Packard attempted to incorporate cave fauna into a general theory of evolution that would be consistent with the principle of recapitulation, and would have as the primary mechanism the inheritance of the effects of the environment. Beyond this, he also attempted to demonstrate that the evolution of cave fauna was consistent with progressive evolution. The use he made of comparative anatomy and embryology places him within the tradition of classical morphology that was dominant through much of the last half of (...) the nineteenth century, but of waning importance by the time of Packard's death in 1905. The importance Packard gave to cave fauna as evidence for Lamarckian evolution stimulated interest in the phenomenon; this interest, and references to cave fauna in the scientific literature, declined after his death. Since then, the importance of cave fauna in evolutionary theory has declined from their status as the star evidence in Packard's theory to their present status as a difficult anomaly within the modern synthetic theory. (shrink)

Arguments implicating nature and science can arise in the most unlikely places. At the supermarket smoked salmon awaits shoppers: chinook salmon from British Columbia, and Atlantic salmon from B.C., New Brunswick, or Norway. They are priced the same, and look similar, but embedded in their diverse provenance is a controversy thirty years in the making. The “wild” chinook salmon were caught in the open ocean; the “farmed” Atlantic salmon were raised in pens in coastal inlets. The distinction has spawned an (...) intense debate over salmon farming —nowhere more so than in British Columbia. In some ways this coastal controversy is unique, epitomizing the symbolic significance of all things marine to British Columbians. But it shares a crucial feature with other controversies, such as those involving genetically modified organisms, nanotechnology, or climate change. Since the debate began, science has played an essential role as a source of information and authority. Scientific knowledge and practice can be said to have contributed to creating the controversy, have added to its intractability, and, perhaps hold some keys to its resolution. (shrink)

After so many decades dominated by molecular biology, it is important to remember that scientists have also devoted much attention to entire living organisms and ecosystems. In this spirit, Sharon...

Karl Marx has often been described as anti‐ecological, concerned about the exploitation of humanity, not of nature. But, conducting a careful review of Marx's writings and a survey of the intellectual context in which Marx lived and worked, John Bellamy Foster argues that, in fact, Marx had a deeply and systematically ecological view of the world.To make this argument, Foster traces the development of Marx's ideas. He finds in the materialist, antiteleological philosophy of Epicurus the partial origins of an ecological (...) perspective. Other elements of Marx's ecology emerged from his critique of Thomas Malthus's view that population would inevitably outstrip agricultural production—a conclusion that could justify social inequality. From this subject, Marx turned to a study of the agricultural chemist Justus von Liebig, drawing from him to formulate the notion of a “metabolic rift” in the human relation with nature. Armed with such ideas, Marx contributed to debates over soil “exhaustion,” the problems of agriculture, and the division between town and country. Ultimately, under Liebig's influence, Marx arrived at an ecological critique of capitalist agriculture and what he saw as its inevitable depletion of the natural fertility of the soil. Both he and Friedrich Engels would argue that ecological problems could be addressed only if human beings regarded nature rationally, through an understanding of nature's laws, and then organized production accordingly.Thus, engaged in nineteenth‐century discussions about science and nature, including those relating to Darwinism, Marx linked social transformation with the transformation of the human relation with nature: the alienation of human labor paralleled the alienation of human beings from nature. In other words, the domination of nature resulting from unequal ownership of land paralleled the domination of humans through economic power. Foster traces these ideas across each stage in the development of Marx's thought: in relation to agriculture, Darwinism, and, in his last years, ethnology, geology, and paleontology. Foster follows the course of Marx's ecological views even after Marx's death. For a time, Marx and Engel's ecological critiques influenced Marxist thought in the Soviet Union. Nikolai Bukharin, August Bebel, and other Marxist scholars built on the original foundation, and by the 1920s Soviet ecology was highly advanced—only to be crushed, in the 1930s, by Stalin.Seeking to place Marx within his context, Foster ranges widely, from Epicurus to the influence of Epicureanism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to Julien Offray de La Mettrie, Baron d'Holbach, Denis Diderot, and Darwin, and on to Hegel, political economy, and French socialism. He covers thinkers who influenced Marx as well as those whom Marx reacted against, including William Paley and, especially, Malthus, who represented for Marx the intrusion of natural theology into political economy. In attempting to reconstruct Marx's world, Foster largely follows the methods of traditional intellectual history, often interpreting ideas apart from their contexts. In his analysis of Darwin's ideas, for example, he considers Marx's debts to other scholars but not Marx's own research and observations of nature. Foster, however, does review in some detail society and politics in Marx's day, remarking on the social discontent and the perception of materialism as a threat to the established order, associated with both atheism and revolutionary France.Foster's ambition goes beyond illuminating Marx's thought to situating ecology within materialism and science. Foster thus takes issue, persuasively, with the idea, often encountered in Green thought, that modern science justifies exploitative attitudes toward nature. This view, according to Foster, is a misinterpretation of modern science and reflects a reduction of ecological questions to questions of values, obscuring the material interrelations between humans and nature. In fact, he finds no necessary contradiction between sustainability and the mastery of nature, noting that in the seventeenth century John Evelyn, among others, remained an advocate of modern science even as he defended trees and criticized London's air pollution. And he notes that in the nineteenth century ecological thought, in the work of Darwin and others, was grounded in materialist conceptions of nature.Foster's analysis is valuable both as a critique of the conventional wisdom about Marx's views of nature and as a thorough effort to place Marx within the context of his time. Scholars and readers interested in nineteenth‐century intellectual history will find Foster's acccount of an ecological revolutionary worth the study. (shrink)