July 27, 2017

Can humanity adapt to the world that science is creating?

Human beings evolved as small bands of hunter-gatherers, and our fundamental, instinctive nature remains adapted to that role. Small wonder then that we are so maladjusted to the world which we have created.

As we pursue the path of ‘progress’, fully expecting that science, technology and economic growth will lead us into a future of happiness and prosperity, we are only drawing further away from our origins, and from our true natures.

This unpublished article is an extended version of “Hell on Earth: mankind and the environment”, published in The Ecologist Vol. 30 No. 7, October 2000.


It should be obvious to most people, though it is rarely stated, especially in academic circles, that the environment most friendly to the needs of living things, that within which their behaviour is most fulfilling and adaptive, can only be that to which they have been adapted by their evolution and upbringing. Common sense tells us that this must be so.

Thus a tiger has been adapted by its evolution and upbringing to living in the jungle, which clearly provides its optimum environment. It is the activities in which it is capable of indulging in the jungle that best satisfy its physical and psychological requirements; it is the food that it finds there that it has best been adapted to eating and digesting and it is the smells encountered there that it has best been adapted to detecting, interpreting, reacting to adaptively and enjoying.

There is no reason for supposing that man is in any way exempt from the operation of this fundamental principle. But what is man’s natural environment? To answer this, we must consider that man is by nature a hunter-gatherer. As S. Washburn and C. Lancaster write,

“The common factors that dominate human evolution and produced homo sapiens were pre-agricultural. Agricultural ways of life have dominated less than 1 percent of human history and there is no evidence of major biological changes during that period of time . . . the origin of all common characteristics must be sought in pre-agricultural times.” [1]

As Wes Jackson puts it, if man were designed to be a farmer, “he would have longer arms”. [2] If he had been designed by his evolution to live in an industrial society, Jackson might have added, he would be a robot with no requirement for a family or a community, no feelings for the natural world, no morals and no emotions. He would also be equipped with a physical constitution that enables him to feed, with impunity, on devitalized and contaminated food, to drink polluted water, and breathe polluted air.

It must follow that the optimum environment for man can only be that in which his hunter-gatherer ancestors evolved. As we transform this environment to satisfy the requirements of economic development or progress, so it satisfies his basic needs ever less satisfactorily. This principle has been formulated very eloquently by the Australian biologist Stephen Boyden:

“The important corollary to Darwinian theory that I wish to stress has not been given a name. I shall refer to it here as the principle of phylogenetic maladjustment [he now refers to it as evodeviance]. According to this principle, if the conditions of life of an animal deviate from those which prevailed in the environment in which the species evolved, the likelihood is that the animal will be less well suited to the new conditions than to those to which it has become genetically adapted through natural selection and consequently some signs of maladjustment may be anticipated.” [3]

Obvious though this principle is, and obvious though its importance, it is seldom referred to in the literature, and consequently its significance seems to have been largely overlooked. It relates not only to environmental changes of a physiochemical or material nature, such as changes in the quality of food or air, but also to various non-material environmental influences, such as certain social pressures that may affect behavior. Furthermore, signs of phylogenetic maladjustments may be physiological, behavioral or both.

If many of us refuse to face this inescapable principle, it is above all because its implications are so far reaching. Among other things it makes nonsense of the very idea of progress and hence of economic development that eventually gives rise to conditions that lie increasingly outside what ecologists call our ‘tolerance range’. As Professor Eugene Odum, author of Fundamentals of Ecology and Basic Ecology, which were the standard ecology textbooks in universities for at least fifty years, notes:

“Nuclear tests have increased radiation fallout and now the nuclear industry is increasing background levels of radiation which could conceivably exceed our level of tolerance. Our various industrial activities too, are modifying water tables, contaminating groundwater, eroding and desertifying our arable land and in general modifying our environment (and he might have added our critical climatic environment) to a point that many of its essential features will no longer fall with our tolerance range.” [4]

Biological maladjustment

That this is so as a biological example is quite clear. (last sentence not clear) Thus, we now eat food that is grown by unnatural processes that make use of a host of chemical substances: hormones, antibiotics, biocides (including insecticides, herbicides, nematocides, fungicides and rodenticides) of which residues are to be found in nearly all the food commercially available today.

Our food is then processed in vast factories with the result that its molecular structure is often totally different from that of the food we have been adapted to eat during the course of our evolution. It is further contaminated with chemicals such as emulsifiers, preservatives and anti-oxidants designed to impart to it those qualities required to increase shelf-life and otherwise improve its commercial viability.

We drink water contaminated with nitrates, heavy metals and synthetic organic chemicals, including pesticides, which no commercial sewerage works or water purification plants can entirely remove. We breathe air that is polluted with lead from gasoline, asbestos particles from brake-linings, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides from car exhausts, sulfur dioxide from chimney flues, radioactive iodine, caesium and a host of other radionuclides from the flues of nuclear installations. It is not surprising that in such conditions we should suffer from a whole range of new diseases, nor that they should be increasingly referred to as the ‘diseases of civilization’.

Professor Samuel Epstein [5] of the University of Illinois and other scholars attribute a very high proportion of cancers to exposure to chemicals in the food we eat, the water we drink and the air we breathe – a thesis that is, needless to say, fervently contested by the chemical industry and the experts they sponsor. Ischaemic heart disease, diabetes, peptic ulcers, diverticulitis, appendicitis, varicose veins and tooth caries, like cancer, are also diseases of civilization.

The incidence of these diseases is extremely tow (in some cases, nil) among vernacular people living in their natural habitats, as Albert Damon [6] and others have shown for the Solomon Islands, and Ian Prior [7] and his colleagues have demonstrated for Puka Puka in the Cook Islands as well as for the Tokelau Islands over a period of 30 years.

Such studies have also shown, however, that as people become exposed to the Western way of life, and in particular as they adopt the modern Western diet, the incidence of the same diseases increases dramatically. Infectious diseases too, become much more common, which is not surprising as in all sorts of ways development creates ideal conditions for their transmission.

As Mark Cohen, who has made a detailed study of the origins of infectious diseases concludes,

“Almost all studies that attempt to reconstruct the history of infectious diseases indicate that the burden of infection has tended to increase, rather than decrease, as human beings adopted civilized life styles.”

To these problems, there is no effective technological solution. Medicine can certainly do little to help since it is largely concerned with treating symptoms of diseases, while to control their incidence would mean taking measures that lie outside the brief of the medical profession, and that would in any case be unacceptable both politically and economically, since it would mean reversing many of the essential processes of economic development or progress.

The molecular biologist and Nobel Laureate James Watson suggests that if man cannot adapt to the world that science is bringing into being, then he must be changed. A new genetically-engineered man must presumably be mass-produced, one who can adapt to and perhaps even thrive in the polluted and ecologically degraded world that modern man is substituting for the world to which we have been adapted by our evolution. Such a suggestion can only demonstrate to what extent mainstream science has lost touch with the real world in which we live ever more precariously.

Back to top

Social maladjustment

Economic Development causes our social as well as our physical environment to diverge from the optimum. Man evolved in a rich and largely natural environment, but he also evolved as an integral part of the extended family, the lineage group and the small community, together with a host of intermediary associations, such as age-grades and secret societies. In other words, he evolved within a highly structured social environment.

With economic development, however, the community and the intermediary associations disintegrate. Edward Banfield, [8] who made a sociological study of a south Italian village, was particularly struck by the alienation and demoralization of its inhabitants, a phenomenon known locally as ‘Ia miseria’. This, he found, was not basically attributable to the lack of money or material goods-what is normally regarded as poverty-but to the isolation of the families from each other due to the absence of any wider social groupings. This he attributed to the usurpation by the state of the basic functions which the village should normally assume.

With the development of modern industry, the extended family itself disintegrates until we get an atomized society of which all that is left of the original social structure is a truncated nuclear family. Even that is eventually subject to further degradation and we end up with the one-parent family, which in the worst case, disintegrates still further into its individual members.

There is yet another form of social atomization. Families, communities and societies exist in time as well as in space. To be isolated from them thus makes of us temporal as well as spatial isolates – isolated from our ancestors and our children as we are from our contemporaries.

This is reflected in our world view. Whereas in a vernacular society a man sees his life as but a link in a long chain of being, a man in an atomized society such as ours, sees it as something unique. When a man dies, all is over. That is one of the reasons why we in the West have so great a fear of death, a fear that is not shared by man in a vernacular society who sees himself as living on in the person of his children.

In the former society, people are only concerned with the short-term. They are no longer interested in creating a good world for their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. “What has posterity done for me?” is a common refrain in the West today. The notion that we owe nothing to posterity seems to justify, in the eyes of many people, our terrible egotism and the deliberate pillaging of the world’s natural resources to which our society is so committed in order to satisfy the requirements of the corporations that control it.

Not surprisingly, people in such conditions become increasingly unhappy and depressed. A study undertaken by the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration of the United States Government documented how people born after 1945 are 10 times more likely to suffer depression than people born 50 years earlier. [9] A second study found that the people born after 1950 were 20 times more likely to suffer depression than those born before 1910. What is more, such depressions are afflicting much younger people than before.

The great French sociologist Emile Durkheim referred to the alienation suffered by people deprived of a satisfactory social environment as “anomie”. Robert Mclver sees people as suffering from anomie “when their lives are empty and purposeless, and deprived of meaningful human relations”.

There is increasing evidence that deprivation of a satisfactory family environment will affect children profoundly and color every aspect of their later lives. Such children are often referred to as emotionally disturbed. However bright they may be, they will tend to find it very difficult to fit into their society , the reason being that the early and most important stages of their socialization were badly impaired. As D. O. Hebb shows, the earlier family deprivation occurred, the more will this be the case.

School education cannot do much for emotionally disturbed children. They tend to have a short concentration span and are particularly concerned with the present and the short-term, are loath to accept social constraints, and are predisposed to all pathological forms of behavior such as delinquency, drug addiction, alcoholism and schizophrenia. When these young people are forced, at the same time, to live in squalid modern housing estates and as adolescents are largely unemployed, as is increasingly the case today, their lot becomes hopeless.

What makes matters even more hopeless is that these young people live in a moral and cultural void. Theodore Dalrymple, doctor and social critic, who happens to live in a particularly run down housing estate, writes,

“In the absence of a system of values adolescent revolt has become a permanent state of mind. Lack of belief in anything is compensated for by shrillness, as if mere noise could fill the inner void.” [10]

The same hopelessness has been a feature of the welfare-maintained ghettos of the larger American cities for decades. Oscar Lewis describes the inhabitants of such areas as having a

“strong feeling of fatalism, helplessness, dependence and inferiority. Other traits include a high incidence of weak ego-structure, morality and confusion of sexual identification, or reflecting internal deprivation, a strong present time orientation, with relatively little disposition to defer gratification and plan for the future, and high tolerance of psychological pathology of all kinds. There is widespread belief in male superiority, and among men, a strong preoccupation with machismo, their masculinity.” [11]

He refers to this situation as “the culture of poverty” and sees it as a feature of the welfare-maintained slums of the industrial world. Today, however, it is spreading to other sectors of society and, at the current rate, it could soon be the culture of industrial society as a whole.

Crime, that is increasing at a record rate just about everywhere, is closely connected with social alienation, the victims of which react in a number of different ways to their plight. One reaction among young slum dwellers is to organize themselves into street gangs – a rudimentary community that provides them at once with an identity, a goal structure, an embryonic cultural pattern and a means of achieving recognition and success, at least within their particular group. This gives rise to what Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin refer to as the “violent gang sub-culture”. [12]

Another reaction to social alienation, more common among middle-class youths, is to indulge in some form of retreatism, isolating themselves from a way of life and an environment that increasingly fails to satisfy basic psychological needs. For American sociologist Robert Merton,

“Defeatism, quietism and resignation are manifested in escape mechanisms, which ultimately lead him to ‘escape’ from the requirements of the society. It is thus an expedient which arises from the continued failure to near the goal by legitimate measures and from an inability to use the illegitimate route because of internalized prohibitions, this process occurring while the supreme value of the success-goal has not yet been renounced.” [13]

One obvious form of retreatism is alcoholism. Another is drug addiction, and the incidence of both these aberrations increases dramatically with social disintegration. Another form of retreatism is schizophrenia, which involves building up and seeking refuge in one’s own world of fantasy. This and other forms of mental disease tend to increase with social disintegration, and are particularly in evidence among the members of a society undergoing acculturation (when a culture is breaking down under the influence of an alien one).

Durkheim regarded suicide as the ultimate manifestation of anomie. In one study he found that the suicide rate was particularly low in poor rural communities where social structures were intact and high in disintegrated affluent society, especially among the working classes and even more so among Italian immigrants to the cities of Lorraine. He goes so far as to say that “suicide varies in inverse proportion to the degree of integration of the social groups to which the individual belongs”. [14]

The reaction of our political establishment to the increased incidence of all these social aberrations is to blame the victims. They are seen to be deficient in one way or another or ‘unfit’ in the terminology of social Darwinism. Often this is seen as an inherited problem and attributed to a faulty gene; numerous studies have been conducted to explain why this should be so. Thus a USA government study on depression cited above attributed its growing incidence to a genetic cause. Criminals are often made out to be men with an X and two Y chromosomes, rather than single X and Y chromosomes, which is a more normal arrangement.

Another ploy is to attribute these social aberrations to purely economic factors. They are often seen to be caused by poverty, interpreted in purely economic and material terms, conveniently ignoring that the incidence of these social aberrations is extremely low in the ‘poorest’ Third World countries where social structures have not yet disintegrated. One can wander, for instance, in total security through the worst slums of Calcutta where hundreds of thousands of people are condemned to sleeping rough on the pavements, for there the extended family is still largely intact.

Today such aberrations tend in particular to be attributed to unemployment and the present running-down of the Welfare State. These are undoubtedly important factors, but they do not provide a sufficient explanation since the incidence of these social aberrations was also increasing in the 1960s and early 1970s when unemployment levels were low and the social services still highly funded.

Such interpretations conveniently rationalize further economic development that is inevitably seen as providing the only means of combating any social or economic problem. That economic development has itself brought these problems into being is never suggested in political nor academic circles, for it remains the overriding goal of government policies throughout the world – a goal that above all, serves the immediate political and economic interests of politicians and their allies within the industrial community.

Back to top

Cognitive maladjustment

We are not only becoming increasingly maladjusted biologically and socially to the environment that progress is creating for us, but cognitively as well. The perfection of man’s cognitive endowment for the purpose of assuring his adaptation to his biological and social environment was always clear to vernacular man and has been expressed in a wide variety of ways.

It was the first article of faith of Goethe’s philosophy of nature that there is “a perfect correspondence between the inner nature of man and the structure of external reality, between the soul and the world”. [15] Henry David Thoreau referred to it as “nature looking into nature”. [16]

This principle is incompatible with the scientific assumption that subjective knowledge is necessarily imperfect and that only objective scientific knowledge displays sufficient accuracy to provide the basis of rational and hence adaptive behavior. This was Darwin’s view, and is also the view of the neo-Darwinists and sociobiologists.

Thus R. L. Trivers, a noted sociobiologist, regards as “very naive” the view that “natural selection favors nervous systems which produce ever more accurate images of the world”. On the contrary, he tells us, it is very much more probable that “our genes are deceiving us and filling us full of the glow of having achieved absolute truth”. [17]

Edward O. Wilson sees things in much the same way. His attack on “intuitionism” is based on the notion that we cannot depend on our judgments precisely because they are the product of evolution and thereby totally undependable.

It is also true that, in terms of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, an individual need not be capable of correctly apprehending his environment in order to survive, for behaviour is not taken to be part of the evolutionary process. What is more, living things are not seen as correctly apprehending or understanding their relationship with their environment but as reacting to it blindly like Pavlov’s dogs. Behaviour, like evolution, is thus regarded as a passive process stage-managed by an anonymous environment.

It is encouraging, however, that a number of our more thoughtful scientists have, by implication at least, rejected such assumptions, realizing that the living brain, after having been shaped by the environment for millions of years, is suited to it with an accuracy that is both remarkable and profound.

Thus C. H. Waddington, embryologist and theoretical biologist, points to a “congruity between our apparatus for acquiring knowledge and the nature of the things known” and suggests that the human mind “has been shaped precisely to fit the character of those things with which it has to make contact.” [18]

The Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget goes so far as to say that our cognitive functions are an extension of organic regulations and must be seen as differentiated organs for regulating our relationship with the external world, which must therefore clearly serve the ends of human life. [19] Another who stated this fundamental principle very eloquently was that highly perceptive poet William Wordsworth. This is how he put it:

“How exquisitely the individual Mind

(And the progressive powers perhaps no less

Of the whole species) to the external World

Is fitted: and how exquisitely, too –

Theme this but little heard of among men –

The external World is fitted to the Mind;

And the creation (by no lower name

Can it be called) which they with blended might

Accomplish: this is our high argument.”

However this is only true so long as the basic features of our natural environment have not been allowed to diverge too much from those to which we have been adapted by our evolution and upbringing. As our environment goes beyond these limits, however, our perceptions become ever less useful for understanding it and for helping us to adapt to it. We cease in fact, to be what we might call cognitively adjusted to it. This should be obvious to any thinking people (a category which includes very few of our scientists today). As E. M. Forster asked, “How can man get into harmony with his surroundings when he is constantly altering them?”

That remarkable Canadian biochemist, Professor Ross Hume Hall, points out that we are cognitively maladjusted to eating modern processed foods and, as a result, are incapable of behaving adaptively towards them. To quote him:

“Nature endowed us with the capacity to determine nutritional quality and safety so long as it was natural. For example, we can distinguish between corn fresh from the stalk and corn a day old. Colour, smell and texture are all sensations we use in assessing the nutritive value of food. But all this changes in the modern era of fabricated food. Bakery products and candy appear yellow because they have been treated with a coal tar derivative. Bread, soups and pickles seem tastier because they contain sugar. Meat appears fresher because it contains sodium nitrites to inhibit bacterial growth. Net result: the taste of fabricated food is no reliable guide to freshness, nutritional quality, or whether the food will eventually kill you.” [20]

It is not only our senses, but our very intuitive faculties that cease to provide us with the requisite adaptive knowledge. As a result, the solution to the problems which confront us become increasingly “counter-intuitive”, to use Professor Jay Forrester’s much quoted expression – though this is not because the environment is too complex, as he suggests, but because we have no evolutionary experience of it. [21]

Thus, whereas our ancestors had no difficulty in understanding their relationship with the living world, we have no means of understanding our relationship with the surrogate world we have created. We depend for counsel on experts who are rarely objective and, even if they were, are unlikely, because of the reductionist nature of their training, to be capable of taking into account all the relevant factors involved.

Back to top

Instinctual maladjustment

It is not only our senses and our intuitive faculties that fail us before the brave new world to which economic development is giving rise; our very instincts cease to serve as a guide to adaptive behaviour. The instinctive behavior of a child in a vernacular society is channeled as the child is socialized via the socialization process within its family and community so as to assure that it is serves to preserve rather than disrupt the natural world of which we are part. Once social and ecological systems have disintegrated, however, socialization can no longer occur, and the child’s behaviour serves on the contrary to destroy what remains of the natural world.

A typical example is our instinctive aggressivity, which of course is now frenziedly denied by politically correct fundamentalists. In a vernacular society, like all other forms of competitiveness, it is highly ritualized and serves social, indeed cosmic, ends. Its destructiveness is also limited because vernacular technology is under social control, which means that wars are fought with traditional, and hence not particularly lethal, weapons.

All this changes dramatically with economic development when the associated social and cultural destruction deprives us of the means of controlling our aggression and of preventing the development of the most lethal and destructive instruments of mass destruction.

Under such conditions we bring into being a world that has diverged so drastically from that to which we have been adapted by our evolution that the very mechanisms with which evolution has endowed us for maintaining the stability of our societies, and hence our own survival, now serve to achieve the opposite end. Professor E. O. Wilson and other proponents of perpetual progress consider for that reason that “we must suppress our instinctive drives and our emotions”, for they can lead to aggressive behavior that in the modern world is no longer tolerable. [22]

But if we are to adapt to the brave new world that progress is creating for us, it is not just our aggressivity that must be suppressed but also those instinctive drives and emotions that make of us religious as well as social beings – for only in this way can we adapt to living in the atomized, competitive, secular, and psychically meaningless world that progress is creating for us.

Even if this were possible it would mean depriving us of just about everything that makes us truly human. But if the Promethean enterprise we call progress requires that we be transformed into unfeeling and emotionless robots, then surely the only sensible and indeed responsible thing to do is to put it into reverse.

Undoubtedly the most alarming instance of cognitive maladjustment must be our failure to grasp the critical nature of the global environmental problems that confront us-such as deforestation, soil erosion, salinization and desertification, the general chemicalization of the environment, the depletion of the ozone layer and global warming.

Only a tiny minority of our academics – not to mention our industrialists or politicians – show any concern at all for these daunting problems, and no measures of any consequence have been undertaken to solve them. At political conferences after political conference, politicians from the main political parties discuss the usual vote-catching topics, obstinately refusing even to mention (save perhaps in a most cursory manner) the real issues that must determine our future and that of our children.

It may not be irrelevant to note that even very modest forms of life, like earthworms, dung beetles and fiddler crabs, while living in their natural environment, have no trouble, however ironic this might seem, in identifying the real problems they must deal with if they are to maximise their welfare and indeed survive.

Back to top

Psychical maladjustment

In addition to all this, we are increasingly suffering from another critical form of maladjustment: psychical maladjustment. As modern science, in which we are made to believe quasi religiously, progresses, it depicts our brave new world and our relationship to it in terms that have ever less meaning to the human psyche. As Alexander Koyré, perhaps the foremost Newtonian scholar of his day, puts it:

“it has substituted for our world of quality and sense perception, the world in which we live and love and die, another world – the world of quantity, of rectified geometry, a world in which, though there is a place for everything, there is no place for man.” 

The Austrian psychologist Victor Frankl regards as absolutely basic what he refers to as “the will to meaning”, which he contrasts with Adler’s “will to power” and Freud’s “will to pleasure”. For Frankl, one in four neuroses are of noogenic origin (originating in thought) and most of these, he believes, can be traced to our “existential vacuum”, the meaninglessness of life in the world about us. [23]

This “existential vacuum” is deepened by the modern scientific view of man as no more than a machine, responding robot-like to environmental stimuli. His innermost feelings, values and beliefs are little more than illusions; his family, community, society, even the natural world itself, are no more than a seething mass of atoms and molecules – random, purposeless and uncaring.

Frankl recalls his reaction as a child to being told by his science teacher that life is nothing but combustion – an oxidation process. On hearing this, he jumped indignantly to his feet, asking: “Dr Fritz, if this is true, what meaning then does life have?” To which key question the teacher presumably had no better answer than have today’s mainstream scientists. [24]

Man is psychically adjusted to entertaining the chthonic world view, or the “old-Gnosis” as Roszak refers to it, [25] in terms of which all the constituents of the natural world-whether they be animal, plant or mineral-radiate meanings, are intelligible beings, integral parts of the cosmic hierarchy. Vernacular man did not have to be cajoled or coerced into accepting such a world view. It was the world view of his ancestors and he was imbued with it as he learned to become a member of his society.

The French biologist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod admits that vernacular man, or “animistic man” as he refers to him, could see himself as an integral part of the natural world. “Animism,” he writes, “established a covenant between man and nature, a profound alliance outside of which seems to stretch only terrifying solitude”. [26] But today, science has revealed to us the terrible truth.

“The ancient covenant has been broken, man knows at last that he is alone in the immensity of the universe-a universe in which he has no function, to which he has no duties and in which he emerged by pure chance.”

Monod nevertheless considers that we have no choice but to continue along our present path, however meaningless, however alien. But this is not the view of the German philosopher of science, Gunther Stent:

“The dissolution of the covenant presages the end of science, since there is little use in continuing to push the limits of our knowledge further and further if the results have less and less meaning to man’s psyche.” [27]

Nor is there more use in obstinately continuing along our present paths and thereby systematically creating a world to which we are ever less adapted in every way, and in which human life will eventually cease to be possible.

Back to top

References

1. Washburn S. & Lancaster C., “The evolution of hunting”. In Lee and Devore eds., Man the Hunter p.293, 1968.
2. Wes Jackson, personal communication.
3. Stephen Boyden, “Evolution and health”, The Ecologist Vol. 3 No. 8 1973, pp.304-309.
4. Eugene P. Odum, Basic Ecology, p.225. Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia 1983.
5. Samuel S. Epstein, The Politics of Cancer. Sierra Club, San Francisco 1978.
6. Albert Damon, “Human ecology in the Solomon Islands: biomedical observations among tribal societies”, Human Ecology Vol. 2 No. 3, July 1974, pp.191-216.
7. Ian Prior et alia, “Migration and gout: The Tokelau Islands Migration Study”. British Medical Journal 22 August 1987, pp. 457-461.
8. Edward C. Banfield, The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, pp. 65-66. The Free Press, New York 1958.
9. Kenneth Lux, Adam Smith’s Mistake: how a moral philosopher invented economics and ended morality, p.195 (quoting Seligman, 1988). Shambhala, Boston 1990.
10. Theodore Dalrymple, “Nasty, British and Short”. The Spectator21 September 1991, pp.9-10.
11. Oscar Lewis, “The Culture of Poverty”, Scientific American October 1966, pp.19-25.
12. Richard A. Cloward & Lloyd E. Ohlin, “Illegitimate means, anomie and deviant behavior”. American Sociological Review 24 April 1961, pp.164-176.
13. Robert Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure: toward the clarification of theory and research, pp.142-144. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York 1951.
14. Emile Durkheim, Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1966 (original edition 1897).
15. Donald Worster, Nature’s Economy. Sierra Club, San Francisco 1977. See also Heller 1952, cit. Worster 1977, p.6.
16. Henry David Thoreau, The Writings of Henry David Thoreau. , Houghton Mifflin (20 vols), Boston 1906.
17. R. L. Trivers, “Foreword” to Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p.viii. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1976.
18. C. H. Waddington, The Evolution of an Evolutionist, p.36. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh 1975.
19. Piaget 1971 cit, Henryk Skolimowski, “Problems of rationality in biology”. In Ayala and Dobzhansky, Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, 1974.
20. Ross Hume Hall, in “Beware of those fabricated foods”, Executive Health Vol. XII No. 7, April 1976, p.5.
21. Jay W. Forrester, “Alternatives to catastrophe: Understanding the counterintuitive behavior of social systems”, Part 1. The Ecologist Vol. 1 No. 14, August 1971, pp.4-9.
22. Edward O. Wilson, “Sociobiology: A new approach to understanding the basis of human nature”. New Scientist 13 May 1976, pp.342-345.
23. Victor E. Frankl, “Reductionism and nihilism”. In Koestler and Smythies eds., Beyond Reductionism, p.400, 1972.
24. Frankl ibid.
25. Theodore Roszak, Where the Wasteland Ends, p.180. Faber and Faber, London 1972.
26. Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, pp.224-225. London 1970.
27. Gunther Stent, Paradoxes of Progress, p.127. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco 1978.
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Diaspora
  • Identi.ca
  • email
  • Add to favorites
Back to top