Peter J. Richerson, Instructor

3146 Wickson Hall

2-2781

I. Objectives of the course

“Human Ecology” is a term that implies a comprehensive science of the human species based upon the same basic principles that apply to other species. Within that broad concept, uses of the term are diverse. The basic objective of this course is to explore the envelop of subject matter that is or should be included in Human Ecology. The overarching issues in the course are the degree to which humans are a special case among the huge diversity of non-human species, exactly what sort of special case we are, and what does human ecology imply for the future of the social sciences. If the fragmentation of the social sciences and their lack of systematic grounding in the general principles of ecology and evolution are real problems, then human ecology should be an engine for generating a compelling research agenda. The conventional disciplines should have left us lots of interesting empty niches.

II. Organization of the Course

The lecture portion of the course is coordinated with Professors Borgerhoff Mulder and Richerson’s undergraduate course, Principles of Human Ecology, ESP/ANT 101. That course, and its custom published textbook lay out one reasonably comprehensive vision of what human ecology is and ought to be. It will serve as a foundation for graduate level exploration of the issues surrounding the concept of human ecology. Please consult the course outline for ESP/ANT 101 for the details of the lecture portion of the course. Graduate students will not attend a discussion section for ESP/ANT 101 but will attend a separate seminar section and will complete different course requirements.

III. Course Exercises

A. Paper. Write a term paper addressing a basic topic in human ecology. The paper may be in the form of a review paper or a grant proposal, but the topic should be suitably ambitious. For example, if you choose to do a grant proposal, think in terms of a “big science” budget, not in just in terms of the usual PhD project. Or suppose you are writing a proposal for a career development award requiring you to outline a decade’s worth of research. I will grade the paper for form and give you feedback on style that should be useful when you write proposals and literature reviews in the future, but mainly I’ll be looking for innovative and insightful analysis of a significant question. Think big! Soon you will have to narrow your focus to develop a doable thesis, but such narrowing will result in a better thesis if it plays before a backdrop of larger issues. Please give me a written outline of your paper by January 31. 50% of your grade.

B. Talk. Give an introductory talk to launch the discussion in one of the weekly seminars. One of the most frequent tasks you’ll have in your career is to give short talks. Those at professional meetings are form of scientific communication, second only in importance to the referred paper. Take absolutely no more than15 minutes to give your take on the most important issues surrounding the topic of discussion your week. Take as provocative and innovative a slant on your week’s question as you can. I will again grade this exercise partly for style. You need to learn to outline talks, prepare visual aids, and rehearse to get your timing down. Partly, I’ll grade on substance. You should be prepared to do some outside reading to be prepared to bring a fresher and deeper perspective on the topic than you could glean just from the lectures. Give us one piece of background reading for your topic. Your preparation for the talk may or may not overlap with your paper. I will try to grade the two in conjunction so that you will not be penalized if they are completely different. 20% of your grade.

C. Exam. Just to make sure that you master the material in the lecture part of the course you will take the ESP/ANT 101 final exam. If we didn’t think the material is important, we wouldn’t sweat bullets over our lectures! 20% of your grade.

D. Participation. To keep the other 35 minutes of the seminar interesting we’ll need lively, prepared participants. 10% of your grade.

IV. Seminar Topics

Week 1. The Concept of Human Ecology. Is the programmatic justification for human ecology sound? If so, why, after a couple of generations of the existence of human ecology, are the conventional disciplines still dominant? Does a more compelling vision to accomplish the same end of a unified social science integrated with biology exist?

Week 2. Wither Anthropology? Part II lectures outline the legacy of descriptive ethnography as summarized by its most ecological practitioners. One might argue that anthropology has completed the basic task of descriptive human natural history and needs to develop a methodologically more sophisticated agenda. What inspiration does ecology give us for the next steps for ecological anthropology?

Week 3. Limits to Adaptationism? The concept of adaptation is central to the biological discipline of ecology/evolution, though even here it has critics. The concept is much more controversial when applied to human behavior, with human ecologists ranging from extreme to moderate adaptationists. Are there limits to the application of the concept of adaptation, especially as regards humans, and if so what methods are appropriate to defining just what those limits are?

Week 4. How Analogous is Cultural to Genetic Evolution? The Boyd/Richerson approach that is the basis of the lectures struggles through an analysis of analogies and disanalogies between the two. On the one hand, a rather large group of enthusiasts argue organic and cultural evolution are highly parallel, using terms like “memes” and “phemes” to underline their case for a tight analogy. On the third hand, historically, social scientists have supposed that cultural evolution proceeds by entirely different processes. Critique the Boyd/Richerson approach from one of the other points of view.

Week 5, 6, 7. Other Systemic Interactions. The lectures in the Systemic Interactions section are examples of how human ecology tries to draw theory and data from the existing disciplines into a more synthetic whole. Among the many topics we do not address in any detail are division of labor within societies, gender relations, stratification and exploitation (dominance and power), ethnicity, informal institutions of commons management, and causes of social disfunction and collapse. Illustrate how ecological/evolutionary principles are being or could be used to provide a fresh and systemic attack on a classic social science issue beyond those we reprise in part IV.

Week 8. Macroevolution and the Future. Much applied human ecology is an exercise in predicting the future. These predictions have had mixed success, witness the famous bet Paul Ehrlich lost with Julian Simon. Ecologists’ cautions about environmental deterioration receive mixed reception from the public and from decision-makers. How does the macroevolutionary long view help us make better predictions? Or does it merely help us better understand the limits of prediction?

Week 9. My Course in Human Ecology. The course you have taken is one of many ways to try to do justice to the concept. You are likely to teach such a course yourself one day. What material would you cover and how would you organize it?