Banners
Subscribe
« REFLECTIONS ON SPIRITUALITY AND SCIENCE | Main | Schmalhausen's Law »
Saturday
Oct242009

Living the 11th Thesis

 

 

LIVING THE 11TH THESIS[1]

 

                                                Richard Levins

                             Department of Population and International Health

                                      Harvard School of Public Health

                                      humaneco@hsph.harvard.edu   and

                                      Instituto de Ecología y Sistemática

                                      Boyeros, Ciudad Havana, Cuba

 

 

“Philosophers have sought to understand the world. The point, however, is to change it.” Karl Marx, 11th thesis on Ludwig Feuerbach

 

          When I was a boy I always assumed that I would grow up to be both a scientist and a Red. Rather than face a problem of combining activism and scholarship, I would have had a very difficult time trying to separate them.

Before I could read, my grandfather read to me from Bad Bishop Brown’s Science and History for Girls and Boys[1]. He believed that as a minimum every socialist worker should be familiar with cosmology, evolution, and history. I never separated history, in which we are active participants, from science, the finding out how things are. My family had broken with organized religion five generations back, but my father sat me down for bible study every Friday evening because it was an important part of the surrounding culture and important to many people, a fascinating account of how ideas develop in changing conditions, and because every atheist should know it as well as believers do.

          On my first day of primary school, my grandmother urged me to learn everything they could teach me—but not to believe it all. She was all too aware of the “racial science” of 1930’s Germany and the justifications for eugenics and male supremacy that were popular in our own country. Her attitude came from her knowledge of the uses of science for power and profit and from a worker’s generic distrust of the rulers. Her advice formed my stance in academic life: consciously in, but not of, the university

          I grew up in a left-wing neighborhood of Brooklyn where the schools were empty on May Day and where I met my first Republican at age 12. Issues of science and politics and culture were debated in permanent clusters on the Brighton Beach boardwalk and were the bread and butter of mealtime conversation.  Political commitment was assumed, how to act on that commitment was a matter of fierce debate. The concerns that were uppermost in my early family environment were anti-fascism, anti-racism, and labor organization.

As a teenager I became interested in genetics through my fascination with the work of the Soviet scientist Lysenko. He turned out to be dreadfully wrong especially in trying to reach biological conclusions from philosophical principles, and his career was disastrous for Soviet genetics. However, his criticism of the genetics of his time turned me toward the work of Waddington and Schmalhausen and others who would not simply dismiss him out of hand in cold war fashion but had to respond to his challenge by developing a deeper view of the organism/environment interaction

My wife, Rosario Morales, introduced me to Puerto Rico in 1951and my eleven years there gave a Latin American perspective to my politics. The recent various left-wing victories in South America are a source of optimism even in these grim times. FBI surveillance in Puerto Rico blocked me from the jobs I was looking for and I ended up doing vegetable farming for a living on the island’s western mountains.

As an undergraduate at Cornell University’s School of Agriculture, I had been taught that the prime agricultural problem of the United States was the disposal of the farm surplus. But as a farmer in a poor region of Puerto Rico, I saw the significance of agriculture for peoples’ lives. That experience introduced me to the realities of poverty as it undermines health, shortens lives, closes options, and stultifies personal growth, and to the specific forms that sexism takes among the rural poor. Direct labor organizing on the coffee plantations was combined with study. Rosario and I wrote the agrarian program of the Puerto Rican Communist Party in which we combined rather amateurish economic and social analysis with some first insights into ecological production methods, diversification, conservation, and cooperatives.

I first went to Cuba in 1964 to help develop their population genetics and get a look at the Cuban revolution. Over the years I became involved in the ongoing Cuban struggle for ecological agriculture and an ecological pathway of economic development that was just, egalitarian, and sustainable. Progressivist thinking, so powerful in the socialist tradition, expected that developing countries had to catch up with advanced countries along the single pathway of modernization. It dismissed critics of the high-tech pathway of industrial agriculture as “idealists”, urban sentimentalists nostalgic for a bucolic rural golden age that never really existed. But there was another view, that each society creates its own ways of relating to the rest of nature, its own pattern of land use, its own appropriate technology, its own criteria of efficiency. This discussion raged in Cuba in the 70’s and by the 80’s the ecological model had basically won although implementation was still a long process. The Special Period, that time of economic crisis after the collapse of the Soviet Union when the materials for high tech became unavailable, allowed ecologists by conviction to recruit the ecologists by necessity. This was possible only because the ecologists by conviction had prepared the way.

          I first met dialectical materialism in my early teens through the writings of the British Marxist scientists JBS Haldane, JD Bernal, Joseph Needham, and others, and then on to Marx and Engels. It immediately grabbed me both intellectually and aesthetically. A dialectical view of nature and society has been a major theme of my research since. I have delighted in the dialectical emphasis on wholeness, connection and context, change, historicity, contradiction, irregularity, asymmetry, and the multiplicity of levels of phenomena, a refreshing counterweight to the prevalent reductionism then and now. I deliberately use the term in order to help to rescue it from the bad repute it fell into because of its abuse by Stalin, who performed the miracle of turning so fluid, complex and flexible world view into a series of rigid rules used as apologetics to justify decisions taken for other reasons.

An example: after Rosario suggested I look at drosophila in nature not just in bottles in the laboratory I started to work with the drosophila in the neighborhood of our home in Puerto Rico. My question was: how do Drosophila species cope with the temporal and spatial gradients of their environments? I began examining the multiple ways that different Drosophila species responded to similar environmental challenges. I could collect Drosophila in a single day in the deserts of Gúanica and in the rain forest around our farm at the crest of the cordillera.  It turned out that some species adapt physiologically to high temperature in 2-3 days, and show relatively little genetic differences in heat tolerance along a 3000-foot altitude gradient (about 20 miles). Others had distinct genetic subpopulations in the different habitats. Still others adapted to and inhabited only a part of the available environmental range. One of the desert species was not any better at tolerating heat than some Drosophila from the rain forest, but were much better at finding the cool moist microsites and hiding in them after about 8 AM. These findings led me to describe the concepts of co-gradient selection, where the direct impact of the environment enhances genetic differences among populations, and counter-gradient selection where genetic differences offset the direct impact of the environment. Since on my transect the high temperature was associated with dry conditions, natural selection acted to increase the size of the flies at Guánica while the effect of temperature on development made them smaller. The outcome turned out be that the flies from the sea level desert and the rain forest were of about the same size in their own habitats but the Guánica flies were bigger when raised at the same temperature as rain forest flies.

In this work I questioned the prevailing reductionist bias in biology by insisting that phenomena take place on different levels, each with their own laws, but also connected. My bias was dialectical: the interaction among adaptations on the physiological, behavioral, and genetic levels. My preference for process, variability, and change set the agenda for my thesis.

The problem was how species can adapt to an environment when the environment wasn’t always the same. When I began thesis work I was puzzled by the facile assumption that, faced with opposing demands, for example when the environment favors small size some of the time and large size the rest of the time, an organism would have to adopt some intermediate state as a compromise. But this is an unthinking application of the liberal bromide that when there are opposing views the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In my dissertation, the study of fitness sets was an attempt to examine when an intermediate position is truly an optimum and when is it the worst possible choice. The short answer turned out to be that when the alternatives are not too different, an intermediate position is indeed optimal but when they are very different compared to the range of tolerance of the species, then one extreme alone or in some cases a mixture of extremes is preferable.

          Work in natural selection within population genetics almost always assumed a constant environment, but I was interested in its inconstancy. I proposed that “environmental variation” must be an answer to many questions of evolutionary ecology and that organisms adapt not only to specific environmental features such as high temperature or alkaline soils but also to the pattern of the environment—its variability, its uncertainty, the grain of its patchiness, the correlations among different aspects of the environment. Moreover, these patterns of environment are not simply given, external to the organism: organisms select, transform, and define their own environments.

Regardless of the particular matter of an investigation (evolutionary ecology, agriculture, or more recently, public health), my core interest has always been the understanding of the dynamics of complex systems, the operation of contradiction in nature. Also, my political commitment requires that I question of relevance of my work. In one of Brecht’s poems he says “Truly we live in a terrible time…when to talk about trees is almost a crime because it is a kind of silence about injustice.” Brecht was of course wrong about trees: nowadays when we talk of trees we are not ignoring injustice. But he was also right: scholarship that is indifferent to human suffering is immoral.

Poverty and oppression costs years of life and health, shrinks the horizons and cuts off potential talents before they can flourish. My commitment to support the struggles of the poor and oppressed and my interest in variability combined to focus my attention on the physiological and social vulnerabilities of people.

          I have been studying the body’s capacity to restore itself after it is stressed by malnutrition, pollution, insecurity, and inadequate health care. Continual stress undermines the stabilizing mechanisms in the bodies of oppressed populations making them more vulnerable to anything that happens, to small differences in their environments. This shows up in increased variability in measures blood pressure, body mass index, and life expectancy as compared to more uniform results in comfortable populations.

In examining the effects of poverty, it is not enough to examine the prevalence of separate diseases in different populations. While specific pathogens or pollutants may precipitate specific named diseases, social conditions create more diffuse vulnerability that links medically unrelated diseases. For instance, malnutrition, infection, or pollution can breach the protective barriers of the intestine. But once breached for any of these reasons it becomes a locus of invasion by pollutants, microbes, or allergens. Therefore nutritional problems, infectious diseases, stress, and toxicities and cause a great variety of seemingly unrelated diseases.

The prevailing notion since the1960’s had been that infectious disease would disappear with economic development. In the 1990’s I helped form the Harvard Group on New and Resurgent Disease that rejected that idea. Our argument was partly ecological: the rapid adaptation of vectors to changing habitats: to deforestation, irrigation projects, and population displacement by war and famine. And the equally rapid adaptation of pathogens to pesticides and antibiotics. But we also criticized the physical, institutional, and intellectual isolation of medical research from plant pathology and veterinary studies which could have shown sooner the broad pattern of upsurge: malaria and cholera and AIDS but also African swine fever, feline leukemia, tristeza disease of citrus, and bean golden mosaic virus. We have to expect epidemiological changes with growing economic disparities and with changes in land use, economic development, human settlement, and demography. The faith in the efficacy of antibiotics, vaccines, and pesticides against plant, animal, and human pathogens is naïve in the light of adaptive evolution. And the developmentalist expectation that economic growth will lead the rest of the world to affluence and to the elimination of infectious disease is being proved wrong by events.

The resurgence of infectious disease is but one manifestation of a more general crisis: the eco-social distress syndrome. a pervasive multilevel crisis of dysfunctional relations within our species and between it and the rest of nature. It includes in one network of actions and reactions, patterns of disease, relations of production and reproduction, demography, our depletion and wanton destruction of natural resources, changing land use and settlement, and planetary climate change. It is more profound than previous crises, reaching higher into the atmosphere, deeper into the earth, more widespread in space and more long lasting, penetrating more corners of our lives. Not only are its quantitative effects greater but it also erodes the self-regulatory feedbacks of the world biosphere, jeopardizing the processes that normally restore its functioning after more moderate disturbance. It is both a generic crisis of the human species and a specific crisis of world capitalism. Therefore it is a primary concern of both my science and my politics.

In brief, the ecosocial distress syndrome can be seen as the synergy of the toxic triangle of greed, poverty and ignorance. Institutionalized greed ( the imperative for profit) creates poverty and the pattern of ignorance and knowledge, poverty is a precondition for greed and reinforces ignorance, and ignorance offers the justifications for greed and poverty.

The complexity of this whole world syndrome can be overwhelming and yet to evade the complexity by taking the system apart to treat the problems one at a time can produce disasters. The great failings of scientific technology have come from posing problems in too small a way. Agricultural scientists who proposed the Green Revolution without taking pest evolution and insect ecology into account, and therefore expecting pesticides would control pests, have been surprised that pest problems increased with spraying. Similarly, antibiotics create new pathogens, economic development creates hunger, and flood control promotes floods. Problems have to be solved in their rich complexity; the study of complexity itself becomes an urgent practical as well as theoretical problem.

These interests inform my political work: within the left, my task has been to argue that our relations with the rest of nature cannot be separated from a global struggle for human liberation, while within the ecology movement my task had been to challenge the “harmony of nature” idealism of early environmentalism and to insist on identifying the social relations that lead to the present dysfunction. On the other hand my politics have determined my scientific ethics. I believe that all theories are wrong which promote, justify, or tolerate injustice.

A leftist critique of the structure of intellectual life is a counterweight to the culture of the universities and foundations. The anti-war movement of the 60’s and 70’s took up the issues of the nature of the university as an organ of class rule and made the intellectual community itself an object of theoretical as well as practical interest. I also joined Science for the People an organization that started with a research strike at MIT in 1967 as a protest against military research on campus. As a member I helped in the challenge to the Green Revolution and genetic determinism. Anti-war activism also took me to Vietnam to investigate war crimes (especially the use of defoliants) and from there to organizing Science for Vietnam. We denounced the use of Agent Orange (used as defoliant in the Vietnamese jungle) that was causing birth defects among Vietnamese peasants. Agent Orange was one of the worst uses of chemical herbicides.We also unmasked weather warfare.

The Puerto Rican independence movement gave me an anti-imperialist consciousness that serves me well in a university that promotes “structural reform” and other euphemisms for empire. My wife’s sharp working class feminism is a running source of criticism of the pervasive elitism and sexism. Regular work with Cuba shows me vividly that there is an alternative to a competitive, individualistic, exploitative society.

The struggles against sociobiology and creationism helped me recognize the dual nature of science as both the generic unfolding of our understanding of the world and a product of the knowledge industries serving the interests of its owners.

Community organizations, especially in marginalized communities, and the women’s health movement, raise issues that academia prefers to ignore: the mothers of Woburn noticing that too many of their children from the same small neighborhood had leukemia. The hundreds of environmental justice groups that noted that toxic waste dumps were concentrated in Black and Latino neighborhoods. The Women’s Community Cancer project and others who insist on the environmental causes of cancer and other diseases while the university laboratories are looking for guilty genes. Their initiatives help me maintain an alternative agenda for both theory and action.

Within the university I have a contradictory relationship with the institution and with colleagues, a combination of cooperation and conflict.

We may share a concern about health disparities and persistent poverty, the instability of world climate, or a love of ants but are in conflict about corporations funding research for patentable molecules, biological reductionism and about government agencies such as AID[2] promoting the goals of empire.

I never aspired to what is conventionally considered a “successful career” in academia. I do not find most of my personal validation through the formal reward and recognition system of the scientific community and I try not to share the common assumptions of my professional community. This gives me wide freedom of choice. Thus when I declined to join the National Academy of Science and received many supportive letters praising my courage or calling it a difficult decision. I could honestly say that it was not a hard decision, merely a political choice taken collectively by the Science for the People group in Chicago. We judged that it was more useful to take a public stand against the Academy’s complicity with the Vietnam-American war than to join the Academy and attempt to influence its actions from inside. Dick Lewontin had already tried that unsuccessfully and resigned along with Bruce Wallace.

Most of my research has objectives at two levels: the particular problem at hand and some major theoretical or polemical issue. The study of temperature adaptation in fruit flies was also an argument for multiple levels of causation. Niche theory was also a foray into the interpenetration of opposites (organism and environment). Biogeography was about multiple levels of ecological and evolutionary dynamics. Ecological pest management was also a claim for whole-system strategies. Work on new and resurgent infectious disease combined biology and sociology. We examined why the public health community was caught by surprise when infectious disease would not go away. It therefore was an exercise in the self-examination of science.

I have always enjoyed mathematics and see one of its tasks as making the obscure obvious. I regularly employ a sort of mid-level math in unconventional ways to promote understanding more than prediction. Much modeling now aims at precise equations giving precise prediction. This makes sense in engineering. In the field of policy, it might make sense to those who are the advisors to the rulers who imagine they have complete enough control of the world to be able to optimize their efforts and investments of resources. But those of us who are in the opposition have no such illusion. The best we can do is decide where to push the system. For this, a qualitative mathematics is more useful. My work with signed digraphs (“loop analysis”) is one such approach. Rejecting the opposition between qualitative and quantitative analysis and the notion that quantitative is superior to qualitative, I have mostly worked with those mathematical tools that assist conceptualization of complex phenomena.      

          Political activism of course attracts the attention of the agencies of repression. I have been fortunate in that regard, having experienced only relatively light repression. Others did not fare as well, with lost careers, years of imprisonment, violent attacks, intense harassment even of their families, and deportations. Some, mostly from the Puerto Rican, Afro-American, and Native American liberation movements, as well as the five Cuban anti-terrorists arrested in Florida, are still political prisoners.

Activism is a constant reminder that the ob jects of intellectual interest have real life impacts. Exploitation kills and hurts people. Racism and sexism destroy health and thwart lives. Studying the greed and brutality and smugness of late capitalism is painful and infuriating. Sometimes I have to recite from Jonathan Swift’s Ballad in a Bad Temper:

 

Like the boatman on the Thames

          I row by and call them names.

          Like the ever-laughing sage

In a jest I spend my rage

But it must be understood

I would hang them if I could.

 For the most part scholarship and activism have given me an enjoyable and rewarding life, doing work I find intellectually exciting, socially useful, and with people I love.

 

 


[1]This is a slightly edited text of a presentation at the plenary panel on combining the scholarly and activist life, at the meeting of the International Society for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Biology, Guelph, Ontario July 16, 2005.  I am grateful to Rosario Morales for her assistance in conceptualizing and editing this paper.

 


[1]John Montgomery Brown had been a Lutheran Episcopal Bishop of the Missouri Synod, excommunicated when he became a Marxist. In the 1930’s he published the quarterly journal Heresy.

[2] AID, the Agency for International Development, carries out programs on health and development in strategically chosen third world countries. Its separate programs are sometimes helpful and their participants motivated by humanitarian concerns. But the agency is also a terrorist organization, , supporting counter-revolutionary groups in Venezuela, Haiti and Cuba. It once sponsored the LEAP (Law Enforcement Assistance Program) that taught torture to Uruguayan and Brazilian police.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Selected Bibliography

 

Evolutionary Ecology

R. Levins. Evolution in Changing Environments. Princeton University Press 1968.

R, Levins 1969.Thermal acclimation and heat resistance in Drosphila species. Amer. Nat. 103:(933) 483-499.

R. Levins, M.L. Pressick and H. Heatwole. 1973.Coexistence patterns in insular ants. Amer. Sci. 6(4):463-472.

R. Levins 1995. Preparing for uncertainty. Ecosystem Health 1(1).

Lewontin, R.C. and R. Levins. 2001. Schmalhausen’s law. Capitalism, Nature and  Socialism  March 2001.

 

Agriculture

R. Levins. 1973. Fundamental and applied  research in agriculture. Science 181:523-4.

R. Levins and J. Vandermeer. The agroecosystem in a complex ecological community. In RC Carroll, J. Vandermeer, P. Rosset (ed.s) Agroecology. Wiley & Sons. 1984

R. Levins. 1986.Science and progress: seven developmentalist myths in agriculture. Monthly Review 38(3):13-20.

R. Levins 1986. Seven developmentalist myths in agriculture. Monthly Review 38(3): 13-20.

Awerbuch, T., C. Gonzalez,R. Levins, S. Sandberg, R. Sibat, and J. L. Tapia. 2004.The natural control of the scale insect Lapidosaphes gloverii on Cuban citrus. IACNET Newsletter 21/22 of Inter-American Citrus Network.

Levins, R. 2005. A “left” critic of organic farming. New International 13:169-181.

Levins, R. 2005. How Cuba is going ecological. Capitalism, Nature, and Socialism (in press).

 

Health

Wilson, M.E., R. Levins, and A. Spielman (ed.s) Disease in Evolution. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. vol. 740, 1994.

R. Levins. 1995. Toward an integrated epidmiology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution.

R. Levins and C. Lopez.1999. Toward an ecosocial view of health. Int. J. Hlth. Service 29(2):261-293

R. Levins 2001. The future of schools of public health. J. BioLaw&Business Special supplement: Global genomics and health disparities.

Karpati, A., S. Galea, T. Awerbuch and R. Levins. 2002. Variability and vulnerability at the ecological level: implications for undertanding the social determinants health. Am. J. Pub. Hlth. 92(11):1768-1772

 

Philosophy

R. Levins and R.C. Lewontin. The Dialectical Biologist. Harvard University Press. 1985.

R. Levins. 1966. The strategy of model building in population biology. Amer. Sci. 54:421-431.

R. Levins. Ten propositions on science and anti-science. Social Text 14(46/47).

R. Levins 1999. Dialectics and systems theory. Science and Society 62(3):375-399.

R. Levins. The butterfly ex machina. In:R.S. Singh and C. Krimbas(ed.s) Evolutionary Genetics: from Molecules to Morphology. Cambridge Univ. Press 2000.

R. Levins 2004. Sorpresas, errors y dudas. Revista Cubana de Salud Publica. 2004(3).

 

Other

R. Levins. Mistaken development. In: An Agenda for Our Common Future: Implications of the Brundtland Report.Friedrich Naumann Foundation, New York. 1988.

R. Levins. 1996. A view from the trough. Monthly Review.

Kriebel,D., J. Tickner, P. Epstein, J. Lemmons, R. Levins, E. Loechler, M. Quinn, R. Rudel, T. Schettler and M. Stoto. 2001. The precautionary principle in environmental science. Env. Hlth.Perspectives 109(9):871-876.

R. Levins. 2005. Progressive Cuba Bashing. Socialism and Democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (62)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    Response: express indexer
    Lovely Web site, Keep up the good work. Many thanks!
  • Response
    Neat Webpage, Maintain the great work. thnx!
  • Response
    Response: jayson woodbridge
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: search engine
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: sn.im
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: nike
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: click this link
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: erotic massage
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Kion Kashefi
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Kion Kashefi
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Kion Kashefi
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Kion Kashefi
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Kion Kashefi
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Kion Kashefi
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Kion Kashefi
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Kion Kashefi
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Kion Kashefi
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: End Of Retail
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: inspired posters
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: inspired posters
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Inspired Cases
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Art Falcone
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Art Falcone
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: End Of Retail
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: End Of Retail
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: inspired posters
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Inspired Cases
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: UK Models
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: UK Models
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: UK Models
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: UK Models
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: UK Models
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: UK Models
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Brian Poe
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Brian Poe
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Brian Poe
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Brian Poe
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Brian Poe
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Eric Gonchar
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Eric Gonchar
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Jared Londry
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Eric Gonchar
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Jared Londry
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Kion Kashefi
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Kion Kashefi
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: UK Models
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: UK Models
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Eric Gonchar
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Amir Mojiri
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Amir Mojiri
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: P Andrew Fleming
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Jared Londry
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Corey Park
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Corey Park
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Brian Poe
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis
  • Response
    Response: Brian Poe
    Richard Levins - Human Ecology - Writings - Living the 11th Thesis

Reader Comments (1)

http://powerfulbook.com/excerpts.html
"On Earth as it is in Heaven." The food system that began at the advent of our herding and animal "husbandry" practices, was the path that led to the Matrix and paradigm of domination rather than cooperation, competition rather than coexistence, oppression and subjugation rather then a classless system where even other species have the "right" to habitat and life free from human exploitation, slaughter, commodification.

Prosperity and peace do not seem to abide with one another if that prosperity is off the exploitation of our natural environment, CREATION, as resources for humans alone to profit from.

Books ( never mentioned by NPR book reviewers not surprisingly )such as Eternal Treblinka, Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust, Charles Patterson; An Unnatural Order, Jim Mason; The World Peace Diet, Will Tuttle; The Longest Struggle, Norm Phelps; The Dreaded Comparison, Marjorie Spiegel,and several others, examine the relationship between our learned violence and domination matrix, and our relationship with animals.

For those wishing to reverse climate change, end chronic diseases and the increasing threats from virulent zoonotic viruses such as all the HN viruses, and ending the human rein of terror on our small, stressed, life support system.......PLEASE promote urgently, the plant centered agriculture system that is the answer to what as plagued humankind for centuries.

Besides being inherently cruel and violent, animal agriculture contributes 51% of ALL methane and Co2 , according the Robert Goodland, 23 year World Bank Environmental Advisor, who just spoke at the recent Advanced Wellness Week-end, hosted by Dr. John McDougall, McDougall Wellness Center.

October 1, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterLaura Slitt

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>