free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

rhirsch · Site Admin Joined: 13 Oct 2010 Posts: 74

Please read (actively) Donald Worster's "Doing Environmental History" and Jared Diamond's, "Predicting Environmental History" (pp.1-7 in your packets). Post as required. Good luck.

Free Forum

winterimogen · Joined: 28 Jan 2020 Posts: 2

Donald Worster states in his essay "Doing Environmental History" that "Environmental history was, therefore, born out of a moral purpose ... but also became, as it matured, a scholarly enterprise that had neither any simple, nor any single, moral or political agenda" (Major, 3-4). Worster is stating that even though the study of environmental history was first explored due to moral issues, brought forth from the environmentalist movements of the 1970's, that it had gone beyond those issues and become a non-political and non-moral field of study. I would agree with him on the broad scale, mostly when he is talking about environmental history as "the role and place of nature in human life" (Major, 4), but there has been consistent struggle over how humans have morally and politically viewed the use of the natural world. This is only complicated and undermined further when Worster goes on to say that one of the three main questions of environmental history is about the way the "socioeconomic realm...interacts with the environment" (Major, 4). Worster is clearly claiming that there is a direct and highly important connection between the socioeconomic world that humans live in and the natural world. The "socioeconomic realm" is driven by politics and morals, so how can environmental history have truly evolved to a non-moral and non-politcal field of study when a major third of its ideology is based on those exact principals?
_________________
- Winter

Rachel S. · Joined: 28 Jan 2020 Posts: 7

Worster says that "environmental history... must go wherever the human mind has grappled with the meaning of nature" (9). He argued that "the main object [of the historian] must be to discover how a whole culture, rather than exceptional individuals in it, perceived and valued nature" (9) because those perceptions are driven with a society's relationship with their environment. However, he also says that “Perhaps we have too wildly exaggerated a notion of our mental prowess and its impact on the rest of nature. Perhaps we spend too much time talking about our ideas, neglecting to examine our behavior" ( Cool

. I would push back on that a little bit—I think that our ideas about the environment influence our behaviors, so you can’t really separate the two. So, knowing all that, what is the role of the study of ideas in environmental history? How much actual effect do human conceptualizations of nature have on history and the environment?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I was also caught by the passage on page 9 about how conceptualizations of nature differ between different groups within a society, based on power and proximity to nature, among other things. I think the idea of investigating power structures within a society by studying differing conceptualizations of nature is a really interesting idea, and might be one significant application of the study of ideas in environmental history.

Rachel S. · Joined: 28 Jan 2020 Posts: 7

srothstein2020 · Joined: 28 Jan 2020 Posts: 2

Jared Diamond's essay is centered on the idea that all events in history can be attributed to the environment in which they take place, either directly or indirectly. His argument relies primarily on the fact that European and Asian civilizations developed faster than civilizations in Africa, Australia, or the Americas, and he explores the environmental factors that led to the faster development. For instance, his explanation of why epidemic diseases developed in Europe first (which enabled the Europeans to inadvertently kill thousands of Natives and later conquer the Native societies) is due to the larger domesticated animal populations in Eurasia. This stemmed from Eurasia being “the world’s largest land mass” which “offered the most wild species to begin with” (13), leaving more options for humans in that area to attempt to domesticate. Taking his analysis a step further, he attributes the Eurasian animal populations to a fairly constant climate along the horizontal landmass, allowing them to move around more freely without having to adapt to different environments, as opposed to the vastly differing climate along the Americas’ vertical axis. The domestication of these animals, in turn, led to epidemic diseases that were passed to humans from the animals, and were sustained by “large dense human populations concentrated into villages and cities, which arose much earlier in the Old World than in the New World” (12). I believe Diamond’s analysis is successful in attributing human events to natural causes, since he traces from the events we know about, all the way back to the environmental conditions which enabled the human conditions that led to the events. I would like to see this method applied to other civilizations and their interactions, because analysis of the causes of human events is often inconclusive, or does not reach the same level of factual conclusivity as in Diamond’s essay.

levg · Joined: 28 Jan 2020 Posts: 3

Page 5: “Concepts from geology, pushing our notions of history back into the Pleistocene, the Silurian, the Precambrian.” Notably, this is dating back to BEFORE THE DINOSAURS.

(I mean, I understand that the point being made is slightly different, I just think it had to be said.)

Eliza A · Joined: 28 Jan 2020 Posts: 4

It simply makes sense that “it is people who create culture” (6). However, Worster states that “everything is shaped by its presence in the ecosystem” (6). This got me thinking about how centered our lives are around the ecosystem. If it is a sunny day, I tend to feel much happier than on a day that is cold and snowy. I end up interacting with others and making decisions in a way that revolves around the temperature. Maybe this is why people refer to Los Angeles as having a different “culture” or vibe than New York City. The ecosystem we live in simply just changes our attitude. While this idea seems quite small, it is interesting how Worster applies it to the influence Europeans once had. The ecosystem they lived in affected their success. This then shaped the culture of our world. These ideas also make me think about how little control humans have in the world. While humans can predict and prepare for natural disasters, we have no control in stopping them. It is actually scary how much power nature has over the human population. So now I wonder, do humans have any control over their environment? Or is it solely the ecosystem that creates culture?

levg · Joined: 28 Jan 2020 Posts: 3

In the second reading, a couple pages (but mostly page 12) discussed the origins of devastating diseases, and the ways in which their existence could be traced back to the environment. In one example, diamond connected the existence of smallpox to the domestication of cattle, which was possible on the Eurasian continent because of the factors of the land and the animals that lived there. (pg. 12) This was fascinating to me — are diseases part of environmental history?

I would argue that they absolutely are. All diseases (all the ones I know, at least) were formed and refined through their environment. Whether it’s the Black Plague’s spread through rats, or (to be more topical) the recent coronavirus 2019-nCoV outbreak starting in a seafood and animal market, the source can always be traced back to an environmental factor. This circles back to the same issue we discussed in class (and our friends the dinosaurs), namely “Where does it end?” What is the boundary of environmental history? How far does Diamond’s chain stretch? Worster notes that environmental history has “resisted any attempt to put strict disciplinary forces around its work,” (pg. 9) but there has to be some limit, right? Eventually the machine always “returns to some steady-state condition.” (pg. 6) Would disease among dinosaurs count as environmental history, because the ways in which it affected the dinosaur population affected the outcome of the area in which they live in which in the future went on to be a place where humans lived, and were affected by that change? Or has the ecosystem recovered from the shock of the dino-disease and moved on in a way that it would have done otherwise? Ultimately, I think disease can count as environmental history, but I draw the line with dino-diseases. I would, however, be more than happy to be wrong.

mcanning · Joined: 28 Jan 2020 Posts: 3

1 thought:
Worcester carefully goes into the ways that environmental historians combine multiple disciplines and areas of study. I was particularly shocked by the realization of how heavily humans rely on plants for survival: “all through history people have depended critically on [plants] for food, medicine, building materials, hunting habitats, and a buffer against the rest of nature” (5). Fully understanding our dependence is terrifying, especially since it seems that the population today is destroying the environment that we so heavily rely on.

2 thought:
Diamond wrote about how geography and a population’s location on earth is the main contributor to Eurasia’s ability to conquer and colonize other civilizations (those frequently mentioned were the Indigenous or Africans). He clearly states that human development’s ability to proceed at different rates, depending on the continent, had “nothing to do with differences among people themselves, but instead lies in differences among the biological and geographical environments in which different people found themselves” (11). Although I do agree that geographical location clearly defined the development of each civilization, due to adaptability and a vast difference in resources, I also disagree with the statement that development has “nothing to do with the differences among people themselves” (11). Different groups of people, although all stemming from hunter-gatherers in 11,000 BCE, still had different cultures, religions, and ways of approach. This would mean each civilization would find different ways to reach certain levels of development. However, maybe I am misinterpreting this reading, as one could also point to reasons for the environment shaping belief and religion. For example, when people would create gods and mythology to explain the unknown (or in our case, what can now be explained through science). Overall I think I am becoming confused over the classic “which came first” scenario. I believe that Diamond's argument may be “too big picture/broad” and is not taking a deeper look into each culture and humans as individuals. However, I am also concerned that I am missing the point of his essay, as he clearly states that the environment shapes everything.

Question (based on 2nd thought and my confusion): What do others think about the quote above? Do you believe that the civilization’s development was not dependent on the individual but instead on there geographical location and resources?

guzmankid20 · Joined: 28 Jan 2020 Posts: 3

Type lemme read this thing first and i got yall with the response

Eliza A · Joined: 28 Jan 2020 Posts: 4

Mia asked,
Do you believe that the civilization’s development was not dependent on the individual but instead on there geographical location and resources?

I think this is tricky! Geographical location and resources definitely play a big part in shaping our history. On page 9, Worster writes that "the environment presents real dangers as well as benefits to the people." Humans had to learn to work with what nature gave them. So this got me thinking... maybe geographical location and resources create the identity of an individual and therefore this would affect the way individuals develop their society. Everything just affects everything, its very complex and confusing to grasp Confused

lucas_hill · Joined: 28 Jan 2020 Posts: 6

I am very interested in the concepts Worster discusses early on in his essay, how he defines Environmental History and the evolution of history globally. "Environmental history is, in sum, part of the revisionist effort to make the discipline far more inclusive in its narratives than it has traditionally been." (3) My understanding of the evolution and the want in change for history and historians from Worster's perspective has to do with a want and goal "toward a more global point of view" (3) and want to push history past the surface level, with Environmental historians "who insist that we have got to go deeper yet, down to the earth its self as an agent over time." (3). We see that environmental history is multifaceted and as Worster describes it, has three levels of issued to address. The three summed up and in my own words are, understanding nature, interaction with the environment and the mental and intellectual side to it. The complexity of Environmental History and its connections "ranging from the natural sciences to anthropology to theology." (9) clearly makes it one of the steps that historians took towards making history more complete and advancing it.

Question for others to help my understanding of the first essay:

What was Donald Worster's final conclusion point and how does is specifically connect to his overall goal with the essay?

mlevine · Joined: 28 Jan 2020 Posts: 4

Both authors highlight how it is easier to understand ourselves as existing outside the influences of the environment. We want to believe we have free will and that the triumphs of one group at the expense of another is due to a difference of ability, not the random advantage of being born in an east-west rather than north-south continent. Similarly, few “perceived people of human societies as being integral parts of ecosystems” (page 6). In today’s society, it is easier to believe the changing environment is a natural evolution rather than accept the changes, especially with the climate crisis, are a consequence of our actions. I think it is interesting that as some go in the extreme denying the interconnectedness between the environment and human society, others, including environmental historians, are trying to bridge the gap. Although I far more agree with the point of view of Worster and Diamond, I feel like both take it to an extreme, especially Diamond. I understand that the environment played a significant role in the differences between societies, however, going off Mia, I do not understand how the differences can be solely contributed to the environment. What about different communities living in a similar climate? Or communities living in the same place but at different times in human history? Maybe is it the difference between differences between communities vs. differences between societies? I also think it is interesting that Worster describes the exploration of the relationship between society and the environment as a new concept. I would argue this is true for western academia but perhaps not humanity as a whole?

Going off my ramblings, I am curious about how do we find the balance between the two understandings of history?

On a somewhat less related note, I am curious about the relationship between the terms “nature,” “environment,” and “natural environment” and the many interpretations of the three.

hazelle · Joined: 28 Jan 2020 Posts: 2

I wanted to quickly touch and compare the two readings. I found it incredibly fascinating how the two contrasted; I feel as if it shows how broad Environmental History could be and how specific one could describe a specific aspect to it.
I felt as if both readings were quite odd to kick off this mod. In the first passage it generally circles around the scientific aspect of all these tiny ecosystems and human roles in these specific environment; which makes me think, why is this class not an integrated studies class? Or why did Rachel start off which such a science focused article? Or do you think it is difficult to be unbiased when talking historical so talking analytical makes defining environmental history just a bit easier?
And the second reading also stirred questions. I found it interesting how this one was significantly less scientific based and focused primarily on location and race… specifically a European lense. It is very interesting to see the same topic solely focused on only Eurasia. It makes you even further question what is the definition of history. Was the second article a more naive approach? Or more selfish approach? Or is it just valid as the first?

lucas_hill · Joined: 28 Jan 2020 Posts: 6

Im not sure how to reply only to one post made, sorry!

in responce to Eliza's post:

Yes! I agree with these points Eliza made, I also find it very interesting to see how there is a two way almost relationship between humans and nature. "Its principal goal became one fo deepening our understanding of how humans have been affected by their natural environment through time and, conversely how they have affected that environment and with what results..." (4) This also brings up a very interesting point to me about the complexity behind the ideology created around nature and how environmental history deals with those concepts. humans being apart of ecosystems? human ideology on nature? being separate? all very interesting things to me.

Free Forum