Hi Jennifer,
In the academic world we speak of the “natural,” the “mathematical,” the “social,” the “engineering,” and the other sciences.
The natural sciences deal mostly with the humanly dicovered laws/rules of nature while the mathematical sciences are associated with “human” made laws/rules and their applications.
Engineering science deals mainly with how knowledge gained from the mathematical and natural sciences can be applied with judgment to devise ways to utilize, economically, the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of human kind (ABET 1980). Engineering science courses usually lead to engineering design in which we make use of the laws of nature and avoid their negative consequences.
Historically, the natural sciences branched first to physics, chemistry, biology. Later, biology and natural geography gave birth to ecology. Presently, at the basic level we have the natural sciences branching into physics, chemistry, biology and ecology with all their known sub-branches.
Ecology, very briefly, is the natural science that treats the relationships of the living (biota) among themselves and among the non-biotic environment.
Thanks to pioneers like Eugene Odum, Edward Kormondy, and Fikret Berkes we can use the “system” approach to study and quantify ecosystems, especially in terms of energy requirements.
Thanks to discoveries in genetics and the evolutionary processes alonside with the latest findings in ecology, we can predict natural human behavioral patterns as well as future requirements.
We can also predict environmental damage although it is a relatively slow process.
In contemporary ecology humans are classified as within the top “omnivore” subclass of the consumer class of biota (producer>consumer>decomposer). Human ecology should be the subject belonging to the natural sciences under the division of ecology.
The fact that human habitats are mainly outside the natural forest areas does not mean that the laws of the jungles do not apply within the cities.
Finally, a clear distinction should be made between ecology and enviromental sciences. The former, as discussed above, is a natural science while the latter is very close to an engineering science.
Haldun.
—————————
This is an edited version of a comment posted earlier today by Haldun on an old blog post entitled ‘Ecology is Not a Branch of Biology’. I definately have a preference for the natural sciences.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
These are excellent definitions. Unfortunately, the practice of these sciences often does not fall within these definitions.
And what are we to think when environmental scientists issue scathing rebukes of farming because fields do not exhibit a high level of biodiversity, i.e., are not full of a wide range of weeds and bugs?
Haldun,
Unfortunately academic discipline boundaries are imaginary. Nevertheless, they are broadly useful, if only for university administrators.
But they can hamper thinking. Ecology is as much about human society and culture as it is about interactions in nature. Until some biologists grasp that, they won’t make much useful progress.
The current feral (‘natural’) bushfires in Australia are a good example. Natural science is involved – meteorology, physics, chemistry, biology etc. But the fundamental cause lies within human society – the abdication of responsibility for socialising fire, through pre-emptive burning. The result is feral fire, just as failure to socialise children results in feral (‘natural’) behaviour. (It is crooked thinking to equate ‘natural’ with ‘desirable’.)
Fire history helps us to see that clearly (see Stephen Pyne’s books), but history is not a ‘natural science’. Forget about precise definitions of disciplinary boundaries – it is fruitless exercise. Concentrate on asking, and answering, useful ecological questions. Most will span several disciplines.
Theoretically, the study of ecology is the study of everything at all. Forestation in a given region can, for instance, be reduced to human neurology. And vice versa. And both can be reduced to politics. And politics can be reduced back into forestation and neurology.
Philosophy alone, as the mother of all sciences, can arbitrate between these warring and often inchoate disciplines.
Hey ho Schiller, we seem to have bored everyone to death.
Hi Jennifer, I guess I was very lucky to discover your web log at about the 40th attempt from more than 1200000 sites of a google search return for the topic, “human ecology blogs”, thanks for responses from Sciller and Davy.
Yes Sciller, the practice of the sciences in my part of the world (the northern hemisphere)also does not follow these definitions. We have some engineers trying to do the mathemation’s job, some mathematicians trying to do the physicist’s job, some physicits trying to do the engineer’s job, some engineers trying to do the economist’s job, some economists trying to “save” the world etc. As a result we often find these people in intra-specific, non synergistic, competion with eachother. That’s why I felt the need to go back to basics and make these definitions public.
In my country if you looked up the word “ecology” in a Turkish-Turkish dictionary till about six months ago you would read “environmental science” for its meaning. Fotunately this has been corrected now. Elsewhere, mostly in the US some sociologists are publishing on human ecology topics which is ok as long as they keep in mind that this subject is basically a natural science branching from ecology. Humans are a natural development of the “consumer” class of biota and the urban environment cannot be separated from the natural ecosystem which surrounds it. No culture has been able to cope with global pollution and its negative consequences so far. We have to resort to the natural sciences and engineering in addition to putting filters in chimneys and bio-chemical waste treatment.
Davy, please be patient, we will be asking, and answering, useful ecological questions but first we have to make and/or agree on several more definitions! Starting is usually not so easy.
In my opinion, the first concept we have to agree on is “biotic potential” and “environmental resistance” both key concepts nessary for survival. Biotic potential seems to be a deriving force fore the existance of biota. One biota comes to existence with the urge for reproduction of another biota. Biotic potential seems to be the force behind our quest for survival. Environmental resistence is the counter force that seems to curb down (and possibly end) our existence. Other biota in inter-specific competion with us, other humans in intra-specific competion with us are also a source of environmental resistance to us and so on. Next we can discuss surface pollution and the ecological “niche” space.
I am sure that Jennifer can guide us so that coherent results can emerge from our discussions.
I would like to wish you all a pleasant holiday and a happy new year.