Human
Population and Environment:
An anthropological perspectiv
By Rabin Bastola
Introduction
Human
populations have ongoing contact with and impact upon the land.
Climate, plant, and animal species in their vicinities, and these
elements of their environment have reciprocal impacts on humans.
Furthermore, each human population has its own adaptations
institutionalized in the culture of the group, especially in their
technologies. Anthropological knowledge has the potential to inform
and instruct humans about how to construct sustainable ways of life.
Anthropology, especially when it has an environmental focus, also
demonstrates the importance of preserving cultural diversity. While
biological diversity is necessary for the adaptation and survival of
all species, cultural diversity may serve a similar role for the human
species because it is clearly one of our most important mechanisms of
ecological adaptation.
Human
population, from the very beginning of the civilization, has exploited
the environment to get the subsistence. There is always a close
relation between environment and living organisms. Nature provides
human populations their subsistence to survive. Those that cannot
adapt themselves in a particular environment quickly fall into
extinction.
Charles
Darwin presents a synthetic theory of evolution based on the idea of
descent with modification. In each generation, more individuals are
produced than can survive (because of limited resources). Thus
competition between individuals arises. Individuals with favorable
characteristics, or variations, survive to reproduce. It is the
environmental context that determines whether or not a trait is
beneficial.
Thomas
R. Malthus has an obvious influence on Darwin's formulations. Malthus
pioneered demographic studies, arguing that human populations
naturally tend to outstrip their food supply (Seymour-Smith 1986:87).
This circumstance leads to disease and hunger, which eventually puts a
limit on the growth of populations (Seymour-Smith 1986:87).
As
a reaction to Darwin’s theory, some anthropologists eventually
turned to environmental determinism as a mechanism for explanation.
The earliest attempts at environmental determinism mapped cultural
features of human populations according to environmental information;
for example, correlation's were drawn between natural features and
human technologies (Milton 1997).
While
talking about the linkage between environment and human population, we
should be familiar with some of the terms that can be considered
as the PRINCIPAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL CONCEPTS in the study of the
linkage between environment and human population.
Principal
Concepts
Carrying
Capacity
Carrying
capacity is "the number of individuals that a habitat can
support." This idea is related to the extent to which an
ecosystem can meet the demands of resource exploitation (Moran
1979:334). If the technology of a people changes, the carrying
capacity is altered.
An example of the application of carrying capacity within ecological
anthropology is demonstrated in Rappaport’s study of the Tsembaga
Maring people (Rappaport 1968).
There
is a limit to the carrying capacity of the Earth. Carrying capacity is
the level of population, which may be supported by the earth's natural
resources at a given level of welfare. In other words, how many people
could share the earth, while maintaining a given physical standard of
living by utilizing available reserves of energy and other natural
resources?
Cultural
Ecology
Cultural
ecology is the study of the adaptation of human societies or
populations to their environments. Cultural ecology emphasizes the
arrangements of technique, economy, and social organization through
which culture mediates the experience of the natural world (Winthrop
1991:47).
Humans
are animals, and like all other animals, must maintain an adaptive
relationship with their ecosystems in order to survive. Although they
achieve this adaptation principally through the medium of culture, the
process is ultimately subject to the same rules of natural selection
that govern biological adaptation (Meggers 1971:4).
A
crucial starting point is that it is not cultures that evolve. "Cultures,
unlike human populations, are not fed upon by predators, limited by
food supplies, or debilitated by disease" (Vadya and Rappaport
1968:494). We
can define culture as a system of more or less shared ideational
designs for a living characteristic of a particular people. These
ideational designs are only one set of elements shaping the behavior
of a population in an ecosystem; it is on this behavior
patterns
that
biological evolutionary processes operate. We are not asking, then,
how cultures evolve but how socio-cultural systems-in-environments
evolve.
When
we place the behavior of human populations in this broadened
biological perspective, we risk a misunderstanding. If it is true that
human populations are ultimately subject to the biological laws that
affect any animal population: they must reproduce in adequate numbers
and not irreversibly degrade their ecosystem.
But
this is not to say that the processes of change in the cultural (that
is, learned) components of human behavior are necessarily the same as
(or parallel or analogous to) the processes of natural selection that
shape the genetic information in a population. Woodpeckers cannot
decide not to peck holes in trees. If their feeding patterns degraded
the vegetable components of their ecosystem, their population would be
affected accordingly – and their genes would change only by an
indirect process of gradual adaptation. However, human populations can
change their customs: they can prohibit hunting a totem animal or
decide not to build nuclear power plants. The consequences of such
changes are not subject purely to biological laws. The processes of
change in this regard may be quite different.
Culture
Core
The
cultural core is the feature of a society that is the most closely
related to subsistence activities and economic arrangements.
Furthermore, the core includes political, religious, and social
patterns that are connected to (or in relationship with) such
arrangements (Steward 1955:37).
Diachronic
Study
A
diachronic study is one that includes an historical or evolutionary
time dimension (Moran 1979:328). Steward used a diachronic approach in
his studies (Moran 1979:42).
Synchronic
Study
Rappaport
conducted synchronic studies. These are short-term investigations that
occur at one point in time and do not consider historical processes.
Ecological
anthropology has utilized several different methodologies during the
course of its development. The methodology employed by Cultural-ecology,
popular in the 1950s and early 1960s involved the initial
identification of the technology employed by populations in the use of
environmental resources (Milton 1997). Patterns of behavior relevant
to the use of those technologies are then defined, and lastly, the
extent to which these behaviors affect other cultural characteristics
is examined (Milton 1997).
Ecology
Ecology
is the study of the interaction between living and nonliving
components of the environment (Moran 1979:328). This pertains to the
relationship between an organism and all aspects of its environment.
Ecosystem
An
ecosystem is the structural and functional interrelationships among
living organisms and the environment of which they are a part (Moran
1990:3). Ecosystems are complex and can be viewed on different scales
or levels. Moran’s study of soils in the Amazon is an example of
micro-level ecosystem analysis.
Ecosystem
Approach/Model
This
is an approach used by some ecological anthropologists such as Moran
(1990:3), who claims that this view uses the physical environment as
the basis around which evolving species and adaptive responses are
examined. The
ecosystem approach had played a central role in the study of the
linkage between environment and human population.
Environmental
Determinism
A
deterministic approach assigns one factor, the environment, as the
dominant influence in cultural explanations. Environmental determinism
is based on the assumption that cultural and natural areas are
coterminous, because culture represents an adaptation to the
particular environment (Steward 1955:35). Therefore, environmental
factors solely determine human social and cultural behaviors (Milton
1997).
Ethno-ecology
Ethno-ecology
is the paradigm that investigates native thought about environmental
phenomena (Barfield 1997:138). Studies in Ethno-ecology often focus on
indigenous classification hierarchies referring to particular aspects
of the environment (for example, soil types, plants, and animals).
Historical
Ecology
Historical
ecology examines how culture and environment mutually influence each
other over time (Barfield 1997:138). These studies have diachronic
dimensions. Historical
ecology is holistic and affirms that life is not independent from
culture. This is an ecological perspective that adheres to the idea
that the relationship between a human population and its physical
environment can be examined holistically, rather than
deterministically. Landscapes
can be understood historically, as well as ecologically. Historical
ecology attempts to study land as an artifact of human activity (Balee
1996).
Latent
Function
A
latent function of a behavior is not explicitly stated, recognized, or
intended by the people involved. Thus, observers identify them. Latent
functions are associated with etic and operational models. For
example, in Pigs for the
Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People, the
latent function of the sacrifice is the presence of too many pigs,
while its manifest function is the sacrifice of pigs to ancestors (Balee
1996).
Manifest
Function
A
manifest function is explicitly stated and understood by the
participants in the relevant action. The manifest function of a rain
dance is to produce rain, and this outcome is intended and desired by
people participating in the ritual. This could also be defined as emic
with cognized models.
Limiting
Factor
In
the 1960s cultural ecology focused on showing how availability of
resources can be a limiting factor on the expansion of human
populations. A limiting factor is a variable in a region that, despite
the limits or settings of any other variable, will limit the carrying
capacity of that region to a certain number.
Neo-functionalism
This
term represents a productive but short-lived 1960s revision of
structural-functionalism. Neo-functionalism
attends explicitly to the modeling of systems-level interactions,
especially negative feedback, and assigns primary importance to
Techno-environmental forces, especially environment, ecology, and
population (Bettinger 1996:851). Within
Neo-functionalism, culture is reduced to an adaptation, and functional
behaviors are homeostatic and deviation counteracting, serving to
maintain the system at large (Bettinger 1996:851). Neo-functional
well-being is measured in tangible currencies, such as population
density, that relate to fitness (as in evolutionary biology) (Bettinger
1996:852).
Cultural
materialism
Marvin
Harris’ work led to the development of new methodologies in the
1960s. For Harris, cultural change begins at the infrastructure level.
Harris’
cultural
materialism
incorporates ecological explanations and advances a more explicit and
systematic scientific research strategy (Barfield 1997:137). The
concept of adaptation is Harris’ main explanatory mechanism (Milton
1997). Marvin Harris’ accomplishments and research indicate a desire
to move anthropology in a Darwinian direction.
Rappaport
and Vayda also contributed importantly to the application of new
methodologies in the 1960s. They focus upon the ecosystem
approach,
systems functioning, and the flow of energy. These methods rely on the
usage of measurements such as caloric expenditure and protein
consumption. Careful attention was given to concepts derived from
biological ecology, such as carrying capacity, limiting factors,
homeostasis, and adaptation. This ecosystem approach remained popular
among ecological anthropologists during the 1960s and the 1970s
(Milton 1997). The 1970s and 1980s saw the emergence of radical
cultural relativism. In
the 1990s, ecological anthropologists rejected extreme cultural
relativism and attacked modernist dichotomies (body and mind, action
and thought, nature and culture) (Milton 1997). Recent
ecological anthropology studies have included political
ecology, uniting more traditional concerns for the
environment–technology-social-organization nexus with the emphasis
of political economy on power and inequality seen historically, the
evaluation and critique of Third World development programs, and the
analysis of environmental degradation (Netting 1996:270).
For
a better understanding of the interplay of human population and
environment, let us consider the following examples.
Case
I
The
Tsembaga Maring Subsistence
The
Maring are a tribal people living in two large river valleys, the
Simbai and Jimi of mountainous highland New Guinea. There are about 20
local groups of Maring speakers, varying in size from a little over
100 to 900. Let us examine the Tsembaga Maring, a local group of 200
studied by Rappaport.
The
Tsembaga are shifting horticulturists. Though their steep valley
habitat rises in less than three miles from the Simbai River (2200
feet) to a mountain ridge of 7200 feet (a territory of 3.2 square
miles), only the slopes from the river to about 5000 feet can
effectively cultivated. About 1000 acres of this sloping land lie
fallow. Forty-six acres had been planted during the year of study.
About 100 acres (10% of the total garden land) were in gardens that
year, since some gardens are used for two years or longer. Rappaport
believed that the potential carrying capacity of the land might be
about 200 persons per square mile of arable land. The actual density
was 124.
Horticulture
provides 99 percent of the everyday Tsembaga diet, but they also eat
wild pigs, marsupials, reptiles, and grubs from the surrounding
forest. A typical garden contains not only the main staples, sweet
potatoes and taro, but also other starchy crops such as yams, manioc,
and bananas, and a wide range of legumes, leafy greens, and other
vegetables, plus sugarcane. The intricate intermingling of garden
crops creates a kind of miniature garden version of a tropical rain
forest (Geertz 1963).
A
factor in gardening strategies is the number of domestic pigs to be
fed. Tsembaga pig husbandry runs a cycle. When a family is feeding
only one or two pigs, one major garden at middle altitude is
cultivated, which is sufficient to feed the animals and their owners.
When the number of pigs is increased, a garden containing mainly sweet
potatoes (fed to the pigs as well as eaten by humans) is cultivated
high on the slopes above 4500 feet; and a second, lower altitude
garden is planted with taro and yams.
Rappaport
in his study begins by noting the role of pig raising in Tsembaga
life. Normally, when few pigs are being raised, pigs roam freely in
the day and return to their owners' houses at night to be fed
substandard sweet potatoes. The pigs are then sacrificed to ancestors
at times of inter-group fighting or illness. Rappaport notes that
these sacrifices have physiologically adaptive consequences, even
though the participants are presumably unaware of them.
More
interesting in their ecological ramification is the elaborate ritual
cycles that bring the number of pigs far above the normal level. To
understand these pig cycles, Rappaport suggests, we need to look at
political relations. Maring local groups live in alternating states of
hostility and peace. When warfare breaks out between groups, usually
with ones occupying adjoining territory, the fighting may continue
sporadically for weeks. Often it is more or less balanced, and there
is no decisive victory. But sometimes one of the groups is routed. The
survivors refuge with relatives in other groups while their houses,
gardens, and pigs are destroyed. But the territory that was laid waste
cannot be occupied by the victors because it is believed that such
land is still guarded by the ancestors of the vanquished.
When
hostilities end, a group that has not been driven from its territory
performs a ritual in which a rumbim,
a sacred shrub, is ritually planted. All their pigs, other than
juveniles, are killed and dedicated to the ancestors. Most of the pork
goes to allies from surrounding groups who took part in the fighting.
As
the pig's herds build up, the burden of feeding them requires great
expansion of gardens and major investment of effort. The Tsembaga herd
of 169 animals Rappaport recorded just before their kaiko
pig
festival, was consuming 54% of the sweet potatoes harvested and 82% of
the manioc. Gardens were 36.1% larger before the pig festival than
they were afterwards.
The
kaiko
concludes with major sacrifices of the remaining adult pigs, which are
distributed to members of other local groups following lines of
kinship and alliance. An estimated 2000 to 3000 Maring in 17 local
groups received pork from the Tsembaga kaiko
Rappaport observed. This was also an occasion for the distribution of
wealth between groups in connection to marriage transactions. Thus it
can be seen that:
"Ritual
cycles….. play an important part in regulating the relations of the
Tsembaga Maring people with both the non-human components of their
immediate environments and the human components of their less
immediate environments. (Rappaport 1968:182)
When
the kaiko festival is concluded, fighting could break out again. And
usually it did. But after a second ritual cycle could eventually be
performed, if peace was preserved that long, then the two warring
groups were then supposed to be permanently at peace.
The
ritual cycle of the Maring has a number of consequences, of which the
participants are not aware. This is that the ritual cycle helps to
preserve the balance of the ecosystem, maintain ordered relations
between local groups, redistribute land resources in relation to
population, and distribute resource – including traded scarce goods
and badly needed animal protein.
The
inferences that can be cited from the above example
1.
Ritual is a form of behavior with a fixed pattern usually for a
religious purpose. It gives confidence to the members of the society.
It doesn't produce a practice on the external world but only internal.
2.
Vayda and Rappaport's study suggests that instead of trying to
identify universal laws about how culture is adapted to environment,
attention should be focused on the relationship of specific human
populations to specific ecological systems.
3.
An ecological system consists of a demarcated portion of the
biosphere that includes living organisms and non-living substances
interacting to produce a system of exchange of materials from one
internal component to another.
4.
An individual tries to raise the largest possible pig herds,
not only because it is optimum strategy for adapting to the
environment but also because it is the way of which he/she can gain
status within his/her community. (Number of pig high means high
status)
5.
It is a puzzle to the anthropologists that people go meatless/porkless
for most of the time. They slaughter animal only on ritual occasions
associated with illness, injury, death, misfortunes, emergencies and
notable warfare when hundreds of pigs may be consumed within only a
few days, which is worst strategy from nutritional standpoint. During
these rituals, the people who slaughter large number of the pigs can
gain high status.
6.
They perform rituals like planting the rumbim and kaiko (pig
festival) to please their ancestral spirits or gods. When both the pig
population and human population achieve sufficient size, the ritual
cycle allows fighting to resume. Such rituals serve to help balance
them to maintain population on the basis of resources of their
ecosystem.
7.
In this way, we can say that there is close relationship
between the environment and ideology or ritual of pig feast among the
Tsembaga Maring subsistence pattern.
Case
II
The
Kulung Rai
The
Kulung Rai are an ethnic group living in the remote Eastern Hills of
Nepal. They exploit a wide range of natural resources through
cultivation, animal husbandry and utilization of forest products.
It
is found that certain trees such as Posing, were not used by the
Kulung Rai for purposes that would seem "natural", given the
inherent qualities of these trees. For instance some people in the
Kulung Rai can use Posing as firewood, but not others. No one in the
community will burn kaarpau.
Obviously,
a cultural explanation for such a pattern of usage is needed.
There
are differences in the perception and beliefs among the Kulung Rai as
to use the pine trees that are abundant in their surroundings. The
descendents of Chhemsi
do
not use Posing as firewood, whereas the descendents of Tamsi
do
use.
The
reason behind why people can not use Posing as firewood is because of
the healing practices. As an early forefather, the original Chhemsi
practiced healing rituals under Posing trees, a ritual also requiring
the sacrifice of pig. After the ritual, the early forefather, Tamsi
felt
better. He was hungry and wanted to eat. He roasted some pork on the
fire and ate some. Chhemsi,
however, could not eat the meat because he had performed the ritual;
he had been shaman. Ever since, the descendents of Chhemsi
have not been allowed to use Posing neither as firewood or to roast
pork on the fire. The descendents of Tamsi
can
do both.
The
other trees like Weipau
is
related with the demons, snakes and Shiva. It is the most important
tree in terms of ritual. Busipau
is
not used by any of the groups as firewood. It is related to the
Ancestors and Predators. Yosipau is
required for the Aitabare
ritual.
It is correlated with the incest and creation.
The
conservation of the forest resources is maintained because of their
beliefs in the Goddess. There are several sacred forests (Devithan) in the vicinity of Bung. The use of the sacred forest is
very different from other forests. No one is allowed to use forest
products from it, neither for firewood, building material, fodder or
other possible usage. Even leaves and branches from certain tees
needed for rituals may not be removed from the forest. The reason
given is that the goddess would punish not only the perpetrator, but
also the whole village. Accordingly, there are strong sanctions
against breaking the rules, and people claim that the size of the
sacred forest has stayed more or less same for as long as they can
remember. Cultivated fields surround most of the sacred forests, so it
is fairly easy to check whether or not the forests are dwindling.
We
have seen from the above discussions about the Kulung Rai, that there
are many cultural ideas about trees that are not based on their
inherent botanical qualities, but rather on the basis of cultural
constructions. It is often the latter constructions that form the
principal basis peoples actions.
The
cultural construction of the nature can be analyzed with Rappaport's
quote;
Nature
is seen by humans through a screen of beliefs, knowledge and purposes,
and it is in terms of their images of nature, rather than of actual
structure of nature, that they act (Rappaport 1979:97)
According
to Rappaport (1979), we have to understand how people cognize their
environment (the cultural construction of nature) if we are to
understand their acts in the environment. People act on the basis of
their conceptualizations of nature, not on the basis of how nature
"really" is (nature itself). The implication of people's
acts can of course be traced in nature. Nor should the fact that
people act on the basis of a less than perfect understanding of nature
come as a surprise, given the constant struggle among scientists to
uncover the mysteries in nature and, more generally, our fundamental
problems in making unbiased representations of the world.
From
the above discussion about the Kulung Rai we can make the following
observations:
1.
The way in which nature is culturally constructed, the
knowledge basis upon which people shape their acts towards nature, has
important implications for nature itself.
2.
Nature itself as "something out there," is only
partially understood, but it is nevertheless exposed to human actions
and influenced by cultural interpretations.
3.
In this way, we can only influence people's uses of nature on
the basis of their culturally situated experience of it. How people
organize their knowledge about nature is also culturally specific. Not
organizing knowledge about trees the way modern Botany does, does not
mean that knowledge is not organized in ecologically valid ways.
Interpretation
and Analysis
All
of the above discussions demonstrate possible relationships between
environment and local populations. Rappaport's study of Tsembaga
Maring illustrates the use of ritual to maintain an equitable
distribution of resources between human populations, of clans. Tore
Nesheim's study of the Kulung Rai people illustrates the importance of
cultural constructions of nature as a means of regulating and
controlling exploitation of commonly owned resources.
When
looked at from a large scale or global level, the relationship between
population and environment is much more complex. For example, in
general, increases in population will result in greater pressure on
natural resources through increased demand for basic needs –
population increase tends to lead to an increase in consumption levels
regardless of whether people are rich or poor. However, it is
important to consider that irrespective of human numbers, there is a
highly inequitable per capita impact on the environment according to
the economic and social condition of a particular country.
Environment
provides all the things that the living organisms need and environment
shapes the organisms. All living organisms including humans have to
adapt themselves to the particularities of their environment.
Different cultural modes of resource exploitation therefore emerge in
terms of the scale and prosperity of the societies among various other
factors. The
society itself is maintained with some activities determined by the
cultural practices, norms and values rooted due to the subsistence
pattern adopted by the human beings from the very beginning of the
civilization. When looked at from different scales, from local, to
regional, to global, different patterns of resource exploitation can
be discerned, along with different cultural modes of construction and
exploitation of nature.
Conclusion
Since
the rise if the human civilization there is the linkage between human
population and environment. Man developed more and more technology
(culture) to exploit the nature, which is inevitable because human
population cannot survive or can get the niche unless they do it. The
nature or the environment makes man innovative.
Comparing
possible links between environment and population is a problematic
approach. Each aspect contains many variables, interlocked in a very
complex manner. There is no straightforward linear relationship
between such variables.
The
degree of sensitivity of people towards the environment also plays a
vital role to determine the situation of the environment. The
socioeconomic condition of the people has also impact upon the
environment. There are many culturally defined sub-species of human
society which have different levels of resource use, mediated by
technology, values and levels of economic development.
References
1.
Knoff, Alfred A. High
Points in Anthropology, New York
2.
Milton, K. 1997. Ecologies:
Anthropology, Culture and the Environment. International Social
Science Journal, 49 (4): 477-495
3.
Orlove, Benjamin S. 1980. Ecological
Anthropology. Annual review of Anthropology 9:235-273.
4.
Duden, Barbara.1997. 'Population' in Wolfgang Sachs (ed.) THE DEVELOPMENT DICTIONARY: A Guide to Knowledge and Power, pp
195-210, New Delhi: Orient Longman
5.
Hardesty, Donald L. 1977, Ecological
Anthropology , New York & London: John Wiley and Sons
6.
Moran, Emilio F. Human
Adaptability An
Introduction to Ecological Anthropology
7.
Nesheim, T., A Tree is a
Tree is a Tree? What is a resource?
8.
Keesing, R. Cultural Anthropology
9.
Ghimire, Krishna B. Linkage
Between Population, Environment and Development, UNRISD, 1993.
10.
Seymour-Smith, Charlotte, 1986. Macmillan
Dictionary of Anthropology, Macmillan Press Limited, London and
Basingstoke.
11.
Excerpts from the Internet. |
