HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
87
nor has universal support been assumed for any single concept (at least
in terms of adequate definition and extent).
VI. SUMMARY A N D CONCLUSIONS
This essay may be defined as much by what it has left out as by what
it has included. The most obvious omission is detailed attention to the
ecology of man in terms of his impact on the landscape and environment.
Part of this would include reference to the dynamics of man’s population ecology. This would seem a strange omission in an ecological
examination of man; but there are books (and books) on human population growth and its impact or potential impact on environment, books
that make varied views of the situation familiar enough to not need
repetition here. Environmental impact has been the almost exclusive
concentration of a plethora of materials in recent years; I have three
long shelves of books on “the environment and man”, none of which are
more than five years old and all of which concentrate on the havoc man
is wreaking on his environment (on the havoc, not on man). These
supply a very real need, a number are well done and their value should
not be downgraded, but few make much of a contribution toward real
understanding of the ecology of our strange and sapient species. Shepard
(1967) suggests that “the relationship of the mind to nature” is “perhaps
the central problem of human ecology”, and later, with McKinley (1969),
defines two distinguishing characteristics of human ecology as compared
with plant or animal ecology: “One deals with the nature of the environmental encounter-the complexity of the sentient response-as it seems
or feels or appears. The other is the element of choice or decision as it
affects this encounter.’’
Perhaps a disappointment to some will be the lack, in these pages, of a
careful biological contribution to human ecology. Reference to this can
be found, but it is considered the beginning, a building block. Like the
rest, it could only be introduced not exhausted. More seriously, this
inquiry into the concept of human ecology may appear too ambivalent
toward the biological nature of man: it is. This is because the workers in
the field are ambivalent and it would be presumptuous to offer a final
argument here. This may seem to be turning a deaf ear to repeated pleas
by ecologists that man must be considered “as part of, not apart from,
the environment” (Odum, 1969). No ecologist could really reject such an
argument (see Forbes, 1922). There has been no attempt to deny the
biological nature of man or his ties to the environment (the implied
qualifier on this much abused word seems always to be, in these arguments, the “natural” environment). I would claim not the sin of
omission but the goal of extension, of transcendent recognition: man
87
nor has universal support been assumed for any single concept (at least
in terms of adequate definition and extent).
VI. SUMMARY A N D CONCLUSIONS
This essay may be defined as much by what it has left out as by what
it has included. The most obvious omission is detailed attention to the
ecology of man in terms of his impact on the landscape and environment.
Part of this would include reference to the dynamics of man’s population ecology. This would seem a strange omission in an ecological
examination of man; but there are books (and books) on human population growth and its impact or potential impact on environment, books
that make varied views of the situation familiar enough to not need
repetition here. Environmental impact has been the almost exclusive
concentration of a plethora of materials in recent years; I have three
long shelves of books on “the environment and man”, none of which are
more than five years old and all of which concentrate on the havoc man
is wreaking on his environment (on the havoc, not on man). These
supply a very real need, a number are well done and their value should
not be downgraded, but few make much of a contribution toward real
understanding of the ecology of our strange and sapient species. Shepard
(1967) suggests that “the relationship of the mind to nature” is “perhaps
the central problem of human ecology”, and later, with McKinley (1969),
defines two distinguishing characteristics of human ecology as compared
with plant or animal ecology: “One deals with the nature of the environmental encounter-the complexity of the sentient response-as it seems
or feels or appears. The other is the element of choice or decision as it
affects this encounter.’’
Perhaps a disappointment to some will be the lack, in these pages, of a
careful biological contribution to human ecology. Reference to this can
be found, but it is considered the beginning, a building block. Like the
rest, it could only be introduced not exhausted. More seriously, this
inquiry into the concept of human ecology may appear too ambivalent
toward the biological nature of man: it is. This is because the workers in
the field are ambivalent and it would be presumptuous to offer a final
argument here. This may seem to be turning a deaf ear to repeated pleas
by ecologists that man must be considered “as part of, not apart from,
the environment” (Odum, 1969). No ecologist could really reject such an
argument (see Forbes, 1922). There has been no attempt to deny the
biological nature of man or his ties to the environment (the implied
qualifier on this much abused word seems always to be, in these arguments, the “natural” environment). I would claim not the sin of
omission but the goal of extension, of transcendent recognition: man