30 August 2009

Evolutionary Hangovers: Technology’s Affects on Biological Evolution

The rapid evolution of technology has dramatically outpaced the biological evolution of most species, including humans. The sudden rise of new toxins into the environment has created an evolutionary hangover of unknown proportions.
The term evolutionary hangover has stemmed from the thought that evolution does not possess foresight, it instead is adaptive to the environment, which is not always done in a timely manner. According to Paul R. Ehrlich, “We have evolutionary hangovers when cultural evolution makes deleterious changes in our environment more rapidly than genetic evolution can respond to them. Some of the rapid environmental changes brought about by industrialization seem to have caused an increased incidence of cancer in human populations” (Ehrlich 2000, 35). He continues, “…selection could not preadapt our species to withstand much of the chemical assault to which it is now subjected because that assault is totally unprecedented. Earth is now awash in millions of tons of novel synthetic chemicals…Many of them are toxic, carcinogenic, or mutagenic (damaging to genetic material) or cause developmental problems...” (Ehrlich 2000, 36).
An example of one type chemical that has been created and released into the environment are Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) which are used as flame retardants in many everyday products. PBDEs have been found globally in human samples, mostly in breast milk, and are known endocrine disruptors (Darnerud 2008). An evolutionary hangover is present when a chemical is released and is harming a species, in this case humans, because they have not yet evolved a resistance or immunity to its affects. Slow evolution rates in humans keep them from having the ability to evolve as quickly as these chemicals are being created. New toxins are produced constantly, presenting an unknown future for humans.

Darnerud, P. O. 2008. Brominated flame retardants as possible endocrine disruptors. International Journal of Andrology 31, no. 2 (April). http://web.ebscohost.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/ehost/pdf?vid=28&hid=9&sid=2906b662-46ca-40e9-acf0-c4524f94ccdd%40sessionmgr110 (accessed August 29, 2009).

Ehrlich, Paul R. 2000. Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect. New York: Penguin. http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/oC6bSjFXie0Oaj6A3Py1Lo46GbwOBeBHqynKRaRPIPrCIKlPiUkZIBURzLKQUESF53N6SkJmxVkzagSAVYGHyropKqm_QpvD1lueQA/Readings/PDF2%3FEhrlich%20Ch2.pdf (accessed August 29, 2009).

26 August 2009

Ethnocentrism at the core of Western views of nature

I believe a leaf of grass is no less than the journey-work of the stars. – Walt Whitman

For the better part of two millennia, the dichotomy which exists between humans and nature has become increasingly prevalent and stratified. In David Barnhill's "Major Western Views of Nature," it clearly insinuates that anthropocentric ideologies have been the guiding forces in shaping Western views of nature—that is, essentially, for humans to "extend…dominion over the universe." However, the anthropocentric view of nature evolved into an ethnocentric dogma during the scientific and industrial revolutions. The Western ethnocentric view has led to a distorted view of the natural world and has directly contributed to the exploitation of non-Indo-Europeans.

James Proctor of the University of California, Santa Barbara, states that the Western view of "nature is far less universal and extrahuman than generally assumed." Moreover, the very idea of nature and wilderness—in the epistemological sense—is a unique feature of Euro-American cultures. (Proctor 356) There is a vast amount of cultural relativism even within the many modern Western views of nature (i.e. conservationism, preservationism, postmodernism, decontructive-postmodernists, et al.). While some degree of relativism is to be expected in any ideology, the postmodernism philosophy has emerged as a particularly virulent school of thought.

Not only has postmodernism completely disassociated humankind with nature/wilderness, it is trying to justify tinkering with the very last bits of pristine wilderness. (355) It is the postmodernist movement which is spearheading and justifying offshore drilling, slash and burn farming, and third world garbage dumping. The postmodernist construction of nature is simply neo-colonialism by another name. The people of the Third World have become the "noble savages" of the modern era. The "Western" world has completely disassociated itself from its southern-hemisphere brothers and sisters. Western corporations engage in immoral business practices from South America to Africa.

Anthropocentric and ethnocentric ideologies have been the leading causes to the destruction of the natural world. It began with the simple ideas of "dominion" and "stewardship" over the land. And it eventually led to the exploitation of resources and our fellow man.

Works Cited

Title: The Social Construction of Nature: Relativist Accusations, Pragmatist and Critical Realist Responses
Author(s): James D. Proctor
Source: Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 88, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 352-376
Publisher(s): Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of American Geographers
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2564234

TM's First Blog post

Transcendental dualism is one of the most slippery axioms that I have ever encountered. One aspect describes two distinct spiritual views: men are superior, intelligent, intellectual, and logical. Women are animalistic and emotional. Moreover, domesticated animals are superior to those who report to no man. To sum up, those that are like males are good and things that are unlike males are bad. However, I think that a person can overcome the tendency to manage other living beings, for there is value in all creatures.


Perhaps transcendental dualism comes from fear and the inability to control nature very well, until technology aided man. Fences and firearms come to mind as important ways as how the “West was won”. This phrase sums up the concept of Manifest Destiny that arose in the 1800's as the reason for conquering the area eventually known as the United States of America. The principle of God wanting man to conquer the natural landscape caused much upheaval of native plants, animals and people.


The power of (mostly) white men shaped the USA into a dualistic society that has caused many social ills, which includes the gender tug-of-war that lasts until today, even though suffrage succeeded in giving women voting power in 1920. Controlling others – human and not – seems to be an innate need that students of history should examine.


From history, one would find evidence that Theodore Roosevelt was a proponent not just of the National Park System, but also of human equality. When speaking in Arkansas in 1905, he deplored the lynch law which was primarily applied to black men. Equality of people and animals leads to equality of spirit. (It should be noted that hunting was allowed in the parks, allowing for nature appreciation on more than one level.)


This brings us back to transcendental dualism. To quote Star Trek, “Humans are illogical.” Reflecting reality, that statement describes the reason why we have survived and succeeded. However, some say that humans are too prolific, for the planet is rather full of people and pollution. Others opine that the world has no lasting troubles, the greenhouse effect is false, and that global warming is part of the natural geological cycle.


I say that we cut open the Tree of Good and Evil and check.



Holman, E.L. (2006). Philosophical studies: An international journal for philosophy in the analytic

tradition, Springer, 128, 229-256. Retrieved August 26, 2009. http://www.jstor. org/stable/ 4321722


Gatewood, Jr., W.B. (1973). Theodore Roosevelt and Arkansas, The Arkansas Historical Quarterly

1901-1912, 32, 3-24. Retrieved August 26, 2009. http://www.jstor. org/stable/ 40038101


Conservationism Versus Preservationism

 Before reading Professor David Barnhill”s article, “Major Western Views of Nature”, I was fairly certain that conservation and preservation were very similar ideologies. Upon completion of Branhill’s article I now understand the clear differences between the two. After reading the article and following up with some further research of my own, I have decided to be a firm believer of preservationism as opposed to conservationism. It is ideal to have a preservationist ideology because it will be better for nature, as well as human’s relationship with it in the future.

 Barhill explains Conservationism as being a “long-term view of preserving natural resources rather than mere short-term exploitation”(3).  This of course sounds good at first glance, and makes people think of having resources for future generations, which is a typical decision maker. Nature was seen in this sense as “primarily a set of resources for human use”(3). This begins to give the view that humans are the only thing that mater on the planet, and that everything else on it is here to serve us in some way. If nature was not meant for human benefit, then it must just be a wild waste of space. Barnhill explains that people were of the opinion that, “nature as lacking value unless humans control it, which is our duty”(3). So now not only is it meant for human benefit, but also it is now completely useless unless we superior humans control it how we see necessary. Who are we to say what is best for something that we did not create, and are constantly learning more about?

 The description of preservationism that Barhill presents appears to be more intelligent as well as less arrogant on how humans are interacting with nature. There is the idea and understanding that nature is a, “living system that deserves to fulfill its natural development”(4). Nature has been doing fine on its own since it evolved, so the idea that “the ideal here is to leave nature alone”(4), makes wonderful sense. It makes so much sense that people have been protesting for years and laws have been passed to protect the land. Laws such as the, “Wilderness Act of 1964, which set aside areas where people could not log, mine, build resorts, drive cars, or live”(4). Law makes it apparent that we have to protect our land from ourselves if we want any nature left in the future.

 Our willingness and ability to participate in, “the preservation movement reveals aspects of the culture and social structure of each society”(Barthel 88).  Societies and cultures that are able to realize the destructive problem and want to do something about it signifies a certain heightened awareness within that culture. America is getting more involved in the preservation of our land, however, “up until 1930, federal involvement in preservation was minimal”(Barthel 95). In order for mass change, the government needs to be able to create and enforce laws that they implement for the sake of the planet and all its inhabitants: being plants, animals, and humans.

Works Cited:

 1) Barnhill, David. “Major Western Views of Nature”. 14 March 2007. University of Wisconsin Ohkosh, Director, Environmental Studies. 26 August 2009. http://bit.ly/iENtO.

 2) Barthel, Diane. “Historic Preservation: A Comparative Analyses”Sociological Forum, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Mar., 1989): 87-105. Springer. 26 August 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/684437

16 August 2009

Introduction and Blog

Welcome to the blog for Nature and World Cultures, an upper division American Studies/Environmental Studies course at San Jose State University. My name is Prof. Ormsbee, and I'm the professor for the course and the moderator of the blog. Please find below a rules for posting on the blog and a description of the contents of the course.


GENERAL BLOG RULES: The purpose of this blog is to create a forum for students to explore in more depth the topics of the course, and to open up the possibility for engagement with other readers. Because the primary purpose of the blog is educational, I will carefully moderate to ensure a learning environment and experience for my students. Because we will be addressing issues that may be controversial, some rules are necessary:

  • Students are required to maintain a degree of anonymity on this blog for obvious reasons. They may use nicknames, screen names, or just their first name without any identifying markers. I am not anonymous, however, and my faculty web page can be found here.
  • Student posts and comments are meant to follow a high standard of argumentation. They will be striving to introduce criticism, analysis, argumentation, and evidence to the conversations about these topics. They are being graded on their participation.
  • This is not a free speech, anything-goes, free-for-all blog. All participants should consider two key ethical concerns: a) mutual respect and consideration for participants on the blog; and b) objective and fair treatment of the issues and cultures treated. Note: Objectivity does not mean that posters will not be critical; rather, it means that their analyses and criticism will be based in evidence and argumentation.
  • Non-students may comment, but will be carefully moderated to maintain the blog as an educational space. Ad hominem, vulgarity, personal attacks, and hostile comments will be deleted.
  • Disagreements are welcome, but should be presented in respectful and constructive ways. Both tone and content should be carefully composed before posting.


THE COURSE: In this section of Nature and World Cultures, we will be working to understand the intricate link between the physical environment and the ideas, symbols, stories, and representations that human create to understand their environments; then we will seek to understand how those ideas about “Nature” in turn cause human beings to act in particular ways vis-à-vis the environment. Our inquiry will be interdisciplinary, drawing on evolutionary biology, anthropology, sociology, history, religious studies, cognitive science, and history. We will divide the course into three sections:

  1. Naturalism: What is the connection between our biological evolution as human beings and our cultural understanding of and use of “nature”? How do our bodies and our physical environments combine to form ideas and meaningful lives, and how do we in turn transform our physical environments to meet our cultural expectations of “nature”?
  2. Culture and Environment: How have various societies structured their relationships to their environments? What impact did they have over time? Why did they destroy their environments? Or conversely, how did they arrive at a homeostasis or sustainable lifestyle? How do social structures and cultures affect the way people interact with the environment; how does the environment shape social structures and cultures?
  3. Contemporary Cultural Views of Nature, Globalization, and Global Environmentalism: What has changed in human beings’ relationship to the environment since industrialization in the 19th century and globalization in the 20th century? What effect are our cultures and especially consumer culture having on the environment? How are world cultures connected, even though they are so different from each other, vis-à-vis the environment? How does culture both support and resist globalization and the interaction of global capitalism with the environment?


For a detailed introduction to the American Studies program at SJSU, please see the program's MySpace page or Facebook Group.