The Way – an overview (Ecologist)

56. In a homeotelic economy all resources must be recycled.

All life processes require material resources. The biosphere, however, though it may be an open system from the point of view of energy, is a closed system from the point of view of materials. This means that in order to prevent the running down of the biosphere, and to permit the increase in order that has characterised the last few thousand million years, the raw materials of life are exploited in an extremely subtle way, each of them being recycled via complex social and ecological processes, thus permitting their constant re-use and avoiding their accumulation as waste.

The most basic of such processes is the ‘food chain’, which should really be referred to as the ‘food cycle’, whereby the primary producers (grass, algae, phytoplankton) which alone can harness the energy of the sun, are eaten by herbivores, who in turn are preyed on by carnivores, while their dead bodies, together with other dead matter, are eaten by scavengers and what remains is broken down by micro-organisms into the nutrients required by the primary producers.

All living things (including vernacular man) co-operate in assuring the success of this key cycle, without which life could not be sustained. Vernacular man believes that what is taken from the Earth has to be returned to it, often as a reparation for what they see as a crime.

This seems to have been the case among the ancient Greeks, as is implied in the sole surviving fragment of the writings of Anaximander:

“Things perish into those things out of which they have their birth, according to that which is ordained; for they give reparation to one another and pay the penalty of their injustice according to the disposition of time.” [57]

Gerardo Reichel Dolmatoff shows how this attitude is also held by the Kogi Indians of Colombia. [58] The anthropological literature on the subject is in fact considerable.

This principle is also clearly reflected in the moving grace repeated before each meal by those who follow the teachings of the British philosopher John Bennett:

All life is One,

And everything that lives is Holy.

Plants, animals and men,

All must eat to live and nourish one another.

We bless the lives that have died to give us food:

Let us eat consciously,

Resolving by our Work

To pay the debt of our existence. [59]

Unfortunately, few in the modern world see things that way any longer. Our industrial society ignores this critical constraint. Economic growth is a one-way process, the biosphere being systematically transformed into the technosphere and technospheric waste, both of which, from the point of view of the biosphere, constitute waste or randomness – a process that cannot continue indefinitely.

Back to top

57. In a homeotelic economy, no wastes can be generated which cannot serve as the resources for other life processes.

As Barry Commoner points out, nature does not generate a chemical substance for which it does not also generate the appropriate enzyme for breaking it down into those elements required as the resources for other life-processes.

Our modern science-based society, however, generates an increasing number of materials (synthetic organic chemicals, for instance, in which category we must include most modern pesticides) which have played no part in the strategy of nature and which must simply accumulate in some form, which, because of their toxicity, must seriously interfere with Gaian life processes.

Today, our ground water supplies are increasingly contaminated. Pollution is rapidly reducing the capacity of the seas – in particular the North Sea, the Mediterranean, the Baltic, and the Adriatic – to sustain complex forms of life. Forty percent of the flatfish in many parts of the North Sea suffer from tumours; the seal population is dying off, having been in an increasingly diseased state for many years; sea bird populations are ever less capable of reproducing themselves, with ever worse breeding failures; and vast algal blooms are invading the North Sea and the Baltic, depriving the infested areas of oxygen.

Chemical waste disposal on the land is increasingly difficult. About $100 billion (some say $300 billion) are required to clean up America’s 40,000 or so known waste dumps – a sum that will never be made available. Not surprisingly, more and more chemical wastes are now being dumped in the Third World with the connivance of crooked politicians. The problem is, in fact, completely out of control and the biosphere becomes ever less capable of supporting complex forms of life.

Back to top

58. As a developing homeotelic system approaches its climax, and thereby ceases to grow, so does it make use of less resources, which are now only required for maintenance and repair.

As this process occurs, so the system becomes correspondingly less dependent on the availability of such resources. In addition, it has a lower impact on its environment, whilst its consumption of resources and its generation of wastes (which will serve as the resources for other processes (see Principle 56) reach their optimum, that which will prevent any shortages and at the same time prevent the accumulation of wastes, and thereby any in-crease in randomness.

By contrast, our modern society, committed as it is to the uncontrolled, or runaway, process of economic growth, (which multiplies problems rather than solving them, and which interprets these problems in such a way as to rationalise expedients that require further economic growth and hence the use of further resources) will, as it develops, make use of ever more resources, which will still further increase its impact on its environment; thus causing ever greater resource shortages and the accumulation of ever greater amounts of wastes or biospheric randomness – further increasing overall instability.

Back to top

59. As a system develops towards a climax state, so it comes to generate an increasing proportion of the resources that it requires.

In order to ensure its necessary supplies, a system will not allow itself to become dependent on external sources of nutrients and other resources unless it can predict that supplies can be maintained. This is most likely when they are generated by the system itself; hence systems will tend to generate more and more of the resources they require as they develop towards their climax state – and reduce their consumption of resources that they cannot generate. Eugene Odum notes that this applies to ecosystems as they develop towards their climax. [61]

Our industrial society, on the other hand, in order to exploit the so-called ‘economies of scale’, and in order to specialise in the production of those products that it is best capable of producing (the principle of comparative advantage), increases its consumption of those resources that it does not itself produce (the components of the products it manufactures and those products which are produced most ‘economically’ by other societies) thus increasing rather than reducing instability.

Back to top

60. The technology made use of by vernacular societies is homeotelic and thus follows the Way.

In a vernacular society, all technological activities like all the economic activities that they serve are ‘embedded in social relations’. They fit into the society’s cultural behaviour pattern, playing a differentiated role within it. Technology is thus under social and ecological control and is homeotelic to Gaia.

This being so, technology transfer is very difficult in a vernacular society and indeed rarely occurs. Mary Douglas describes, for instance, how the Lele, who live on one bank of the Congo River, persist in making use of their own relatively simple technologies, although they are well acquainted with the more sophisticated technologies made use of by the Bushong who live on the opposite bank of the river. It does not occur to the Lele to make use of Bushong technology, since the latter does not fit in with their own cultural pattern, nor is its use rationalised (and hence validated) by their metaphysical beliefs and mythology. [62]

As a society disintegrates, however, these controls become less effective and technology, like the economic activities that it renders possible, gets out of control and comes exclusively to serve the interests of one or more interest groups, at increasingly intolerable social and ecological costs.

Back to top

61. In a vernacular society, political activities are homeotelic and thus follow the Way.

In a homeotelic society, the units of political activity, like those of economic and technological activities coincide with the natural social groupings; the family; the community; the society itself. There are no formal institutions or governments. The elders, and in some cases the chiefs, are first and foremost citizens – that is, differentiated or properly socialised members of the social system, rather than professional members of a socially heterotelic institution. Nor do they gain financially from their political activities, although these provide them with social prestige. Nor do they really govern in the sense in which the government of a modern nation state governs, their role being limited to enforcing the traditional law – that which assures social homeotely, and that which thereby best helps to maintain the critical order of the Cosmos.

This does not mean that all changes are avoided, only that changes are measured or controlled and occur only as a means of preventing bigger and more disruptive changes (see Principle 38)

The modern state is alien to society and to the Gaian hierarchy. It is under no effective social or ecological control. It is, in effect, just another interest group, concerned with little more than its own petty interests, which almost invariably conflict with those of the society it is supposed to serve. [63] Unfortunately, this particular interest group also controls the police, the army, and to a large extent the media and the law-courts. For that reason, and there are many others, the policies that serve its petty interests, and which largely coincide (in both capitalist and socialist nation states) with those of the most powerful economic interest groups, are very difficult to bring back under Gaian control.

Back to top

62. In a vernacular society, education is homeotelic and thus follows the Way.

Margaret Mead defines education as “the cultural process. the way in which each new born individual is transformed into a full member of a specific human society, sharing with the other members a specific human culture”. In other words, education is differentiation within a social system. It is thus the means whereby a vernacular society reproduces itself, so as to maintain its continuity or stability, and hence the preservation of its critical order and that of the Gaian hierarchy of which it is part.

As a society disintegrates and becomes heterotelic, such education becomes impossible, since if there is no society, new-born individuals cannot be socialised into it. One cannot learn to become a differentiated member of something that is no more. Education then degenerates (as it has in our modern society) into institutional, as opposed to vernacular, education: it involves no more than the communication to youth of socially random information (see Principle 47), which is designed to enable them to fulfil their heterotelic functions within the technosphere, which being (heterotelically) parasitical to the biosphere, can only contribute to the latter’s further degradation.

Back to top

63. In a vernacular society religion is homeotelic and thus follows the Way.

The gods of a vernacular society are the spirits of the biosphere. They are organised, what is more, in a way that reflects the society’s subjective view of its critical order. [64] In this way the organisation of the gods serves to sanctify that of the biosphere.

Reichel Dolmatoff convincingly demonstrates (with reference to the Indians of Colombian Amazonia) that the pantheon of a tribal system provides it with a model of its relationship to its natural environment, on the basis of which it can mediate an adaptive behaviour pattern, monitoring any diversions from it and correcting them. [65] With the social and economic destruction that necessarily accompanies economic development, this homeotelic religion is disrupted. The gods cease to have any relationship with society and with the biosphere of which it is a part, which become desanctified. This desanctification of the real world provides modern man with a licence to destroy it.

Religion, instead of being homeotelic, and thereby serving to maintain that behaviour pattern or Way, that leads to the preservation of the critical order of the Cosmos, becomes ‘otherworldly’. Its concerns shift to a different world and the behaviour it gives rise to, becomes purely heterotelic, as is that inspired by the mainstream religions of today. The role of such other-worldly religions is then but to provide the alienated inhabitants of the degraded world that economic development brings into being with individual succour, which may help them to accept their lot but which does not lead them to improve it.

Earthly protagonists of such religions even go to considerable lengths to rationalise economic development and the conditions it brings about, in theoretical terms, as did the nonconformists, who as Max Weber [66] pointed out, so convincingly played a decisive role in triggering off the industrial revolution. In this way, the adepts of such religions can at once serve God while systematically annihilating his creation.

We have no alternative but to recreate, along with a homeotelic society, a homeotelic religion, in which the gods are those of such a society and of the Cosmos of which it is an integral part – Gods which can only be served by restoring their creation and preserving it with religious zeal.

Back to top

64. As the environment at each level in the Gaian hierarchy diverts from the optimum, so will maladjustments at all these levels correspondingly increase.

The more Gaian order is disrupted and the environment diverts from that to which a system has been adapted by its evolution, the less well can they satisfy the system’s real needs. Stephen Boyden refers to this as the principle of “phylogenetic maladjustment” (more recently he has used the term “evo-deviance”). [67]

Boyden regards the ‘diseases of civilisation’ – ischaemic heart-disease, tooth-caries, most forms of cancer, diabetes, peptic ulcer, appendicitis, varicose-veins – whose incidence increases with per capita GNP, itself a measure of the rate at which the technosphere is expanding and biospheric order is being disrupted, as the symptoms of evo-deviance. [68] More precisely, they should be seen as the symptoms of evo-deviance at a biological level.

Crime, delinquency, alcoholism and drug-addiction (over and above what, in a given society, is homeotelic to it), child-abuse, schizophrenia and suicide (as Durkheim showed in his famous study Le Suicide [69] must also be regarded as the symptoms of growing alienation – or of evo-deviance at a social level – as experienced by people living in any anonymous mass-society in which they are deprived of their normal social environment (the family and the community) (see Principle 53).

Epidemics affecting man and non-human animals and plants are but the symptoms of evo-deviance at an ecological level, caused by the disruption of ecosystems and, hence, of the cybernetic controls that prevent population explosions among pathogens and their vectors.

Floods and droughts are also the symptoms of evo-deviance at the ecological level, since those conditions created by economic development necessarily involve deforestation, erosion and desertification and must necessarily increase the incidence and severity of floods and drought. By contrast, in a climax ecosystem, everything conspires to reduce their incidence to a minimum.

Finally, the pathetic failure of our scientists, economists and sociologists, armed with all their computers, laboratories and, sitting as they are on mountains of ‘scientific knowledge’, to understand the world they live in, is, above all, a symptom of ecodeviance at the cognitive level or of cognitive maladjustment – of which the most fatal manifestation is the ‘Great Misinterpretation’. (see Principle 66).

The world they have helped create is unintelligible to man; he is simply not designed by his evolution to comprehend it. It has no meaning to him. As economic development proceeds, man is thereby condemned to living in a world to which he is ever less well adapted biologically, socially, ecologically and cognitively, and also, aesthetically and spiritually. He thereby becomes increasingly alienated from a world ever less capable of satisfying his real human needs.

Back to top

65. Instructions that are interpreted in the light of a cognitively maladjusted system will give rise to misdirected, and hence heterotelic, life processes.

Misdirected life processes must be seen as heterotelic. Heterotelic processes may satisfy, albeit imperfectly, some specific needs of a natural system. However they are unlikely to satisfy all its needs, and will in any case do so in a way that prevents them from contributing to the overall goal of maintaining Gaian order.

Thus, by taking a mistress, a man may at least satisfy sexual and psychological needs. However, insofar as this diverts him from fulfilling his husbandly functions towards his wife, his paternal functions towards his children, and thereby prevents him from maintaining the critical order of his family – an essential component of the critical order of the Gaian hierarchy – it is a heterotelic relationship.

Technological solutions to problems caused by the disruption of natural systems are of necessity heterotelic. They are what Stephen Boyden calls ‘pseudo-adaptations’. [70] Consider the present epidemic of tooth decay which is known to be largely caused by eating junk food. The homeotelic solution is to correct the diversion from the appropriate heterotelic diet by readopting the appropriate homeotelic diet, that which man has been adapted to by his evolution. Such a solution, however, would be cognitively unacceptable. It would be seen as reversing the course of scientific and technological ‘progress’ that has brought the junk food into being.

It would also be politically and economically unacceptable – that is it would not be tolerated by all those asystemic institutions (political and commercial) whose very raison d’ etre is to provide heterotelic expedients.
Hence the problem is dealt with by providing those whose teeth have decayed with false teeth – a ‘pseudo-adaptation’ which mainstream scientists have failed to distinguish from a real adaptation, or, in the language of this essay, a ‘heterotelic adaptation’ as opposed to a homeotelic one.

The principal failings of such a heterotelic adaptation are,

• firstly, that the false teeth are no real substitute for the real ones:
• secondly, that they must be paid for whereas the real ones are free; and,
• thirdly, that it only addresses one of the very many problems caused by the consumption of junk foods.

These tend to be considerably devitalised, containing less proteins and trace elements than fresh food, thus leading to malnutrition and hence a reduced resistance to disease. Moreover, junk foods also tend to be contaminated with pesticide residues and chemical additives of all sorts. For both these reasons, and there are others, junk foods are the main cause of such diseases of civilisation as cancer, diabetes, diverticulitis, peptic ulcer, appendicitis, ischaemic heart-disease, and indeed tooth-decay, all of whose incidence increases with per capita GNP.

In addition, the production of junk foods on the present scale has altered the character of agriculture, which is now largely geared to producing the raw materials for the food-processing industry. Such an agriculture involves large-scale monoculture and the intensive use of machinery and chemicals. It is environmentally very destructive, leading to erosion and desertification on a grand-scale. It is also socially destructive, leading to the annihilation of sound rural communities, and to the concentration of the population in vast overcrowded cities.

In other words, we are faced with the typical ‘ripple-effect’ or ‘chain-reaction’, caused by the widespread adoption of a set of associated heterotelic expedients in the food industry. Tooth decay is only a minor ripple, a small almost insignificant link in the chain reaction that must cause maladjustments throughout the Gaian hierarchy. To treat it heterotelically, by providing its victims with false teeth, will do nothing to stem the tide of the destruction. It does little more than mask one of its symptoms, rendering it correspondingly more tolerable to the public, thereby helping to perpetuate the chain reaction towards disaster.

Back to top

66. Cognitive maladjustment in the modern world leads to the Great Misinterpretation.

Cognitively maladjusted modern man invariably refuses to face the indisputable fact that the problems that confront him are of his own making, or, more precisely, the inevitable consequence of economic development or progress – a totally heterotelic enterprise – to which he is fully committed politically, economically, psychologically and, indeed, quasi-religiously. On the contrary, modern man will persuade himself that if these problems occur, it is because economic development, and hence ‘progress’ has not progressed far enough. Thus if so many Third World people suffer today from malnutrition and famine, it is, he will persuade himself, because they are underdeveloped. If their agriculture could be modernised sufficiently, if they could be induced to buy from us a sufficient number of tractors, combine-harvesters, artificial fertilisers and chemical pesticides and, of course, build more dams to provide the requisite irrigation water, then these problems would rapidly be eliminated.

If they suffer from poor health, the same principle holds; economic development would provide them with the modem hospitals, the trained doctors and the pharmaceutical preparations that would rapidly make them healthy.

I refer to this as the ‘Great Misinterpretation’. It is consistent with the dogma basic to the world-view of modernism, that nature provides man with no real benefits (see Principle 25), and that all benefits are man-made (see Principle 25), the product of scientific, technological and industrial progress, which is thereby seen as providing a panacea for all man’s problems.

The Great Misinterpretation is of course very convenient; it is the only interpretation in fact, that can justify progress, and by the same token, satisfy the political and economic interests of the institutions that provide these man-made ‘benefits’, and on whose functioning, as development proceeds, we all become increasingly dependent.

Not surprisingly, the Great Misinterpretation has become institutionalised as the fundamental dogma of the world-view of modernism.

Back to top

67. The development of the world-view of ecology is the Great Reinterpretation.

I have sketched very tentatively indeed what I take to be some of the more important laws or principles of the worldview of ecology. The reader will see that they are closely interrelated, relatively consistent and thereby provide at least a vague idea of the lines along which we should proceed in the development of a coherent and comprehensive ecological world-view. It is only once we are all imbued with such a world-view that it will be possible to reinterpret the nature of the terrible problems that confront us today – to undertake, in fact, the Great Reinterpretation.

These problems must be correctly identified as but the symptoms of the degradation of natural systems at all levels (biological, social and ecological) in the hierarchy of the ecosphere under the increasingly intolerable impact of our economic activities.

In the light of this world-view, it must also become clear that the impact of these activities must be systematically reduced, and that this, in effect means creating a new society that is structurally and cognitively geared to the achievement of a very different goal from that of the society we live in today. It means building up our biological, social and ecological wealth, the only wealth that can satisfy the real needs of living things including man. It means, in effect, a return to the Way – to a pattern of behaviour that recognises that the earth is sacred, and that it is only by respecting its sanctity that it will continue to dispense to us those unique blessings that must constitute the only real and lasting wealth.

Back to top

References

1.	Eugene Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology Saunders, Philadelphia 1953: 1923.
2.	Eugene Odum, personal communication.
3.	Donald Worster, Nature’s Economy Sierra Club, San Francisco, 1977.
4.	Ramon Margalef, “On Certain Unifying Principles in Ecology”. The American Naturalist No. 897, November – December 1963.
5.	R. H. Peter, “From Natural History to Ecology”. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine No. 23, 1980, pp.191-203.
6.	E. F. Haskell, “Mathematical Systemisation of ‘environment’, ‘organism’ and ‘habitat’ “. Ecology No. 21, 1940, pp.1-16.
7.	C. J. Glacken, Traces on the Rhodian Shore. University of California Press, Berkeley 1967.
8.	Eugene Odum, Personal Communication.
9.	Ludwig von Bertalanffy, “General Systems Theory” in Problems of General Systems Theory Toronto, 1960.
10.	See Edward Goldsmith, “Gaia: Its Implications for Theoretical Ecology”. The Ecologist Vol. 18 No. 2/3, 1988.
11.	Donald Worster, op.cit supra 3.
12.	C. H. Waddington, The Evolution of an Evolutionist. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York 1975.
13.	Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1958.
14.	Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1958.
15.	James Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1979.
16.	Donald Worster, op.cit. supra 3.
17.	Theodore Roszack, Where the Wasteland Ends. Anchor, Garden City, New York, , 1973.
18.	Donald Worster, op.cit supra 3.
19.	Ibid.
20.	A. Sabatani, “Molecular Biology: A Scientific Critique”. The Ecologist Vol. 14 No. 2, 1984.
21.	J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles. Routledege and Kegan Paul (2nd impression), London 1948.
22.	David J. Merrell Ecological Genetics. Longmans, Harlow 1981.
23.	Robert Mann has distinguished between accuracy and precision. In many cases quantification permits greater precision at the cost of reduced accuracy, in that quantification can only be achieved by simplifying the message and reducing its ability to reflect reality.
24.	Father Placide Tempels, La Philosophie Bantoue Presence Africaine, Paris 1948.
25.	Sir Julian Huxley, Issues in Evolution. London 1942.
26.	A. R. Radcliffe Brown, Structure and Function in Primitive Societies. Cohen & West, London 1965.
27.	Frank Edgerton, “Changing Concepts in the balance of Nature”. Quarterly Review of Biology No. 48, 1973, pp.322-50.
28.	W. Paley, quoted by Donald Worster op.cit. supra 3.
29.	Peter B. Medawar & J. S. Medawar The Life Science Wildwood House London 1977.
30.	Don Ospovat, The Extension of Darwin’s Theory.
31.	Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Ecological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. 1982.
32.	Paul Weiss, “The Living System” in Arthur Koestler and J. R. Smythies, eds., Beyond Reductionism. Hutchinson, London 1970.
33.	Sir Julian Huxley, op.cit supra 25.
34.	Robert May, Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton.1973.
35.	Sir Julian Huxley, op.cit supra 25.
36.	Peter Kropotkin Mutual Aid, a Factor of Evolution. Horizon books, Boston, 1914.
37.	D. H. Boucher, “The Idea of Mutualism” in D. H. Boucher et al (eds) The Biology of Mutualism. Croon Helm, London 1986.
38.	Ilya Prigogine & Isabelle Stengers, La Nouvelle Alliance. Gallimard Paris, 1979.
39.	Arthur Koestler, Janus: A Summing Up. Hutchinson, London 1977.
40.	C. S. Hollings, “Resilience and Stability of Ecosystems”. In Erich Jantsch & C. H. Waddington (eds) Evolution and Consciousness. Addison Wesley, New York 1976.
41.	C. H. Waddington, Introduction. In Erich Jantsch and C. H. Waddington, op.cit supra 40.
42.	Lao Tsu, Tao Te Tching, No. 29.
43.	Claude E. Shannon & Warren Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana 1967.
44.	I. M. Lerner Genetic Homeostasis. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1954.
45.	A. F. C. Wallace, “Revitalisation Movements: Some Theoretical Considerations for their Comparative Study”. American Anthropologist No. 58, April 1956.
46.	W. Sargent, “The Battle for the Mind”. London 1953.
47.	Hesiod, quoted by F. M. Cornford From Religion to Philosophy. Harper & Bros. New York 1957.
48.	A. R. Radcliffe Brown, op.cit supra 26.
49.	F. M. Cornford, op.cit supra 47.
50.	Jane Harrison, Themis. London 1912.
51.	Morris Blumefull, The Religion of the Veda. Quoted by F. M. Cornford, op.cit supra 47.
52.	Krishna Chaitanya, “A Profounder Ecology: The Hindu view of Man and Nature”. The Ecologist Vol. 13 No. 4, 1983.
53.	Ede Groot, The Religion of the Chinese. New York, 1910, quoted by F. M. Cornford op.cit supra 47.
54.	Roger Callois, L’Homme et le Sacré. Paris 1946.
55.	Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation. Beacon, New York 1957.
56.	Barry Commoner, introduction to S. S. Epstein and R. Grundy (eds) Consumer Health and Product Hazards; Cosmetics and Drugs, Pesticides, Food Additives, Vol 2. MIT, Cambridge Mass. 1974.
57.	F. M. Cornford, op.cit supra 47.
58.	Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff, “Cosmology as Ecological Analysis: A View from the Rainforest” The Ecologist Vol. 7 No. 1, 1977.
59.	Nicholas Hildyard, personal communication.
60.	Barry Commoner, op.cit supra 47.
61.	Eugene Odum, “The Strategy of Ecosystem Development”. Science 164, pp260-270.
62.	Mary Doublas, The Lele of the Kasai. London 1966.
63.	See Pierre Clastres, La Société contre l’Etat. Editions de Minuit, Paris 1974.
64.	See Edward Goldsmith, “The Religion of a Stable Society”. In Edward Goldsmith “The Stable Society”. Wadebridge Ecological Press, Wadebridge, 1978.
65.	Gerardo Reichel Dolmatoff, op.cit supra 58.
66.	M. Weber, The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism. Charles Scribener & Sons, New York 1930.
67.	Stephen Boyden, “Evolution and Health”. The Ecologist Vol. 3 No. 8, 1973.
68.	Ibid.
69.	Emile Durkheim, Suicide. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1963.
70.	Stephen Boyden, op.cit supra 67.

Back to top

Pages:  1   2   3   4   5   6   ALL