Making an environment 85
King (1987) as relevant predecessors, may provide more focus to the notion of
construction involved here. Broadly speaking, ecological niches are the specific
sets of conditions in an environment that are reproductively relevant to a certain
population. Different populations inhabiting one area at one time will depend on
different sets of conditions at that place at that time. The make-up of these conditions partly depends on the activities of the organisms themselves. If there is
some adaptive function to the construction of features of the environment, these
features will become part of the necessary conditions in an explanation of an
organism’s success on a proximate behavioural or an ultimate selective level, or
both. If these features are indeed part of the necessary conditions in question,
there are good reasons to view them as coupled with the organism: he has to track
the presence of some feature and put himself in the right relation to it, or he has
to modify some feature in order to prevail. These necessary conditions, whether
found or made, will make up his niche.
Although the views of niche and environmental constructivism are related, their
terminology diverges, and with it, perhaps inadvertently, the general argument’s
focus. Ecological niches are specific by definition on the niche construction view,
whether they are static or dynamic in nature. Hence, attention will be drawn to the
latter aspect: are niches found or constructed? Environments, in turn, are specific
only on some accounts – as, for example, for von Uexküll and, in some respects,
Lewontin – but are more readily accepted to be dynamic affairs. Hence, the argument will gravitate towards the aspect of specificity: what particular contributions do organisms make to the dynamics of their environment? To be sure, these
aspects interlock: if an organism makes a number of contributions to the shape
and dynamics of his environment, some of these contributions will be relevant to
himself, and hence be specific. If, in turn, an organism creates the niche that he
inhabits, he will also have altered his environment. However, as we have seen, not
all of the contributions that an organism makes to his environment will actually be
constructive with respect to creating his niche. The third mode of environmental
construction implicated by Lewontin in particular, namely that of undermining
the conditions necessary for reproductive success, is not part of the concept of
niche construction. Nor will all aspects of niche construction involve construction
in a material sense. There are subtle distinctions to be made, and I will return to
Godfrey-Smith (1996a) in the next section to elaborate on them.
For a start, however, it will be sensible to assume that organisms, in manifold
ways, contribute to the environmental conditions under which they thrive – or
fail to thrive. The activities involved need not always be adaptive: by altering
the environment, animals change the conditions to which they will have to react
further down the timeline, and sometimes these changes might actually be for
the worse. One of the puzzles Lewontin sets out to solve is why, if adaptation
by natural selection plays such a prominent role in evolution, organisms are not
optimally adapted to their environments. If the conditions in some population’s
environment remain largely stable over time, one would expect that some state of
optimal adaptive fit will be reached in many instances – if only conditions remain
stable for long enough. Besides environmental pressure from competitors and
King (1987) as relevant predecessors, may provide more focus to the notion of
construction involved here. Broadly speaking, ecological niches are the specific
sets of conditions in an environment that are reproductively relevant to a certain
population. Different populations inhabiting one area at one time will depend on
different sets of conditions at that place at that time. The make-up of these conditions partly depends on the activities of the organisms themselves. If there is
some adaptive function to the construction of features of the environment, these
features will become part of the necessary conditions in an explanation of an
organism’s success on a proximate behavioural or an ultimate selective level, or
both. If these features are indeed part of the necessary conditions in question,
there are good reasons to view them as coupled with the organism: he has to track
the presence of some feature and put himself in the right relation to it, or he has
to modify some feature in order to prevail. These necessary conditions, whether
found or made, will make up his niche.
Although the views of niche and environmental constructivism are related, their
terminology diverges, and with it, perhaps inadvertently, the general argument’s
focus. Ecological niches are specific by definition on the niche construction view,
whether they are static or dynamic in nature. Hence, attention will be drawn to the
latter aspect: are niches found or constructed? Environments, in turn, are specific
only on some accounts – as, for example, for von Uexküll and, in some respects,
Lewontin – but are more readily accepted to be dynamic affairs. Hence, the argument will gravitate towards the aspect of specificity: what particular contributions do organisms make to the dynamics of their environment? To be sure, these
aspects interlock: if an organism makes a number of contributions to the shape
and dynamics of his environment, some of these contributions will be relevant to
himself, and hence be specific. If, in turn, an organism creates the niche that he
inhabits, he will also have altered his environment. However, as we have seen, not
all of the contributions that an organism makes to his environment will actually be
constructive with respect to creating his niche. The third mode of environmental
construction implicated by Lewontin in particular, namely that of undermining
the conditions necessary for reproductive success, is not part of the concept of
niche construction. Nor will all aspects of niche construction involve construction
in a material sense. There are subtle distinctions to be made, and I will return to
Godfrey-Smith (1996a) in the next section to elaborate on them.
For a start, however, it will be sensible to assume that organisms, in manifold
ways, contribute to the environmental conditions under which they thrive – or
fail to thrive. The activities involved need not always be adaptive: by altering
the environment, animals change the conditions to which they will have to react
further down the timeline, and sometimes these changes might actually be for
the worse. One of the puzzles Lewontin sets out to solve is why, if adaptation
by natural selection plays such a prominent role in evolution, organisms are not
optimally adapted to their environments. If the conditions in some population’s
environment remain largely stable over time, one would expect that some state of
optimal adaptive fit will be reached in many instances – if only conditions remain
stable for long enough. Besides environmental pressure from competitors and