are unsuitable for any form of permanent agriculture butcan support herds of grazing animals such as sheep and goats. Using ground surveys togetherBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

with satellite pictures, researchers collected basic ecological data on herders during a two-year study conducted in Afghanistan before the civil strife that followed Soviet intervention in1980.105 Their research showed convincingly that traditional herders do not necessarilyovergraze their pastures under normal climatic conditions. The researchers measured thebiological productivity of all major plant communities in the region and calculated the foodrequirements of the animals. They found that, during the study, the herders were using only 23to 32 percent of the available sustained-yield forage production of the natural pastures.Some researchers have used game theory to demonstrate why it is a predictable adaptivestrategy for individual East African cattle herders to restrict their use of common grazingresources near their homesteads during the dry season.106 Others have used dynamicmathematical models to explore the relationship among soil moisture, grass and shrub biomass,and grazing pressure in the semiarid savannas of South and East Africa.107 Their work suggeststhat traditional cattle herders maintained a very resilient mix of grassland and shrubs becausetheir grazing system was “irregular and opportunistic” and the human population remainedrelatively low. Under these conditions the natural pastures tolerated even intense grazingbecause it was only periodic. Herd productivity was also relatively low but perfectly adequatefor domestic needs in a nonmarket, subsistence economy. Animals that appear to beunproductive and of poor quality by commercial standards may actually be well suited to poorgrazing and frequent drought.108 Traditional herders thus actually favored the growth of a widevariety of grass types, and these wild pastures became more productive. However, settledpeasant farmers and commercial ranchers replaced many of the tribesmen after 1900, when thecolonial period began, and introduced a much less variable grazing system that has proved lessstable. The result is that now there is often serious overgrazing, leading to reduction in thewater-absorbing capacity of the topsoil and a replacement of grass by less-productive woodyshrubs. Overall, when outsiders have intervened, the ability of the natural pastures to supportgrazing animals over the long term may be reduced.On marginal grazing lands in many parts of the world, overgrazing may be encouraged whenoutside energy sources are introduced, making it possible to concentrate animals by drillingwells and hauling feed, and when animals are raised primarily for the market rather than fordirect subsistence. Many such developments, often including settlement schemes, have beenpromoted by governments interested in increasing the productivity of pastoral nomads. Underthese conditions self-interest comes into conflict with social responsibility.Land Degradation in the Mediterranean RegionIn 1992 the European Union initiated a large international research project on the land-degradation problem in the Mediterranean region of southern Europe. Desertification is aparticularly serious problem in Spain, southern Italy, and Greece that threatens to disrupt thelives of millions of people throughout the European Mediterranean. Known asARCHAEOMEDES, the project was directed by the European Commission’s Section DG-XIIon Climatology and Natural Hazards. The European Union coordinates economic and socialpolicy among twenty-seven European nations through the Council of Ministers, the EuropeanBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Parliament, the European Court of Justice, and the European Commission, which proposeslegislation on environment, trade, social policy, and regional development.The ARCHAEOMEDES project was a unique interdisciplinary effort involving more than adozen research institutions and incorporating both social and natural scientists, includinggeologists, geographers, biologists, archaeologists, and social anthropologists. Theresearchers’ integrated cross-cultural, evolutionary, human-ecodynamics approach treatedhumans and the environment as part of an interacting system.109 The project examinedenvironmental changes on different spatial and temporal scales in eight regions in Portugal,Spain, France, Italy, Croatia, and Greece. Social and environmental transformations wereviewed over five time scales: hundreds of millennia, tens of millennia, millennia, centuries,and decades. Land degradation includes the natural dynamic processes of tectonic uplift,erosion, and climate change, changes that often operate on a much longer time scale than humanactivities. It was found that for tens of thousands of years during the Paleolithic era, as long ashumans remained mobile or semi-mobile, the human impact on the Mediterranean landscapewas very small. Local erosion increased measurably during the Neolithic when people settledin farming villages and began clearing land and introducing grazing. Human disturbanceseventually became the dominant landscape process, but it was initially a very gradual process.After the Paleolithic, human pressure on the environment began to result in progressivelyshorter cycles of growth and collapse of the social cultural system, with each cycle covering alarger area and accompanied by more severe land degradation, leaving a less-resilientlandscape. Historically the Mediterranean landscape has always been shaped by political andeconomic forces involving social power and scale.ARCHAEOMEDES researchers found that half of the erosion during the past ten thousandyears in the Vera basin of southwestern Spain occurred during the past five hundred years, eventhough the region was occupied by villagers for five thousand years. Furthermore, over the past150 years the pace of erosion accelerated. During the seven centuries of the Roman period,from 100 BC to AD 600, the Romans introduced an intensive production system based onindividual property holdings, a large-scale irrigation grid, terracing, and drainage in the Rhonevalley of southern France. Landscape degradation patterns in the Rhone came to reflectinfluences from the Roman world political economy rather than local conditions. The Romansystem soon reached a critical threshold at which the entire system became vulnerable. By thesecond century AD widespread collapse occurred in the Rhone because the Roman drainagesystem proved unable to deal with extreme natural fluctuations in runoff. When researchersexamined one thousand Roman settlements, they found that 70 to 80 percent did not survivemore than two hundred years and many disappeared within one hundred years. The finalRoman collapse was a complex social and political problem rather than an environmentalcrisis, but it left behind a degraded landscape.Project researchers found that striking changes began in many areas in the 1850s with theintroduction of railroads and capitalist commercialization, producing a new and rapid cycle ofsocioeconomic transformation and landscape degradation. These changes in productivetechnology led to abandonment of many peripheral areas, the intensification of agriculture in aBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

few areas, and dependence on global markets. In many areas local populations viewed theabandonment of rural areas as landscape degradation because dense brush and treesoverwhelmed once-productive small farms and pastures. In the Argolid region in the GreekPeloponnesus during the decades between 1945 and 1995 a prosperous and diverse farmingarea was desiccated, degraded, and economically devastated by conversion to irrigated fruit-tree monoculture based on deep wells and motorized pumps. These changes, subsidized by thegovernment, were intended to make the region more competitive in the global market. Theunintended consequences were rapid drying up of local marshes, a falling water table,devastating orchard epidemics, salinization of soil and groundwater, frost problems, anddeclining profits. The Romans created similar problems, but over centuries.This review of the evidence of thirty millennia of cultural evolution makes it clear that thehuman and natural systems in the European Mediterranean have become less resilient and lesssustainable. It would be hard to argue that the cultural systems have become more adaptive asthey have grown larger. A report on phase two of the ARCHAEOMEDES project concludesthat economic growth is “frequently at odds with social health and well-being.”110 Large-scalemonocrop agriculture has reduced social and ecological diversity and resilience to change.Planetary Boundaries: Beyond the Earth’s Limits in theAnthropocene“Since the Industrial Revolution, a new era has arisen, the Anthropocene,in which human actions have become the main driver of globalenvironmental change. This could see human activities push the Earthsystem outside the stable environmental state of the Holocene, withconsequences that are detrimental or even catastrophic for large parts ofthe world.”—JOHN ROCKSTRÖM ET AL., NATURE (2009)111“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall bewidely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there arethreats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certaintyshall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures toprevent environmental degradation.”—RIO DECLARATION, PRINCIPLE 15, UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT (1992)112Our cultural ideology of ever-expanding economic growth conflicts with the reality of ourisolation in the universe and our utter dependence on our sun and the earth’s fragile life-support system. We have only known for certain that any other planets existed outside our solarsystem since 1992. A few hundred such exoplanets have now been located, and some might behabitable, but they are too far away to supply the energy and materials required by our everexpanding commercial civilization. In 2010 astrophysicists announced the discovery of GJBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

581g, the closest known potentially habitable planet. GJ 581g is a “goldilocks planet” of justthe right size and orbital position to have just the right temperature to support an atmosphereand liquid water that could sustain carbon-based life forms. The problem is that GJ 581g orbitsthe star Gliese 581, which is twenty light years, or two hundred trillion kilometers away.113Humans set foot on the moon in 1969, and we could reach Mars, but these are hostile worlds.GJ 581g is far beyond our reach, which makes it prudent to regard planet earth as humanity’spermanent home.In 2000, Nobel Prize–winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen and marine biologistEugene Stoermer proposed that people need to recognize that we are now living in a newgeological epoch that they call the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene is marked by large-scaleanthropogenic changes to the planet that first appear in geological strata dating from about1800 AD, coinciding with the invention of the steam engine.114 Crutzen and Stoermer pointed toseveral specific indicators of the Anthropocene, including evidence from glacial ice coresshowing that greenhouse gases suddenly began to accumulate in the atmosphere at that time andhave now reached levels that can be expected to disturb global climate for the next fiftythousand years. Human activities have also altered geochemical cycles in ways that show up inlake and ocean sediments. Human population increased tenfold between 1700 and 2000, andour per capita consumption levels also increased. Our commercially directed industrialprocesses caused a sudden doubling of atmospheric sulfur dioxide levels and we areproducing more synthetic nitrogen for fertilizer than the levels of nitrogen fixation by plants.Crutzen and Stoermer found these changes alarming and warned that our “continued plunderingof earth’s resources” would be a “major catastrophe” that would threaten humanity’s futureexistence. The magnitude of this sudden upturn in global population, landscape alteration(denudation), atmospheric carbon dioxide, temperature, and sea level rise are showngraphically in figure 2.6.Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Figure 2.6. Major geographically visible global anthropogenic physical changes in the earth system over the past tenthousand years. PPM, parts per million; M.Y., million years. (From Zalasiewicz, 2008)The very real question is: how long can the Anthropocene last before ongoing anthropogenicchanges to earth systems make the world uninhabitable? The challenge is how to minimize theharm, and especially how to avoid what system theorists call “nonlinear changes,” or “tippingpoints,” which are sudden, very drastic, even irreversible changes, like avalanches in asandpile. For example, gradual global warming could lead to a sudden melting of polarglaciers, causing an unexpectedly rapid rise in sea level. People are more accustomed the thinkof change as linear, a predictable series of gradual changes, each with the same effects. We cancontrol linear changes, but unfortunately, the most serious anthropogenic effects on the worldare likely to be nonlinear, unpredictable, and potentially very dangerous. The Anthropocenepresents a new challenge for humanity because we are now pushing our planet’s environmentinto unfamiliar conditions that are taking us far beyond anything that we have ever seen. Theproblem is that decisions people make now could have catastrophic outcomes for humanity farinto the future.An interdisciplinary team of researchers associated with the Stockholm Resilience Centre(founded 2007) responded to the Anthropocene challenge by developing a project to identifyand measure the limits of the natural processes that keep our planet’s natural processes withinhabitable limits.115 Their goal is to define planetary boundaries for a “safe operating space forhumanity” in reference to the pre-Anthropocene conditions that characterized the Holoceneover approximately the last ten thousand years. The natural glacial melt that marked thebeginning of the Holocene was followed by a long period of stable atmosphere, sea level, andglobal climate during which the earth’s natural processes maintained ideal conditions for thedevelopment of human cultures and societies. From a human perspective the Holocene was along interval of environmental balance not seen since the Lower Paleolithic some four hundredthousand years ago, well before the appearance of modern humans. Most modern Homosapiens over the past one hundred thousand years occurred during the Pleistocene geologicalepoch, which was dominated by glacial conditions. People made very dramatic culturalchanges during the more favorable Holocene conditions, including the adoption of settledvillage life, the domestication of plants and animals, and the development of the imperialworld and commercial worlds as noted in chapter 1 (figure 2.7). We can be certain that evenmore dramatic cultural changes will be required to stabilize global society and the earth’snatural systems during the Anthropocene.Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Figure 2.7. Previous 100,000 years of human development and global temperature measured by the ratio of oxygenisotopes in ocean sediments. (From Rockstom, 2009, figure 1)Our response to these challenges is being determined by elite-directors who do notunderstand the risks of exceeding planetary boundaries. Their narrow commercial focus isshort-sighted. An effective response to the Anthropocene challenge will require policy makersconcerned with environmental protection to fully apply the precautionary principle, which hasalready been widely adopted to varying degrees by many governments and internationalorganizations. The precautionary principle means that when there is a possibility that aparticular action could cause catastrophic environmental damage, scientific uncertainty overthe details should not be a reason for simply going ahead and taking the risk. For example,there are still political leaders who argue that the science may be wrong on global warming,and we should not take action to limit carbon emissions that scientists know contribute toglobal warming. The precautionary principle suggests that the benefits of avoiding potentiallycatastrophic global warming might outweigh the economic losses that would be experienced byplacing severe restrictions on carbon emissions, even if global warming turns out not to be areal problem (table 2.2). A modified precautionary principle was adopted by the 1992 UNEarth Summit Rio Declaration. It was weakened by the political process and became aprecautionary “approach,” rather than a “principle. It was to be applied by states in “cost-effective” ways and “according to their “capabilities,” as noted in the second openingquotation in this section. In view of the current risks to our planetary life-support system, theprecautionary principle needs to be fully applied and crucial planetary boundaries need to berespected.Table 2.2. Precautionary Principle: Global Warming PolicyBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Global Warming Does Not HappenGlobal Warming Is MajorLimit emissions, prepare to mitigatedamagesSome unnecessary expenditures, somebenefitsCatastrophe avoided, long-term threatreducedIgnore warningsNo unnecessary costsGlobal catastropheBased in part on Rueter, John. 2011. “Multiple Perspectives and Approaches to Complex Environmental Issues.” Version 4.2, table 9.4.web.pdx.edu/~rueterj/courses/ESM101/Multiple-perspectives-v42.pdf.Resiliency researchers propose specific boundaries for eight planetary variables(atmospheric carbon dioxide, species extinctions, phosphorus entering the ocean, nitrogenwithdrawn from the atmosphere, ozone levels, ocean acidification, the freshwater cycle, andland modification).116 All of these variables are adversely affected by human actions, and atleast three have already been pushed beyond safe boundaries (climate change, extinction rates,and the nitrogen cycles. Table 2.3 shows that the effects of these processes are interconnectedsuch that the individual effects of each will accelerate negative effects on the others. Thesecreate the potential for a cascade of nonlinear effects and lend special urgency to the need tobring all of these human activities under control.Table 2.3 Planetary BoundariesEarth-System Process and VariablesAdversely Impacted by HumanActivitiesEarth System ThreatHoloceneAverageValuesBoundaryPresentValueClimate RegulationAtmospheric carbon dioxide in partsper million (ppm).Climate change.Loss of polar ice sheets.Regional climate disruption.Loss of glacial melt freshwater.280350390BiodiversityExtinction rate in per million speciesyears (MSY).Massive extinctions. Disruption ofecosystems. Carbon held in biomassreleased to atmosphere, increasing globalwarming.0.1 to 110Greaterthan100Biogeochemical CyclesPhosphorus entering ocean, millionsof tons/year.Nitrogen removed from atmosphere,millions of tons/year.Eutrophication, low oxygen dead-zones inocean and inland waterways.Global warming from nitrous oxide.Nitrogen035121Phosphorus–1119Atmospheric Ozone levels in Dobsonunits, higher values are safer.UV radiation effects to health andecosystems.290276290Ocean AcidificationMeasured by the average saturationstate of calcium carbonate in theocean, shells dissolve at values of 1or lower.Loss of coral reefs, risks to marine mollusksand plankton. Carbon held in oceanreleased to atmosphere increasing globalwarming.3.42.752.9Freshwater CycleMeasured by global freshwaterconsumption in cubickilometers/year (km3/yr).Monsoon disrupted. Losses tobioproductivity. Carbon held in biomassreleased to atmosphere, increasing globalwarming.4154,00026,00Land UsePercentage of land cover converted toagricultureLarge-scale land degradation. Loss ofbiodiversity. Carbon held in biomassreleased to atmosphere increasing globalwarming.Low1512Modified from Rockström et al. (2009b, table 1).Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Extinctions and Biodiversity: Human Nature or Culture ScaleCrisis?Biodiversity is declining worldwide at an alarming rate, but except for mammals and birds,precise details of the losses are scarce. In the case of birds, the best known group of animalswhere extinction rates have been very carefully examined,117 global extinction rates may havereached one hundred per million species years (E/MSY) during the Polynesian settlement ofthe Pacific islands some two thousand years ago. This was because small populations of islandspecies are especially vulnerable. The baseline extinction rate for birds without humanimpacts is estimated to be one E/MSY or lower. Bird extinctions elevated slightly to 115globally under European colonial expansion, and then declined to sixty-five in recent decadesthanks to major conservation efforts to save endangered species (figure 2.8). However, theoutlook for birds and biodiversity in coming decades is not good. According to the Red List ofThreatened Species, prepared by the Species Survival Commission of the IUCN–WorldConservation Union in 2011,118 more than 12 percent of the world’s ten thousand bird species,and more than 21 percent of the world’s 5,494 mammals are threatened with extinction. Theprimary threat to birds is habitat loss, and the rate of bird extinctions is projected to soar to1,500 E/MSYs during the present century. Deforestation especially impacts the diverse birdsin tropical forest, and global warming shrinks bird habitats in the tropical highlands such as theAndes, which are recognized as “hotspots” of biodiversity.Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Figure 2.8. Bird extinction rates, estimated and projected, AD 1600 to 2100. (Data from Pimm, 2006)The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the world’s largest conservationorganization, has been reporting on the biodiversity since 1966. By 2011 they had evaluatedonly about 3 percent, just over fifty thousand of the 1.7 million scientifically describedspecies. There are probably only a handful of living bird species remaining to be discovered,but the total number of all life forms known to science represents only a small proportion of theplanet’s biodiversity, which may number from five to thirty million species, includinginvertebrates, plants, and microorganisms.119 Since 1970 indices of abundance for all animalspecies have been in decline.120 This matters because, as the UN’s Millennium EcosystemAssessment points out, extinction rates are now orders of magnitude greater than in the distantpast as recorded in the fossil record, yet biodiversity is the basis of the ecosystem services onwhich human well-being depends.Many writers suggest that this is not a new problem but is rooted in a voracious humannature, as presumably demonstrated by extinctions caused by tribal peoples. The implication isthat we cannot prevent “natural” extinctions, but this conclusion would be a misinterpretationof the anthropological record. There has been much discussion about whether any people everpracticed sustainable hunting and about whether tribal people were intentionalconservationists, or whether tribal conservation, if it existed at all, was an epiphenomenon. Mygeneral conclusion is that subsistence hunting by people in self-sufficient tribal cultures was aBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

highly resilient adaptation. Subsistence hunting endured for millennia through changes inclimate, vegetation, fauna, technology, and ethnic identity. Low density and low demandproduced cultural resiliency without intentional conservation, and these systems were resilientenough to endure in spite of episodes of overhunting. There is no need to appeal to a mythical“perfect balance” between predator and prey to recognize the adaptive advantages of small-scale cultures. Likewise, arguments that tribal hunters were no different in their use ofresources from larger-scale societies can be misleading. For example, Shepard Krech IIIeffectively demonstrated that Native Americans were not always conservationists, but hisdiscussion included trappers involved in the commercial fur trade and farming peoples livingin large permanent villages, along with very low-density Paleolithic hunters.121 Geoscienceresearcher Paul S. Martin took the extreme view that within the last fifteen thousand yearstribal hunters overhunted and destroyed hundreds of species, especially large mammals.122 Heconcluded: “The thought that prehistoric hunters . . . exterminated far more large animals thanhas modern man with modern weapons and advanced technology is certainly provocative andperhaps even deeply disturbing.”123The “Pleistocene overkill” or “blitzkrieg” argument is certainly dramatic and must temperour view of tribal societies and their relationship to the environment. The implications of thisproblem are certainly serious enough to merit careful examination. The undisputed facts arebriefly as follows: Throughout the world over a fifty-thousand-year period during the latePleistocene period, some two hundred genera disappeared. These extinctions involved manylarge animals, such as the mastodon and mammoth, giant birds, giant kangaroos, and other“mega” forms. These animals were not replaced by related species. Although the chronologyof these extinctions is not precise, early human populations were colonizing new portions ofthe globe and improving their hunting technologies during roughly the same time period.However, some researchers stress that, at least for North America, there is no archaeologicalor paleontological evidence for the Pleistocene Overkill hypothesis.124 There are only fourteenknown sites where hunters associated with the Clovis culture occur together with mammothsand mastodons, and these are the only extinct animals found with Clovis sites. In fact, onlyfifteen of the thirty-five genera that disappeared lasted beyond twelve thousand years ago.Looking at the entire sweep of megafaunal extinctions in North America, they conclude, “Largemammal extinctions occurred at the end of the Pleistocene with or without Clovis, with orwithout the presence of human predators.”125When Martin first presented his argument, it was based largely on circumstantial evidenceand the absence of equally plausible counter evidence. Later research challenged some ofMartin’s basic assumptions and in some cases made his argument stronger. The overkillhypothesis is strengthened by the apparent correspondence of New World extinctions with thearrival of humans, yet numerous Pleistocene megafauna survived in Africa, where humansoriginated. In some cases extinctions actually preceded the arrival of humans with advancedhunting technologies and involved more than merely big game species.126 Direct overkill seemsincreasingly unlikely to have everywhere been the sole cause of these extinctions; rather, acombination of climatic and environmental changes, along with various indirect effects ofBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

human intervention, seem more likely causes of megafauna extinctions.127Anthropological interpretations of hunting cultures suggest that overkill to the point ofexterminating major prey species is theoretically very unlikely.128 In the first place, huntersrarely relied exclusively on a single prey species, and often the bulk of their diet was based onplant foods. Furthermore, hunting systems stressed predictability and energy efficiency. Asparticular prey species become scarce it becomes inefficient to hunt them. Any subsistencesystem based on deliberately hunting key prey species to extinction would have been extremelyunreliable, wasteful of time and energy, and disastrous in the long run. This is, of course, not tosay that tribal hunters never wasted game animals because, even though there was often astrong ethic against wasteful overhunting, certainly in many cases full utilization of game killedwas impossible or impractical.Impressive evidence of the long-term resilience of hunting cultures is found in thearchaeological record left by mid– and late–Stone Age peoples in southern Africa, covering atime span from the recent past to over 130,000 years ago. Richard Klein made a careful studyof the age and sex distribution of the game animals taken by Stone Age hunters, based on ananalysis of the bones left in their camps.129 He discovered that the pattern of human predation onlarge, dangerous game animals such as buffalo closely resembled that of natural predators suchas lions. Human hunters took only the very young or very old individuals. He concluded that“the age distribution of buffalo in the archaeological kill samples is what one might expect ifthe Stone Age hunters were to enjoy a lasting, stable relationship with prey populations ofbuffalo.”130 Furthermore, he found no evidence of a decline in the buffalo population, eventhough they were hunted for tens of thousands of years. Klein found that even species of docileor small antelope, such as the eland and steenbok, which were easily driven or trapped,showed no evidence of any significant decline in numbers, even though they were utilizedrelatively intensively. Extinctions of game animals did occur during the period of humanoccupation, however, and Klein raised the possibility that improved hunting technology mayhave been a factor in some of these cases.It is important to keep the issue of Pleistocene extinctions in perspective. Even if it can bedemonstrated that tribal hunters did play a significant role in these extinctions, the losses arequite trivial compared with the scale of extinctions under way today. The speed, scale, andscope of the present extinction rate would appear to equal or exceed any mass extinctions inthe recent geologic past, perhaps with the exception of a catastrophic meteorite collision withearth. The causes of the current extinctions are primarily landscape degradation, directcommercial exploitation, and pollution. The present extinction episode was initiated by theuncontrolled European invasion of the Western Hemisphere, which caused a massive die-off ofnative species severe enough to be called “biological imperialism.”131 The natural, backgroundrate of extinction for all plant and animal species in geologic history is estimated to be fromone to ten species a year, but the current rate of extinction may be as high as one thousandspecies per year.132 Any estimates of extinction rates are of course problematic, but theyprovide a useful perspective on the present situation.Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Tribal and Small-Scale Domestic EconomiesGiven the critical role that economics must play in any culture, some of the most importantcontrasts between tribal and small-scale indigenous societies and larger-scale politicallycentralized and commercial societies should be expected to be seen in the organization anddistribution of production and consumption, and related beliefs and practices. Small-scalesocieties include autonomous tribes existing historically in a world without governments aswell as relatively self-sufficient rural communities where householders may pay taxes ortribute and are often involved in varying degrees with the market economy. Such communitiesmay also exist at widely different population densities, in different environments, and withdifferent subsistence technologies. They may also differ in the extent to which resources arecontrolled by households, or communally, and in degrees of wealth inequality betweenhouseholds. What these small-scale societies have in common is their emphasis on local self-sufficiency and community sustainability, domestic-level management, and absence ofcommunity-level class divisions. These systems can all be disrupted by the intervention ofgovernments or external commercial forces.Unfortunately, attempts by earlier anthropologists to describe tribal economic systems as ifthey merely represented simplified capitalist market economies resulted in misunderstanding ofthe economic patterns of these domestic-scale societies. In the older anthropological literatureit is not uncommon to find tribal economies described as if they were imperfectly developedmarket economies, with shell necklaces labeled money. At least one early economicanthropology textbook attempted to follow classical economic analysis throughout, assumingthat tribal systems displayed capitalist economic institutions, even if in a blurred andgeneralized fashion.133 This viewpoint has been called the formalist approach, in contrast toviews of substantivist anthropologists, who emphasized the unique features of tribaleconomies. Shed of some of the language of capitalist economics, the formalist view stressesthat people everywhere are driven by self-interest and ever-expanding wants and always seekto maximize ends and minimize means.134 Unfortunately, such interpretations have obscured boththe significant accomplishments and the unique qualities of tribal economic systems.Classical economic theory is an inadequate basis for understanding human behavior in anycultural world, because it assumes that, as decision makers, people are either rationalconsumers, seeking to maximize utility, or they are capitalist entrepreneurs, always seeking tomaximize profits. From this theoretical perspective human decision makers are fully andconsistently rational beings with clear goals. In the 1950s, Nobel Prize–winning cognitivepsychologist and management specialist Herbert A. Simon (1916–2001) found such models“inappropriate” when applied to the behavior of real individuals in social groups. As heexplained: “The capacity of the human mind for formulating and solving complex problems isvery small compared with the size of the problems whose solution is required for objectivelyrational behavior.”135According to Simon, human decision making and problem solving is very seriouslyconstrained, or “bounded,” by what we know, as well as our individual cognitive abilities, andthe effects of decision making in groups. Making the most rational choice in the market place ofBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

classical economic theory requires perfect knowledge, which people are unlikely to possess,especially in a world where commercial advertising forcefully spins seductive illusions to sellproducts. Because people are not omniscient, they are forced to construct simplified mentalmodels of reality to aid their decision making. People do the best they can, with the limitedinformation available, and with their limited cognitive abilities. Everyone’s rationality isbounded rationality, and therefore, classical economic models are unrealistic. All peoplesprobably try to economize with their time and energy, as exemplified by the wide applicabilityof George Kingsley Zipf’s “principle of least effort”136 and as further demonstrated by optimalforaging theory,137 but the specific goals of economic activity may vary widely in societiesorganized at different scales.In capitalist economies, people produce not primarily for their own use but rather for sale orexchange value, and land, labor, and money are all for sale. Of course, goods are both usedand exchanged in both tribal and capitalist economies. However, in a tribal, or use value,economy, producers are directly involved in production decision making and are immediatelyconcerned with both the environmental and the social consequences of production. Thesedistinctions draw attention to the dual impact on the domestic, or household, economy ofsurplus extraction by the state, as well as the tendency of capitalist systems to alienate ruralpeoples from their subsistence bases and convert them into a wage-dependent labor force.Certainly the most significant contrast between tribal societies and both politically centralizedand commercial societies hinges on the relative importance of markets and kinship-basedsocial formations.Substantivist anthropologists such as Robert Redfield have emphasized the relativetechnological simplicity of tribal economies, the fact that there is a minimal division of laboror that everyone has equal access to the means of production, and that such small societies arebasically economically self-sufficient.138 Paul Radin argued that tribal economies aredistinguished most remarkably by their emphasis on the concept of an “irreducible minimum.”According to Radin, “primitive” economies operate on the principle that “every human beinghas the inalienable right to an irreducible minimum, consisting of adequate food, shelter andclothing.”139 In other words, tribal economies are designed to satisfy basic human needs, insharp contrast to imperial societies in which tribute supports an elite class, or the commercialsystem, in which profit furthers capital accumulation.Whereas tribal economies are often correctly described as cashless, subsistence based, andsimple in technology, these obvious contrasts alone do not explain their achievements. Equallyimportant are the built-in limits to economic growth that characterize tribal societies and thefact that tribal peoples explicitly recognize their dependence on the natural environment. In thisrespect, one of the key concepts in tribal economics is that of limited good, described byGeorge Foster as the assumption that “all desired things in life . . . exist in finite andunexpandable quantities.”140 Tribals make this principle central to their economic system, whilemarket economies operate on the diametrically opposed principle of unlimited good, assumingthat “with each passing generation people on average will have more of the good things oflife.” Within a tribal economy several specific attributes, such as wealth-leveling devices,Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

absolute property ceilings, fixed wants,141 and the complementarity of production and needs, allcenter on the principle of limited good and contribute directly to the maintenance of a basicallystable, no-growth economy.In a tribal society, wants are not considered open to infinite expansion, and the economy isdesigned to fill existing wants by producing exactly what is culturally recognized as a need.Conspicuous wealth inequalities may be considered direct threats to the stability of a tribalcommunity, and individual overacquisitiveness may be countered with public censure,expulsion, or charges of witchcraft. At the same time, individuals may obtain prestige throughgenerosity, and the redistribution or destruction of excess goods is accomplished throughkinship and ceremonial obligations, feasting, and gambling. In contrast, the global marketeconomy operates on the assumption that wants must be continually expanded. Specificinstitutions, such as advertising agencies, are employed to increase wants, and with individualacquisitiveness, conspicuous consumption brings greater prestige, as sociologist ThorsteinVeblen noted long ago.142Formalist anthropologists sometimes minimized the significance of growth-curbingmechanisms in tribal economies and instead incorrectly represented as cultural universals theunlimited acquisitiveness characteristic of our economic system and the parallel inability tosatisfy all of our society’s wants.Cultural devices to curb wants in tribal societies are also sometimes attributed tounavoidable circumstances, such as the fact that any accumulation of unessential goods wouldmerely be an undesirable and impossible burden for nomadic peoples, but this is not the casefor sedentary villagers, for whom limits on property accumulation are also important. Toexplain their culturally imposed limits on economic growth, villagers often simply state thatproperty must not be allowed to threaten their basically egalitarian social systems. This is asignificant point, because tribally organized economic systems, with their careful limits onmaterial wealth, do in fact occur within relatively egalitarian social systems. In contrast,market systems occur in significantly less egalitarian systems.Some ethnocentric economic-development writers have suggested that the only reason tribalsocieties curb their wants is because their technologies cannot fill them, the implication beingthat more productive techniques would free people’s innate capacity for unlimited wants.Indeed, at various times anthropologists have dramatically overemphasized the supposedtechnological deficiencies of tribal economies.143 Tribal systems have been described as barelyable to meet subsistence needs, and it has been assumed that tribal peoples faced a daily threatof starvation that forced them to devote virtually all their waking moments to the food quest.This view remained almost unchallenged until careful studies of productivity and time-energyexpenditure in tribal societies revealed that even the most technologically simple peoples wereroutinely able to satisfy all their subsistence requirements with relatively little effort. Much ofthe data was reviewed by Sahlins in his Stone Age Economics.144 It has been shown, in fact, thatmany of these societies could have produced far more food if they had been so inclined;instead, people preferred to spend their time at other activities, such as socializing and leisure.It was discovered that hunters such as the Kalahari San (Bushmen) and certain AustralianBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Aborigines, who were thought to be among those groups closest to the starvation level, put inon average no more than a twenty-hour workweek getting food.145 Other researchers haveshown that shifting cultivation systems offer a reliable subsistence base that is actually moreenergy efficient than the “factory farm” techniques replacing them.146 On the basis of this kind ofevidence, it can be assumed that tribals did not deliberately curb their wants and operate stableeconomies merely because they were incapable of either producing or desiring more orbecause circumstances automatically prevented the accumulation of goods. Rather, it wouldappear that such systems survived and proliferated because of their long-run adaptive value.Wealth in Tribal and Commercial WorldsIn the 1980s the World Bank considered indigenous, or tribal, peoples to be the “the poorest ofthe poor,”147 in part because they were completely outside of the world monetary economy.However, from a broader perspective, people in the tribal world may be considered verywealthy. Wealth can be compared cross-culturally by carefully distinguishing wealth fromincome, and by expanding the meaning of wealth to include things that are normally excludedfrom national monetary accounts, such as the value of human beings, the value of society andculture, and the value of nature. The narrow focus of the commercial culture on financialproperty, as well as moveable tangible property, land, and structures, leaves uncounted theprimary determinants of human well-being.For example, the household wealth of the tribal Matsigenka people of the Peruvian Amazoncan be estimated for comparative purposes by assigning a monetary value to the hours theyallocate to basic productive activities.148 In the 1970s Matsigenka men and women spent about10.5 hours a day in productive activities, about 5.5 at leisure, and about 8 hours sleeping. Theyspent about 70 percent of their productive time in food production and preparation, childcare,eating and hygiene, and various routine chores to maintain and reproduce their households.Only about 15 percent of their productive effort was devoted to manufacturing and maintainingtheir domestic goods. The remaining 15 percent of their productive time was devoted tohousehold and community activities, including visiting and conversation that served toproduce, maintain, and transmit their social networks and cultural information. Assigning anarbitrary dollar value of $9.08 per hour (the lowest average wage of service workers in theretail sector of the American economy in 1999) to the 7,811 hours the Matsigenka devoted toall of these productive activities yields an imputed income of $70,924 for a year. This is ameasure of the Social Product of Matsigenka society, and assuming an average household sizeof five persons, could be considered broadly comparable to a Gross Domestic Product of$14,185 per capita in standard national accounts. This figure is roughly equivalent to the WorldBank’s 2004 ranking of Portugal, as a High Income OECD country with a per capita GrossNational Income of $14,350 in US market exchange dollars, or $19,250 in PPP (PurchasingPower Parity) dollars.149 PPP dollars reflect the prices of local consumer goods in eachcountry, whereas exchange rate dollars represent the value of finance capital in globalfinancial markets. Evaluating tribal Social Product at these levels may seem too high,considering their modest material culture, but in the tribal world the entire social product isBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

consumed directly by households, and there is virtually no overhead paid for politicalinstitutions, or elite classes, in the form of tribute or taxes. People are able to maximizeindividual freedom and autonomy, which are important human values, and they live in absolutematerial comfort. They are well fed, comfortably housed, and clothed according to thestandards of their culture.Tribal Social Product values can be converted to equivalent wealth values by consideringthe Social Product to be an annual investment in the production and maintenance of humanbeings, society, and culture, as well as assuming that it represents a modest 5 percent return oncapital. This calculation, allowing for capital depreciation, produces an average wealth figureof $1,032,873 for the Matsigenka household, suggesting that they are millionaires. Of coursethese wealth values are not negotiable in the present global market economy. In a real sense,Matsigenka society and culture are priceless, but this valuation suggests an underlying rankingthat contrasts with market values in the commercial world. Family and household are thehighest tribal values. This is the humanization process discussed in chapter 1. Most (88percent) of the Matsigenka’s effort is invested in producing and maintaining the members oftheir households. Society and nonmaterial culture ranks next in value at 8 percent, and only 4percent can be attributed to their material culture.In the commercial world, balance sheets and wealth surveys show considerable variation inthe composition of wealth in households in different countries. Human beings and nature areconspicuously absent from these accounts. In the financially rich United States in 2000, 42percent of household wealth was in financial assets, and housing assets accounted for 55percent of nonfinancial assets. In India, a financially poor country, only 5 percent of householdwealth was in financial assets, and housing assets accounted for only 30 percent ofnonfinancial assets. For the commercial world as a whole, household net worth was $33,893(exchange rate US dollars) per adult, or $43,628 in PPP dollars as a global adult average in2000. These figures are based on a remarkable study sponsored by the United Nations WorldInstitute for Development Economics Research that for the first time estimated householdwealth for the entire world.150 This assumes 3.6 billion adults and global household net worthof $125 trillion (exchange rate), or $161 trillion in PPP dollars. Global wealth of $161 trillionPPP dollars for 6 billion people is $26,886 per capita and would be $134,429 for a globalaverage household of five persons, but of course global household wealth is not equitablydistributed. These figures are not strictly comparable with the Matsigenka wealth figures,because they reflect differences in what culturally constitutes wealth in the commercial world,as well as how it is calculated.Given that tribal peoples draw much of their material income directly from nature, it is alsonecessary to treat nature as part of their wealth. Environmental scientists have estimated thattropical forests worldwide produce ecosystem services worth $2,007 per hectare by recyclingnutrients, microorganisms forming soil, plants converting carbon dioxide into food energy,provisioning fresh water, and maintaining biodiversity, and so forth.151 This represents what itwould cost if people took on these natural tasks themselves, for example, by building andmaintaining factories and water-purification plants, sequestering carbon, turning petroleum intoBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

plastics and petrochemicals, and adding synthetically manufactured fertilizer to the soil. Wecan do all of these things with the aid of machines, human labor, and fuels, but it is very costly.Nature’s value as capital can be calculated at an absolute minimum by the biomass value inhectares of the biological product that households appropriate directly. For example, theAsháninka neighbors of the Matsigenka use the equivalent of all the biological product of threehectares of rain forest per household annually (table 2.4). At $2,007 per hectare for nature’secosystem services, this would be $5,941, which if capitalized at 5 percent would be$118,814. This is just under the global average household wealth figure of $134,429 cited.However, this is too low because it does not allow for the self-maintenance of the ecosystem.It is more meaningful to include the value of the five hundred forest hectares per householdneeded to keep the Asháninka supplied with game152 or the 1,238 hectares per household thatwould conserve the entire forest ecosystem. This assumes an Asháninka population density of0.4 persons/km2 and best reflects the ecosystem area that is needed to sustainably provide theirmaterial needs, allowing a wide margin that would accommodate future population growthwithout degrading the services that the tropical forest provides. The conservation areacalculations, capitalized at 5 percent, yield figures of from $20 million to nearly $50 millionfor the value of natural capital per household. This would make these tribal peoples deca-millionaires, rather than simply millionaires.Table 2.4. Wealth of Nature in the Tribal World: Asháninka Household Natural CapitalHectares/HouseholdNature’s Services $2,007/HectareCapitalized 5% ValueAppropriated biomass3$5,941$118,814Game conservation area500$1,003,500$20,070,000Forest conservation area1,238$2,484,857$49,697,143Note: Example of calculations: Value of appropriated biomass: 3 hectares × $5941 / .05 = $118,814.Biological Potential and Cultural Demand in the PacificNorthwestCultural scale differences in environmental adaptation between tribal and commercial worldsare especially striking in the case of the Pacific Northwest (PNW) of North America. Table2.5 compares the cultural demand placed on natural resources by tribal world peoples in 1750and the commercial world in 2000. The PNW includes the present states of Idaho, Oregon, andWashington and neighboring portions of British Columbia, covering coastal areas and thebasins of the Columbia and Fraser Rivers, which originate in the Canadian Rockies. This is ahighly diverse natural region where fifteen terrestrial and sixty-six freshwater ecoregions havebeen distinguished. There are thirty-two distinctive habitat types and 593 wildlife species inOregon and Washington alone.153 The Columbia and Fraser Rivers are famous for havingBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

supported one of the world’s greatest salmon fisheries. In 1750, on the eve of Europeancolonization, perhaps two hundred thousand tribal world people were living in the region insmall tribal societies and small chiefdoms representing eight language families and seventeencultural subareas. Many groups lived in permanent villages and all depended on fishing,hunting, and collecting wild plant resources. Their ancestors entered the interior ColumbiaBasin at least ten thousand years ago and their cultural system proved to be highlysustainable.154 A careful assessment of their aggregate subsistence demand suggests that tribalworld peoples were using less than 1 percent of the potential annual biological product of thisvast region.Table 2.5. Biological Potential and Cultural Demand in the Pacific Northwest, 1750 and 2000Cultural DemandTribal World, 1750Commercial World, 2000Biological Potential15 Terrestrial ecosystems5 Salmon eco-regions97 Million equivalent global hectares8 Language families17 Cultural subareas400 Tribes andchiefdomsBritish Columbia, Oregon, Washington,IdahoPopulation200,000 people14,600,000 peopleGlobal hectares appropriated230,000126,636,367Percentage of potential biological productappropriated0.24131In contrast to the sustainability of tribal world cultures, the cultural demands placed on thePNW’s natural resources by Euro-American settlers in the 150 years after 1850 was abiological catastrophe that quickly proved unsustainable. By 1880 the immigrant populationexceeded the native population, and by 1900 there were a million people in the region, and thepopulation exceeded ten million when the commercial world culture was appropriating theequivalent of 131 percent of the 1750 baseline biological product. A major dam-buildingproject begun on the Columbia River in the 1930s, along with intensive commercial fishing,quickly devastated the once massive salmon runs. Seemingly endless stands of centuries old,250-foot-high giant trees in the coastal forests were almost totally cut down within the firstfive decades of the twentieth century.155 The Palouse Grasslands, one of the region’s fifteenterrestrial ecoregions, was virtually destroyed and replaced to make way for wheat farming.By 2000, 98 percent of the wild salmon runs in the Columbia drainage and 80 to 90 percent of“old growth” forests in western Oregon and Washington were gone. Salmon were listed underthe Endangered Species Act in 1991 and expensive efforts were underway to “save” them, butby 1997 the annual harvest of farmed salmon exceeded the wild catch.A remarkable transformation accompanied the loss of the Columbia River salmon. Salmonmature in the ocean and formerly deposited as much as one hundred million kilograms ofmarine energy and materials throughout the Columbia Basin in their biomass when theyBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

returned to spawn in the headwaters. Less than 1 percent of this now reaches the interior.156 Inplace of the salmon, barges now transport wheat downstream and fertilizer and petroleumupstream. PNW forests, rivers, and soils contributed to the tenfold increase in the nationaleconomy between 1938 and 2004. Northwest wheat, cattle, and fruit have helped to feed thecountry and the world. PNW hydroelectric power and nuclear facilities helped win World WarII and helped pull the country out of the Great Depression. PNW lumber and plywood suppliedthe nation’s postwar building boom. By 2005 there were a dozen resident billionairescollectively worth some $95 billion, thanks largely to the success of regionally based softwareand telecommunications industries. However, the PNW’s growth has also been accompaniedby persistent poverty and has contributed to global warming and to the related deterioration ofthe region’s magnificent natural resources, including some of the world’s finest temperaterainforests and greatest salmon fisheries. The large-scale commercial development pathwaypeople followed after 1850 was not sustainable and not the only possible alternative.Sociocultural Scale and the EnvironmentAnthropologists have widely discussed whether tribal peoples are more in balance with naturethan are people operating in the commercial world, or whether this is even a legitimatedistinction to draw. Some cultural anthropologists reject the possibility that tribals could be inbalance with nature, arguing that the terms “nature” and “balance” are simply culturallyspecific metaphors that exist only as narratives, or that balance cannot be meaningfullymeasured.157 Some evolutionary anthropologists also argue that tribal peoples are not “true”conservationists.158 These are false issues, because what matters is our ability to meeteveryone’s human needs over at least the next millennium, and that depends on the maintenanceof many very real natural balances.Some observers have maintained, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, thattribal cultures have no special advantages in their relationships to the environment incomparison to the global-scale commercial culture. For example, writing in the 1980s beforeglobal warming and deforestation were widespread concerns, anthropologist Terry Ramboobserved that forest clearing by the tribal Semang, shifting cultivators of Malaysia, modifiedthe local climate and introduced particulate matter and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.159He described the Semang as “primitive polluters” who demonstrated “the essential functionalsimilarity of the environmental interactions of primitive and civilized societies.”160 Exhaledcarbon monoxide and wood smoke from a handful of small fires produced by a few hundredthinly scattered residents of a rain forest can be called pollution, but there is a crucial order-of-magnitude difference between this kind of pollution and the global climate-altering pollutionproduced by commercial societies. Equating these very different cultural phenomena obscuresthe environmental significance of scale and power.The narrow range of environments that individual tribal societies exploit is a distinctivefeature of tribal adaptations in contrast with global commercial societies. In 1976distinguished ecologist and conservationist Raymond Dasmann highlighted this contrast whenhe drew a distinction between “Ecosystem” and “Biosphere” peoples.161 Dasmann’s definitionBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

stressed the fact that Ecosystem peoples, or people living in tribal societies, depend on theresources supplied by local ecosystems and know immediately if their exploitation patterns aredamaging. This distinction corresponds, respectively, to the categories tribal world andcommercial world, as used in this book. Biosphere peoples extract resources from throughoutthe globe and may not even be aware of, or immediately affected by, the local destruction ofecosystems that they might cause. If too wide a range is exploited, a society might escape theecological constraints of a given local environment and ignore its own detrimental impact onthat environment. Commercial nations and global corporations are dependent on resourcesfrom throughout the world and can bring overwhelming forces to bear on particular localenvironments; in the short run, however, they remain immune to whatever damage they maycause. For example, at the present time the Amazon rainforest ecosystem is beingsystematically destroyed by remote decision makers in the commercial capitals of the world.The tribal peoples occupying the Amazon remain dependent on their local environments andcan respond immediately to detrimental changes within them.162 Anthropologist Roy Rappaportmade the same point using a New Guinea example.163 Recognizing this critical contrast does notmean that self-sufficient tribals or contemporary indigenous peoples are “ecologically noble”or intentional conservationists.164 It does mean that they have a more sustainable culturalsystem.Tribal hunters seldom display intentional conservation practices, which evolutionaryecologists narrowly define as trading off immediate benefits from unlimited hunting inexchange for the long-term benefits of a sustainable harvest. This definition would requiretribal hunters to take into account future discount rates and marginal returns, just like any goodmarket economist. Given the universality of bounded rationality, hunters may have many thingsin mind, including their beliefs in a supernatural world of spirits and beings that protect thegame and punish human misbehavior. “True” conservation practices would also by definitionneed to have specific long-term selective advantages. This would exclude hunting practicesthat might have multiple, or unconscious, intentions, as well as sustainable outcomes that mightbe due to multiple causes. In such cases, “conservation” would be considered an“epiphenomenon,” but such tribal harvesting practices might nevertheless be sustainable. Whenforagers move to a different area to harvest resources because their rate of return has fallen off,they may be merely trying to maximize their daily returns relative to effort expended, but thelong-term effect conserves game. Even a food preference for wild game, rather than domesticanimals, is a cultural choice that presupposes low population density and a small society. Thecrucial underlying variable is the scale of tribal society, cultural intentions, and the limiteddemands they place on nature.Nature, balance, and conservation are all measurable concepts grounded in the realities ofthe physical universe, and they all relate to the sustainability of societies and ecosystems.Nature is existence without people, even though people can be considered to be part of naturewhen they are viewed as biological organisms. Nature and culture are fundamental categoriesuniversally recognized by tribal peoples as complementary oppositions, which suggests theutility of such beliefs. It is often helpful to personify nature in thinking about how people relateBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

to nonhuman reality. Humans of course are part of the physical world, but it is still useful toimagine the world as it exists apart from people. The specific metaphors that people use whenthey refer to the physical world may be less important than how their understandings shapetheir actions.These problems of cross-cultural comparison can be clarified by taking into account thenatural laws of the physical world as we now understand them. Pioneer French chemistAntoine Lavoisier discovered in 1789 that matter was conserved in chemical reactions,demonstrating that “balances” really do exist in nature. Furthermore, the laws ofthermodynamics, which were barely understood until the late nineteenth century, tell us thatboth matter (mass) and energy are “conserved” as work is performed, and as matter and energyflow and change form. Neither can be created nor destroyed, but each can be transformed intothe other, as demonstrated by the first intentional nuclear explosions in 1945. The commercialworld has clearly caused some critical imbalances in nature, although often their direct effectsare observable only in the laboratory. For example, the chemical element phosphorus is acrucial component of living organisms and the soil, where it exists in measurable quantities,flows, and balances.165 Human bone, blood, tissue, and DNA contain nearly a kilogram ofphosphorus, and it is recycled at a rate of more than a kilogram per hour in energy transfers thatpower biochemical reactions that build proteins and contract muscles within the body.Industrial farmers create imbalance in soil phosphorus when they apply more than theywithdraw in farm products.166 Excess soil phosphorus runs off, causing eutrophication that killsaquatic animals and makes water undrinkable. Currently, the most dangerous worldwideimbalances are disruption of the natural carbon cycle causing global warming, and the suddendominance of humans in global energy flows that reduces biodiversity and diminishes nature’sability to meet human needs.Our cultural understanding of the physical world has grown in support of our increaseddemands for energy and materials. Societies that make light demands on nature do not requirespecial institutions and specialists to produce costly scientific knowledge of physics,chemistry, and biology. Tribal peoples metaphorically sorted reality into multiple sets of verybasic opposing principles such as male and female, life and death, or nature and culture. Theynamed plants and animals, and other natural phenomena, but did not need specific knowledgeof atoms and molecules, or the laws of thermodynamics. Their system of knowledge workedfor them very efficiently, because most of their needs came from nature’s services withminimal human intervention. In the imperial world, ancient philosophers and medievalalchemists believed that matter consisted of just four elements—earth, air, fire, and water—and grouped them into four qualities—hot, cold, wet, and dry—much like tribal cosmologies.They were aware of seven metals—gold, silver, iron, mercury, tin, copper, and lead—andassociated each with a planet. When European colonial expansion began by about 1500, onlyfifteen elements were known to exist. By 1800, at the beginning of the industrial age, onlythirty-two of the 115 elements now known had been discovered.Ecological FootprintsBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

The change in the relationship of humans to the physical world caused by changes in the scaleof societies and cultures is perhaps most strikingly seen in the increase in the energy andmaterial requirements of people, both on a per capita basis and in absolute quantities, and inrelation to the biological production of the nonhuman world. Human consumption of naturalresources can be expressed as an ecological footprint.167 The ecological footprint is measuredusing a standard global hectare of average biological productivity (the energy value of NPP,net primary plant biomass, per square meter per year) to calculate and compare the biologicalequivalent area that would be needed to produce the food, fiber, energy, and materials thatpeople consume and to recycle the waste generated. The ecological footprint is a usefulmeasure of the human demand on nature, because it compares consumption with the potentialbiological production naturally available in a particular region or the entire world. It accountsfor the biological value of fossil fuel energy by estimating its biomass equivalent. Thebiological value of a standard global hectare in the present is here estimated at 56.7 millionkcal per year, calculated by summing the caloric value in the 1970s of all net biomassproduced in eleven different ecozones throughout the world—exclusive of oceans, extremedeserts, polar, and alpine zones—and dividing by total hectares. By this measure a tropicalrain forest (NPP 2,200 gms/m2/yr) is nearly 70 percent more productive than average cultivatedland (NPP 650 gms/m2/yr).Tribal societies have much smaller ecological footprints than the average of most nations inthe contemporary world. They use a smaller proportion of the biological capacity of theirterritories (as shown in the example from the PNW), and their household footprints are muchmore equitably distributed. According to international footprint estimates in the WWF LivingPlanet Report for 2010, based on figures from 2007,168 the average ecological footprint for 148countries ranged from 0.4 (Timor-Leste) to 10.6 (United Arab Emirates) standard hectares perperson, averaging 2.7 hectares for the world. In 2001 the global footprint was about evenlydivided between food and fiber production (agriculture) and energy, with 87 percent of theenergy portion in fossil fuels. Significantly, the national footprints of eighty-seven countrieswith some five billion people exceeded their national bioproductive capacities. Thesecountries needed to import to make up their deficits, and/or they relied on fossil fuels (table2.6). These realities highlight the enormous importance of global fossil fuel dependency.Table 2.6. Global Ecological Footprint, 2001Hectares/CapitaPercentagePercentageEnergy1.18—54—Fossil fuel—1.03—47Nuclear—0.09—4Fuelwood—0.06—3Food and Materials0.94—43—Cropland—0.49—22Forest—0.18—8Grazing—0.14—6Fishing—0.13—6Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Built-up land0.070.0733Totals2.192.19100100Data from Living Planet Report (2004). Jonathan Loh and Mathis Wackernagel. 2004. Living Planet Report. Gland, Switzerland: WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature.Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Sample tribal footprints, according to my calculations, range from 0.08 to 1.1, based on myestimates for Australian foragers, African herders, and tropical forest gardener-foragers, butbecause their populations are so small relative to the natural resources available, their impactis typically miniscule. For example, the Asháninka, tropical forest village gardeners andhunters in the Peruvian Amazon, take less than 0.25 percent of the annual biological product oftheir territory (figure 2.9). These calculations take into account not just a per person dailyaverage of 2,500 calories of food, but they also include an estimate of the primary biomass atthe bottom of the food chain that ultimately produced the game animals, and the biomass of thegardens, and of the forest that was removed when gardens and house sites were cleared,including an allowance for forest fallow and garden production not consumed. The finalfigures suggest that half of the Asháninka ecological footprint is in the garden and a third ingame animals (table 2.7). There of course is no figure for fossil fuels. The most important pointof comparison between tribal footprints, represented by the Asháninka example, and nation-state footprints in the commercial world, is that given their very low population density, theAsháninka, with a per capita footprint of only 1.1 global equivalent hectares, were using only0.24 of the biocapacity of their territory. This very low demand guaranteed that their tropicalrainforest environment could persist into the distant future and could continue to supply theAsháninka with their basic needs. In comparison, Americans in 2001 were taking theequivalent of nearly 200 percent of the biological product of their territory, because their percapita ecological footprint was nearly an order of magnitude greater than the Asháninka’s, andat twenty Americans per square kilometer (km2) versus 0.2 Asháninka/km2, the Americanpopulation density was two orders of magnitude greater. Global trade and the extensive use offossil fuels made this American hyperconsumption possible, at least in the short run.Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Figure 2.9. Asháninka mother and daughter in the Peruvian Amazon, 1969. The Asháninka take only a tiny proportionof the annual biological product of their territory. (Photo courtesy of K. M. Bodley)Table 2.7. Asháninka Ecological FootprintKcal/Capita/YearPercentageGlobal HectaresWild Plants30,4170.050.00Insects506,9440.780.01Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Game21,900,00033.610.39Fish4,562,5007.000.08Gardens*32,657,81350.120.58House Site5,500,0008.440.10Totals65,157,674100.001.15*Includes firewood and materials from forest.Global hectares = Kcal/capita/year / 56,742,424 global average kcal.Table 2.8 illustrates the ecological effects of changes in culture scale over the past tenthousand years at a global level, combining Living Planet Report estimates for globalbiocapacity in 2001 with my estimates for earlier periods. This shows that prior to AD 1500the global ecological footprint was well under 10 percent of global biocapacity, and that itsuddenly accelerated much faster than population growth after 1500 with the shift in globalculture from the imperial to the commercial world. Living Planet estimates show the worldexceeding 100 percent of global biocapacity in 1987 and reaching 150 percent by 2007. Figure2.10 shows that after 1500 the global ecological footprint grew much faster than globalpopulation, suggesting that consumption and its distribution are more important than populationgrowth alone.Table 2.8. Global Population and Ecological Footprint, 10,000 BP to AD 2001Footprint, Hectares (Millions)Population (Millions)Percentage of CapacityTribal world 10,000 BP94851Imperial world AD 12542312Early commercial world AD 15006584386Commercial world AD 200113,5266,148122Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Figure 2.10 Global population and ecological footprint, AD 1500 to 2001.Environmental modifications occurring as a result of the intervention of small-scale societiesin general appear to be much more gradual and more akin to “natural” environmental processesthan the modifications caused by the commercially driven global culture, which are oftenextremely rapid and qualitatively unusual. Commercial manufacturing processes oftenintroduce completely new environmental pollutants that have the potential to disrupt naturalbiochemical processes. At the same time, ecosystems modified by the demands of commercialsocieties tend to become much simpler, less efficient, and more unstable than those affected bysmall-scale societies. Such differences sometimes result directly from contrasting subsistencesystems. For example, the ecological advantages of traditional root-crop shifting cultivationover intensive monocrop systems in tropical areas have frequently been noted.169 In their cropdiversity and organization, the small garden plots of shifting cultivators structurally resemblethe rainforest ecosystem and thereby utilize solar energy with great efficiency and minimize thehazards of pests and disease. Labor-intensive smallholder production systems, even when theyare highly intensive and combine market and subsistence production, are likely to be moreproductive per unit of land, more energy efficient, more sustainable, and more conserving ofnonrenewable resources than are large-scale, capital-intensive, fully commercial agriculturalsystems.170 These points are discussed more fully in chapter 4.The massive, government-financed development programs of the twentieth century largelyignored the human advantages of small-scale production systems. Development plannersarrogantly dismissed domestically organized systems as “primitive” and “pretechnological,”Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

assuming that people had little knowledge of their environment and no “control” over it. Yetthe data provided by cultural ecological researchers indicate that small, indigenous societiesactually possess deep and highly practical knowledge of their environments based on intimateexperience accumulated over countless generations.I have stressed that peoples living in self-sufficient small-scale societies, before they wereengulfed by commercial-scale cultures, tended to maintain a dynamic and resilient relationshipwith the natural environment. They were not living in some passive “state of nature”surrounded by an undisturbed wilderness. Abundant evidence shows that tribal peoplesactively managed local ecosystems, often on a large scale, to increase “natural” biologicalproductivity for human benefit.171 Intentional periodic burning of shrubs and grasslands wasoften a common management practice. Such burning increases both the quantity and thenutritional quality of the forage available to game animals. This elevates the game-carryingcapacity three- to sevenfold and means that there will be more animals that are healthier andthat reproduce faster. Hunting of game is also facilitated due to ease of moving through theforest and seeing game. Furthermore, frequent burning reduces the accumulation of combustiblematerial and makes natural fires less destructive.Many anthropologists have emphasized the fundamental contrasts in values, religion, andworldview between tribal and commercial cultures in relation to the natural environment.172The most remarkable general difference is that tribal ideological systems often expresshumanity’s dependence on nature and tend to place nature in a revered, sacred category. Thenotion of a constant struggle to conquer nature, so characteristic of the commercially organizedculture in which it may be supported by biblical injunction, is notably absent in tribalcultures.173 Indeed, tribals generally consider themselves part of nature in the sense that theymay name themselves after animals, impute souls to plants and animals, acknowledge ritualkinship with certain species, conduct rituals designed to help propagate particularly valuedspecies, and offer ritual apologies when animals must be killed. Animals also abound in tribalorigin myths, and at death, one’s soul is often believed to be transformed into an animal.Careful research has shown that many of these beliefs may contribute to the regulation of bothpopulation size and levels of resource consumption. Population growth, for example, is curbedby beliefs calling for sexual abstinence, abortion, infanticide, and ritual warfare, and varioustaboos control the exploitation of specific food resources. In Amazonia special taboosrestricting the consumption of specific game animals by certain categories of people are mostoften applied to the animals that would be most vulnerable to overhunting.174 It has been arguedthat ceremonial cycles in highland New Guinea help maintain a balance between the humanpopulation, pig herds, and the natural environment.175 Sacred groves in many parts of the worldhave maintained forest remnants and reduced soil erosion, while under Christian influence theforests have been chopped down, with unfortunate results.176 It is significant that tribal beliefsystems often disintegrate under the impact of commercial culture and are replaced by beliefsthat accelerate environmental disequilibrium.GlossaryBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Agenda 21 Earth Summit action plan for the twenty-first century.Anthropocene Newly proposed geological epoch marking stratigraphically visibleanthropogenic transformations of the earth since about AD 1800.Anthropogenic Changes in the environment, such as deforestation, global warming, andextinctions, caused by humans.Biocapacity Quantity of biomass that nature can produce in a given region. Equivalent tobiological productivity.Biocultural evolution Changes through time in the frequency of either genes or culturalinformation in human societies.Biological imperialism Worldwide order of magnitude increase in species extinctionsassociated with European colonial expansion.Biomass Weight of plant and animal material.Biosphere people Commercial world people who draw resources from throughout the world.Bounded rationality Economist Herbert Simon’s theory that individuals do not always operateas economically rational decision makers because they do not have complete information.Brundtland Commission World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED),established by the UN in 1983 to tackle global environmental problems. Commission report,Our Common Future (1987), introduced concept of sustainable development.Capitalist economy Production is for exchange in the market, and land, labor, and money areall for sale.Carrying capacity Number of people who could be supported in a given environment with agiven technology.Common property regimes Cultural mechanisms, often based on consensus, to regulate theamount of shared resources that individuals can take without damaging the total output.Common property resources Grazing lands, fisheries, or irrigation systems that many peoplecan use, but where overuse can degrade the resource.Comparative advantage Economic principle of trade in which different regions exchangewhat they can most efficiently produce.Conspicuous consumption Social status derived from lavish display and consumption ofcostly goods. Dominant feature of commercial societies.Culture Symbolic information that directs what people think, make, and do as members ofsociety.Cultural transmission Changes in the frequency of cultural traits in a society caused byenculturation of children by kin, or borrowing from others through emulation.Deep ecology Philosophical movement in Western traditions that advocates reverence fornature.Desertification Degradation of arid lands by climate change and overuse, in effect convertingsteppe regions into more arid desert.Ecological footprint Amount of the biological product that people consume measured as theequivalent of the global average biological product per hectare.Ecosystem people Tribal people who draw resources from their local ecosystems.Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Eutrophication Overgrowth of aquatic plants due to fertilizer runoff and other pollution. Canalso cause oxygen depletion and “dead zones” in aquatic areas.Exchange value In a capitalist market economy, the goal is to maximize value from exchanginggoods, rather than from direct consumption of goods.Factory farm Commercial agriculture based on fossil-fuel energy subsidies, mechanization,pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and large-scale monocropping.Forest fallow Shifting cultivation a gardening technique in which forest is cleared and burnedto enrich the soil, a forest fallow system depending on forest regrowth.Formalist Economic anthropology approach that applies classical market economic theories tononmarket cultures.General evolution Increases in energy consumption and organizational complexity.Holocene Geological epoch beginning about 12,000 BP, following the last major glacialperiod and ending with the Anthropocene, which began about 1800 AD.Invisible hand Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776) theory that individual self-seeking inthe market place would work for public benefit.Iron cage Max Weber’s theory that in a capitalist society people were locked in theirdependency on jobs and by bureaucracy.Irreducible minimum Food, shelter, and clothing that meet basic human needs. Guaranteed toeveryone in tribal societies.Limited good Principle that material goods exist in limited amounts, and that anyone whoacquires too much is taking away from others. This encourages an equitable distribution ofwealth and is a basis of a stationary economy.Limits to Growth First (1972) widely publicized computer simulation of the global systemshowing how unlimited growth could lead to collapse.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment UN report on the state of the environment at the beginningof the twenty-first century.Natural services Benefits provided to people by nature including nutrient cycling; soilformation; biological production of food, fiber, and fuel; provision of fresh water; andregulation of climate, watersheds, and disease.Negative feedback Actions that slow growth in a system, just as overheating causes athermostat to shut off the furnace.Neolithic paradox Tribal people did not develop more elaborate technologies, even thoughthey had the intellectual capability to do so.Net primary biological product (NPP) Annual weight of new plant material, less material lostto maintenance, or respiration.Nonrenewable resources Natural resources, such as fossil fuels, that are consumed at a fasterrate than nature can produce them.Nonlinear change Sudden, large-scale, and unpredictable environmental changes across a“tipping point” threshold that might prove irreversible, such as sea-level rise caused byglobal warming.Optimal foraging theory Assumption that foragers will seek food sources that give them theBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

highest caloric return for the energy expended.Overconsumption Consumption in a given area that exceeds the rate of natural resourceproduction, reduces social sustainability, and degrades natural resources.Planetary boundary Measurable thresholds below which natural earth system processes keepthe planet’s most critical variables such as temperature, sea level, and atmosphere withinhabitable ranges.Pleistocene overkill Theory that early hunters were largely responsible for the disappearanceof the Pleistocene megafauna, such as mastodons and mammoths, by overhunting.Pollution Cultural products or byproducts that cannot be readily recycled by nature.Precautionary principle Better safe than sorry. When actions affecting the environment couldcause severe environmental damage, scientific uncertainty should not be a reason for goingahead with the action.Primary producers Green plants.Principle of least effort George K. Zipf’s theory that people seek to expend as little personalenergy as possible to achieve their goals.Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) Dollars adjusted to reflect the price of local consumer goodsin a particular country, in contrast to international market exchange value dollars.Renewable resources Natural resources such as solar energy, wind, water power, soil, plants,and animals that continuously renew themselves at rates that can match human demands.Shifting cultivation Gardening technique in which forest is cleared and burned to enrich thesoil, a forest fallow system depending on forest regrowth.Social product Imputed monetary value of all production in a society, like gross domesticproduct, applied even to nonmarket, noncommercial, tribal societies for cross-culturalcomparison.Specific evolution Adaptation to local environments with high resiliency, high energyefficiency, and organizational simplicity.Spirit of capitalism German sociologist Max Weber’s theory that the basis of capitalism is theidea that is expressed in his book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905).Substantivist Economic anthropology approach that seeks to describe tribal production anddistribution systems in their own terms.Sustainable development Development that meets the needs of the present without reducingthe ability of future generations to meet their needs. From the report of the BrundtlandCommission 1987.Tragedy of the commons Selfish individuals cause environmental problems when they haveunregulated access to public resources.UNCED Earth Summit, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, toaddress global environment and development problems, first held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro.Unlimited good Assumption that wealth can be infinitely expanded. Underlies the commercialworld pursuit of economic growth.Use value In a nonmarket tribal economy goods are primarily produced for directconsumption, rather than for exchange.Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Work ethic Capitalist ideology makes salvation dependent on economic success, according toMax Weber.Notes1. Sahlins, Marshall, and Elman R. Service, ed. 1960. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 26–27.2. Seeds, Michael A. 2007. Foundations of Astronomy. 9th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.3. Boyd, Robert, and Peter J. Richerson. 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 9.4. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., and M. W. Feldman. 1981. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; Hewlett, Barry S., and L. L. Cavalli-Sforza. 1986. “Cultural Transmission amongAka Pygmies.” American Anthropologist 88: 922–34.5. Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1966. The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.6. Durham, William H. 1991. Coevolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,211.7. Bodley, John H. 2005. Cultural Anthropology: Tribes, States, and the Global System. New York: McGraw-Hill, 218–19.8. Durham, Coevolution, 211.9. Kardong, Kenneth V. 1998. Vertebrates: Comparative Anatomy, Function, Evolution. 2nd ed. Boston: WCB McGraw-Hill, 129–30.10. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1996. Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin. New York: Three RiversPress.11. Kardong, Vertebrates, 22–53; McMahon, T. A., and. T. Bonner. 1983. On Size and Life. New York: Scientific AmericanLibrary.12. Mayhew, Bruce H. 1973. “System Size and Ruling Elites.” American Sociological Review 38:468–75; Mayhew, BruceH., and Paul T. Schollaert. 1980. “Social Morphology of Pareto’s Economic Elite.” Social Forces 59 (l): 25–43.13. Fletcher, Roland. 1995. The Limits of Settlement Growth: A Theoretical Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 71–81.14. Fletcher, The Limits of Settlement Growth, 82–90.15. Rappaport, Roy A. 1977. “Maladaptation in Social Systems.” In The Evolution of Social Systems, edited by J. Friedmanand M. J. Rowlands, 49–71. London: Duckworth.16. White, Leslie A. 1959. The Evolution of Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill, 82–90.17. Sahlins and Service, eds., Evolution and Culture.18. Cohen, Yehudi, ed. 1974. Man in Adaptation. 2nd ed. Chicago: Aldine, 45–68.19. Turner II, B. L., William C. Clark, Robert W. Kates, John F. Richards, Jessica T. Mathews, and William B. Meyer. 1990.The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere over the Past 300 Years.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.20. Rummel, R. J. 1997. Death by Government. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.21. United Nations. 2005. The Millennium Development Goals Report. New York. United Nations Department of PublicInformation, 8.22. Cohen, Man in Adaptation, 45–68.23. Asimov, Isaac. 1971. “The End.” Penthouse, January.24. Rojstaczer, Stuart, Shannon M. Sterline, and Nathan J. Moore. 2001. “Human Appropriation of Photosynthesis Products.”Science 294 (5551): 2549–52.25. Smil, Vaclav. 2002. The Earth’s Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 183–97.26. Vitousek, Peter M., Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Pamela A. Matson. 1986. “Human Appropriation of theProducts of Photosynthesis.” BioScience 36 (6): 368–73. This work was replicated by David Hamilton Wright producing anestimate of 20 to 30 percent human appropriation of potential prehuman global net biological production, which he estimated at2800 Ej (2800*1018 joules). Wright, David Hamilton. 1990. “Human Impacts on Energy Flow Through Natural Ecosystems, andImplications for Species Endangerment.” Ambio 19 (4): 189–94.27. Imhoff, Marc L., Lahouari Bounoua, Taylor Ricketts, Colby Loucks, Robert Harriss, and William T. Lawrence. 2004.“Global Patterns in Human Consumption of Net Primary Production.” Nature 429: 870–73; Wackernagel, Mathis, Niels B.Schulz, Diana Deumling, Alejandro Callejas Linares, Martin Jenkins, Valerie Chad Monfreda, Jonathan Loh, Norman Myers,Richard Norgaard, and Jørgen Randers. 2002. “Tracking the Ecological Overshoot of the Human Economy.” Proceedings ofBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

the National Academy of Science 99 (14): 9266–71.28. Richards, Paul W. 1973. “The Tropical Rain Forest.” Scientific American 229 (6): 58–67.29. Wilson, Edward O. 2002. The Future of Life. New York: Knopf, 20.30. Myers, Norman. 1992. The Primary Source: Tropical Forests and Our Future. New York: Norton.31. Olson, Jerry S. 1985. “Cenozoic Fluctuations in Biotic Parts of the Global Carbon Cycle.” In The Carbon Cycle andAtmospheric CO2: Natural Variations, Archean to Present, edited by E. T. Sundquist and W. S. Broecker, 377–96.Geophysical Monograph 32. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.32. Williams, Michael. 1990. Americans and Their Forests: A Historical Geography. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.33. United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. 2006. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005: Progress towardsSustainable Forest Management. FAO Forestry Paper 147. www.fao.org/forestry/site/32039/en.34. United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Main Report.FAO Forestry Paper 163, p. 22, table 2.7.35. Mather, Alexander. 2000. “South-North Challenges in Global Forestry.” In World Forests from Deforestation toTransition? edited by Matti Palo and Heidi Vanhanen, 25–40. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.36. Somer, Adrian. 1976. “Attempt at an Assessment of the World’s Tropical Moist Forests.” Unasylva 28 (112–113): 5–23.37. Myers, Norman. 1980. Conversion of Tropical Moist Forests: A Report Prepared by Norman Myers for theCommittee on Research Priorities in Tropical Biology of the National Research Council. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy of Sciences.38. Fearnside, Philip M. 2005. “Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: History, Rates, and Consequences.” ConservationBiology 19 (3): 680–88.39. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espacias (INPE). 2002. “Monitoring of the Brazilian Amazonian Forest by Satellite 2000–2001.” www/inpe.br.40. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espacias (INPE). 2011. Projecto PRODES Monitoramento da Floresta AmazônicaBrasileira por Satélite. Taxas anuais do desmatamento–1988 até 2010, Taxa de desmatamento annual (km2/ano).www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/prodes_1988_2010.htm.41. Morton, Douglas C., et al. 2006. “Cropland Expansion Changes Deforestation Dynamics in The Southern BrazilianAmazon.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 103 (39): 14637–41.42. Kintisch, Eli. 2006. “Climate Change: Along the Road from Kyoto Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Keep Rising.”Science 311 (5758): 1702–3; Fearnside, Philip M. 2006. “Tropical Deforestation and Global Warming.” Science 312 (5777):1137.43. Wright, “Human Impacts on Energy Flow,” 189–94.44. Williams, Americans and Their Forests.45. Brown, Lester R., Michael Renner, Christopher Flavin, et al. 1998. Vital Signs 1998: The Environmental Trends ThatAre Shaping Our Future. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.46. American Forests. 1998. Regional Ecosystem Analysis, Puget Sound Metropolitan Area. www.amfor.org.47. Lathrap, Don W. 1970. The Upper Amazon. New York: Praeger; Meggers, Betty J. 1971. Amazonia: Man and Culturein a Counterfeit Paradise. Chicago: Aldine; Moran, Emilio. 1993. Through Amazonian Eyes: The Human Ecology ofAmazonian Populations. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.48. Myers, The Primary Source.49. Fearnside, “Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia,” 685.50. Wallace, Scott. 2007. “Last of the Amazon.” National Geographic 211 (1): 40–71.51. Feshbach, Murray, and Alfred Friendly, Jr. 1992. Ecocide in the USSR: Health and Nature under Siege. New York:Basic Books, 1.52. Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General. 2010. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Tashkent,Uzbekistan, toast at official dinner. April 4. www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=1412.53. Feshbach and Friendly, Ecocide.54. UN News Centre. 2010. “Shrinking Aral Sea Underscores Need for Urgent Action on Environment.”www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34276.55. Levintanus, Arkady. 1993. “On the Fall of the Aral Sea.” Environments 22 (l): 89–94.56. Jones, Nicola. 2003. “South Aral Gone in 15 Years.” New Scientist 179 (2404): 9.57. Greenberg, Ilan. 2006. “As a Sea Rises, So Do Hopes for Fish, Jobs, and Riches.” New York Times, April 6, 2006.58. INTAS, International Association for the promotion of co-operation with scientists from the New Independent States ofthe former Soviet Union. 2007. “The Rehabilitation of the Ecosystem and Bioproductivity of the Aral Sea under Conditions ofWater Scarcity.” UNTAS Project–O511.Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

www.boku.ac.at/iwhw/onlinepublikationen/nachtnebel/EU_INTAS_0511_Rebasows/Files/Summary_report.pdf.59. United Nations. The Millennium Development Goals Report; World Bank. 2006. World Development Report 2006.Equity and Development. New York: Oxford University Press, 296, table 2.60. Edwards, Mike. 1994. “Chernobyl: Living with the Monster.” National Geographic 183 (2): 100–15.61. Clark, J. G. D. 1952. Prehistoric Europe: The Economic Base. New York: Philosophical Library; Frenzel, Burkhard, ed.1992. Evaluation of Land Surfaces Cleared from Forests by Prehistoric Man in Early Neolithic Times and the Time ofMigrating Germanic Tribes. Stuttgart: G. Fischer.62. Chew, Sing C. 2001. World Ecological Degradation: Accumulation, Urbanization, and Deforestation 3000 BC—AD2000. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira; Diamond, Jared. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York:Viking.63. Tainter, Joseph A. 2006. “Archaeology of Overshoot and Collapse.” Annual Review of Anthropology 35 (1): 59–74.64. Jacobsen, Thorkild, and Robert M. Adams. 1958. “Salt and Silt in Ancient Mesopotamian Agriculture.” Science 128(3334): 1251–58.65. Willey, Gordon R., and Demitric B. Shimkin. 1971. “The Collapse of Classic Maya Civilization in the Southern Lowlands: ASymposium Summary Statement.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 27 (10): 1–18; Culbert, T. Patrick. 1974. The LostCivilization: The Story of the Classic Maya. New York: Harper & Row.66. Demarest, Arthur A. 1993. “The Violent Saga of a Maya Kingdom.” National Geographic 183 (2): 94–111. Schele,Linda, and David Freidel. 1990. A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. New York: William Morrow.67. Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. 1972. The Limits to Growth.New York: Universe, 126.68. Meadows, et al., The Limits to Growth, 142.69. Brown, Harrison. 1954. The Challenge of Man’s Future. New York: Viking.70. Heilbroner, Robert L. 1963. The Great Ascent: The Struggle for Economic Development in Our Time. New York:Harper & Row Torchbooks.71. Meadows, et al., The Limits to Growth.72. Simmons, Matthew R. 2000. Revisiting the Limits to Growth: Could the Club of Rome Have Been Correct, After All?An Energy White Paper. Simmons & Company International. www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.73. See especially Cole, H. S. D., ed. 1973. Models of Doom. New York: Universe.74. Walter, Edward. 1981. The Immorality of Limiting Growth. Albany: State University of New York Press.75. Simon, Julian. 1981. The Ultimate Resource. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.76. Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, and Jorgen Randers. 1992. Beyond the Limits: Confronting GlobalCollapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future. Post Mills, VT: Chelsea Green.77. Meadows, Donella, Jorgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows. 2004. Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. White RiverJunction, VT: Chelsea Green.78. Simmons, Revisiting the Limits to Growth, 30.79. Barney, Gerald O., ed. 1977–1980. The Global 2000 Report to the President of the United States. 3 vols. New York:Pergamon, vol. 1: xvi.80. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.81. WCED, Our Common Future, 43.82. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: IslandPress.83. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Living beyond Our Means: Natural Assets and Human Well-Being.Statement from the Board. Technical Volume. Washington, DC: Island Press, 5.www.maweb.org/en/Products.BoardStatement.aspx.84. Loh, Jonathan, and Mathis Wackernagel. 2004. Living Planet Report. Gland, Switzerland: WWF-World Wide Fund forNature.85. Warren-Rhodes, Kimberley, and Albert Koeing. 2001. “Ecosystem Appropriation by Hong Kong and Its Implication forSustainable Development. Ecological Economics 39 (3): 347–59.86. BFF (Best Foot Forward). 2002. City Limits: A Resource Flow and Ecological Footprint Analysis of Greater London.www.citylimitslondon.com.87. Commoner, Barry. 1971. The Closing Circle. New York: Knopf.88. White, Lynn, Jr. 1967. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” Science 155 (3767): 1203–07.89. Sale, Kirkpatrick. 1985. Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.90. Bookchin, Murray. 1991. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. Montreal: BlackBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Rose Books.91. Headland, Thomas N. 1997. “Revisionism in Ecological Anthropology.” Current Anthropology 38 (4): 605–30; Krech,Shepard, III. 1999. The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. New York: Norton.92. Sahlins, Marshall. 1996. “The Sadness of Sweetness: The Native Anthropology of Western Cosmology.” CurrentAnthropology 37 (3): 395–428.93. Weaver, Richard M. [1948] 1984. Ideas Have Consequences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.94. Weber, Max. 1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: George Allen & Unwin, 53.95. Weber, The Protestant Ethic, 181.96. Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (3859): 1243–48.97. Smith, Adam. [1759] 1976. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Classics, 304.98. Hicks, Gregory A., and Devon G. Peña. 2003. “Community Acequias in Colorado’s Rio Culebra Watershed: a CustomaryCommons in the Domain of Prior Appropriation.” University of Colorado Law Review 74 (2): 387–486.99. Christensen, Kaare, Anne Maria Herskind, James W. Vaupel. 2006. “Why Danes Are Smug: Comparative Study of LifeSatisfaction in the European Union.” British Medical Journal 333:1289–91.100. Hardin, Garrett. 1991. “The Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons: Population and the Disguises of Providence.” InCommons without Tragedy, edited by Robert V. Andelson, 162–85. London: Shepheard-Walwyn.101. Netting, Robert McC. 1993. Smallholders, Householders: Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive, SustainableAgriculture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 322.102. McCay, Bonnie J., and James M. Acheson, ed. 1987. The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology ofCommunal Resources. Tucson: University of Arizona Press; McCabe, J. Terrence. 1990. “Turkana Pastoralism: A Caseagainst the Tragedy of the Commons.” Human Ecology 18:81–103; McCabe, J. Terrence. 2004. Cattle Bring Us to OurEnemies: Turkana Ecology, Politics, and Raiding in a Disequilibrium System. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.103. Spooner, Brian. 1973. The Cultural Ecology of Pastoral Nomads. Module in Anthropology No. 45. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.104. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.105. Casimir, Michael J., R. P. Winter, and Bernt Glatzer. 1980. “Nomadism and Remote Sensing: Animal Husbandry and theSagebrush Community in a Nomad Winter Area in Western Afghanistan.” Journal of Arid Environments 3:231–54.106. Ruttan, Lore M., and Monique Borgerhoff Mulder. 1999. “Are East African Pastoralists Truly Conservationists?”Current Anthropology 40 (5): 621–52.107. Walker, B. H., et al. 1981. “Stability of Semi-Arid Savanna Grazing Systems.” Journal of Ecology 69:473–98.108. Coughenour, M. B., J. E. Ellis, D. M. Swift, D. L. Coppock, K. Galvin, J. T. McCabe, and T. C. Hart. 1985. “EnergyExtraction and Use in a Nomadic Pastoral Ecosystem.” Science 230 (4726): 619–25; Western, David, and Virginia Finch. 1986.“Cattle and Pastoralism: Survival and Production in Arid Lands.” Human Ecology 14 (l): 77–94.109. Leeuw, Sander E. van der. 1997. ARCHAEOMEDES: A DG-XII Research Programme to Understand the Naturaland Anthropogenic Causes of Land Degradation and Desertification in the Mediterranean Basin. Paris: University ofParis; Leeuw, Sander E. van der, and J. McGlade, eds. 1997. Archaeology: Time and Structured Transformation. London:Routledge.110. McGlade, James. n.d. ARCHAEOMEDES II. Proyecto Emporda: Human Ecodynamics and Land Use Conflict:Monitoring Degradation-Sensitive Environments in the Emporda North-East Spain.www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/research/profiles/mcglade/archgld.htm.111. Rockström, John et al. 2009. “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” Nature 461:472–75.112. Rio Declaration, Principle 15, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992.www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163.113. Vogt, Steven S., R. Paul Butler, E. J. Rivera, N. Haghighipour, Gregory W. Henry, and Michael H. Williamson. 2010.“The Lick-Carnegie Exoplanet Survey: A 3.1 M Planet in the Habitable Zone of the Nearby M3V Star Gliese 581.” TheAstrophysical Journal 723:954–65.114. Crutzen, Paul J. and Eugene F. Stoermer. 2000. “The ‘Anthropocene.’” Global Change NewsLetter, InternationalGeosphere-Biosphere Programme Newsletter 41 (May): 17–18.115. Rockström, Johan, et al. 2009. “Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” Ecology andSociety 14 (2), article 32. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/; Rockström, “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity.”116. Rockström et al., “Planetary Boundaries”; Rockström, “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity.”117. Pimm, Stuart, Peter Raven, Alan Peterson, Çağan H. Şekercioğlu, and Paul R. Ehrlich. 2006 “Human Impacts on theRates of Recent, Present, and Future Bird Extinctions.” PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (29):10941–46.Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

118. IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). 2011. Red List of Threatened Species. Table 1. Numbers ofthreatened species by major groups of organisms (1996–2011).www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/red_list/the_latest_iucn_red_list_summary_statistics/.119. Vié, Jean-Christophe, Craig Hilton-Taylor and Simon N. Stuart. 2009. Wildlife in a Changing World: An Analysis of the2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/RL-2009-001.pdf;IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). 2011. Red List of Threatened Species, table 1. Numbers ofthreatened species by major groups of organisms (1996–2011).www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/red_list/the_latest_iucn_red_list_summary_statistics/.120. Loh and Wackernagel, Living Planet Report.121. Krech, The Ecological Indian.122. Martin, Paul S. 1967. “Prehistoric Overkill.” In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by P. S.Martin and H. E. Wright Jr., 75–120, Proceedings of the 7th Congress of the International Association for QuaternaryResearch. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; Martin, Paul S. 1984. “Prehistoric Overkill: The Global Model.” InQuaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, edited by Paul S. Martin and Richard G. Klein, 553–73. Tucson:University of Arizona Press.123. Martin, “Prehistoric Overkill,” 115.124. Grayson, Donald K., and David J. Meltzer. 2002. “Clovis Hunting and Large Mammal Extinction: A Critical Review ofthe Evidence.” Journal of World Prehistory 16 (4): 313–59.125. Grayson, Donald K., and David J. Meltzer. 2003. “A Requiem for North American Overkill.” Journal ofArchaeological Science 30:585–93, 589.126. Webster, David. 1981. “Late Pleistocene Extinction and Human Predation: A Critical Overview.” In OmnivorousPrimates: Gathering and Hunting in Human Evolution, edited by Robert S. Harding and Geza Teleki, 556–95. New York:Columbia University Press.127. Grayson, Donald K. 1984. “Explaining Pleistocene Extinctions: Thoughts on the Structure of a Debate.” In QuaternaryExtinctions, edited by P. S. Martin and R. G. Klein, 807–23. Tucson: University of Arizona Press; Grayson, Donald K. 1991.“Late Pleistocene Mammalian Extinctions in North America: Taxonomy, Chronology, and Explanations.” Journal of WorldPrehistory 5:193–231; Politis, Gustavo G., Jose L. Prado, and Roelf P. Beukens. 1995. “The Human Impact in Pleistocene-Holocene Extinctions in South America: The Pampean Case.” In Ancient People and Landscapes, edited by E. Johnson, 187–205. Lubbock: Museum of Texas Tech University; Barnosky, Anthony D., Paul L. Koch, Robert S. Feranec, Scott L. Wing,Alan B. Shabel. 2004. “Assessing the Causes of Late Pleistocene Extinctions on the Continents.” Science 306:70–75.128. Lee, Richard B., and Irven De Vore. 1968. Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine; Hayden, Brian. 1981. “Subsistence andEcological Adaptations of Modern Hunter/Gatherers.” In Omnivorous Primates: Gathering and Hunting in HumanEvolution, edited by Robert S. Harding and Geza Teleki, 344–421. New York: Columbia University Press; Webster, “LatePleistocene Extinction;” Winterhalder, B., W. Baillargeon, F. Cappelletto, I. Daniel, and C. Prescott. 1988. “The PopulationEcology of Hunter-Gatherers and Their Prey.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7:289–328.129. Klein, Richard G. 1979. “Stone Age Exploitation of Animals in Southern Africa.” American Scientist 67 (2): 151–60;Klein, Richard G. 1981. “Stone Age Predation on Small African Bovids.” South African Archaeological Bulletin 36 (1981):55–65; Klein, Richard G. 1984. “Mammalian Extinctions and Stone Age People in Africa.” In Quaternary Extinctions: APrehistoric Revolution, edited by Paul S. Martin and Richard G. Klein, 354–403. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.130. Klein, “Stone Age Exploitation,” 158.131. Crosby, Alfred W. 1972. The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. Westport, CT:Greenwood; Crosby, Alfred W. 1986. Biological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900–1900. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.132. Raup, David M. 1991. “A Kill Curve for Phanerozoic Marine Species.” Paleobiology 17 (1): 37; Pimm, Stuart L., et al.1995. “The Future of Biodiversity.” Science 269 (5222): 347–50; Stork, Nigel. 1997. “Measuring Global Biodiversity and ItsDecline.” In Biodiversity II: Understanding and Protecting Our Biological Resources, edited by Marjorie L. Reaka-Kudla,Don E. Wilson, and Edward O. Wilson. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press; Tuxill, John. 1999. “Appreciating the Benefits ofPlant Biodiversity.” In State of the World 1999: A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress toward a Sustainable Society,edited by Lester R. Brown, Christopher Flavin, Hilary French, and Linda Starke, 96–114. New York: Norton.133. Herskovits, Melville J. 1952. Economic Anthropology. New York: Knopf.134. For example, see discussion in Dowling, John H. 1979. “The Goodfellows vs. the Dalton Gang: The Assumptions ofEconomic Anthropology.” Journal of Anthropological Research 35 (3): 292–308.135. Simon, Herbert A. 1957. Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: Wiley.136. Zipf, George Kingsley. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to HumanEcology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Reprint 1965. New York: Hafner.Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

137. Winterhalder, B., and F. A. Smith, eds. 1981. Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies: Ethnographic andArchaeological Analyses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.138. Redfield, Robert. 1947. “The Folk Society.” American Journal of Sociology 52 (4): 293–308.139. Radin, Paul. 1971. The World of Primitive Man. New York: Dutton, 106.140. Foster, George. 1969. Applied Anthropology. Boston: Little, Brown, 83.141. Henry, Jules. 1963. Culture against Man. New York: Random House.142. Veblen, Thorstein. 1912. The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions. New York: Macmillan.143. For example, Herskovits, Economic Anthropology, 16; Levin, M. G., and L. P. Potapov. 1964. The Peoples of Siberia.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 488–99; Nash, Manning. 1966. Primitive and Peasant Economic Systems. SanFrancisco: Chandler, 22; Dalton, George. 1971. Economic Anthropology: Essays on Tribal and Peasant Economies. NewYork: Basic Books, 27.144. Sahlins, Stone Age Economics.145. Lee, Richard B. 1968. “What Hunters Do for a Living, or How to Make Out on Scarce Resources.” In Man the Hunter,edited by Richard B. Lee and Irven De Vore, 30–48. Chicago: Aldine; McCarthy, F. D., and Margaret McArthur. 1960. “TheFood Quest and Time Factor in Aboriginal Economic Life.” In Records of the American-Australian Scientific Expedition toArnhem Land, edited by C. P. Mountford, vol. 2, Anthropology and Nutrition, 145–94. Melbourne: Melbourne UniversityPress.146. Carneiro, Robert L. 1960. “Slash-and-Burn Agriculture: A Closer Look at Its Implications for Settlement Patterns.” InMen and Cultures, edited by A. F. C. Wallace, 229–34. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; Rappaport, Roy A.1971. “The Flow of Energy in an Agricultural Society.” Scientific American 224 (3): 117–32.147. Goodland, Robert. 1982. Tribal Peoples and Economic Development: Human Ecological Considerations.Washington, DC: World Bank.148. Johnson, Allen. 2003. Families of the Forest: The Matsigenka Indians of the Peruvian Amazon. Berkeley: Universityof California Press. The present analysis was by Bodley in 2005 in a presentation entitled, “The Rich Tribal World: Scale andPower Perspectives on Cultural Valuation,” at Society for Applied Anthropology, Annual Meeting, Santa Fe, New Mexico.149. World Bank, World Development Indicators, 2006. devdata.worldbank.org/data-query/.150. Davies, James B., Susanna Sandstrom, Anthony Shorrocks, and Edward N. Wolff. 2006. The World Distribution ofHousehold Wealth. World Institute for Development Economics Research.151. Costanza, Robert, et al. 1997. “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.” Nature 387 (15May): 253–60.152. Bodley, Cultural Anthropology, 75.153. Johnson, David H. and Thomas A. O’Neil, eds. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington.Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.154. Hunn, Eugene S. 1990. Nch’i-Wána “The Big River”: Mid-Columbia Indians and their Land. Seattle: University ofWashington Press.155. Jensen, Derrick, George Draffan, and John Osborn. 1995. Railroads and Clearcuts: Legacy of Congress’s 1864Northern Pacific Railroad Land Grant. Spokane: Inland Empire Public Lands Council.156. Augerot, Xanthippe, with Dana Nadel Foley. 2005. Atlas of Pacific Salmon: The First Map-Based Status Assessmentof Salmon in the North Pacific. Berkeley: University of California Press, 54.157. Weeratunge, Nireka. 2000. “Nature, Harmony, and the Kaliyugaya: Global/Local Discourses on the Human-EnvironmentRelationship.” Current Anthropology 41 (2): 249–68.158. Alvard, Michael S. 1998. “Evolutionary Ecology and Resource Conservation.” Evolutionary Anthropology 7 (2): 62–74.159. Rambo, A. Terry. 1985. Primitive Polluters: Semang Impact on the Malaysian Tropical Rain Forest Ecosystem.Anthropological Papers No. 76. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan.160. Rambo, Primitive Polluters, 78.161. Dasmann, Raymond. 1976. “Future Primitive: Ecosystem People versus Biosphere People.” Convolution Quarterly l(Fall): 26–31.162. Meggers, Amazonia.163. Rappaport, “Flow of Energy,” 117–32.164. Redford, Kent. 1991. “The Ecologically Noble Savage.” Orion 9: 24–29; Alvard, Michael S. 1993. “Testing the‘Ecologically Noble Savage’ Hypothesis: Interspecific Prey Choice by Piro Hunters of Amazonian Peru.” Human Ecology 21(4): 355–87.165. Emsley, John. 2001. Nature’s Building Blocks: An A–Z Guide to the Elements. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 310–17.166. Sharpley, A. N., T. Daniel, T. Sims, J. Lemunyon, R. Stevens, and R. Parry. 1999. Agricultural Phosphorus andBodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Eutrophication. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. ARS-149.167. Rees, William E., and Mathis Wackernagel. 1994. “Ecological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: Measuringthe Natural Capital Requirements of the Human Economy.” In Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological EconomicsApproach to Sustainability, edited by AnnMari Jansson, Monica Hammer, Carl Folke, and Robert Costanza, 362–90.Washington, DC: Island Press; Wackernagel, M., and W. E. Rees. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impacton the Earth. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers; Wackernagel, Mathis, and Judith Silverstein. 2000.“Big Things First: Focusing on the Scale Imperative with the Ecological Footprint.” Ecological Economics 32:391–94.168. WWF. 2010. Living Planet Report 2010.wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/2010_lpr/; Loh and Wackernagel, Living Planet Report,table 2.169. Geertz, Clifford. 1963. Agricultural Involution: The Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia. Berkeley:University of California Press; Rappaport, “Flow of Energy,” 117–32.170. Netting, Smallholders, Householders.171. Mellars, Paul. 1976. “Fire Ecology, Animal Populations and Man: A Study of Some Ecological Relationships inPrehistory.” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 42:15–45; Lewis, Henry T. 1982. A Time for Burning. Edmonton,Alberta: Boreal Institute for Northern Studies, Occasional Publications 17; Gould, Richard A. 1971. “Uses and Effects of Fireamong the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia.” Mankind 8 (1): 14–24; Hallam, S. 1975. Fire and Hearth. Canberra:Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies; Lewis, Time for Burning.172. Gutkind, E. A. 1956. “Our World from the Air: Conflict and Adaptation.” In Man’s Role in Changing the Face of theEarth, edited by William L. Thomas Jr., 1–44. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Spoehr, Alexander. 1956. “CulturalDifferences in the Interpretation of Natural Resources.” In Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, edited by WilliamL. Thomas Jr., 93–102. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.173. White, “Historical Roots,” 1203–07.174. McDonald, David. 1977. “Food Taboos: A Primitive Environmental Protection Agency (South America).” Anthropos72:734–48.175. Rappaport, Roy A. 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.176. Bartlett, H. H. 1956. “Fire, Primitive Agriculture, and Grazing in the Tropics.” In Man’s Role in Changing the Face ofthe Earth, edited by William L. Thomas Jr., 692–720. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Bodley, J. H. (2012). Anthropology and contemporary human problems. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(‘http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’,’_blank’) href=’http://ebookcentral.proquest.com’ target=’_blank’ style=’cursor: pointer;’>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a>Created from sdsu on 2020-08-24 21:43:36.Copyright © 2012. AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Sustainability and CultureANTH 353/SUSTN 3531The Current State of our Life Support System

Announcements:➢Questions about our Books, Canvas, or anything else about our course or how it will go?➢Questions about Concept Check #1?➢We have Concept Check #2 this week.➢Available after class, 7pm, Wed., 8/30➢DUE before next class, 4pm, Wed., 9/6

Outline◼The current state of our life support system◼Evidence ◼Agreement?◼Anthropological Approaches to Human-Environment Relations4

Evidence these changes are anthropogenic?15

41Despite these planet problems, hasn’t there also been human progress?EXAMPLE: Julian Simon Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV_38mQ1iG4&feature=player_detailpage

Environmental Problem or Not?….45

46Pew Research Center, 2020

47Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/23/extreme-weather-climate-change-poll/Source: The Washington Post August 23, 2023➢Democrat: 65-85% “yes” – – depending on the environmental hazard ➢Republican: 25-35% “yes” – – depending on the environmental hazard

Some continue to challenge the scientific evidence:Example from Jon Stuart Clip: Your elected representatives (i.e. our policy makers)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI

Key point: These distinct worldviews generate different rationalities, and hence solutions to environmental problems.49

50Anthropological approaches to human-environmental relations ◼Interpretive approaches◼Materialist approaches

Anthropology & Anthropological Approaches to Human-Environmental Relations

4Anthropological approaches to human-environmental relations ▪Interpretive approaches▪Materialist approaches

The Field of Anthropology▪“Anthropos + logy”Study of all of humanity from broad perspective4 SubfieldsArchaeologyBiologicalLinguisticCulturalApplied AnthHolistic, Comparative & Relativistic Approach

Archaeology▪The investigation of past cultures through excavation of material remainsPrehistoricE.g. coprolite in Am. SWE.g. origins of agricultureHistoricE.g. Whaley House▪Treasure hunters or scientists?…..

Biological▪Focus: human evolution & variation▪Humans and nonhuman primates (NHPs)▪Study the living, the recently dead (skeletal remains) and the long dead (fossil remains)Biological evolutionHuman variationHuman adaptabilityPrimatologyForensicBioarchaeologyPaleoanthropologyPrimate Paleontology

Linguistics▪Focuses on the interrelationships between language and other aspects of a people’s culture.▪Phonology (sounds), Morphology (words), semantics (sentences), etc.▪Language use in different social contexts (sociolinguistics)▪Non-verbal communication▪Endangered languages▪Lost language = lost knowledge

Cultural▪Study of the ways of life of contemporary and historically recent peoples. CULTURE ▪Study all facets of the lives of human populations:Economics (subsistence and exchange)Kinship and marriagePolitics and lawMagic and religionArt and expressive culture▪Ethnography – a written description of the way of life of some human pop. ▪Fieldwork

Applied Anthropology▪Archaeology Repatriation ▪Biological Forensic identification ▪Linguistics Doc.mt endangered lang.s▪Cultural Disaster mitigation

The Field of AnthropologyImportant Concepts & Approaches▪HolisticExamine all aspects of a cult and how they relate▪ComparativeCompare across wide range of cultures before making any generalizations▪Relativistic (cultural relativism)No culture is inherently superior or inferior to another▪Ethnocentrism – the attitude or opinion that the morals, values, customs of one’s own culture are superior to those of other peoples

Methods: Fieldwork▪Yields unique insights▪Long-term , in-situ ▪Learn language & build rapport▪Data collectionEthnographic interviewingParticipant-observation SurveysGIS/mapping of Community/HHs/resource use areasArchival researchTime allocation and resource use data

My research in Solomon Islands▪Spent 13 weeks interviewing, living and participating with local villagers in Western Solomon Islands, Ghizo Island, Titiana and Pailongge villagesDress upEat foodTry things Participant-ObservationAdvantages

Emic vs. Etic Perspectives▪Emic (insider)subjective▪Etic (outsider)Objective?▪EXS:A wink“OMG”Bending down“I like your necklace”

15Anthropological approaches to human-environmental relations Interpretive approachesMaterialist approaches

Interpretative AnthropologyFocus on:▪Meaning▪Cultural assumptions and world views▪Thought or classificatory systems▪‘Mentalist’ approach▪Worldview creates culture!Example: A wink

Physiological event or meaningful gesture?❑Involuntary twitch❑Conspiratorial signal❑“Heeeyyy…how you doin?”Describe the conceptual framework needed to understand world –Emic approach

Example of interpretive approach: Differing views about the environmentExample: The four rationalities or ‘myths of nature’Key point: Distinct worldviews generate different rationalities, and hence solutions to environmental problems.

From the interpretivist point of view: How does culture, especially ideology/worldview, influence patterns of behavior and interaction with environment? -To conquer or conserve?

From the interpretivist point of view, these differing ideas about nature are what make sustainability so problematic.Thoughtful people–have different and mutually irreconcilable ideas of just what is sustainable and what is not.EXAMPLESTake the Voluntary Extinction Movement (VHEMT)Or Rush Limbaugh

That was 2009… Are you thinking things have changed by 2023?…https://youtu.be/4xa8ZxE_icsHere is one of your recently elected Congressional members, Marjorie Taylor Greene, elected just months ago (November, 2022). In the clip, she is speaking on the “Right Side Broadcasting Network” on June 13, 2022.

To explore differing worldviews of nature lets ask a few questions? 1. I am more strict than most people about what is right and wrong. A.YesB.No

2. I prefer simple and unprocessed foods. A.YesB.No

3. Making money is the main reason for hard work. A.YesB.No

4. I feel that life is like a lottery.A.YesB.No

Different social constructions of nature, physical and human, as well as our place in nature.Michiel Schwarz and Michael Thompson. 1990. Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice.

How different views of nature create different answers toenvironmental problems:The Individualist’s storyThe individualist’s story: Nature is benign predictable, bountiful, robust, stable, and forgiving of any insults humankind might inflict upon it; however violently it might be shaken, the ball comes safely to rest in the bottom of the basin.

The individualist’s story (nature benign): To address environmental problems, rely on laissez-faire markets to spur competition and innovation. The benefits of climate change may even balance out the costs. Price the environment properly and we can solve problems.Example: Carbon Credits (Cap and trade)How different views of nature create different answers toenvironmental problems:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4x-gpPEqjE8

The hierarchist’s story (nature perverse/tolerant): Within limits, nature can be relied upon to behave predictably. It is forgiving of modest shocks to the system, but care must be taken not to knock the ball over the rim. Regulation is required to prevent major excesses, while leaving the system to look after itself in minor matters. This is the ecologist’s equivalent of a mixed-economy model. The manager’s style is interventionist.

How different views of nature create different answers to environmental problems:The hierarchist’s story (nature perverse/tolerant): International protocols and national commitments are needed to address environmental problems such as greenhouse gas emissions.

34How different views of nature create different answers to environmental problems:The Egalitarian’s storyThe egalitarian’s story (nature ephemeral): The underlying problem is consumption and the disconnect of people from the natural environment. Precaution, lifestyle simplicity and grass roots action are the most effective responses.

35Indigenous people and their views of natureMost similar to the ‘egalitarian’ view.Emphasize everything in nature is connected. Events are, directly or indirectly, a consequence of human actionsTypically treat nature with careful respect in order to avoid adverse consequencesBig debate: Does this worldview lead to an intentional ‘conservation ethic’? Bodley:Ecosystem v. Biosphere people

How different views of nature create different answers to environmental problems:The Fatalist’s StoryThe fatalist’s story (nature capricious): Natural forces are beyond human understanding. My actions won’t matter.

37The fatalist’s story (nature capricious): Natural forces are beyond human understanding. My actions won’t matter.Who cares

Why do we call these ‘myths’ of nature?

39A key weakness of typologies: They over-simplify

40Anthropological approaches to human-environmental relations Interpretive approachesWeaknesses: Oversimplifies. What about other aspects of human social systems that might shape perceptions?E.g. Material forces or Power differences between groups

A deeper issue with the social sciences, if we all see the world through a cultural filter, can we ever be objective?

Anthropological approaches to human-environmental relations •Interpretive approaches•Materialist approaches

43Materialist Anthropology❑“Material forces” drive cultural system❑Material forces = subsistence patterns, technology, economic patterns❑Key objective: Understand who controls the material forces. And explain cultural aspects in terms of material forces.

44Other aspects of culture (world view, religion, ritual, classification systems)Material forces Subsistence, technology, productive arrangementsSummary of materialist approach• Focus on the material forces. Other aspects of culture and society will be shaped by these dynamics involving material forces.Interpretivists focus hereEnvironment Climate, geography, natural resources

Materialist Approach: Examples!Kung of the Kalahari Aztecs

Other aspects of culture (world view, religion, ritual, classification systems)Material forces Subsistence, technology, productive arrangementsThe weakness of materialist approach is the strength of the interpretivist approach:People’s world views, religions, etc., can be a driving force behind human behavior.Environment Climate, geography, natural resources

A third approach to human-environment relations: Human Ecology◼Takes an ecosystem approach◼People affect ecosystems when they use resources such as water, fish, timber and livestock grazing land. ◼After using materials from ecosystems, people return the materials to ecosystems as waste. ◼People intentionally modify or reorganize existing ecosystems, or create new ones, to better serve their needs. Source: Marten, G. G. 2001. Human ecology: Basic concepts for sustainable development. London: Earthscan.

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.

What is the I=PAT equation?

Related Posts

Unit 2: Common Assessment/Project Part A Start Assignment

Person-Centered and Experiential Therapy

Read the Instructions for the Population Health Assessment & Prevention ?Download Instructions for the Population Health Assessment & Prevention