I recognize that your's is an admirable concern for the en Dear Wayne, I recognize that your's is an admirable concern for the environment and about the implications that human behavior has for it. The question of humans in the definition of environment--whether academic or general--is a crucial one, and cannot be resolved by any one person, field, and definitely not by so over-generalized an assertion.
To characterize culture as a "sociopathological phenomenon" is concerning. Without discerning between those cultural behaviors that are beneficial and those that are detrimental to our environment, this statement remains unscientific and non sequitur. Culture? Which one? All of them? And what do you mean "we"? Certainly not Anthropologists, Sociologists, Geographers, etc. And your statement has in no way been the conclusion of the broader community of Ecologists. I find your idea repeated elsewhere, such as in your response to Gunderson and Folke's 2009 article "“Lumpy Information” in the journal Ecology and Society. There you write, "it may be useful, even critical to our depth of understanding, to recognize that culture itself is demonstrably a societal pathology." Again, unless corrected, this mistake makes the whole discussion fundamentally unscientific. Examples to the contrary include the classic Roy A. Rappaport's 1971 "The flow of energy in an agricultural society" [Scientific American 224(3):116-32] as well as Paul Robbins work on human-environment dynamics involving the Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary in Rajasthan, India [Robbins, Chhangani, Rice, Trigosa, & Mohnot. Enforcement Authority and Vegetation Change at Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. Environmental Management (2007) 40:365–378 as well as Chhangani, A. K., Robbins, P. and Mohnot, S. M. (2008) 'Crop Raiding and Livestock Predation at Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan India', Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13:5,305—316]. By your statements and from the larger context of the Ecolog thread, I remain sure that by "culture" you mean "Western culture" and its demonstrable trend toward overconsumption and inefficient consumption of natural resources. Or perhaps by "culture" you mean "pop culture" and its role as raison d'être for Western culture's overconsumption of natural resources. While some, perhaps even I, who would argue the specifics of these, they would not be as concerning as your statements currently stand. Whether this is true or not, whether you agree or not, perhaps you and others would be interested in reading and perhaps responding to my discrete consideration of my response for a more general audience at http://jamielewishedges.info/2010/07/13/changing-culture/. With respectful concern, Jamie Lewis hedgeshedge...@yahoo.com NOTICE:This email (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C._ 2510-2521, is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please be aware that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received this message in error, then delete it. Thank you for helping maintain privacy.
