Human Natures, Nature Conservation, and Environmental Ethics

Human Natures Nature Conservation and Environmental EthicsAuthor(s) PAUL R EHRLICHReviewed work(s)Source BioScience Vol 52 No 1 (January 2002) pp 31-43Published by University of California Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological SciencesStable URL httpwwwjstororgstable1016410006-3568282002290525B00313AHNNCAE5D20CO3B2

Accessed 12032013 0547

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms amp Conditions of Use available at httpwwwjstororgpageinfoaboutpoliciestermsjsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars researchers and students discover use and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship For more information about JSTOR please contact supportjstororg

University of California Press and American Institute of Biological Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize preserve and extend access to BioScience

httpwwwjstororg

This content downloaded on Tue 12 Mar 2013 054735 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

January 2002 Vol 52 No 1 bull BioScience 31

Articles

T here is little dispute within the knowledgeablescientific community today about the global ecological sit-

uation and the resultant need for nature conservation (egNAS 1993 UCS 1993) Now is a time of unprecedented es-calating and well-documented environmental danger Thereis general agreement among environmental scientists thatthe accelerating loss of biodiversitymdashpopulations (Hughes etal 1997) species and communitiesmdashshould be a matter ofgreat concern They have concluded that nature must beconserved not just for its own sake but also for the sake ofHomo sapiens to which it supplies an indispensable array ofecosystem services (Daily 1997 Chapin et al 2000) and prod-ucts (Beattie and Ehrlich 2001) And for most of those sci-entists and large numbers of environmentalists conservationis a major ethical issue (Rolston 1988 Nash 1989) In addi-tion the scientific consensus is that the major driving forcesof the destruction of humanityrsquos natural capital are popula-tion growth overconsumption and the use of faulty tech-nologies combined with inappropriate socio-political-eco-nomic arrangements to service that consumption (Holdrenand Ehrlich 1974 Holdren 1991 NAS 1993 UCS 1993)mdashwhatmight be called the three horsemen of IPAT (Impact = Pop-ulation x Affluence x Technology Ehrlich and Holdren 1971Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1990)

But the seriousness of the environmental dimensions of thehuman predicament is still unknown to the vast majority ofthe general public and decisionmakers worldwide Althoughscientists understand the general directions in which hu-manity should be moving to solve its environmental problemsthe policy response of society remains pathetic As a result thecutting edge of the environmental sciences is now movingfrom the ecological and physical sciences toward the behav-

ioral sciences which seem to have the potential to develop waysto improve that response

The key is finding ways to alter the course of cultural evo-lutionmdashchange in the vast body of nongenetic informationthat humanity possesses and passes around between andwithin generations (Ehrlich and Holm 1963 Keesing 1974)Cultural evolution in this sense means more than what is usu-ally called ldquohistoryrdquoFor example the divergence of languagesor the refinement of an aircraftrsquos design is not ordinarilystudied by historians but these are part of cultural evolutionThe critical importance of cultural evolution in understandingbehavior has been reinforced by the discovery that there maybe only some 26000ndash38000 genes in the human genome(Venter et al 2001) It is now even more obvious that this ldquogeneshortagerdquo (Ehrlich 2000) is the final nail in the coffin of ldquoevo

Paul R Ehrlich (e-mail prelelandstanfordedu) is Bing Professor

of Population Studies Department of Biological Sciences Stanford

University Stanford CA 94305 He does research on the population

biology of a wide variety of organisms most notably butterflies

birds and people His interest in human cultural evolution is rooted

in a stay with the Inuit in 1952 and resulted in his book Human Na-

tures Genes Cultures and the Human Prospect published by Island

Press in 2000 copy 2002 American Institute of Biological Sciences

Human Natures NatureConservation andEnvironmental Ethics

PAUL R EHRLICH

CULTURAL EVOLUTION IS REQUIRED

IN BOTH THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE TO IMPROVE

SIGNIFICANTLY THE NOW INADEQUATE

RESPONSE OF SOCIETY TO THE HUMAN

PREDICAMENT

Editorrsquos note Paul Ehrlich is the recipient of the 2001 AIBSDistinguished Scientist Award This article was derived from hisplenary address at the March 2001 AIBS annual meeting


32 BioScience bull January 2002 Vol 52 No 1

Articles

has been long on psychology but itrsquos based on a distorted viewof evolutionary theory (eg Ketelaar and Ellis 2000a 2000b)that puts too much emphasis on inclusive fitness (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1978 Lloyd and Feldman 2001)

But beyond the weak evolutionary underpinnings of evo-lutionary psychology gene shortage shows that we cannot lookto our genes to either explain or modify most of our behav-ior Not only are there too few genes to account for the vastcomplexity and flexibility of behavior but given the enormousdiversity of processes in which the genome must participateit follows that many (if not most) genes must be involved inmultiple tasks This certainly greatly complicates the ldquopro-grammingrdquo of all phenotypic characteristics and makes itrather difficult to change one such characteristic (such as apreference for a certain type of mate) without changing oth-ers which may seriously affect fitness The unitary un-changing behavioral ldquohuman naturerdquoonce thought inventedby gods and later assumed to be a product of genetic evolu-tion is nonexistent Our complex and flexible behavior islargely determined by our environments and especially by theextragenetic information embodied in our cultures Thuswhat is desperately needed now is much better understand-ing of the ways in which culture evolves and determinesmost interesting human behavior including humanityrsquos treat-ment of its life support systemsWe need to comprehend howcultural evolution produces the vast diversity of human na-turesmdashdifferent fundamental attitudes beliefs proclivitiespreferences (in the economic sense) and behaviors (Ehrlich2000) That should help us discover how to reconfigure so-cial political and economic incentives and cut through bar-riers of ignorance and denial allowing society to turn ontoa path toward sustainability Some of the most importantproducts of human cultural evolution are ethical concernsincluding concerns for nonhuman organisms and the envi-ronment in general Cultures already have been evolving inthe direction of broader environmental ethics (Ehrlich 2000)and that process needs to be accelerated

Now that it is obvious that the details of our ethical evo-lution cannot be seriously constrained by genetic proclivitiesit behooves us to try to understand how cultural evolution op-erates on the ethics of environmental preservationWe are alsofree to concentrate on finding ways to consciously direct cul-tural microevolution We should of course keep in mind thegenetically evolved background that has permitted us to ac-quire language and morality and that may have given peoplethe tendency not only to recognize but to favor kin and in-deed to invent ldquopseudokinrdquo (Ehrlich 2000 p 193) Exactlywhich if any of our diverse behaviors are in some sense ge-netically programmed or for which we have genetic procliv-ities remains one of the great unanswered questions of hu-man biology Apart from kin recognition and preference anda penchant for group living I suspect most other behaviorscan be most parsimoniously explained by cultural evolutionin a very smart language-possessing animal with a need forfood sex and security It is an animal that lives in a vast di-versity of habitats and that has certain constraints on its per-

ceptual systems (Ornstein and Ehrlich 1989) and on its men-tal abilities (eg limits to the number of relationships andobligations it can keep track of) Traits that are universal ornear universal in human beings (Brown 1991) are not nec-essarily innatemdasha classic example being the use of capital pun-ishment (Otterbein 1986)

That same background may also have made us basically asmall-group animal by limiting the recordkeeping capabili-ties of our brains and forcing us to culturally develop legal sys-tems in order to live in large groups and still maintain asense of social stability (for an interesting discussion of moralstructures in early hunterndashgatherers and later civilizations seeBlack 1976 1998) Human beings have a nervous systemwith perceptual constraints that impede dealing with slowlydeveloping environmental problems But this should notprevent the steering of cultural microevolution in a mannerthat induces humanity as a whole to do much more to hus-band its natural capital and the flow of essential services it gen-erates It is to be hoped that this can be done rapidly while arelatively smooth transition to a sustainable society is still pos-sible

The role of the social sciencesThe job of social scientists is daunting since the interactionsamong the elements of culture rival in complexity those of theglobal ecosystem of which humanity is an increasingly dom-inant component The mechanisms driving cultural evolutionare little understood in detail but in broad outline they in-clude cultural macroevolutionary influences such as the geo-graphic distribution of resources discussed long ago by Mon-tesquieu ([1748] 1989) and more recently brilliantly analyzedby Diamond (1997) More important in the current con-text they also include factors causing cultural microevolu-tionmdash ldquochanges within and among human societies in termsof human actors motives and actionsrdquo (Ehrlich 2000 p228) Trying to understand cultural microevolution has beenlargely the domain of economists anthropologists sociolo-gists psychologists historians and other social scientists al-though it has been of interest to biologists since Darwinmdashseefor example the classic book of Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman(1981) and a long series of subsequent papers (eg Li et al2000 Laland et al 2001)

There is now a clear need to recruit many social scientiststo collaborate with environmental scientists in seeking solu-tions to the menacing dilemma of the destruction of hu-manityrsquos life-support systems More social scientists mustjoin the quest for sustainability and help to construct an in-terdisciplinary theory of cultural microevolution that will pro-vide background for efforts to consciously and democraticallyinfluence its trajectory (Ornstein and Ehrlich 1989) Fortu-nately the needed collaborations are beginning and gather-ing support as exemplified by the growing cooperation be-tween ecologists and economists (Ehrlich et al 1992 Arrowet al 1995 Perrings et al 1995 Hanna et al 1996) and theemergence of the entire field of ecological economics (egDaly 1973 Costanza 1991 Dasgupta 1993 Krishnan et al


emergence of the entire field of ecological economics (egDaly 1973 Costanza 1991 Dasgupta 1993 Krishnan et al1995) Gradually issues such as how economic factors influ-ence reproductive behavior or how markets for ecosystem ser-vices can be created are being worked outAlso cheering is thegenesis of the field of ecological anthropology (Orlove 1980Orlove and Brush 1996 Douglas 2001) and the increasing in-terest in illuminating and solving the problems of cultural evo-lution in an environmental context shown by other social sci-entists (Pirages and Ehrlich 1974 Black 1976 Pirages 1996)historians (White 1992 1995) and legal scholars (Thompson2000)

Despite these beginnings scientists are still a long wayfrom understanding the evolution of attitudes toward the con-servation of nature and natural resources Those attitudes havechanged dramatically over time and now vary substantiallyamong cultures and individuals providing a spectacular ex-ample of the diversity of human natures

Environmental scientistsrsquo attitudestoward environmental ethicsEnvironmental ethics has evolved to the point where manyscientists believe they have a major responsibility to help so-ciety deal with the human predicament (Bazzaz et al 1998Lubchenco 1998) Nonetheless there are considerable dif-ferences in attitudes within the concerned scientific com-munity on exactly what the commitments of scientists todayshould be Some question whether for example scientists canethically be advocates on environmental or other social issues(Wiens 1997 Slobodkin 2000) They claim advocacy reducesthe credibility of scientists (Kaiser 2000) For instance War-ren Wooster (1998) criticized Bazzaz et al (1998) who statethat good scientists should inform the public of the rele-vance of their work for announcing the ldquosubjectiverdquojudgmentthat ldquoall field research is done in systems altered by Homo sapi-ensrdquo Wooster stated ldquoI am not so sure that all field researchis done in systems altered by manrdquo claiming that the authorsof the Bazzaz statement are mostly terrestrial ecologists andthat their point ldquomight be difficult to demonstrate every-where in the open oceanrdquo(Wooster 1998) But no general sci-entific principle ever will be discredited because it canrsquot bedemonstrated everywhere Except perhaps for tiny areas at verygreat depths where field research is not done everywhereelse we have seen the impacts of anthropogenic changes inconcentrations of carbon dioxide nitrogen eolian iron andoil and the arrival of human-produced radionuclides or syn-thetic pesticides and chemicals leaching from plastics (Simonich and Hites 1995 Colborn et al 1996 Prospero etal 1996Vitousek et al 1997a 1997bWu et al 2001)Attemptsby scientists to analyze the global situation and criticisms ofthose evaluations such as Woosterrsquos should not be discour-aged but they should be subject to the customary care andreview that is traditional in scientific discourse Individual andteam credibility comes with accumulated scientific accom-plishment which is continuously assayed by the scientificcommunity through formal and informal peer review

I and others believe not only that like any other citizensenvironmental scientists can be advocates but also that theyethically must be advocates at least to the extent of inform-ing the general public about their work and conclusions Ithink the credibility of ecologists for example has been en-hanced as many of them have tried to diagnose environ-mental ills and suggest cures After all biomedical scientistscan gain prestige by diagnosing public health problems andrecommending ameliorative stepsmdashand interestingly theyarenrsquot accused of advocacy But scientists should be careful toinform their audiences when they are representing a consensusof the knowledgeable scientific community on a state of theworld and when they are expressing their own opinionsabout actions that should be taken And they should be verycareful not to present data selectively (Wiens 1996) and care-ful to see that their work and public positions are reviewedby other scientists

Scientistsrsquo attitudes toward conservationHow well have ecologists evolutionists behaviorists andtaxonomists responded to the destruction of nature I thinkit is fair to say that the community as a whole has attemptedto inform the public and politicians as rapidly as any diversegroup of human beings could in reaction to a hard-to-perceive slow-motion crisis (Ornstein and Ehrlich 1989)That itself is a sign of recent rapid evolution of the ethics ofscientific responsibility a spurt triggered by the concern ofphysicists working on the atomic bomb during World War IIand perpetuated by leading molecular biologists (Berg et al1974) In response to that ethical evolution it took only adecade or so for scattered voices warning of the plight ofbiodiversity (Raven 1976 Myers 1979 Souleacute and Wilcox1980 Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981) to evolve into a scientific con-sensus (Lubchenco et al 1991 Heywood 1995 Lubchenco1998)

Nonetheless despite that consensus compelling evidencefor the diversity of human natures can still be seen in the var-ied responses toward conservation even among the scientistsmost knowledgeable about biodiversity I think they shouldhave been changing at least part of their research agenda tomeet the newly recognized challenges presented by the ac-celerating growth of the human enterprise Some have doneso as indicated by the establishment and rapid growth of thefield of conservation biology (Souleacute and Wilcox 1980 Aviseand Hamrick 1996 Meffe et al 1997 Mooney and Hobbs2000) including most recently its subdiscipline countrysidebiogeography (Daily et al 2001) But many have not

Despite encouraging attempts the overall scientific re-sponse of two fields ecology and taxonomy has remained in-adequate This is traceable in part to the persistent failure ofthose disciplines in the face of clear need (Ehrlich 19641997 Raven 1980 Phillips and Raven 1996) to emulate ge-neticists and other biologists by concentrating their efforts oncarefully chosen sample systemsmdashthe biodiversity equivalentsof Escherichia Arabidopsis Caenorhabditis Drosophila andMus Instead ecologists and taxonomists have mostly taken


Articles


within the scientific community) And now humanity is suf-fering because of the resultant paucity of scientific informa-tion on such key topics as the impacts of population andspecies extinctions on ecosystem services Those impacts areknown to be extensive and serious but information is inad-equate to provide accurate long-range predictions Indeedeven the goals of conserving biodiversity for its own sakeand for preserving ecosystem services for humanityrsquos sake havenot been adequately differentiated (Balvanera et al 2001)

Taxonomists have been especially unresponsive to thethreats to humanityrsquos critical store of natural capital Weprobably will not be able to add much to the existing crudeoverview of the vast panoply of eukaryote diversity becausethe required support seems unlikely to materialize (Raven andWilson 1992) But it is not too late to develop a substantiallymore detailed and useful understanding of a limited numberof sample groups Comprehensive pictures of the diversity dis-tribution and ecological relationships of such groups couldprovide grist for evolutionists and ecologistsrsquo mills in a cen-tury or so when most of todayrsquos biota will be studied by pa-leontologists

But in the face of the disappearance of much of what theystudy professional taxonomists are not switching in largenumbers to working on obvious sample systemsmdashverte-brates butterflies bees ants tiger beetles vascular plantsand the like One does not need to search far for the reasonsThe training of professional taxonomists produces mostlyworkers who are taxon-bound many of whom persist in do-ing alpha (species description) and beta (simple classificatoryoperations) taxonomic studies of groups in which they hap-pen to be interested (or that are related to taxa worked on bytheir major professors) Many of them occupy themselveschurning out largely useless hypothetical phylogenies of thosetaxamdashsomething that advances neither science nor conser-vation in contrast to the interesting results that can flowfrom cladistic research when it is connected to a significantquestion (Harvey et al 1996 Becerra 1997 Farrell and Mit-ter 1998 Kelley and Farrell 1998) Others spend their time try-ing to replace the functional Linnaean system for generalcommunication about organisms with one based on esti-mates of times of phylogenetic divergence a sillier enter-prise is hard to imagine (Pennisi 2001)

The training of professional ecologists also does not usu-ally emphasize the importance of working with test systemsso the literature is clogged with dribs and drabs of informa-tion on a vast variety of organisms and communitiesmdashincreasingly sophisticated studies of more and more trivialproblems And taxonomists and ecologists have not beenable to get together to do even the most basic and obvious ex-ercisesmdashsuch as ldquoMay inventoriesrdquo thorough all-taxa censuseson a geographically stratified sample of a few dozen 1-hectareplotsmdashthat would give science a reasonable picture of the ra-tios of abundance of different kinds of organisms and howthose ratios vary geographically (May 1988)

In response to the extinction crisis conservation biologistsare beginning to take their taxonomic problems into their own

hands Many working with less-known groups have stoppedtrying to deal only with named species but in their studies sim-ply sort their material to morphospecies (Beattie and Oliver1994) which prove fully adequate to support important con-clusions (Daily and Ehrlich 1996b Hughes et al 2000 Rick-etts et al 2001) And while they are more limited in the directapplication of their discipline to conservation population ge-neticists have been actively looking at issues related to thepreservation of biodiversity (Souleacute 1987 Avise and Hamrick1996 Landweber and Dobson 1999) and at the impacts of fail-ure to conserve on the future of evolution (Myers 1996)

Public attitudes toward conservationDespite the near consensus among scientists on most envi-ronmental issues some nonscientists with full access to thatconsensus have persisted in the belief that perpetual growthin the human enterprise will not threaten our life support sys-tems Perhaps the most dramatic expression of that view isfound in the statements of the late economist Julian Simonwho declared that the human population can grow for ldquothenext 7 billion yearsrdquo (Myers and Simon 1994 p 65) or ldquofor-everrdquo (Simon 1995 p 26) the former more explicit propo-sition implies growth to the unlikely point at which the massof people exceeds that of the universe (Ehrlich and Ehrlich1996) Simon was educated and had full access to the envi-ronmental literature He and numerous others who to one de-gree or another share his views (eg Easterbrook 1995 Hu-ber 2000) make palpable the diversity of human natures

The Simon example is extreme but denial is a common hu-man response to threats that seem obvious to a portion of thepopulation Just consider the numbers of Americans whobuild their homes on floodplains or in chaparral Some peo-ple recognize and act to avoid the clear threats of flood andfire others ignore them Some try to minimize the serious-ness of the threats simply to make a profit perhaps by sellingreal estate in a dangerous area (or by taking money from thefossil fuel lobby and denigrating the threat of global warm-ing) Others of course may try to maximize the threats in or-der to sell insurance buy property cheap ormdashas I and otherenvironmental scientists have been accused of doingmdashget gov-ernment grants or sell books

The disparities of human natures displayed in attitudes to-ward the environment and conservation are found virtuallyeverywhere Australia provides an interesting example be-cause of the range of views on demographic issues openly airedthere The impacts of the human population on ecosystem ser-vices are probably more obvious in Australia than in anyother developed nation Its large land area consists mostly ofdesert and the vast majority of its 19 million people are con-centrated in five coastal urban areas Australian environ-mental scientists are world class and many have repeatedlywarned of the deterioration of their nationrsquos fragile life sup-port systems Australia already has lost more of its uniquemammal fauna than any other continent Recently HarryRecher (1999) predicted that ldquoAustralia will lose half of its ter-restrial bird species in the next centuryrdquo Frank Talbot (2000)


Articles


wrote that ldquowithout fresh thinking and fundamental attitu-dinal and management changes the Great Barrier Reef will notlsquosurviversquo as we enjoy it today It will be slowly and contin-uously degraded both biologically and aestheticallyrdquo

But some Australian academics have ignored the messageof their ecological community For example Australian so-ciologist Jerzy Zubrzycki in an address before the AustralianPopulation Association in November 2000 called on Aus-tralians to have more babies to keep the population young andgrowing He gave no indication of being familiar with Aus-traliarsquos precarious ecological situation Zubrzycki thus joinedldquoa growing chorus of academics commentators and politi-cians concerned about the number of women having fewerchildrenrdquo (The Australian 29 November 2000 p 3) Thoseand many other Australians are unaware that they live in anoverpopulated Leopoldian ldquoworld of woundsrdquomdasha worldwhose ecologists see the ldquomarks of death in a community thatbelieves itself well and does not want to be told otherwiserdquo(Leopold 1966 p 197)

Why the diversity of attitudesThe reasons for the diversity of attitudes toward conservationhas been the subject of substantial speculation People havebeen presumed to be either innate conservationists or innateexploiters on the basis of differing ideas about ldquohuman na-turerdquoOne common notion is that hunterndashgatherers and sub-sistence agriculturalists had a deep cultural perhaps geneti-cally based understanding of their relationship to theirenvironments and were thus ldquonaturalrdquo conservationists (seeexamples in Krech 1999) Because they were in close contactwith their environments nonindustrial people would tend todetect the effects of damaging behavior and in their own self-interest correct it In this view subsequent urbanization andthe intensification of agriculture separated people from nat-ural systems and led to most people having little or no ap-preciation of the importance of those systems Without tightfeedback loops a diversity of opinions could thrive and ournatures could undergo cultural drift (Binford 1963)mdashespecially since the most serious environmental problemsare the result of gradual changes on a decadal time scale orlonger and our genetic and cultural heritages make themdifficult to perceive (Ornstein and Ehrlich 1989) The view thattight feedbacks make preindustrial people natural conserva-tionists is reflected in the opinion of Rodney Dillon aspokesman for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderCommission in Australia who said he was ldquovery very sorryfor those in power here and abroad They had taken us on ajourney with growing racism global conflict and unsus-tainable practicesto the brink of environmental global cat-astropherdquo He contrasted aboriginal culture that was self-evidently sustainable for 40000 years with the Europeanone which became unsustainable in Australia in a few hun-dred years (Dillon 2000)

But is this widely held view of the ldquoecological aboriginalrdquo(Krech 1999 White 2000) correct I doubt it The evidenceis strong that after the ldquogreat leap forwardrdquosome 50000 years

ago ancestors of modern peoples wiped out much of the Pleis-tocene megafauna completely changing the biota of much ofour planet although climate change may also have played arole For instance Diamond (1984) was able to use infor-mation on historic extinctions to cast light on prehistoric onesdocumenting in the process a widespread absence of a con-servation ethic in preindustrial peoplesWhile Dillon is clearlycorrect that the original Australians did not have a lifestyle re-motely as unsustainable as todayrsquos inhabitants of the conti-nent the aboriginals nonetheless modified Australia dra-matically But the relative sustainability of the two cultures maysimply have been a matter of their respective technological ca-pabilities rather than fundamentally different attitudes towardconservation Aboriginals too could have been ldquonaturalrdquoexploiters

Like aboriginals Native Americans are often cited as beingnatural conservationists (eg Deloria 1970 Lester 1986)But as in Australia invading Homo sapiens clearly had a dra-matic impact in the western hemisphere There were moremegafaunal extinctions in North America than there were inEurope where Homo had been present for many tens ofthousands of years and the animals had much greater evo-lutionary experience with human hunting Overall careful re-construction of their behavior does not indicate that NativeAmericans were natural born conservationists who strove topreserve the Western Hemispherersquos primeval conditionldquoBythe time Europeans arrived North America was a manipu-lated continent Indians had long since altered the landscapeby burning or clearing woodland for farming and fuel De-spite European images of an untouched Eden[its] nature wascultural not virgin anthropogenic not primevalrdquo (Krech1999 p 122) A fundamental problem with all of this is thatthe whole concept of conservation (or exploitation) is a cul-ture-bound one today originating in the modern West andin the science of ecology so the question of whether their be-havior was ecologically sound is itself partly culture-bound(White 2000)

How can todayrsquos diversity of views among both scientistsand the general public on the issues central to environmen-tal conservation most parsimoniously be explained It seemsto me the diversity merely reflects the unique environmentsin which every human being matures and the diverse (andsometimes perverse) incentives to which they are exposedWehavenrsquot lost a specieswide ethic evolved in an ldquoenvironmentof evolutionary adaptednessrdquo (EEA Tooby and Cosmides1992 p 69) that made human beings similar to each other inattitudes toward conservation An EEA is largely a figment ofthe imaginations of evolutionary psychologists there neverwas a uniform hunterndashgatherer environment in which nat-ural selection created a single human nature (Foley 1997)Their research claims also have been strongly criticized fromwithin the psychological community (Bussey and Bandura1999)

Here as in the case of moral behavior toward our fellowsI think strained and untestable hypotheses about human na-ture simply cloud issues of ethical evolution (eg Boehmrsquos


Articles


hypothesis that anatomically modern human beings ldquowere in-nately aversive to social conflict in their immediate socialenvironmentsrdquo [2000 p 87] for more examples see Krebs[2000] and Thornhill and Palmer [2000]) Our genes havemore than enough to do just assembling our bodies makingthem functional and reproducible and providing the struc-tural basis for very high intelligence and the use of languagewith syntax They appear to me to be too few and too con-strained by the delicate developmental processes they musthelp guide to dictate the exact forms of behavior we practicetoward our environments or each other behavior that ifhighly programmed would be maladaptive in any case

Can we learn anything from the history of change in eth-ical attitudes toward the environment I think the main les-son is that none are predetermined or innate Cultures evolvein response to environmental circumstances and peoplersquosperceptions of them sometimes this leads to the husbandingof resources sometimes to their overexploitation This is notsurprising since the building blocks of standard ethicsmdashempathy sympathy social attribution and so forthmdashevolvedduring our long primate past entirely within a context oftreatment of conspecific individuals not other elements oftheir environments (de Waal and Roosmalen 1979 de Waal1989 1996 Flack and de Waal 2000) There is no sign of anygenetically evolved caring for the latter But cultures haveshown the capacity to evolve quite rapidly in response tochanging environmental information and circumstances Inpreliterate societies the rapid adoption and spread of agri-culture starting at several foci is an obvious example (Smith1995) In literate societies the historically much more rapidgrowth of the environmental movement is another But cansuch information be used to help speed conscious evolution(Ornstein and Ehrlich 1989) toward the view by most peo-ple and cultures that preservation of humanityrsquos natural cap-ital should be a top priority

Mechanisms of cultural evolution From individuals to groupsTo answer this question we must know much more about themachinery of cultural microevolution Variations in indi-vidual attitudes and motivations are bound to persist as theydo even within such narrowly defined cultural groups as thecommunity of ecologists And it seems unlikely that we soonwill understand that diversity at the individual level Pat-terns of individual differences are at best understood in a gen-eral way (Bandura 1986) indeed children of the same fam-ily are often very different in personality and attitudes Evenidentical twins sharing the same environment can develop verydiverse naturesmdashas the case of the conjoined twins Changand Eng so dramatically illustrated long ago (Wallace and Wal-lace 1978) And finding rules to explain individual behaviorshas proven ever more difficult For instance the appealing no-tion of economists that people could reasonably be viewed asrational utility maximizers has yielded increasingly to evidencethat they often are not A large literature has developedaround attempts to discover whether human beings in some

sense act rationally and have more or less stable preferences(Tversky and Kahneman 1974 1986 Stigler and Becker 1977Goetze and Galderisi 1989 Thaler 1992 Hines and Thaler1995 Siegel and Thaler 1997 Gintis 2000 Bowles 2001) Butsuch things as radically different assessments of the envi-ronmental situation by individuals sharing the same infor-mation remain extremely difficult to explain

Furthermore it is often virtually impossible to aggregateindividual behaviors to determine group preferences (Ar-row 1951) although rational choice theorists assume thatgroup behaviors are the collective result of individual choices(with the individuals usually thought to be maximizing util-ity) Moreover for many reasons common interests do notnecessarily produce collective actions (Olson 1971 Kerr1996) Sorting out motives such as why people are willing tobear the costs of free riders can be difficult (Bandura 1997)

The cultural evolution of groups is in some ways more read-ily interpreted than that of individualsmdashjust as climate ismore predictable than weather which in turn is more pre-dictable than the effects of a beat of a butterflyrsquos wing on thesurrounding air Apart from the averaging effects of largesample sizes group behavior is better documented historicallydepends less on interview data and can be observed overlonger periods than the development of individual naturesGroup behavior is a paradigmatic example of biocomplexitymdashof the emergence of macroscopic organization from inter-actions at a more microscopic level (Levin 1999) The liter-ature on social revolutions provides an instructive exampleby showing that many regularities can be discerned in the con-ditions that lead to revolutions without reference to the in-teracting preferences of individuals (Skocpol 1979 Gold-stone 1991 Braithwaite 1994 Collins 1994) Similarlyhistorians can document shifting attitudes on biological top-icsmdashsuch as animal rights race the place of women in soci-ety and approaches to conservationmdashover centuries tracingtheir cultural microevolution without aggregating the viewsof individuals just as Peter Grant (1986) could document ge-netic microevolution in Galaacutepagos finches without knowinganything of the shifting frequencies of nucleotide sequencesthat in aggregate produced the observed trends

Explaining how different human natures evolve could helphumanity deal with myriad human issues from abortion tozealotry There is abundant evidence that different behaviorstoward the environment are not in any significant way pro-grammed into the human genome The environmental fac-tors that do lead to the cultural evolution of diverse attitudesand behaviors are unknown in detail and only vaguely per-ceivable in outlinemdashthe interactions of some trillion chem-ically changing shrinking growing and reconnecting neu-rons are even tougher to sort out than those of tens ofthousands of relatively stable genes But understanding thosecultural interactions becomes ever more crucial as the ex-panding scale of the human enterprise increasingly presses onour life-support systems weapons of mass destruction becomemore widely available the epidemiological environment de-teriorates (Daily and Ehrlich 1996a) and diverse cultures


Articles


confront each other in a communication-rich rapid-transportation globalizing world (Barber 1995)

The mechanisms of cultural evolution General drivers The complexity of cultural evolution dwarfs that of geneticevolutionmdashif for no other reason than the amount of infor-mation that is being recombined and modified is vastlygreater There are after all more than a thousand times asmany parts in one expression of human culture a Boeing 747as there are genes in the human genome A vast literature hasaccumulated on cultural evolution broadly defined (for asample see references in Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1981Lumsden and Wilson 1981 Dunbar et al 1999 Ehrlich 2000)and a substantial one on the evolution of ethics and normsmdashwhich is of special interest to those of us concerned with hu-man behavior toward the environment (Bischof 1978 Axel-rod 1986 Alexander 1987 Boyd and Richerson 1992 Cronk1994 Boehm 1997 Katz 2000) I can only make a few obser-vations here not cleanly differentiate cultural evolution in ar-eas such as technology from that in morals (which may pro-ceed quite differently) nor can I address here the lively andinteresting debates concerning for example the role of groupselection in cultural evolution (Wilson and Sober 1994Boehm 1997 Sober and Wilson 1998 Laland et al 2000)

Leadership Among the several general drivers that ap-pear to be operating in cultural microevolution is leadershipFor example the importance of leadersmdashwho if they are suf-ficiently single-minded about reforming society sociologistsgive the wonderfully descriptive label ldquomoral entrepreneursrdquo(Becker 1963)mdashseems quite clear in the evolution of Amer-ican culture toward greater caring about the environment Justconsider the impact of individual environmental leaders asdiverse as George Perkins Marsh (1874)William Vogt (1948)Aldo Leopold (1966) Rachel Carson (1962) Donella and Den-nis Meadows (Meadows et al 1972) and David Brower(McPhee 1971 2001) Moral entrepreneurs have vision andmotivate others to attempt to change the world Because weare visual creatures television may have given moral entre-preneurs much more power to promote the models (con-ceptions of action including rules for innovative behavior thatare displayed to be symbolically interpreted and copied) thatthe entrepreneurs consider superior (Braithwaite 1994 Ban-dura 2001b)

Enlightened political leadership obviously can play a keyrole in changing cultures Perhaps the best current exampleon the environmental front is provided by the nation ofBhutan Its king His Majesty Jigme Singye Wangchuck in June1998 voluntarily transferred much of his power to the NationalAssembly (which now can remove him with a vote of no con-fidence) (Sen Gupta 1999) and is leading the country in de-veloping a program of gross national happiness (GNH) Theprogram is based on four principles economic developmentenvironmental preservation cultural promotion and goodgovernance (Thinley 1999) On a visit in early 2000 my col-

leagues and I were impressed with the implementation of thisprogram and especially with the goal of retaining some two-thirds of the nationrsquos forest cover intact Forest-clad moun-tain ranges stretching as far as the eye could see were the mostcommon vista in Bhutan in stunning contrast to neighbor-ing Nepal Ignorant political leadership however can have theopposite effectmdashas is clear from the environmental messcreated in many sections of the United States attitudes in theBush administration toward global warming and the horri-ble mismanagement that has undermined the efficacy oflaws designed to protect the Great Barrier Reef in Australia(Talbot 2000) And leadership operates through what is oneof the most potent and widely discussed processes of culturalmicroevolution diffusion of ideas and their frequent spreadthrough interconnected people via a social diffusion or ldquocon-tagionrdquo process (Bandura 1986 2001b Rogers 1995 Walt2000)

Social diffusion and contagion Ideas innovationsand attitudes may diffuse by symbolic modeling (drawing onconceptions of behavior portrayed in words and images[Bandura 1986]) along networks often gradually infectingmost or all of a population sometimes propagating withunexpected rapidity (Gladwell 2000) Such a process ofcourse can be very beneficial if for example the new ethicof trying to safeguard ecosystem services continues to spreadrapidly through publications and meetings of scientists form-ing networks with each other and with members of the busi-ness community But social diffusion and contagion often canbe the enemy of environmental quality emulation of thedevelopment patterns of todayrsquos rich nations by those strug-gling to ldquodeveloprdquo is a clear example (Ehrlich and Ehrlich1991) Some such as Bhutan are looking for different tra-jectories But Bhutan has only some 900000 people sand-wiched between a billion in India and 13 billion in China andit is starting to face pressures from a globalizing economy (egroad connections to the outside are only four decades old andtelevision has just been introduced) Bhutanrsquos political and in-tellectual leaders are being linked in networks to their coun-terparts in the rest of the world Whether social diffusion willlead Bhutanrsquos campaign for GNH to fail and cause the stan-dard mistakes on the road to development remains to beseen

Social diffusion and contagion have been traced in specificinstances as in the spread through networks of physicians ofuse of the antibiotic tetracycline when it was first introduced(Coleman et al 1966) Social diffusion and contagion can ex-plain how ideas and attitudes get around when they do butthey do not explain either their origins or their frequent fail-ure to propagate For instance we do not understand fully thelong gap between Captain James Lancasterrsquos experimentdemonstrating the efficacy of lemon juice in warding offscurvy in 1601 and its confirmation by Dr James Lind in 1747and the use of citrus fruits to wipe out the vitamin C deficiencydisease in the British Navy (1795) and merchant marine(1865) (Mosteller 1981) Even though naval officers pre-


Articles


sumably could have formed a kind of network to promote thecontagious spread of the use of citrus this did not occur anddiffusion of the idea was very slow One reason may have beenthat Dr Lind was not an influential figure in the navy and Cap-tain James Cook who was did not report that citrus fruits werean effective antiscorbutic

Indeed failure of ideas to propagate often may be tracedin part to class barriers and relationships An interesting caseput forth by sociologist Katherine Betts (1999) is the failureof increasing anti-immigration sentiment to have a strong in-fluence on government policy in Australia in the past fewdecades Her basic argument is that there has arisen a newprosperous cosmopolitan liberal class that is antiracist unlikemany more parochial Australians This internationally orientedclass has been able to ldquobuy immunity from the costs of growthand even make a profit as growth boosts property valuesrdquo (p10) This group sees high levels of immigration as antiracist(politically correct) an attitude promoted by a consortium ofpro-growth interest groups centered around the housing andconstruction industries That much of anti-immigration sen-timent in Australia was racist in origin added to the pro-immigration bias of the cosmopolitan liberals most of whomwere not in a position to perceive the nonracist and envi-ronmental reasons to question an open door immigration policy

Failure to propagate called ldquostickinessrdquo by economists is ametaphor (but not an explanation) for traditional ways ofthinking and acting that do not change in response to eventhe most compelling arguments for change (Kuper 1999) es-pecially if new ideas require repudiation of current culturalbeliefs (Richard White [Department of History StanfordUniversity] personal communication 1 March 2001) The pre-occupation of taxonomists with generating useless hypo-thetical phylogenies is an example of stickiness in the scien-tific community the current ldquowe canrsquot be advocatesrdquo schoolof ecologists is another

Longevity Patterns of social diffusion and contagion canhelp us to understand why ideas spread at different ratesbut they are of little help in explaining the differential longevityof ideas attitudes and trends Why has Christianity lasted solong when many other religions faded from the ancient Ro-man scene Why does religion persist even in a substantial mi-nority of the scientific community although most leading sci-entists consider it of no interest in explaining how the worldworks (Angier 2001) One sociological explanation for per-sistence that seems especially applicable to religion is centeredaround how groups construct notions of deviance to definethemselves (Adler and Adler 2000) In standard religionsdeviance is often called heresy but in science disapproval ofdeviance is still a major factor in group definition a genera-tor of stickiness despite the rewards that may eventually ac-crue to scientific heretics like Galileo Darwin Wegener andPrusiner (Kuhn 1962) The great sociologist Max Weber par-tially agreed with Marx that the fate of ideas was closely cou-pled to those of associated interests ldquoNot ideas but material

and ideal interests directly govern menrsquos conductrdquo (Weber1948 p 280) In this context one can certainly trace thelongevity of many religions to combinations of group soli-darity feelings and the ideal and material interests of the be-lievers The persistence of many environmental and anti-environmental groups may well have the same rootsmdashtheSierra Club and Western Fuels Association have different de-grees of receptivity to news of greenhouse warming Can welearn from successful religions how to make environmentalethics stronger and more persistent Perhaps but it is dis-tressing to note that experiments have suggested that obviouslyfictitious notions may be perpetuated over generations evenwithout the efforts of moral entrepreneurs or other obviousforces for conformity (Jacobs and Campbell 1961)

Ideation Finally social diffusion and contagion do not ex-plain the origin of new ideas Are they analogs of mutationsmore or less random ideas that are put together in the mindsof random individuals Is their propagation determined bya combination of chance and some measure of adaptivevalue This is the notion behind the ldquomemesrdquo of Dawkins([1976] 1989) and most other attempts to build a view of cul-tural evolution roughly modeled on classical population ge-netics But a major problem is that ideas suffer random mu-tation much more rapidly than genes which normally arecopied error free This is illustrated by the game of whisper-ing an idea to the first of a series of children with the rule thatthe idea be passed on The originator whispers to the secondchild who in turn whispers it to the next and so on until theoriginator and final recipient compare ideas and all are as-tonished at how dramatically the original has been altered Buthow much greater would be the alteration if the rules werechanged so that each participant could change the messageaccording to her intentions prejudices or whims That in partis how the world tends to work (Cronk 1999) Another key is-sue in addition to how ideas originate is why some arepromptly absorbed into cultural ldquonoiserdquowhile others seem vir-tually mutation proof Utility is obviously a major factor es-pecially where the idea is embodied in an artifact The idea ofthe wheel is a classic example Intentional change and differ-ential mutability are two of the reasons why the ldquomemerdquo ap-proach has done so little to illuminate cultural microevolu-tion (for a recent series of discussions some of which reveala more positive view of memetics than my own see Aunger2000)

Thus while there has been a lot of research on the spreadof ideas the much more difficult problem of discoveringtheir origins has yet to yield any interesting generalitiesmdashper-haps because aside from chance observations that led to in-novations (aluminum smelting transistors) few ideas arisefull-blown in a single head Indeed they usually consist ofcombining existing knowledge in novel or provocative ways(Bandura 1997) A classic example is seen in the way variousprecursor notions on evolution culminated in Darwinrsquos pro-posal of a mechanism natural selection accompanied by awealth of supporting information That ripeness of the time


Articles


was presumably a factor is suggested by the near-simultaneous proposal of the same mechanism by AlfredRussell Wallace The acceptance within a decade and a halfof the publication of On the Origin of Species of the basic ideathat evolution had occurred (Mayr 1991) suggests that ripenessas well It also speaks to the relative weakness of suppressionof deviance as a binding factor in scientific communities ascompared with religions presumably because of the adver-sarial nature of the scientific enterprise the potential for ac-clamation of those who generate new ideas (as opposed to re-inforcing traditional ones) and the agreement that natureserves as a final arbiter The long struggle for acceptance ofthe mechanism of natural selection was not against guardiansof an orthodoxy but rather the existence of other proposedmechanisms

We have no useful theory of the neurophysiology ofideation Perhaps new ideas are generated by more or less ran-dom creation of new neural networks when observing a phe-nomenon or thinking about a topic creates new chemical andphysical patterns in the brainmdashsometimes perhaps even dur-ing dreaming How people come to those ldquoeurekardquo events isone of the many enduring mysteries about the brain andconsciousness Having a truly novel idea is a rare eventmdashasa general lack of neo-Archimedeans running naked throughthe streets suggests

Where do we go from hereTwo major efforts are required of the environmental sciencecommunity The first is recruiting more scientists into the taskof improving understanding of cultural evolution The sec-ond is to get scientists and others to use that knowledge tochange its course The latter will involve a variety of effortsthat range from trying to generate sufficient concern amongdecisionmakers and laypersons to dedicating portions oftheir scientific careers to the hard sociopoliticalndashbiologicaltasks necessary to preserve humanityrsquos natural capital as ex-emplified by Dan Janzenrsquos ldquogrowingrdquoof the Guanacaste Con-servation Area (Janzen 1988 1999)

Accomplishing all of these tasks will require acceleratingchange in the norms and ethics of both the biophysical andsocial sciences They will involve fighting stickiness bothwithin the scientific community and without the world ischanging too rapidly to count on yesterdayrsquos norms servingeffectively tomorrow This could be a difficult strugglemdashoneneed only think of the persistence of ldquoscientificrdquo racism andldquoscientific creationismrdquo or at a less dramatic level the tenac-ity of ridiculously outdated disciplinary structures in uni-versities I hope ways can be found to realign incentives to over-whelm stickiness where change can improve the chances ofreaching sustainability Often these will be economic incen-tives (Daily et al 2000) but within science peer approval isextremely important and is increasingly accruing to those whobreak with antiquated traditions With the public at large in-novative techniques such as televised serial dramas based onpsychological theory are one way to promote such positivechanges as raising the status of women adoption of family

planning or increasing condom use to limit the spread ofAIDS (Bandura 2001a)

Interestingly the business community is providing someclues through developments in the relatively new science ofmarketing (Kotler and Levy 1969 Kotler and Zaltman 1971Kotler and Andreasen 1996 Kotler 1999) Scientists should notignore the findings of marketing simply because they may dis-approve of some of the uses to which business puts themrather they should combine them with science-based ap-proaches such as those exemplified by the TV serials Weneed to help steer cultural evolution by ldquomarketingrdquo a set ofenvironmental ethics doing the necessary psychological andmarket research selecting appropriate goals and carefullymonitoring the performance of the ldquoproductrdquo in a free mar-ketplace of ideas If the campaign fails we are unlikely to beable to maintain the flow of ecosystem services upon whichsociety depends

Some of the needed actions are already under way in thefrontline more holistically oriented biological disciplinesand it is cheering to see that even the results of more reduc-tionist science increasingly are being gainfully employed inaid of conservation (Palumbi and Baker 1994 Baker andPalumbi 1996 Palumbi and Cipriano 1998 Baker et al 2000)Furthermore the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program an or-ganized effort cosponsored by the Ecological Society of Amer-ica is now training environmental scientists to operate in thepolicy arena But much more needs to be done to change thebasic ethos of ecology so that more rewards flow to those whodeal directly with the human predicament in general andbiological conservation in particular (Ehrlich 1997) Gener-ating concern and appropriate actions will require a muchheavier participation in public debate than most scientists areaccustomed to but it can be done as shown by the success ofthe ldquonuclear winterrdquo efforts of the early 1980s (Ehrlich et al1983) The activities of the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-mate Change (IPCC) which involves hundreds of scientistsfrom diverse disciplines in a continuing evaluation of theglobal warming situation to reach consensus on the techni-cal issues related to that contentious topic could serve as a par-tial model of a basic mechanism to expose society to the fullrange of populationndashenvironmentndashresource issues

A start in this direction has been made by a group of en-vironmental scientists organizing an Intergovernmental Panelon Ecosystem Change (IPEC) It like the IPCC is geared to-ward a process that is transparent to all participants as wellas to the general public and decisionmakers IPEC will alsoneed to achieve very broad participation from nonscientistsranging from ethicists to ordinary citizens more than wasdone in the nuclear winter and IPCC examples We certainlynow have tools for speeding social diffusion and contagionsatellite TV the Internet fax machines conference calls andso on They make wide communication debate and consensusbuilding feasible Many of the necessary ideas have alreadybeen generated even though the process by which they orig-inated remains mysterious and environmental leadership isincreasingly appearing within and outside the scientific com-


Articles


munity The needed changes in ethics are under way and withfocused effort we may learn how to accelerate them whilemaintaining open democratic debateAlthough it is highly un-likely that human beings will ever create a utopia collec-tively we could do a lot better than we are today

AcknowledgmentsI thank Albert Bandura Loy Bilderback Carol Boggs Dun-can Calloway Gretchen DailyAnne Ehrlich Marcus FeldmanAaron Hirsh Simon Levin Richard White and an anonymousreviewer for insightful comments on the manuscript Thiswork was supported in part by grants from the W AltonJones and Koret Foundations

References citedAdler PA Adler P eds 2000 Constructions of Deviance Social Power Con-

text and Interaction 3rd ed Belmont (CA) WadsworthAlexander RD 1987 The Biology of Moral Systems Hawthorne (NY) Al-

dine de GruyterAngier N 2001 Confessions of a lonely atheist New York Times Magazine

14 January pp 34ndash38Arrow K 1951 Social Choice and Individual Values New Haven (CT) Yale

University PressArrow K et al 1995 Economic growth carrying capacity and the environ-

ment Science 268 520ndash521Aunger R ed 2000 Darwinizing Culture The Status of Memetics as a Sci-

ence Oxford (UK) Oxford University PressAvise JC Hamrick JL eds 1996 Conservation Genetics Case Histories

from Nature New York Chapman and HallAxelrod R 1986An evolutionary approach to normsAmerican Political Sci-

ence Review 80 1095ndash1111Baker CS Palumbi SR 1996 Population structure molecular systematics and

forensic identification of whales and dolphins Pages 10ndash49 in Avise JCHamrick JL eds Conservation Genetics Case Histories from Nature NewYork Chapman and Hall

Baker CS Lento GM Cipriano F Palumbi SR 2000 Predicted decline of pro-tected whales based on molecular genetic monitoring of Japanese andKorean markets Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences Se-ries B 267 1191ndash1199

Balvanera P Daily C Ehrlich PR Ricketts T Bailey S-A Kark S Kremen CPareira H 2001 Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services Science291 2047

Bandura A 1986 Social Foundations of Thought and Action Englewood Cliffs(NJ) Prentice Hall

mdashmdashmdash 1997 Self-Efficacy The Exercise of Control New York W H Free-man

mdashmdashmdash 2001a Environmental sustainability by sociocognitive decelera-tion of population growth In Schmuck P Schultz W eds The Psychol-ogy of Sustainable Development Dordrecht (Netherlands) KluwerForthcoming

mdashmdashmdash 2001b Social cognitive theory of mass communication Media-psychology 3 265ndash298

Barber BR 1995 Jihad vs McWorld New York Ballantine BooksBazzaz F et al 1998 Ecological science and the human predicament Science

282 879Beattie AJ Ehrlich PR 2001 Wild Solutions How Biodiversity is Money in

the Bank New Haven (CT) Yale University PressBeattie AJ Oliver I 1994 Taxonomic minimalism Trends in Ecology and Evo-

lution 9 488ndash490Becerra JX 1997 Insects on plants Chemical trends in host use Science 276

253ndash256Becker HS 1963 Outsiders Studies in the Sociology of Deviance New

York Free Press

Berg P Baltimore D Boyer HW Cohen SN Davis RW 1974 Potential bio-hazards of recombinant DNA molecules Science 185 303

Betts K 1999 The Great Divide Immigration Politics in Australia SydneyDuffy and Snellgrove

Binford L 1963ldquoRed ochrerdquo caches from the Michigan area A possible caseof cultural drift Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 19 89ndash108

Bischof N 1978 On the phylogeny of human morality Pages 48ndash66 in StentGS ed Morality as a Biological Phenomenon Rev ed Berlin AbakonVerlagsgesellschaft

Black D 1976 The Behavior of Law New York Academic Pressmdashmdashmdash 1998 The Social Structure of Right and Wrong Rev ed London

Academic PressBoehm C 1997 Impact of the human egalitarian syndrome on Darwinian

selection mechanics American Naturalist 150 100ndash121mdashmdashmdash 2000 Conflict and evolution of social control Pages 79ndash101 in

Katz LD ed Evolutionary Origins of Morality Cross-disciplinary Per-spectives Bowling Green (OH) Imprint Academic

Bowles S 2001 Individual interactions group conflicts and the evolution ofpreferences In Durlauf S Young P eds Social Dynamics Cambridge(MA) MIT Press Forthcoming

Boyd R Richerson PJ 1992 Punishment allows evolution of cooperation (oranything else) in sizable groups Ethology and Sociobiology 13 171ndash195

Braithwaite J 1994 A sociology of modeling and the politics of empower-ment British Journal of Sociology 45 445ndash479

Brown DE 1991 Human Universals New York McGraw-HillBuss DM 1994 The Evolution of Desire New York Basic BooksBussey K Bandura A 1999 Social cognitive theory of gender development

and differentiation Psychological Review 106 676ndash713Carson R 1962 Silent Spring Boston Houghton MifflinCavalli-Sforza LL Feldman MW 1978 Darwinian selection and ldquoaltruismrdquo

Theoretical Population Genetics 14 268ndash280mdashmdashmdash 1981 Cultural Transmission and Evolution A Quantitative Approach

Princeton (NJ) Princeton University PressChapin FS et al 2000 Consequences of changing biodiversity Nature 405

234ndash242Colborn T Dumanoski D Myers JP 1996 Our Stolen Future New York

DuttonColeman JS Katz E Menzel H 1966 Medical Innovation A Diffusion Study

New York Bobbs-MerrillCollins R 1994 Four Sociological Traditions New York Oxford University

PressCostanza R ed 1991 Ecological Economics The Science and Management

of Sustainability New York Columbia University PressCronk L 1994 Evolutionary theories of morality and the manipulative use

of signals Zygon 29 81ndash101mdashmdashmdash 1999 That Complex Whole Culture and the Evolution of Human

Behavior Boulder (CO) Westview PressDaily GC ed 1997 Naturersquos Services Societal Dependence on Natural

Ecosystems Washington (DC) Island PressDaily GC Ehrlich PR 1996a Impacts of development and global change on

the epidemiological environment Environment and Development Eco-nomics 1 309ndash344

mdashmdashmdash 1996b Nocturnality and species survival Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 93 11709ndash11712

Daily GC et al 2000 The value of nature and the nature of value Science289 395ndash396

Daily GC Ehrlich PR Sanchez-Azofeifa A 2001 Countryside biogeographyUtilization of human-dominated habitats by the avifauna of southernCosta Rica Ecological Applications 11 1ndash13

Daly HE ed 1973 Toward a Steady-State Economy San Francisco W H Free-man

Dasgupta P 1993 An Inquiry into Well-Being and Destitution Oxford(UK) Oxford University Press

Dawkins R [1976] 1989 The Selfish Gene Reprint Oxford Oxford UniversityPress

Deloria V Jr 1970 We Talk You Listen New Tribes New Turf New YorkMacmillan


Articles


Diamond JM 1984 Historic extinctions A Rosetta Stone for understand-ing prehistoric extinctions Pages 824ndash862 in Martin PS Klein RD edsQuaternary Extinctions A Prehistoric Revolution Tucson University ofArizona Press

mdashmdashmdash 1997 Guns Germs and Steel The Fates of Human Societies NewYork W W Norton

Dillon R 2000 Helping us hear the Earthmdashan indigenous perspective on for-est certification and forest product labellingWoden (Australia) Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander Commission

Douglas K 2001 Playing fair New Scientist 10 March pp 38ndash41Dunbar R Knight C Power C eds 1999 The Evolution of Culture An In-

terdisciplinary View New Brunswick (NJ) Rutgers University PressEasterbrook G 1995 A Moment on the Earth The Coming Age of Envi-

ronmental Optimism New York VikingEhrlich PR 1964 Some axioms of taxonomy Systematic Zoology 13

109ndash123mdashmdashmdash 1997 A World of Wounds Ecologists and the Human Dilemma

OldendorfLuhe (Germany) Ecology Institutemdashmdashmdash 2000 Human Natures Genes Cultures and the Human Prospect

Washington (DC) Island PressEhrlich PR Ehrlich AH 1981 Extinction The Causes and Consequences of

the Disappearance of Species New York Random Housemdashmdashmdash 1990 The Population Explosion New York Simon and Schustermdashmdashmdash 1991 Healing the Planet Reading (MA) Addison-Wesleymdashmdashmdash 1996 Betrayal of Science and Reason How Anti-Environmental

Rhetoric Threatens Our Future Washington (DC) Island PressEhrlich PR Holdren J 1971 Impact of population growth Science 171

1212ndash1217Ehrlich PR Holm RW 1963 The Process of Evolution New York McGraw-

HillEhrlich PR et al 1983 Long-term biological consequences of nuclear war

Science 222 1293ndash1300Ehrlich PR Daily GC Goulder LH 1992 Population growth economic

growth and market economies Contention 2 17ndash33Farrell BD Mitter C 1998 The timing of insectplant diversification Might

Tetraopes (Coleoptera Cerambycidae) and Asclepias (Asclepiadaceae) haveco-evolved Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 63 553ndash577

Flack JC de Waal FPM 2000 ldquoAny animal whateverrdquo Darwinian buildingblocks of morality in monkeys and apes Pages 1ndash29 in Katz LD ed Evo-lutionary Origins of Morality Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives BowlingGreen (OH) Imprint Academic

Foley RA 1997 The adaptive legacy of human evolution A search for theenvironment of evolutionary adaptedness Evolutionary Anthropology4 194ndash203

Gintis H 2000 Beyond Homo economicus Evidence from experimentaleconomics Ecological Economics 35 311ndash322

Gladwell M 2000 The Tipping Point How Little Things Can Make a Big Dif-ference Boston Little Brown and Company

Goetze D Galderisi P 1989 Explaining collective action with rational mod-els Public Choice 62 25ndash39

Goldstone JA 1991 Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern WorldBerkeley University of California Press

Grant PR 1986 Ecology and Evolution of Darwinrsquos Finches Princeton(NJ) Princeton University Press

Hamer D Copeland P 1998 Living with Our Genes Why They MatterMore than You Think New York Doubleday

Hanna SS Folke C Maumller K-G eds 1996 Rights to Nature Ecological Eco-nomic Cultural and Political Principles of Institutions for the Envi-ronment Washington (DC) Island Press

Harvey PH Leigh Brown AJ Smith JM Nee S eds 1996 New Uses for NewPhylogenies Oxford (UK) Oxford University Press

Heywood VH ed 1995 Global Biodiversity Assessment Cambridge (UK)Cambridge University Press

Hines JR Jr Thaler RH 1995 Anomalies The flypaper effect Journal of Eco-nomic Perspectives 9 217ndash226

Holdren J 1991 Population and the energy problem Population and En-vironment 12 231ndash255

Holdren JP Ehrlich PR 1974 Human population and the global environ-ment American Scientist 62 282ndash292

Huber PW 2000 Hard Green Saving the Environment from the Environ-mentalists (A Conservative Manifesto) New York Basic Books

Hughes JB Daily GC Ehrlich PR 1997 Population diversity Its extent andextinction Science 278 689ndash692

mdashmdashmdash 2000 Conservation of insect diversity A habitat approach Con-servation Biology 14 1788ndash1797

Jacobs RC Campbell DT 1961 The perpetuation of an arbitrary traditionthrough several generations of a laboratory microculture Journal of Ab-normal and Social Psychology 62 649ndash658

Janzen DH 1988 Guanacaste National Park Tropical ecological and bio-cultural restoration Pages 143ndash192 in Cairns J Jr ed RehabilitatingDamaged Ecosystems Boca Raton (FL) CRC Press

mdashmdashmdash 1999 Gardenification of tropical conserved wildlands Multitask-ing multicropping and multiusers Proceedings of the National Acad-emy of Sciences 96 5987ndash5994

Kaiser J 2000 Taking a stand Ecologists on a mission to save the world Sci-ence 287 1188ndash1192

Katz LD ed 2000 Evolutionary Origins of Morality Cross-Disciplinary Per-spectives Bowling Green (OH) Imprint Academic

Keesing R 1974 Theories of culture Annual Review of Anthropology 373ndash97

Kelley ST Farrell BD 1998 Is specialization a dead end Phylogeny of hostuse in Dendroctonus bark beetles (Scolytidae) Evolution 52 1731ndash1743

Kerr NL 1996 Does my contribution really matter Efficacy in social dilem-mas Pages 209ndash240 in Stroebe W Hewstone M eds European Reviewof Social Psychology Chichester (UK) Wiley

Ketelaar T Ellis BJ 2000a Are evolutionary explanations unfalsifiable Evo-lutionary psychology and the Lakatosian philosophy of science Psy-chological Inquiry 11 1ndash21

mdashmdashmdash 2000b On the natural selection of alternative models Evaluationof explanations in evolutionary psychology Psychological Inquiry 11 56-68

Kotler P 1999 Kotler on Marketing How to CreateWin and Dominate Mar-kets New York Free Press

Kotler P Andreasen AR 1996 Strategic Marketing for Non-Profit Organi-zations 5th ed Upper Saddle River (NJ) Prentice Hall

Kotler P Levy SJ 1969 Broadening the concept of marketing Journal of Mar-keting (January) 10ndash15

Kotler P Zaltman G 1971 Social marketing An approach to planned socialchange Journal of Marketing (July) 3ndash12

Krebs D 2000 As moral as we need to be Pages 139ndash143 in Katz LD ed Evo-lutionary Origins of Morality Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives BowlingGreen (OH) Imprint Academic

Krech S III 1999 The Ecological Indian Myth and History New York WW Norton

Krishnan R Harris JM Goodwin NR eds 1995 A Survey of Ecological Eco-nomics Washington (DC) Island Press

Kuhn TS 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Chicago Universityof Chicago Press

Kuper A 1999 Culture The Anthropologistsrsquo Account Cambridge (MA)Harvard University Press

Laland KN Odling-Smee FJ Feldman MW 2000 Group selection A nicheconstruction perspective Pages 221ndash225 in Katz LD ed Evolutionary Ori-gins of Morality Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives Bowling Green (OH)Imprint Academic

mdashmdashmdash 2001 Cultural niche construction and human evolution Journal ofEvolutionary Biology 14 22ndash33

Landweber LF Dobson AP eds 1999 Genetics and the Extinction of SpeciesPrinceton (NJ) Princeton University Press

Leopold A 1966 A Sand County Almanac with Essays from Round RiverNew York Ballantine Books

Lester D 1986 The environment from an Indian perspective EPA Journal12 27ndash28

Levin S 1999 Fragile Dominion Reading (MA) Perseus Books


Articles


Li N Feldman MW Li S 2000 Cultural transmission in a demographic studyof sex ratio at birth in Chinarsquos future Theoretical Population Biology 58161ndash172

Lloyd EA Feldman MW 2001 Evolutionary psychology A view from evo-lutionary biology Pyschological Enquiry Forthcoming

Lubchenco J 1998 Entering the century of the environment A new socialcontract for science Science 279 491ndash497

Lubchenco JA et al 1991 The sustainable biosphere initiative An ecologi-cal research agenda Ecology 72 371ndash412

Lumsden CJ Wilson EO 1981 Genes Mind and Culture Cambridge (MA)Harvard University Press

Marsh GP 1874 The Earth as Modified by Human Action New York Scrib-nerrsquos

May RM 1988 How many species are there on Earth Science 241 1441ndash1149Mayr E 1991 One Long Argument Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Mod-

ern Evolutionary Thought Cambridge (MA) Harvard University PressMcPhee J 1971 Encounters with the Archdruid New York Farrar Straus and

Girouxmdashmdashmdash 2001 Farewell to the Archdruid Earthrsquos best friend David Brower

1912ndash2000 Sierra 86 8ndash9Meadows DH Meadows DL Randers J Behrens WW III 1972 The Limits

to Growth Washington (DC) Universe BooksMeffe GK et al 1997 Principles of Conservation Biology Sunderland (MA)

Sinauer AssociatesMontesquieu CS [1748] 1989 The Spirit of the Laws Reprint Cambridge

(UK) Cambridge University PressMooney HA Hobbs RJ eds 2000 Invasive Species in a Changing World

Washington (DC) Island PressMosteller F 1981 Innovation and evaluation Science 211 881ndash866Myers N 1979 The Sinking Ark New York Pergamon Pressmdashmdashmdash 1996 The biodiversity crisis and the future of evolution The En-

vironmentalist 16 37ndash47Myers N Simon J 1994 Scarcity or Abundance A Debate on the Environ-

ment New York W W NortonNash RF 1989 The Rights of Nature A History of Environmental Ethics

Madison University of Wisconsin Press[NAS] National Academy of Sciences 1993 A Joint Statement by Fifty-

eight of the Worldrsquos Scientific Academies Population Summit of theWorldrsquos Scientific Academies New Delhi (India) National AcademyPress

Olson M 1971 The Logic of Collective Action Public Goods and the The-ory of Groups Cambridge (MA) Harvard University Press

Orlove BS 1980 Ecological anthropology Annual Review of Anthropology9 235ndash273

Orlove BS Brush SB 1996 Anthropology and the Conservation of Biodi-versity Annual Review of Anthropology 25 329ndash352

Ornstein R Ehrlich P 1989 New WorldNew Mind Moving toward Con-scious Evolution New York Doubleday

Otterbein K 1986 The Ultimate Coercive Sanction New Haven (CT) Hu-man Relations Area Files

Palumbi SR Baker CS 1994 Opposing views of humpback whale popula-tion structure using mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences Mole-cular Biology and Evolution 11 426ndash435

Palumbi SR Cipriano F 1998 Species identification using genetic toolsThe value of nuclear and mitochondrial gene sequences in whale con-servation Journal of Heredity 89 459ndash464

Pennisi E 2001 Linnaeusrsquos last stand Science 291 2304ndash2307Perrings C Maler K-G Holling CS Jansson B-O eds 1995 Biodiversity Loss

Economic and Ecological Issues Cambridge (UK) Cambridge Univer-sity Press

Phillips OL Raven PH 1996A strategy for sampling neotropical forests Pages141ndash165 in Gibson AC ed Neotropical Biodiversity and ConservationLos Angeles Mildred E Mathias Botanical Garden

Pirages DC 1996 Building Sustainable Societies Armonk (NY) M E SharpPirages DC Ehrlich PR 1974 Ark II Social Response to Environmental Im-

peratives New York Viking Press

Prospero JM Barrett K Church T Duce RA Galloway JN Levy H MoodyJ Quinn P 1996 Atmospheric deposition of nutrients to the North At-lantic basin Biogeochemistry 35 27ndash73

Raven PH 1976 Ethics and attitudes Pages 155ndash179 in Simmons JB BeyerRI Brandham PE Lucas GL Parry VTH eds Conservation of Threat-ened Plants New York Plenum

mdashmdashmdash ed 1980 Research Priorities in Tropical Biology Washington (DC)National Research Council Committee on Research Priorities in Trop-ical Biology National Academy of Sciences

Raven PH Wilson EO 1992 A fifty-year plan for biodiversity surveys Sci-ence 258 1099ndash1100

Recher HF 1999 The state of Australiarsquos avifauna A personal opinion andprediction for the new millennium Australian Zoologist 31 11ndash27

Ricketts TH Daily GC Ehrlich PR Fay JP 2001 Countryside biogeographyof moths in a fragmented landscape Biodiversity in native and agricul-tural habitats Conservation Biology 15 378ndash388

Ridley M 1996 The Origins of Virtue Human Instincts and the Evolutionof Cooperation London Penguin Books

Rogers EM 1995 Diffusion of Innovations 4th ed New York Free PressRolston H 1988 Environmental Ethics Duties to and Values in the Natural

World Philadelphia Temple University PressSen Gupta B 1999 Bhutan Towards a Grass-root Participatory Polity Delhi

(India) Konark PublishersSiegel JJ Thaler RH 1997 Anomalies The equity premium puzzle Journal

of Economic Perspectives 11 191ndash200Simon J ed 1995 The State of Humanity Oxford (UK) BlackwellSimonich S Hites R 1995 Global distribution of persistent organochlorine

compounds Science 269 1851ndash1854Skocpol T 1979 States and Social Revolutions A Comparative Analysis of

France Russia and China Cambridge (UK) Cambridge UniversityPress

Slobodkin LB 2000 Proclaiming a new ecological discipline Bulletin ofthe Ecological Society of America 81 223ndash226

Smith BD 1995 The Emergence of Agriculture New York Scientific Amer-ican Library

Sober EWilson DS 1998 Unto Others The Evolution and Psychology of Un-selfish Behavior Cambridge (MA) Harvard University Press

Souleacute ME ed 1987Viable Populations for Conservation Cambridge (UK)Cambridge University Press

Souleacute ME Wilcox BA eds 1980 Conservation Biology An EvolutionaryndashEcological Perspective Sunderland (MA) Sinauer

Stigler G Becker GS 1977 De gustibus non est disputandum American Eco-nomic Review 67 76ndash90

Talbot FH 2000 Will the Great Barrier Reef survive human impact Pages331ndash348 in Wolanski E ed Oceanographic Processes of Coral Reefs Phys-ical and Biological Links in the Great Barrier Reef Boca Raton (FL) CRCPress

Thaler RH 1992 The Winnerrsquos Curse New York Free PressThinley LJY 1999 Gross national happiness and human developmentmdash

searching for common ground Pages 7ndash11 in Centre for Bhutan Stud-ies Gross National Happiness Thimphu (Bhutan) Centre for BhutanStudies

Thompson BH 2000 Tragically difficult The obstacles to governing the com-mons Environmental Law 30 241ndash278

Thornhill R Palmer CT 2000 A Natural History of Rape Biological Basesof Sexual Coercion Cambridge (MA) MIT Press

Tooby J Cosmides L 1992 The psychological foundations of culture Pages19ndash136 in Barkow JH Cosmides L Tooby J eds The Adapted Mind Evo-lutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture New York OxfordUniversity Press

Tversky A Kahneman D 1974 Judgement under uncertainty Heuristics andbiases Science 185 1124ndash1131

mdashmdashmdash 1986 Rational choice and the framing of decisions Journal of Busi-ness 59 S251ndash278

[UCS] Union of Concerned Scientists 1993World ScientistsrsquoWarning to Hu-manity Cambridge (MA) UCS


Articles


Venter JC Adams MD Myers EW Li PW Mural FJ 2001 The sequence ofthe human genome Science 291 1304ndash1351

Vitousek PM et al 1997a Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycleSources and consequences Ecological Applications 7 737ndash750

Vitousek PM Mooney HA Lubchenco J Melillo JM 1997b Human dom-ination of Earthrsquos ecosystems Science 277 494ndash499

Vogt W 1948 Road to Survival New York William Sloande Waal F 1989 Peacemaking among Primates Cambridge (MA) Harvard

University Pressmdashmdashmdash 1996 Good Natured The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans

and Other Animals Cambridge (MA) Harvard University Pressde Waal F Roosmalen AV 1979 Reconciliation and consolation among

chimpanzees Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 5 55ndash66Wallace I Wallace A 1978 The Two New York Simon and SchusterWalt SM 2000 Fads fevers and firestorms Foreign Policy (Novemberndash

December) 34ndash42Weber M 1948 From Max Weber Essays in Sociology New York Oxford

University Press

White R 1992 Land Use Environment and Social Change The Shaping of

Island County Washington Seattle University of Washington Press

mdashmdashmdash 1995 The Organic Machine The Remaking of the Columbia River

New York Hill and Wang

mdashmdashmdash 2000 Dead certainties The New Republic (24 January) 44ndash49

Wiens JA 1996 Oil seabirds and science BioScience 46 587ndash597

mdashmdashmdash 1997 Scientific responsibility and responsible ecology Conserva-

tion Ecology 1 16 (10 December 2001 wwwconsecolorgJournal

vol5iss1indexhtml)

Wilson DS Sober E 1994 Reintroducing group selection to the human be-

havioral sciences Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 585ndash654

Wooster WS 1998 Science advocacy and credibility Science 282 1823

Wu J Sunda W Boyle E Karl DM 2001 Phosphate depletion in the west-

ern North Atlantic Ocean Science 289 759ndash762


Articles

Individual members of AIBS enjoy

FREE FUNDING INFORMATIONonline via

Community of Science Funding Opportunitiestracking more than 20000 public and private funding

sources worldwide for research education and training

Updated daily



Articles

T here is little dispute within the knowledgeablescientific community today about the global ecological sit-

uation and the resultant need for nature conservation (egNAS 1993 UCS 1993) Now is a time of unprecedented es-calating and well-documented environmental danger Thereis general agreement among environmental scientists thatthe accelerating loss of biodiversitymdashpopulations (Hughes etal 1997) species and communitiesmdashshould be a matter ofgreat concern They have concluded that nature must beconserved not just for its own sake but also for the sake ofHomo sapiens to which it supplies an indispensable array ofecosystem services (Daily 1997 Chapin et al 2000) and prod-ucts (Beattie and Ehrlich 2001) And for most of those sci-entists and large numbers of environmentalists conservationis a major ethical issue (Rolston 1988 Nash 1989) In addi-tion the scientific consensus is that the major driving forcesof the destruction of humanityrsquos natural capital are popula-tion growth overconsumption and the use of faulty tech-nologies combined with inappropriate socio-political-eco-nomic arrangements to service that consumption (Holdrenand Ehrlich 1974 Holdren 1991 NAS 1993 UCS 1993)mdashwhatmight be called the three horsemen of IPAT (Impact = Pop-ulation x Affluence x Technology Ehrlich and Holdren 1971Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1990)

But the seriousness of the environmental dimensions of thehuman predicament is still unknown to the vast majority ofthe general public and decisionmakers worldwide Althoughscientists understand the general directions in which hu-manity should be moving to solve its environmental problemsthe policy response of society remains pathetic As a result thecutting edge of the environmental sciences is now movingfrom the ecological and physical sciences toward the behav-

ioral sciences which seem to have the potential to develop waysto improve that response

The key is finding ways to alter the course of cultural evo-lutionmdashchange in the vast body of nongenetic informationthat humanity possesses and passes around between andwithin generations (Ehrlich and Holm 1963 Keesing 1974)Cultural evolution in this sense means more than what is usu-ally called ldquohistoryrdquoFor example the divergence of languagesor the refinement of an aircraftrsquos design is not ordinarilystudied by historians but these are part of cultural evolutionThe critical importance of cultural evolution in understandingbehavior has been reinforced by the discovery that there maybe only some 26000ndash38000 genes in the human genome(Venter et al 2001) It is now even more obvious that this ldquogeneshortagerdquo (Ehrlich 2000) is the final nail in the coffin of ldquoevo

Paul R Ehrlich (e-mail prelelandstanfordedu) is Bing Professor

of Population Studies Department of Biological Sciences Stanford

University Stanford CA 94305 He does research on the population

biology of a wide variety of organisms most notably butterflies

birds and people His interest in human cultural evolution is rooted

in a stay with the Inuit in 1952 and resulted in his book Human Na-

tures Genes Cultures and the Human Prospect published by Island

Press in 2000 copy 2002 American Institute of Biological Sciences

Human Natures NatureConservation andEnvironmental Ethics

PAUL R EHRLICH

CULTURAL EVOLUTION IS REQUIRED

IN BOTH THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE TO IMPROVE

SIGNIFICANTLY THE NOW INADEQUATE

RESPONSE OF SOCIETY TO THE HUMAN

PREDICAMENT

Editorrsquos note Paul Ehrlich is the recipient of the 2001 AIBSDistinguished Scientist Award This article was derived from hisplenary address at the March 2001 AIBS annual meeting



Articles

















Articles












Articles











Articles










Articles










Articles










Articles











Articles

























York Free Press

































Articles





























































Articles





























































Articles










University Press









vol5iss1indexhtml)







Articles





Updated daily



Articles

















Articles












Articles











Articles










Articles










Articles










Articles











Articles

























York Free Press

































Articles





























































Articles





























































Articles










University Press









vol5iss1indexhtml)







Articles





Updated daily










Articles












Articles











Articles










Articles










Articles










Articles











Articles

























York Free Press

































Articles





























































Articles





























































Articles










University Press









vol5iss1indexhtml)







Articles





Updated daily












Articles











Articles










Articles










Articles










Articles











Articles

























York Free Press

































Articles





























































Articles





























































Articles










University Press









vol5iss1indexhtml)







Articles





Updated daily











Articles










Articles










Articles










Articles











Articles

























York Free Press

































Articles





























































Articles





























































Articles










University Press









vol5iss1indexhtml)







Articles





Updated daily










Articles










Articles










Articles











Articles

























York Free Press

































Articles





























































Articles





























































Articles










University Press









vol5iss1indexhtml)







Articles





Updated daily










Articles










Articles











Articles

























York Free Press

































Articles





























































Articles





























































Articles










University Press









vol5iss1indexhtml)







Articles





Updated daily










Articles











Articles

























York Free Press

































Articles





























































Articles





























































Articles










University Press









vol5iss1indexhtml)







Articles





Updated daily











Articles

























York Free Press

































Articles





























































Articles





























































Articles










University Press









vol5iss1indexhtml)







Articles





Updated daily

























York Free Press

































Articles





























































Articles





























































Articles










University Press









vol5iss1indexhtml)







Articles





Updated daily





























































Articles





























































Articles










University Press









vol5iss1indexhtml)







Articles





Updated daily





























































Articles










University Press









vol5iss1indexhtml)







Articles





Updated daily










University Press









vol5iss1indexhtml)







Articles





Updated daily


Human Natures, Nature Conservation, and Environmental Ethics

Documents

Transcript of Human Natures, Nature Conservation, and Environmental Ethics