Lifeway

Abstract: Human life history is distinguished by long lifespan, delayed reproduction, intergenerational asymmetric benefit transfers from adults to juveniles and between adults, and a large brain able to engage in unprecedented levels of learning, reasoning, and insight. The evolution of these traits depends on relatively low human mortality. Understanding why humans have low mortality is therefore critical for understanding the evolution of key human traits. One explanation is that the evolution of food provisioning during periods of health crisis reduced mortality. This hypothesis turns on health risk having posed a significant adaptive problem that could be effectively buffered by healthcare provisioning. Unfortunately, the frequency, duration, and fitness effects of temporary disability are difficult to estimate based on osteological evidence alone, and systematic ethno-biological research on these issues among extant small-scale societies with little access to Western medical care is lacking. Here I present data on 678 injuries and illnesses suffered by 40 Shiwiar forager-horticulturalists, based on physical evidence and informant reports. A subsample of 17 individuals provided data on incidence and duration of disability for 215 pathological incidents. Results indicate that injury and illness occur frequently across the lifespan. Most living individuals have suffered temporarily disabling health crises likely to have been lethal without provisioning. The fitness effects of surviving these episodes are high, suggesting that the Shiwiar population structure and lifeway are dependent on infrequent extended provisioning to temporarily disabled individuals, and that provisioning of aid during healthcare crises effectively lowers mortality in this small-scale society.

Abstract: Two termite functional classifications (Abe’s lifetypes and Donovan’s feeding groups) are evaluated, and then synthesized to make a single unified ‘lifeway’ matrix classification with eight categories. The systematics and biogeography of the lifeway groups are outlined. The lifeways are then tested against other relevant data on termite ecology (stable isotopes, molecular probes, survey data) to show that they consistently reflect real distinctions in termite biology. The advantages and disadvantages of each lifeway are discussed in the context of energy availability, nitrogen balance, foraging and nest-building energetics, and biogeographical dispersal ability. Finally, an ecological evolutionary scheme is outlined for the global ecology of termites using the lifeway classification as a framework.

Abstract: This article begins with the recognition that environmental justice for Native peoples requires attention to the interrelated cultural, spiritual, social, ecological, economic, and political dimensions of environmental issues. It observes, moreover, that “environmental justice requires an appreciation of each tribe’s particular historical circumstances and contemporary understandings, including each group’s aspirations for the flourishing of its culture.” It contends that some environmental decision makers and commentators have increasingly come to embrace “risk avoidance” – strategies that call upon risk-bearers to alter their practices in order to avoid the risk of environmental harms – in lieu of risk reduction – strategies that require risk-producers to cleanup or eliminate contamination that gives rise to risks. After noting the perils of a shift to risk avoidance from the perspective of the general population, the article focuses on the environmental justice implications of such a shift. It explores the resulting injustice in terms of distributive inequity and cultural discrimination. It argues, first, that the burden of having to undertake avoidance measures, such as reducing one’s fish consumption to avoid mercury contamination or staying indoors to avoid ozone pollution, is likely to fall disproportionately on American Indian tribal members and other indigenous peoples, as well as on other communities of color and low-income communities. It argues, second, that risk avoidance is only likely to be the strategy of choice when the practice or lifeway to be altered is not valued or thought indispensable by members of the dominant society. Yet the values and cultural understandings of the dominant society will often be different, sometimes profoundly so, from those of indigenous peoples. Environmental policy that is inattentive to this observation, the article contends, will continue to perpetuate cultural discrimination.

Abstract: This article begins with the recognition that environmental justice for Native peoples requires attention to the interrelated cultural, spiritual, social, ecological, economic, and political dimensions of environmental issues. It observes, moreover, that “environmental justice requires an appreciation of each tribe’s particular historical circumstances and contemporary understandings, including each group’s aspirations for the flourishing of its culture.” It contends that some environmental decision makers and commentators have increasingly come to embrace “risk avoidance” – strategies that call upon risk-bearers to alter their practices in order to avoid the risk of environmental harms – in lieu of risk reduction – strategies that require risk-producers to cleanup or eliminate contamination that gives rise to risks. After noting the perils of a shift to risk avoidance from the perspective of the general population, the article focuses on the environmental justice implications of such a shift. It explores the resulting injustice in terms of distributive inequity and cultural discrimination. It argues, first, that the burden of having to undertake avoidance measures, such as reducing one’s fish consumption to avoid mercury contamination or staying indoors to avoid ozone pollution, is likely to fall disproportionately on American Indian tribal members and other indigenous peoples, as well as on other communities of color and low-income communities. It argues, second, that risk avoidance is only likely to be the strategy of choice when the practice or lifeway to be altered is not valued or thought indispensable by members of the dominant society. Yet the values and cultural understandings of the dominant society will often be different, sometimes profoundly so, from those of indigenous peoples. Environmental policy that is inattentive to this observation, the article contends, will continue to perpetuate cultural discrimination.