The birth of a city marks the death of traditional human lifestyles that previously existed in the city’s path. There are many examples globally where cities have laid waste to traditional lifestyles. More often than not this issue is discussed in the context of colonialism. Biological perspectives on the subject have been avoided as the idea of “survival of the fittest” is associated with elitist value judgments. It is time to revisit the biological truth of human conflict.
Genetically, all humans are of the same species. However, from the perspective of scientific measurement (i.e. resource consumption, geographic range through life, population density) this is one of the only similarities between westerners and indigenous people. Western lifestyles (which admittedly originate from traditional lifestyles) and traditional lifestyles (i.e. hunter gatherer) have diverged into completely different human experiences. In the majority of cases, perhaps all cases, cities and traditional forms of human life are mutually exclusive. It is not that people belonging to traditional societies are inherently incapable of joining urban systems but that those who adhere to traditional lifestyles, who resist integration, or who cannot integrate experience a low measure of health when they exist within the urban organism’s sphere of influence. Thusl they experience a lower measure of survivability. Considering the growth pattern, range and nature of the urban organism, staying out of its sphere of influence is virtually impossible. This begs the question: Is there such a thing as a human being who lives independent of the urban organism? The legitimacy of this question speaks volumes about the strength of contemporary selection forces on human beings.
The urban organism is so universally human that even those who believe they are anti-globalisation, anti-west, or anti-colonisation cannot avoid participation in the system as the foundation of their rhetoric often rests upon western education systems and the communication of their message is facilitated by western technology.
In terms of the big-picture competition between cities and hunter-gatherer formations, cities are dominant. Intrusive inevitability is not just a human phenomenon. Other organisms that benefit from and coexist with cities like some types of plants, small mammals, birds, insects, fish, amphibians and organisms that thrive in foreign environments exhibit the same intrusive patterns, often completely eradicating native species.
Many biologists cite intrusive organisms and the instability their presence creates to suggest that human civilisation functionally represents a mass extinction. In terms of extinction rates, which appear to be elevated, this is probably true. However, there is one major difference between contemporary changes and previous mass extinctions: Life in general (i.e. biomass) has not necessarily decreased. Instead, those organisms going extinct have been replaced by the booming populations of a select few species. This is an important distinction between human civilisation and mass extinctions. To assume that a group of one million individuals representing ten species is more valuable than a group of one million individuals representing two species is in itself a value judgment that goes beyond biological observation. Indeed, there are benefits to diversity, but if there is such a thing as mass extinction so too there can be mass origination and benefits to large populations.
To exemplify the long term benefits of reduced diversity consider a sapling that has twenty branches. With time the original branches may reduce to five. Relative to the original branches, diversity is reduced. However, of the five remaining branches, twenty new branches have emerged from each. While diversity of the original branches remains low, these surviving branches facilitate levels of diversity that did not previously exist. This is and always has been the process and nature of life.
Genetically, all humans are of the same species. However, from the perspective of scientific measurement (i.e. resource consumption, geographic range through life, population density) this is one of the only similarities between westerners and indigenous people. Western lifestyles (which admittedly originate from traditional lifestyles) and traditional lifestyles (i.e. hunter gatherer) have diverged into completely different human experiences. In the majority of cases, perhaps all cases, cities and traditional forms of human life are mutually exclusive. It is not that people belonging to traditional societies are inherently incapable of joining urban systems but that those who adhere to traditional lifestyles, who resist integration, or who cannot integrate experience a low measure of health when they exist within the urban organism’s sphere of influence. Thusl they experience a lower measure of survivability. Considering the growth pattern, range and nature of the urban organism, staying out of its sphere of influence is virtually impossible. This begs the question: Is there such a thing as a human being who lives independent of the urban organism? The legitimacy of this question speaks volumes about the strength of contemporary selection forces on human beings.
The urban organism is so universally human that even those who believe they are anti-globalisation, anti-west, or anti-colonisation cannot avoid participation in the system as the foundation of their rhetoric often rests upon western education systems and the communication of their message is facilitated by western technology.
In terms of the big-picture competition between cities and hunter-gatherer formations, cities are dominant. Intrusive inevitability is not just a human phenomenon. Other organisms that benefit from and coexist with cities like some types of plants, small mammals, birds, insects, fish, amphibians and organisms that thrive in foreign environments exhibit the same intrusive patterns, often completely eradicating native species.
Many biologists cite intrusive organisms and the instability their presence creates to suggest that human civilisation functionally represents a mass extinction. In terms of extinction rates, which appear to be elevated, this is probably true. However, there is one major difference between contemporary changes and previous mass extinctions: Life in general (i.e. biomass) has not necessarily decreased. Instead, those organisms going extinct have been replaced by the booming populations of a select few species. This is an important distinction between human civilisation and mass extinctions. To assume that a group of one million individuals representing ten species is more valuable than a group of one million individuals representing two species is in itself a value judgment that goes beyond biological observation. Indeed, there are benefits to diversity, but if there is such a thing as mass extinction so too there can be mass origination and benefits to large populations.
To exemplify the long term benefits of reduced diversity consider a sapling that has twenty branches. With time the original branches may reduce to five. Relative to the original branches, diversity is reduced. However, of the five remaining branches, twenty new branches have emerged from each. While diversity of the original branches remains low, these surviving branches facilitate levels of diversity that did not previously exist. This is and always has been the process and nature of life.
Figure 20: Of the original branches on the sapling, several will break off. Yet those that remain enable a larger number of branches given time.
0 comments:
Post a Comment