8 rules to avoid environmental disaster

An interesting point of view to understand culture is see it like social arrangements that allow us survive, adapt and live in a natural or social world. These sets are above of individuals, are contracts, set of rules, values, customs, limits that we enforce to ourself - consciously or not- to achieve some goals. Are institutions.

Sorry folks, but institutions aren't buildings. Instead of that, are a set of rules.

For example, marriage institution is a set of rules that limit sexual relationships, heritage, alliances between families or groups. It installs a kind of link and sets rules, that helps to avoid conflicts about reproduction right, and keeps some values (some societies is about love, in other childs, or family, status, whealt, etc).

There are political institutions, as democratic vote, or economic ones, as markets. All of them regulate our actions. How we behave, which strategies are available to reach our goals. There were people that thought there are as many institutions as social needs. While others thought that institutions were imposed and because of historical reasons... But How is this related to environment?  

The tragedy of the commons

In 1968, Garrette Hardin published in Science magazine an hypotetical situation: A common grassland (resource), which is used by several farmers to feed their animals. If those shepherds act from an individualistic and rational point of view to maximize their benefit, they will try to put on grassland as many animals as they can. If everybody act like that, soon the common resource will be plenty of animals and they will eat it all, leading to the dead of all animals. It will be different if the resource wasn't common, but divided among shepherds. Then, they will try to avoid over-exploitation, knowing beforehand that no one will use the resources they don't use.

This has been used as an argument to support pro-private-property-rights positions. But the same article said that is just one possible action and it is hard to take in major commons as air (and pollution) and oceans, that couldn't be divided. If we still pushing those commons the tragedy will become innevitable.

But commons are hypotetical, What occurs in real life?

The commons survive.

Some anthropologists researches have shown us that most of the communities with common resources have
several strategies to avoid its overexploitation. They use tabus that forbid fishing or rules that say when to move cattle to other lands to avoid overconsumption. However, many communities transform those rules when they start some commerce and market relationships. Markets encourage intensive exploitation of resources to exchange.

Palau (Micronesia), fishermen have strong norms to limit fishing

The nomad shedherds Bassin (Southern Iran) have rules and rutes very well stablished in order to take care of glasslands

However, in 1990, E. Ostrom (political scientist and Nobel Prize) compiled and compared many cases were communities were successful conserving their common resources. She described a set of institutions that help them make it. Those institutions were specifics rules that community impose and reproduce in next generations:

1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties);
2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted to local conditions;
3. Collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process;
4. Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators;
5. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;
6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy access;
7. Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities; and
8. In the case of larger common-pool resources, organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level.

Commons become global

One kind of global institution created to stop global warming and protect our major common -our planet- is Kyoto protocol for climate change. It is an agreement in which every country commit to reduce their emission greenhouses gases. Its aim was reduce global emission on 5%. If the countries couldn't achieve their goals, they will be fined.

However, as Ostrom would say, there is no point if the protocol is not ratified by every country. Sadly USA didn't, despite to be the major greenhouse gases producer. And Canada, seeing they wouldn't achieve their goals for 2012, quit. And the tragedy becomes more real.

Sources:

G. Hardin "Thagedy of the commons", Science, 1968

R. E. Johannes "Words of lagoon: Fishing and marine lore in Palau distric of Micronesia", 1981

E. Ostrom "Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action", 1990

Ember y Ember: Sistemas económicos: ¿Lleva la propiedad comunal al desastre económico?, 2010

http://davidruyet.wordpress.com/

How to survive in large crowds: Cultural techniques.

It is likely that you live surrounded by thousands of people in a big city, in a country of millions of people. And it is likely as well that you feel used to it, despite just meet a few. Have you ever noticed all they with you share your life whom you don't know?  They that you cross in the streets, on the bus, or they whom you buy. Some of them that you trust despite you don't even know their names as police officers (whom you trust your safety), banks cashiers (whom you trust your money) or restorant chefs (your food and health). It even seen pretty normal. But all these thinks aren't normal, were developed as "social technologies". Which are such techniques? What enables us to live in large crowds?

Models of Human organization evolution.

Let's check out a little about political evolution analysis to solve this questions. By the way, keep in mind that social evolution doesn't mean "better than" or superiority among societies, but changes across the time, new social adaptations or different complexity within a society. In the other hand, politics isn't just political parties and laws. Politics is the way that humans get organized, solve conflicts, and compete and distributed power

Adrian Bejan and Peder Zane have described evolution as a flow. They compare it with other flow models as rivers. Where flows diverge and converge according environment resistance. To left, satellital view of a river, to right full evolution chart.

There are many models that describe and combine several variables (such as knowledge, population, environment, conflict, culture, etc.) because most are synthetic and systemic. They appeal to multiple factors that reinforce each other, but giving priority to one factor or another. But Which one is the most correct? It will depend on every case. One model could be useful to explain the rise of the state in middle Andes, while another will explain segmentary tribes in High Nilo or corporations structure in USA.


To put it extremly simple we are going to use an "hypothetical group" to make these models work. Then this is a travel that will show us many options, not just one way, as a river flow to the present. So please, take a deep breath and try to forget all that things that you considered "obvious" or "normal", because we are going to places where such a things not even existed.

The hypothetical group.

Imagine a 200 people group, which is in an environment, where they get resources to survive (hunting and gathering). If they can't get enough food, they move. Then, they've had good health and nutricion (no- hygienic problems, a lot of exersice, rich diet), and don't need to work to much to survive. They distribute their products through reciprocity (favors exchange). There is neither specialization, nor bosses. Leadership is spontanious, temporary and depend on the task to be done.


But then, something changes: 1) An increase of population: several effects occur. Group's mobility decreases, getting less chances to get resources (Packing group hypothesis); there are more stomachs to feed (demographic pressure). Likewise, there is more people than we can naturally handle (Dunbar number). With too many unfamiliar faces, reciprocity doesn't work and conflict arises with people that we don't know so well. Further, scarce of resources increase competition and conflict.


2)It is time to make a decision. The group could reduce its numbers, could be divided and dispersed or the population pressure could lead to an innovation (Boserup's Theory), as looking for new food sources (Broad-spectrum theory) or agriculture development. Complementary strategies could be done to keep group cohesion: From a point of view that a group is a net of social relationships, someone - in the middle of that social network with access to many people - could articulate the group (weak ties hypothesis). Because more people is able to trust on him, he can managed it, but he must spend time on that. He becomes specialist, becomes leader/manager (Information theory). Other option is sub-divide the group into categories. Could be done by family names, linages or maybe by age groups. They'll try to reduce complexity of social reality into more simple categories. Also they'll set some norms and rules among those sub-groups. Finally they'll tied them by strong alliances (as marriages) between them.

Flowchart mixing different simplified models, the entire chart is fed back to the flow giving more complexity.

3) Dispersion is just a temporary solution if environment is restricted (as valleys among mountains or oasis on desert). Groups will rapidly found  limits to use such strategies, when they face other groups or the limits of productive areas. They'll divide them continuosly until they fulfill the habitat. Then, any group's expansion will mean reduction for another, that leads to conflict. Groups will avoid their full extintion, and losers will move to another place (competitive exclution). But if there is no more place, losers have to chose between go even further - to marginal territories and look for alternative food sources (Board-spectrum and marginal zone theory)- or submit to the other group (Environmental circunscription). In other hand, whether agriculture was developed, people is able to work more to produce a surplus (which is not possible with hunting/fishing system, where you could extinguish you food source working more hours). That surplus could be managed and redistributed by a  leader (Big man/woman), which gains prestige, that could transform into power (practice/agency theory). Or, the surplus could lead into trade among different groups, and traders become key members reaching high status that could transform into power (Communication media theory). Or agriculture may require to develop planner specialists to organize big irrigations works, and those specialist become leaders in the whole society (hidraulic theory). Or sedentarism makes the group vulnerable and a permanent defense has to be organized (external conflict). All of these specializations could lead to stratification. By itself stratification and inequality aren't stable (nobody wants to be beneath someone else) and tends to dispersion. 

4) In order to hold stratification or leadership some factor could suffer some feedback, like that leadership encourage surplus production and surplus strengthens leaders power. But leadership has to last enough to feedback could occurs. That could be achieved through coercive force (internal conflict) or that the whole group receives or perceives benefits from leadership (Management benefits theory), either by redistribution rol, technical knowledge, defensive, comunication management or ideology, as religion. Any kind of actions that bring legitimacy to leadership and even to the use of physical coercion. Whether this point is reached, it is possible that leadership sets some succesion mechanism, which make it more "permanent".


So far, complexity has taken many forms. The more complex societies with the biggest number of people often take shape as Chiefdoms and States. But there is much more complexity  and diversity to understand. Todays world is looking toward more politic integration, mainly because the same factors that we saw here (economics, demographics, conflict, environment, ideology, etc.).  Like many little changes that become bigger across the time, human organization evolves. Are we able to predict the future of human organization? Would you? Write your bet.

Sources:

T. Lewellen , 1994, Introdución a la antropología política

D. Kurtz, 2001 Political Anthropology: Power and paradigms
Lewis and Jurmain, 2012, Understanding Humans: An Introduction to physical anthropology and archeology
B. Trigger, 2003, Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study
M. Fried, 1960. On the evolution of social stratificiation and the state
Ferraro, 2009, Cultural anthropology: An Applied Perspective.

Culture and environment: the myth of environmentalist ancestor III

As we saw on a previous article, big civilizations and populations put a lot of pressure on environment, that could lead to practice some brutal activities in order to survive, as war and cannibalism. But How some people make their life with minimum impact on environment?

The tribe and infanticide

Well, we already checked that no-impact is imposible, even for our ancestors with limited technology. So, some people decide to keep population control to minimize their impact and get some kind of "ecological balance", as actual hunter-gathers do. By the way, is likely to belief that actual hunter-gathering tribes live like stone age times, but isn't true. Actual tribes live very often in marginal landscapes (as desert and jungles) with few resources basicly because they were running away from "modern civilizations" or "colonialists" looking for enslave them. In such a context "ecological balance" should be sharp.

Their strategy is keep population below environment feed capacity. Among Bushmen, Richard Lee has documented their strategies to keep their numbers low, added to other physiological effects resumed by M. Cohen. Their strategies are:

• Long breastfeeding period that prolongs prolactin secretion on mothers to delay ovulation (18 months up to 48).
• Abort by chemical o mechanics means (include drinking toxic beverages or beating belly)
• Mother's poor nutrition (lack of fat delays menarche and decrease fertility)
• Increase physical effort, as long walk to gather (increase prolactine production)
• Coitus control
• Infanticide.

Infanticide cover a wide range. From direct murder to simply negligence. The baby could be strangled, drowned, hit against a rock or abandoned outside. More often, the child will die for a mother's negligence. Maintain a demographic balance has a high cost.

Buschmen family: They are good parents but some sacrifice has to be done.

All these cases (Maori impact, Aztecs cannibalism and war and Bushmen infanticide) lead us to think about that myth of ancient people living with total harmony with their environment is an idealized and romantic situation, and false. But regardless of what we do, either in small groups or agricultural or industrial civilizations, all of us we have impact and must live thereby. Don't think that is going to relieve you from responsability, instead is realize of our impacts on environment. The sacrifices that had be done, we hope neither as the aztecs nor bushmen, but a change in our life style.

Furthermore, Ancient cultures has to be valued by itself (remembering  they faced similar problems as we do) and not for ethnocentric ideas that we put on them. Let's learn from they.

Sources:

http://envirohistorynz.com/2009/12/15/impacts-of-the-maori-on-the-environment/
http://frentepopulardejudea-nenya.blogspot.com/2011/11/haciendo-el-indio-la-falsa-carta-del.html
Cohen M.K. 1994. Demographics and human expansion.
Harris M. 1986 Cannibals and kings.

Culture and Environment: the myth of environmentalist ancestor II

On a previous article I told you how ancient people caused great impact on environment of New Zealand (of course modern european settlers caused a much bigger) and in the rest of the world. But large ancient civilizations does as well. That impact was so huge that they put a lot of pressure on their lifestyles and sometimes created a collapse of their civilizations

Cannibalism And War

One of biggest ecological devastation stories that ends in social devastation is about mesoamerican civilizations. it is believed that Olmec civilization collapsed because a drought and other ecological reasons. But the most sad is aztec's history. Very often related to a high developed society and technology (irrigation, astronomy, maths) with a structured empire.

Cannibalism is a documented practice all over the world and we could find some patterns on it. Is pretty common that cannibalism as cutural practice is related to religion-ritual practices. Sometimes a kin from who we are trying to consume their vital force. Sometime is an enemy, a prisioner offered to the gods and their thirst of blood. This last one is the main reason for aztecs, who used to go to war to get prisioners to sacrifice to gods, specially in bad times as poor harvest.

However, cannibalism is usually practice as something casual, in Aztec empire was daily. As described by Marvin Harris, it was hundreds of thousands of sacrifices documented in the number of human skulls found in Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital. Harris wonders what motivates such carnage. On the one hand there is an especially strong ecological predation in the Mesoamerican region which became in poor crops. The sacrifice was a way to implore the gods for better crops . But it also adds a more practical explanation.

Based on the Harner's study, Harris explains that mesoamerica lacked in domesticated animal species that provide protein to the diet. The products of hunting and domesticated turkeys were exclusive of elite, so the sacrifices served to distribute proteins to population and avoid political and social collapse.

Cannibalism is often a part of the myth of the agressive savage, usually related to war, famine and the moral vacuum (although false as well). However, we see it has also been practiced in high civilizations product of human impact on the ecosystem itself, especially in populous societies.

How does some communities do to control impact of population on environment? On next article

Culture and environment: the myth of environmental ancestor

With the spread of environmentalist movement, becoming stronger because the powerful threat of global warming, is pretty common to hear about the idea of ancient people that lived in total harmony with nature and their traditional culture and ancient wisdom were much better adapted and had no harm to the environment.

The most common reference to those myths used to be Chief Seattle's letter to President of the United States at the time. The letter warns about harm to nature has important consequenses, like "The earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand of it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself". Heartbreaking but sadly false (It was actually written by Ted Perry, Hollywood writer. Not because it wasn't an ecological true). And not just because of the author of the letter, but where could they learn that lesson.

Human Impact in ancient environment

The humankind has spread all over the world, adapting himself to every environment that has faced. Mountains, jungles, oceans, "polar cold" and even space. But in each one has made an impact.

The very faraway islands of New Zealand are great places to check this out. Because their positions on the world map, those islands have been one of the last places that humans have colonized. The first polynesian people arrived just 1000 years ago which, for archeological record, is the same as yesterday.

Human settlement map by genetics studies(that match with archeological record). When first humans arrived to NZ, in Europe Carolingian Empire had fallen, Vikings had reached America, toltecs had reached their maximum civilization point and Reindeer had extinct in Scotland

This people originated Maori culture (very famous around the world because of haka, war dance used by All Blacks, national rugby team of New Zealand). Maori used to practice gather-hunting and horticulture as well. Their beliefs are animist (which means they give soul to nature and natural forces), and that is why people relate them with environmental beliefs.

Despite being a coast away in the ocean, Maori culture is also away to be the realm of utopia. As it happened on the rest of the world, where hunt-gathering populations killed big fauna (as optimal foraging theory said, are the most efficient to hunt, means more calories by less work/hour) Maoris hunted several species to the point of extinct them.

Map that shows native forest extension in 1000 (when Maoris arrived), in 1840 (when europeans arrived) and now

In NZ, Maoris extinguished by direct action (hunt or habitat destruction) or indirect action (introducing of other species as rats and dogs): 40 species of birds, 1 of bat, 3 o 4 of frogs, several lizards. Among those animal we found Moa, big fauna, big non-flying bird, bigger than ostrich (some times 3 meters/ 10 feet tall). Also Haast's Eagle, an eagle so big that used to hunt Moas.

Those are not the only islands where such a thing has happened. In Madagascar were extinguished giant land turtle, elephant bird, giant lemur, pygmy hippo, among others. Same has happened in Great Britain with elephants, lions, reindeer, beavers, bison. In Hawaii, giant geese. In Chipre, elephants and deers. In caribbean islands giant rodents and colossal owl. For instance, in Eastern Island the damage was so huge that they cut off all trees and hunted all animals. The ecological impact was so brutal that conflicts started among human populations and war and even cannibalism had happened. (on next article).

Sources:

http://envirohistorynz.com/2009/12/15/impacts-of-the-maori-on-the-environment/
http://frentepopulardejudea-nenya.blogspot.com/2011/11/haciendo-el-indio-la-falsa-carta-del.html
Cohen M.K. 1994. Demographics and human expansion.
Harris M. 1986 Canibals and Kings