76
GERALD L. YOUNG
yet ready to undertake such analysis, at least of whole or total systems:
“the collection of adequate and relevant data in studies of ecosystems
will often be difficult if not impossible”. And his comments apply only to
natural systems, not human ones.
Those biologists who have tried to expand their knowledge of natural
ecosystems to encompass human groupings have produced disappointing efforts. Bates (1967) summarizes this frustration when he states that
he has been “attempting, off and on, to find ways of analyzing the
human ecosystem”, but admittedly without much success. Gates (1968)
has declared that “to attempt to understand an ecosystem may be
today the greatest challenge scientists have and to apply this understanding to human problems may be an even greater challenge”. His
concentration on the quanti6cation of plant ecosystems is a tacit
admission that he is not ready to respond to his own challenge. Margalef
(1963) does no better in his attempt to establish the ecosystem and its
characteristics as a major unifying principle in ecology. Though he
manages quite admirably for natural systems, the only mention of
human systems is tacked weakly on the end: “the concepts . . . may be
applied to human social systems”. His “two evident principles” are not
quite so evident, the assumption unacceptable.
Buechner (1970) recognizes the ultimate challenge in his editorial on
the human ecosystem, suggesting a need for a “reorganization of
knowledge on an ecological theme, in which finally the orientation is at
the highest level of biological integration-that of man and the total
environment as an ecosystem”. Assuming that this is ultimately
necessary is far Werent from assuming that one has done it (see also
Dice, 1955; H. T. Odum, 1962; Cole, 1966; E. P. Odum, 1969).
A number of questions need examination in the present review. First,
how has the ecosystem concept been defined, particularly in the context
of human ecology? Are methods of definition and measurement utilized
in biological ecology acceptable or adaptable in human ecology? (see
Dogan and Rokkan, 1969). How does ecosystem analysis fit into the
broader framework of general systems theory? How do ecosystems and
general systems differ? To what extent is ecosystem analysis accepted
and applied in the various approaches to human ecology?
Methods of defining the ecosystem that have been developed primarily
in biology provide only a beginning in human ecology. And perhaps not
even that because ultimately (as Van Dyne, 1966, suggests) the method
will have to be mathematical, and formulas and models so far formulated
for analysis of natural ecosystems (e.g. those of Margalef, 1963; Van
Dyne, 1966; or Gates, 1968) do not appear to be directly applicable to
human ecological systems (see also Slobodkin, 1965; Dogan and Rokkan,
1967). I cannot prove this in the limited space here, and do not in fact
GERALD L. YOUNG
yet ready to undertake such analysis, at least of whole or total systems:
“the collection of adequate and relevant data in studies of ecosystems
will often be difficult if not impossible”. And his comments apply only to
natural systems, not human ones.
Those biologists who have tried to expand their knowledge of natural
ecosystems to encompass human groupings have produced disappointing efforts. Bates (1967) summarizes this frustration when he states that
he has been “attempting, off and on, to find ways of analyzing the
human ecosystem”, but admittedly without much success. Gates (1968)
has declared that “to attempt to understand an ecosystem may be
today the greatest challenge scientists have and to apply this understanding to human problems may be an even greater challenge”. His
concentration on the quanti6cation of plant ecosystems is a tacit
admission that he is not ready to respond to his own challenge. Margalef
(1963) does no better in his attempt to establish the ecosystem and its
characteristics as a major unifying principle in ecology. Though he
manages quite admirably for natural systems, the only mention of
human systems is tacked weakly on the end: “the concepts . . . may be
applied to human social systems”. His “two evident principles” are not
quite so evident, the assumption unacceptable.
Buechner (1970) recognizes the ultimate challenge in his editorial on
the human ecosystem, suggesting a need for a “reorganization of
knowledge on an ecological theme, in which finally the orientation is at
the highest level of biological integration-that of man and the total
environment as an ecosystem”. Assuming that this is ultimately
necessary is far Werent from assuming that one has done it (see also
Dice, 1955; H. T. Odum, 1962; Cole, 1966; E. P. Odum, 1969).
A number of questions need examination in the present review. First,
how has the ecosystem concept been defined, particularly in the context
of human ecology? Are methods of definition and measurement utilized
in biological ecology acceptable or adaptable in human ecology? (see
Dogan and Rokkan, 1969). How does ecosystem analysis fit into the
broader framework of general systems theory? How do ecosystems and
general systems differ? To what extent is ecosystem analysis accepted
and applied in the various approaches to human ecology?
Methods of defining the ecosystem that have been developed primarily
in biology provide only a beginning in human ecology. And perhaps not
even that because ultimately (as Van Dyne, 1966, suggests) the method
will have to be mathematical, and formulas and models so far formulated
for analysis of natural ecosystems (e.g. those of Margalef, 1963; Van
Dyne, 1966; or Gates, 1968) do not appear to be directly applicable to
human ecological systems (see also Slobodkin, 1965; Dogan and Rokkan,
1967). I cannot prove this in the limited space here, and do not in fact