All posts by charlotteeisaac

Environmental Destruction and Cultural Practices

Destruction of the Salt Marshes

While for most of modern human history the European way of living has been depicted as the best and most superior way of living, this has, as the result of more recent reevaluations of our historical lineage, come under fire for many good reasons. One aspect of this changing perspective is the view that it is destructive European practices that began a cycle of environmental destruction and natural resource waste that continues to this very day, particularly in New World regions which would have had vastly different natural trajectories had European colonizers not arrived.

This argument is that as Europeans occupied the New World and expanded their industrialization of the old world, they rapidly eroded and denigrated the various environments, completely disrupted ecosystems and food chains, and rapidly depleted natural resources. This trend can actually be traced to pre-industrial times when in order to implement more “efficient” agricultural practices, Europeans, through artificial means, transformed distinctly non-agricultural ecosystems into farmland and, through non-sustainable farming practices depleted existing farmland of nutrients essential to producing nutritious and bountiful crops.

Europeans are often contrasted with various New World cultures which, historically, have a relationship with the environment and natural resources that is by far superior to the European- Environmental dynamic. From a anthropological perspective, New World cultures are characterized by rituals emphasizing a conservation and appreciation of nature. In many Native American cultures, for example, food preparation rituals are designed to utilize as much of the food source at hand as possible. For example, almost every single part of a hunted animal, no matter how small, is used for some purpose or another, whether nutritional or for a cultural practice that is meant to utilize it. In these cultures there also tends to be defined rituals used before eating that usually fall along the lines of thanking certain spiritual forces for the food at hand. In general, the more scarce and unsustainable a resource is the more rituals put in place to celebrate and appreciate that resource. It has been argued that these cultural practices that explain why during times when ecosystems occupied by Native American groups, such as East coast salt marshes, they flourished and sustained themselves.

The flip side of this argument is that it is European cultural practices, practices said to be characterized by the view that natural resources are meant to be fully used not conserved, that are responsible for the decay and destruction of ecosystems that came to be occupied by these groups. While this is certainly a valid and logical argument, I would like to argue that there is a are encompassing and precise answer out there as to why colonized ecosystems, such as the salt marshes, came to destruction.

The first of these arguments is that it is agricultural practices, not the cultural practices associated with agricultural society that are responsible for environmental destruction. Anthropological and agricultural research has indicated that while agricultural practices allow for more efficient food production and larger population growth, foraging and hunter gather practices provide a better option for long term and stable growth. So, to be more precise, it is the technology and characteristics of agricultural practices such as overplanting and forest clearing that cause environmental damage,  not cultural practices themselves. It can be argued, however that it is a lack of cultural practices designed to appreciate nature that exacerbate the extent of the harm caused by agricultural practices.

More Than Meets the Eye

Bio Blitz

As a born and bred New Yorker, Central Park has always been my  (practically) sole source of exposure to the wonders of the natural world. In a city of concrete, bricks, and cement, a little natural greenery is always a welcome relief from the harsh bustle of daily city life. My early morning August 27th trip to Central Park at 96th street was no exception.

This time, however, the experience was quite different and infinitely richer because not only was I able to enjoy the natural aesthetics of the park, but I was also able to learn about the complex dynamics of the  various species that co-exist alongside each other and the park’s human visitors. It had never occurred to me previously that not only did Central Park serve a purpose for it’s human visitors but for the many species of fauna and flora that reside there as well.  Before the Bioblitz I had thought that it was the various animals that occupy the park are the visitors and we, as humans, were it’s main inhabitants. Only now do I realize that it is in fact the fauna and flora that are the residents and we the visitors.

My group was responsible for cataloging bird species and for the first time I realized that New York City had a lot more than pigeons to offer to bird watching enthusiasts. We observed different varieties of robins, blue jays, as well as a species that is related to both doves and pigeons. What was particularly interesting to observe was how the birds negotiated their surrounding environments which while at time would consist entirely of secluded trees, most often included a hybrid natural and artificial environment, such as grass in a baseball field or a tree directly adjacent to the bridge.  All birds seemed to be just as comfortable negotiating an artificial terrain as they did a natural one.

This led me to question my previous conception of the idea of a “natural habitat”. What is a natural habitat, what makes it natural? Should it be defined according to a species historical (pre-industrial) affinity for a certain environment in which they had access to an ideal natural habitat or should it defined by what kind of habitat a species survives in today. How does the combination of natural and artificial affect the survival of members within a species and what traits give some members an advantage in an artificial environment over others? While I don’t have any answers to these questions I would be interested to see if any studies that would address them have been done.

The Bioblitz also made me aware of the close relationship between Central Park and the city’s dwindling but valuable biological diversity. After our guide meticulously pointed out the various species that existed, even within the same four foot area, I realized that there is much more to New York City wild life than pigeons and squirrels. I’ve also realized how valuable Central Park and the Bioblitz effort is to maintaining natural diversity.