Environmental Encyclopedia

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Gary Sherman Snyder

snow leopard is officially protected throughout its range, it

is nevertheless widely killed as a

pest

where it intersects

with livestock-raising mountain people. It is also widely

poached as a trophy and, more importantly, for its beautiful

and valuable fur, which can be readily purchased in some

rural marketplaces within the range of the

species

, even

though its

hunting

is illegal. Most hunting of snow leopards

is conducted using leg-hold traps or deep pits baited with

a live goat or sheep.

[Bill Freedman Ph.D.]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Grzimek, B., ed. Grzimek’s Encyclopedia of Mammals. London: McGraw

Hill, 1990.

Nowak, R. M. Walker’s Mammals of the World. 6th ed. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1999.

Gary Sherman Snyder (1930 – )

American writer and poet

Snyder was born in San Francisco but grew up in the North-

west, learning about

nature

and life in cow pastures and

second-growth forests. He earned his B.A. in anthropology

at Reed College in Portland and spent some time at other

universities, learning Asian languages and literatures. During

the 1950s, Snyder became a part of the Beat Movement in

San Francisco along with such noted figures as Jack Kerouac

and Allen Ginsberg. While there he supported himself by

working at a variety of odd jobs before leaving to study Zen

Buddhism in Japan where he remained for nearly a decade.

Best known as a Pulitzer-prize-winning poet (for Tur-

tle Island, 1974; No Nature, 1992), Snyder is also an elegant

essayist whose collections include The Practice of the Wild

(1990). Snyder is often described as the ecological poet,

producing work that demonstrates a deep understanding of

the subject. Through his poetry Snyder teaches ecology—

as science, philosophy, and world view—to a wide audience.

Snyder’s ecological principles center on eating and be-

ing eaten, house-keeping principles, the quest for commu-

nity, identification with and fitting into locale and place,

and understanding connective cycles, relationships and inter-

dependence. He does not, for example, condemn

hunting

or taking life, but instead explains it as necessary and sacred:

“there is no death that is not somebody’s food, no life that

is not somebody’s death.” But he urges his reader to treat

the taking of life and the life ingested with respect. Because

eating involves consuming other lives, Snyder believes,

“eating is truly a sacrament.” For Snyder, the primary ethical

teaching of all times and places is “cause no unnecessary

harm.”

1307

Gary Snyder. (Photograph by Chris Felver. Reproduced

by permission.)

He declares that “there are many people on the planet

now who are not ‘inhabitants,’” meaning they do not identify

with or know anything about the place in which they live.

He emphasizes that “to know the spirit of a place is to realize

that you are a part of a part and the whole is made of parts,

each of which is whole. You start with the part you are

whole in.” He notes that “our relation to the natural world

takes place in a place, and it must be grounded in information

and experience”; basically, you “settle in and take responsibil-

ity and pay attention.”

In Myths & Texts, Snyder notes that “As a poet I hold

the most archaic values on earth. They go back to the upper

Paleolithic: the fertility of the

soil

, the magic of animals,

the power-vision in solitude, the terrifying initiation and

rebirth...the common work of the tribe.” He is an activist

who does not seek to return to an unclaimable past, but who

tries to raise awareness of how humans are connected to

each other, to other life-forms, and to the earth. Currently,

Snyder is an English professor at the University of California.

[Gerald L. Young Ph.D.]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Halper, J., ed. Gary Snyder: Dimensions of a Life. San Francisco: Sierra

Club Books, 1991.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Social ecology

Murphy, P. D. Critical Essays on Gary Snyder. Boston: G. K. Hall, 1990.

Paul, S. In Search of the Primitive: Rereading David Antin, Jerome Rothenberg,

and Gary Snyder. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1986.

Snyder, G. Myths & Texts. New York: New Directions, 1978.

———. No Nature. New York: Pantheon Books, 1992.

———. The Practice of the Wild. San Francisco: North Point Press, 1990.

———. Turtle Island. New York: New Directions, 1974.

ERIODICALS

Martin, J. “Speaking for the Green of the Leaf: Gary Snyder Writes Nature’s

Literature.” CEA Critic: An Official Journal of the College English Association

54 (Fall 1991): 98–109.

Social ecology

Social

ecology

has many definitions. It is used as a synonym

for

human ecology

, especially in sociology; it is considered

one form of ecological psychology; and it is the name chosen

for the mix of approaches taught at the University of Califor-

nia, Irvine, as well as the radical revisionism of

Murray

Bookchin

In her 1935 critique of the ecological approach in

sociology, Milla Alihan clearly preferred the label “social

ecology.” In a book on urban society in the mid-forties, Gist

and Halbert discussed the social ecology of the city, and Ruth

Young examined the social ecology of a rural community in

the journal Rural Sociology in the early 1970s. A bibliography

for the Council for Planning Librarians went so far as to

define social ecology as a “subfield of sociology that incorpo-

rates the influence of not only sociology but economics,

biology, political science, and urban studies,” and Mlinar and

Teune, in their Social Ecology of Change, clearly considered it

a part of sociology.

The Program in Social Ecology at the University of

California, Irvine has been defined by Binder as “a new

context for psychology,” but it includes major subprograms

in community psychology, urban and regional planning,

en-

vironmental health

, human ecology, criminal justice, and

educational policy. He concluded by defining social ecology

as the study of “the interaction of man with his

environment

in all of its ramifications.” In a later article, Binder and

others divided the ecological psychology into an ecological

approach, an environmental approach, and social ecology

itself, which they then enlarged into “a new departure in

environmental studies” at Irvine.

Bookchin is equally ambitious, claiming to have “for-

mulated a discipline unique to our age,” and defining social

ecology as integrating “the study of human and natural eco-

systems through understanding the interrelationships of cul-

ture and nature.” For Bookchin, social ecology “advances a

critical, holistic world view and suggests that creative human

enterprise can construct an alternative future: reharmonizing

people’s relationship to the natural world by reharmonizing

1308

their relationship with each other.” He goes on to claim

that “this interdisciplinary approach draws on studies in the

natural sciences, feminism, anthropology, and philosophy to

provide a coherent critique of current anti-ecological trends

and a reconstructive, communitarian, technical, and ethical

approach to social life.” Social ecology “not only provides a

critique of the split between humanity and

nature

; it also

poses the need to heal them.” Bookchin established an Insti-

tute for Social Ecology in Plainfield, Vermont, which orga-

nizes conferences, publishes a journal, and offers, in conjunc-

tion with Goddard College, a graduate program leading to

a Master of Arts degree in Social Ecology.

Social ecology, then, is defined in a variety of ways

by different individuals. In general use, the term remains

ambiguous. See also Bioregionalism; Ecology; Economic

growth and the environment; Environmental economics;

Environmental ethics; Environmentalism

[Gerald L. Young Ph.D.]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Alihan, M. A. Social Ecology: A Critical Analysis. New York: Cooper Square

Publishers, 1964.

Bookchin, M. “What is Social Ecology?” In The Modern Crisis. Philadelphia:

New Society Publishers, 1986.

———. The Philosophy of Social Ecology: Essays on Dialectical Naturalism.

Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1990.

Emery, R. E., and E. L. Trist. Towards a Social Ecology: Contextual Apprecia-

tion of the Future in the Present. New York: Plenum Publishing Corpora-

tion, 1973.

Socially responsible investing

Socially responsible investing allows people to use financial

assets to influence how corporations and governments ad-

dress a variety of social problems. Stocks, bonds, mutual

funds, special lending programs, and other financial tools

can be chosen and tailored by investors to favor particular

social issues, including tobacco-related health problems, civil

rights, environmental destruction, violence, community de-

velopment, and other social concerns. SRI is sometimes

referred to as ethical investing, social investing, mission-

based investing, and natural investing.

For hundreds of years religious groups have practiced

socially responsible investing. John Wesley, the founder of

the Methodist Church, believed that the use of money is

an important lesson from the New Testament. The Quakers

in early America and other Christian groups practiced a

form of SRI called avoidance investing, when they avoided

investing in companies that supported activities to which

they were opposed on religious grounds, such as slavery,

gambling, alcohol,

tobacco

, and weapons production.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Socially responsible investing

The rise of the modern corporation brought with it

new forms of investment, and the growing corporate econ-

omy allowed more people to own shares, or stocks, in corpo-

rations. In 1934, the U.S. Congress created the Securities

and Exchange Commission (SEC), which would oversee

the trading of financial instruments such as stocks. Congress

mandated that all owners, or stockholders, should be able to

vote on company concerns when it stated that, “fair corporate

suffrage is an important right that should be attached to

every equity security bought on a public exchange.”

The political activism of the 1960s, when people

strongly protested issues concerning civil rights, women’s

rights, war, and

environmental degradation

, had rippling

effects upon corporation activity and the development of

SRI. In the 1970s, church groups including the National

Council of Churches, which had stock holdings in major

corporations, began actively using shareholders’ resolutions

to address social concerns. As an offshoot of the National

Council of Churches, an important organization in SRI

was formed in 1972, the Interfaith Center on Corporate

Responsibility (ICCR), which brought together religious

groups to increase shareholder power. One issue in particular

had a profound effect on the development of SRI—the policy

of apartheid in South Africa, which was the forced and often

violent segregation of blacks from whites. In the 1980s,

many shareholders demanded investment tools that utilized

divestment, which eliminated from stock collections all com-

panies that had South African holdings. Shareholders in

some companies also demanded disinvestment, or the with-

drawal of corporate activities from South Africa.

Increased concerns about environmental problems

have led to the development of environmental investing

tools. As early as 1970, an environmental mutual fund called

the Pax World Fund was offered, which used

pollution

control

as one of its standards for selecting companies. (Mu-

tual funds are professionally managed collections of stocks,

shares of which can be purchased and traded.) In March

1989 the

Exxon Valdez

oil spill in Alaska prompted further

development of environmental investing. The Coalition for

Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) devel-

oped the

Valdez Principles

, a list of 10 environmental prin-

ciples related to corporate activity. Companies can be rated

on how well they adhere to the principles, and shareholders

have also created resolutions asking companies to adopt the

principles for their operations. These principles include pro-

tection of the environment, sustainable use of natural re-

sources, reduction and disposal of wastes, wise use of energy,

risk reduction, marketing of safe products, damage compen-

sation, disclosure, environmental management, and self-as-

sessment.

In the free market society of the United States, corpo-

rations are set up by law to be responsible to their sharehold-

1309

ers, and the market is governed as little as possible. In a

capitalistic system, maximizing the profits for shareholders

is the main goal of the corporation. As efficiently as this

system has worked to create a materialistically wealthy soci-

ety, the profit-motive corporate structure has also contrib-

uted to some social and environmental problems that were

growing as capitalism moved into the new millennium. For

instance, energy companies can maximize their profits by

producing and selling as much energy as possible. In the

early twenty-first century, the problems of global warming

and

air pollution

were receiving increased attention, prob-

lems that are directly related to the burning of

fossil fuels

from which most energy is produced. Thus, the shareholders

of an energy company might benefit from increased produc-

tion of energy, while society as a whole may face new prob-

lems from such activity. Energy companies powerfully op-

pose new governmental regulations such as air

pollution

controls, and there can be conflicts between private and

public interest. That is, corporations desire a market free

from government interference, while the government is the

main tool the public has to regulate large corporations. Some

people, wishing to affect change from within, become what

are known in SRI as activist shareholders, and utilize share-

holders’ rights. Activist shareholders are often in the minor-

ity, and it may take many millions of dollars worth of stock

to be able to pass shareholders’ resolutions in large compa-

nies. In the early twenty-first century, shareholders in some

of the world’s largest energy companies were initiating reso-

lutions on air pollution, alternative energy,

sustainable de-

velopment

, and global warming, for instance.

Socially responsible investing relies upon three main

strategies to further its social and environmental goals: screen-

ing, shareholder advocacy, and community investing. Positive

screening uses various criteria to select companies that have

excellent track records, while negative screens eliminate com-

panies with poor records from investment possibilities. To-

bacco is the most commonly used screening criteria, and other

popular screens include environmental protection, human

rights, employment equality, gambling, alcohol, and weapons

production. Other commonly used screens have been labor

relations, animal testing, community investing, and commu-

nity relations, while specialty screens include issues such as

executive compensation, abortion and birth control, and in-

ternational labor standards, among others.

Shareholder advocacy utilizes the legal rights of share-

holders as owners of companies. Shareholders can influence

corporate operations by direct communication with manage-

ment as well as by shareholder resolutions. These resolutions,

when filed, get published in a company’s proxy statement

and are voted on by all shareholders during the company’s

annual meeting. Although they rarely receive a majority vote,

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Society for Conservation Biology

which would mandate their adoption, proxy resolutions can

initiate the process of change.

Community investing is direct investment into under-

privileged communities that have failed to receive adequate

assistance from traditional financial institutions. This type

of investing encourages economic development by providing

start-up loans to small businesses, affordable housing, em-

ployment programs, and financial assistance for low-income

people, for example. Community investing utilizes commu-

nity development banks and credit unions that are set up

specifically for low- and middle-income communities. Com-

munity loan funds and venture capital funds are other com-

munity investing tools that provide funding to underdevel-

oped areas.

According to the Social Investment Forum, a non-

profit industry group, screening strategies accounted for

about 61% of SRI funds in 2001, shareholder advocacy was

utilized by 13%, screening and advocacy together accounted

for 26%, while community investing garnered less than 1%

of total SRI funds.

In the new millennium, SRI has grown to be a signifi-

cant and influential part of the investment world. From a

1985 total of $65 billion, SRI funds had grown to over $2

trillion by 2001, according to the Social Investment Forum.

The 2001 total represented 13% of the $16 trillion that

was in professionally managed funds, or one in every eight

investment dollars. Furthermore, SRI funds grew at a faster

rate (1.5%) than the rate for all professionally managed funds,

meaning that socially and environmentally conscious compa-

nies were positioned strongly in the economy of the 2000s.

Industry analysts have noted that socially responsible firms

tend to be well managed, adaptive, and technologically adept.

In 2001, there were 230 mutual funds that were using social

and environmental screening for various causes. There were

funds that emphasized alternative energy, sustainable devel-

opment, and workers’ rights, and other funds that avoided

nuclear power

, weapons building, gambling, and pornogra-

phy. There were funds for fundamental Christians, Catho-

lics, and a fund specifically tailored for Muslims.

Shareholder advocacy actions were on the increase in

2001, due in part to new reports on global warming and

concerns over corporate ethics brought about by the Enron

energy scandal. Since the 1980s, institutions, including reli-

gious groups, mutual funds, foundations, pension funds for

public and private organizations, and others, have become

the largest shareholders in the United States. When these

institutions come together they create powerful shareholder

associations, such as the Council on Institutional Investors

which controlled over $1.5 trillion in assets in 2001 and

has its own corporate governance guidelines. Shareholder

advocacy for social and environmental issues had some suc-

cesses in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Shareholders in

1310

2000 persuaded Home Depot to gradually stop using old-

growth timber, and investors convinced General Electric to

spend up to $250 million to clean the Housatonic River

in Massachusetts from PCB contamination. Furthermore,

shareholders convinced Texaco, General Motors, Ford, and

DaimlerChrysler to end their memberships in the Global

Climate Coalition, an industry group that maintains that

global warming is not valid and opposes actions to curb it.

In 2001, 262 social policy resolutions were presented to 177

companies, and 45 of these resolutions garnered more than

10% of shareholders’ votes.

[Douglas Dupler]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Brill, Jack A., and Alan Reder. Investing from the Heart: The Guide to

Socially Responsible Investing and Money Making. New York: Crown, 1992.

Domini, Amy L. Socially Responsible Investing: Making a Difference and

Making Money. Dearborn, MI: Dearborn Trade, 2001.

Hawkin, Paul, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins. Natural Capitalism:

Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Boston: Little Brown, 1999.

Kinder, Peter, Steven D. Lydenberg, and Amy L. Domini. Social Investment

Almanac. New York: Henry Holt, 1992.

ERIODICALS

Bogo, Jennifer. “Business Savvy: Making Room on the Shelves for a New

Generation of Greener Goods.” E Magazine (July/August 2000): 26–33.

Rose, Sarah. “Responsible Investing: Is It Living Up to Its Promise?” Sierra

(November/December 2000): 26.

Social Investment Forum. “2001 Report on Socially Responsible Investing

Trends in the United States.” Washington, D.C.: Social Investment Forum.

[cited July 2002]. <http://www.socialinvest.org>.

THER

Co-op America Home Page. [cited July 2002]. <http://www.coopameri-

ca.org>.

Shareholder Action Network Home Page. [cited July 2002]. <http://www.shar-

eholderaction.org>.

Social Investment Forum Home Page. [cited July 2002]. <http://www.socia-

linvest.org>.

Society for Conservation Biology

The idea of

conservation biology

as a scientific discipline

with a specific application to society-at-large was brought

to life in 1978 by organizers Michael Soule and Bruce Wil-

cox. They formalized their interest in a new

conservation

discipline at the first International Conference of Conserva-

tion Biology in San Diego. Between 1978 and 1985, the

ideals of conservation biology survived through some grow-

ing pains, most importantly expanding from the idea of

several single disciplines looking at a problem to a unified

examination of a problem including the insights of many

disciplines.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Society of American Foresters

The core of that interdisciplinary approach formed a

foundation from which, in 1985, the Society for Conserva-

tion Biology was born. The Society is, in its own words,

“...an international professional organization dedicated to

promoting the scientific study of the phenomena that affect

the maintenance, loss, and restoration of biological diversity.

The Society’s membership is comprised of a wide range of

people interested in the conservation and study of biological

diversity; resource managers, educators, government and pri-

vate conservation workers, and students.”

What is unusual for a professional scientific group is

that the Society was formed “to develop the scientific and

technical means for the protection, maintenance, and resto-

ration of life on this planet—its

species

, its ecological and

evolutionary processes, and its particular and total environ-

ment.” Thus, a mission is an inherent part of the Society

mandate. That mission can be very broadly interpreted to

include political, economic, and cultural ramifications, which

are not commonly the arena for professional scientists.

To undertake the above mission the SCB promotes

research, disseminates information, encourages communica-

tion and collaboration, educates, and recognizes outstanding

contributions in the field. Part of that is done through a

scientific journal, Conservation Biology, a newsletter, the de-

velopment of local chapters, a Policy and Resolutions Com-

mittee, and the independent actions of the members.

The ideals noted above are based on the Society’s

official statements, but they undervalue the Society. It has

grown to be a true meeting ground for scientists and non-

scientists, and has maintained open and honest debate on

vital topics, such as the roles of science and advocacy, that

are touchstones for the new generation of conservation scien-

tists. The message that comes through from the overall body

of the Society’s work is that careful science and compassion

are not antithetical, rather they work together to promote

nature

in a natural way.

The journal Conservation Biology is the center of dis-

cussion and dissemination of thought for conservationists

worldwide. Its overall quality, maintained by the highest

editorial principles, has grown from a few articles in a quar-

terly issue to 300–400 page editions published six times per

year. In each volume philosophical treatments are found

alongside the latest molecular technique for recognizing lev-

els of genetic variability.

The Society meets annually in a conference setting,

complete with technical paper presentations, research post-

ers, workshops, and a series of conservation awards. They

occasionally meet in conjunction with other scientific groups

and explore particular thematic topics in the Annual

Meeting.

[David Duffus]

1311

ESOURCES

RGANIZATIONS

Society for Conservation Biology, 4245 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington

VA USA 22203 (703) 276-2384, Fax: (703) 995-4633, Email:

information@conservationbiology.org, <http://conbio.net/scb>

Society of American Foresters

Established in 1900 by

Gifford Pinchot

, considered to be

America’s first scientifically trained forester, the Society of

American Foresters (SAF) is a scientific and educational

organization representing the forestry profession in the

United States. With a membership of over 18,700 in 1997,

it is the largest professional society for foresters in the world.

SAF’s mission is to “advance the science, education, technol-

ogy, and practice of forestry; to enhance the competency of

its members; to establish professional excellence; and to use

the knowledge, skills, and

conservation

ethic of the profes-

sion to ensure the continued health and use of forest ecosys-

tems and the present and future availability of forest re-

sources to benefit society.” Although the focus of this

organization is on forestry, the SAF addresses issues and

concerns of a variety of natural resource professionals.

To be a professional member of SAF, one must hold

a bachelor’s or higher degree in forestry from an SAF-accred-

ited or candidate institution, or hold a comparable degree

in a closely related field of

natural resources

and have at

least three years of forestry-related experience. There is a

code of ethics for members that emphasizes stewardship of

the land and that advocates land management that is consist-

ent with ecologically sound principles. Members are expected

to perform services consistent with their knowledge and

skills, and for which they are qualified by education or expe-

rience.

The SAF provides an array of services for its members

and for the forestry community as a whole, including the

publication of the Journal of Forestry, the SAF’s chief publica-

tion, three regional technical journals, a newsletter, and For-

est Science, a quarterly research journal. Technical expertise

is provided through the organization’s 28 working groups

that cover a broad range of subdisciplines and through sup-

porting continuing education programs. The SAF accredits

forestry programs in universities, ensuring that curriculum

meet standards considered to be needed by forestry gradu-

ates. It provides background and key testimony to natural

resource policy makers on forestry issues, including timber

harvesting methods,

forest management

, clean water legis-

lation, and

wetlands

. For example, many of the recommen-

dations of the SAF were incorporated into the

Endangered

Species

Conservation and Management Act of 1995.

Environmental issues, particularly during the 1980s

and 1990s, have stimulated a diversity of opinions and views

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Sociobiology

about the profession of forestry and the role of the SAF.

The spotted owl issue, the role of

clear-cutting

in forest

management, the management and protection of

old

growth forests

, and other forestry issues have been debated

within the SAF just as they have been debated in society as

a whole. Many views are represented by members of the

SAF, including those with a forest products orientation and

those promoting an ecosystems-based management ap-

proach that places high values on forest attributes such as

biodiversity

. Some members advocate the return to the

basics of conservation, emphasizing both production and

environmental protection. Clearly there is a broader view of

the profession of forestry within SAF and perhaps a greater

diversity of opinions than in the past. With this diversity,

the SAF will continue to play a major role in how future

forests are managed, particularly on public lands.

[Kenneth N. Brooks]

ESOURCES

RGANIZATIONS

Society of American Foresters, 5400 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda, MD USA

20814 (301) 897-8720, Fax: (301) 897-3690, Email: safweb@safnet.org,

<http://www.safnet.org>

Sociobiology

A perennial debate about human nature, pitting the idea

that behavior is culturally conditioned against the notion

that human actions are innately controlled, was rekindled

in 1975 when

Edward O. Wilson’s

Sociobiology: The New

Synthesis introduced a new scientific discipline.

Sociobiology is defined by Wilson as “the systematic

study of the biological basis of all social behavior” and can

be described as a science that applies the principles of evolu-

tionary biology to the social behavior of organisms, analyzing

data from a number of disciplines, especially ethology (the

biological study of behavior),

ecology

, and

evolution

.It

employs two chief postulates. The first is the interaction

principle, the idea that the action of any organism, including

man, arises as a fusion of genotype and learning or experi-

ence. The second is the fitness maximization principle, the

notion that all organisms will attempt to behave in a manner

that passes copies of their genes to

future generations

Sociobiology provides several ways to understand the

social behavior of an organism, including those acts termed

“altruistic.” First, social behaviors can be seen as the geneti-

cally conditioned attempts of an organism to save copies of

its genes carried in others, especially close relatives. Such

acts can also be viewed as a form of “genetic reciprocity” in

which an organism helps another and the helped organism

(or others) repays the help at some time in the future, thereby

1312

enhancing the fitness of each of the organisms involved.

Finally, cooperative actions can be understood as the result

of natural selection operating at the level of groups, in which

“altruistic” groups pass their genes on more successfully than

“selfish” groups.

In Sociobiology, Wilson, an entomologist specializing

in the biology of ants, develops these concepts using the

example of social insects. He shows how their cooperative

and “altruistic” behaviors, never fully considered by tradi-

tional evolutionary biology, can be understood in terms of

genetic fitness and natural selection. But the crucial aspect

of Wilson’s book is his assertion, within a single chapter, that

such genetic theories can be applied to the social behavior of

primates and man as well as to “lower” animals. Indeed,

Wilson contends that scientists can shrink “the humanities

and social sciences to specialized branches of biology” and

predicts that to maintain the human

species

indefinitely,

we will have to “drive toward total knowledge, right down

to the levels of the neuron and gene,” statements in which

he seems to suggest that human beings can eventually be

explained totally in “mechanistic terms.”

Broadly, the premise of Wilson’s argument finds its

origins in the ideas of Rene

Descartes and the mechanists of

the eighteenth century such as Julien Offroy de La Mettrie,

whose 1748 book, L’homme-machine, helped define the mod-

ern biological study of human beings. Wilson argues that if

humans are indeed biological machines, then their actions in

the realm of society should not be excluded from examination

under biological principles, and dramatically defines his goal

by stating that “when the same parameters and quantitative

theory are used to analyze both termite colonies and troops

of rhesus macaques, we will have a unified science of sociobi-

ology.”

Wilson’s book, especially his statements in the final

chapter, generated a storm of controversy. Some feared that

a genetic approach to human behavior could be used by

racists (and eugenicists) as a scientific base for their argu-

ments of racial superiority, or that delving too deeply into

human genetics might lead to manipulation of genes for

undesirable purposes. Well-known evolutionary biologists

such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin criticized

Wilson for stepping over the line between science and specu-

lation. Gould quite openly declared his unhappiness with

the final chapter of Sociobiology, stating that it “is not about

the range of potential human behavior or even an argument

for the restriction of that range from a much larger total

domain among all animals. It is, primarily, an extended

speculation on the existence of genes for specific and variable

traits in human behavior—including spite, aggression, xeno-

phobia, conformity, homosexuality, and the characteristic

behavior differences between men and women in Western

society.” Lewontin argued that sociobiology “is too theoreti-

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Soil

cally impoverished to deal with real life,” that “by its very

nature, sociobiological theory is unable to cope with the

extraordinary historical and cultural contingency of human

behavior, nor with the diversity of individual behavior and

its development in the course of individual life histories.”

Feminists have also taken up the cudgel against socio-

biology, asserting that it implicitly sanctions existing social

behavior with a latent determinism. If, for example, repres-

sive acts are defined as the result of direct genetic influence,

the basis for their moral evaluation disappears.

Wilson has responded to his critics energetically and

condemns those using sociobiological arguments to support

societal evils by equating “what is” with “what should be.”

Wilson says: “The ‘what is’ in human nature is to a large

extent the heritage of a Pleistocene hunter-gatherer exis-

tence. When any genetic bias is demonstrated, it cannot be

used to justify a continuing practice in present and future

societies. Since most of us live in a radically new

environ-

ment

of our own making, the pursuit of such a practice

would be bad biology; and like all bad biology, it would

lead to disaster. For example, the tendency under certain

conditions to conduct warfare against competing groups

might well be in our genes, having been advantageous to

our Neolithic ancestors, but it could lead to global suicide

now. To rear as many healthy children as possible was long

the road to security; yet with the population of the world

brimming over, it is now the way to environmental disaster.”

He goes on to suggest that “our primitive old genes will

therefore have to carry the load of much more cultural change

in the future” and, indeed, that our “genetic biases can be

trespassed” by thinking and decision-making.

Sociobiology seems to have survived its vilification by

critics. Indeed, Wilson’s vigorous advocacy of a new synthesis

between the social and biological sciences has helped bring

into the open a debate about the relationship of biology and

society that will probably bear a great deal of scientific fruit.

[Gerald L. Young and Jeffrey Muhr]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Wilson, Edward O. On Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-

sity Press, 1978.

Wilson, Edward O. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Har-

vard University Press, 1975.

ERIODICALS

Lieberman, L., L. T. Reynolds, and D. Friedrich. “The Fitness of Human

Sociobiology: The Future Utility of Four Concepts in Four Subdisciplines.”

Social Biology 39 (Spring-Summer 1992): 158–169.

Wolfe, Alan. “Social Theory and the Second Biological Revolution.” Social

Research 57 (Fall 1990): 615–648.

1313

Soil

Soil is the unconsolidated mineral material on the immediate

surface of the earth that serves as a natural medium for the

growth of land plants. Soil is found on all surfaces except

on steep, rugged mountain peaks and areas of perpetual ice

and snow.

Soil is related to the earth much as the rind is related

to an orange. But this rind of the earth is far less uniform

than the rind of the orange. Soil is deep in some places and

shallow in others. Soil can be red in Georgia and black in

Iowa. It can be sand, loam, or clay. Soil is the link between

the rock core of the earth and the living things on its surface.

Soil is the foothold for the plants we grow and the foundation

for the roads we travel and for the buildings we live in.

Soil consists of mineral and organic matter, air, and

water. The proportions vary, but the major components

remain the same. Minerals make up 50% of an ideal soil

while air and water make up 25% each. Every soil occupies

space. Soil extends down into the planet as well as over its

surface. Soil has length, breadth, and depth. The concept

that a soil occupies a segment of the earth is called the “soil

body.” A single soil in a soil body is referred to as a “pedon.”

The soil body is composed of many pedons and is thus called

a “polypedon.”

Every soil has a profile or a succession of layers (hori-

zons) in a vertical section down into the non-soil zone re-

ferred to as the parent material. Parent materials can be

soft rock, glacial drift, wind blown sediments, or alluvial

materials. The nature of the

soil profile

is important for

determining a soil’s potential for root growth, storage of

water, and supply of plant nutrients.

Soil formation proceeds in steps and stages, none of

which is distinct. It is impossible to determine where one

step or stage in soil formation begins and another ends. The

two major steps in the formation of soils are the accumulation

of soil parent materials and the differentiation of horizons

in the profile. Soil horizons develop due to the processes of

additions, losses, translocations, and transformations. These

processes act on the soil parent material to produce soil

horizons. The intensity of any one process will vary from

location to location due to five soil-forming factors:

Soil forms from the parent materials, and they can be rock,

sand, glacial till, loess, alluvial sediments, or lacustrine clays.

Topography is the position on the landscape where the

parent material is located. Positions can be summits, sides-

lopes, and footslopes.

Erosion

and the depth to the

water

table

will influence soil formation as a result of topography.

Climate

acts on the parent material and determines the

rate of rainfall and

evapotranspiration

, which influence

the amount of

leaching

in the soil profile. The greater

the leaching, the faster soil horizons develop.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Soil and Water Conservation Society

Biotic factors include vegetation and animals. Animals are

important mixers of the soils and can destroy soil horizons.

Vegetation influences soils by determining the amount of

organic matter incorporated into the soils. Soils formed

under

prairie

grasses will have a thick black surface layer,

compared to soils formed under forests where the surface

layer is thin with a light-colored leached zone under it.

Time refers to the number of years that the parent material

has been acted on by climate and vegetation. The older a

soil is, the greater the

horizon

development. Young soils

will have very minimal horizon development. The age of

a soil is thus dependent on its development and not on

the total number of years. Therefore, developed soils in

the Midwest may be 10,000 years old, while young soils

in the valleys of California will also be 10,000 years old.

Developed soils on high terraces in California can be as

old as one million years.

Because the soil-forming factors vary from location to

location, soils are different across the landscape. The ability

to interpret where the soils will change has allowed soil

scientists to make a map of these changes. The soil map is

thus an interpretation of the soils that occur on a landscape.

The soil map is published on a county-by-county basis and

is called a

soil survey

. Soil surveys are very useful documents

in planning

land use

according to the soil’s potential.

Soil is an absolutely essential natural resource but one

that is both limited and fragile. The soil is often overlooked

when

natural resources

are listed. Throughout history the

progress of civilizations has been marked by a trail of wind-

blown or water-washed soils that resulted in barren lands.

Continuing to use the soil without appropriate

soil conser-

vation

management is very destructive to the

environment

Protecting the quality of our nation’s

topsoil

is largely within

human control. To many soil scientists, saving our soil is

much more important than saving oil,

coal

,or

natural gas

resources.

[Terrence H. Cooper]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Miller, R. W., and R. L. Donahue. Soils: An Introduction to Soils and Plant

Growth. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990.

THER

Stefferund, A., ed. Soils: 1957 Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1957.

Soil and Water Conservation Society

Established in 1945, the

Soil

and

Water Conservation

Society (SWCS) is a nonprofit organization that advocates

1314

the “protection, enhancement and wise use of soil, water

and related natural resources.” The organization was formed

during an era of public concern about soil

erosion

and water

resource management following the

dust bowl

period of

the 1930s in the United States. Improved farm tillage prac-

tices and an improved

conservation

ethic for

land use

were

key objectives of the SWCS and became focal points for

the organization. From its inception, the SWCS has been

an advocate of

soil conservation

and improved use of soil

and

water resources

, with its primary audience being pro-

fessionals in agriculture.

In recent years, the SWCS has expanded its conserva-

tion focus to a broader natural resource perspective that goes

beyond agriculture, although environmental issues associated

with agriculture are still of significant interest. As a result,

the SWCS membership is now made up of conservation

professionals from many natural resource and agricultural

disciplines. Individual and business membership in the

SWCS exceeds 11,000, making it one of the largest multidis-

ciplinary organizations for conservation professionals in the

United States.

The SWCS actively promotes education, with the ob-

jective of a membership that can play leadership roles in

dealing with environmental issues. Working groups within

the SWCS develop policy statements on a wide range of

environmental topics, including

water quality

wetlands

biodiversity

floodplain

management and

sustainable

agriculture

. Through education programs and professional

meetings, members of the society are challenged to set ethical

standards that recognize the interdependence of people and

their

environment

. Emphasis on sustainable land use prac-

tices and a sustainable environment have emerged as themes

for its membership in the 1990s.

Educational programs have targeted policy makers and

the general public alike. In 1995, the SWCS published a

survey of 17,000 landowners who participated in the federal

Conservation Reserve Program

(CRP), which illustrated

what farmers planned to do with their CRP land after their

contracts expired. The intent was to inform policy makers

about the environmental benefits of the CRP program and

the consequences if this program was terminated. Other

education programs focus on farmers, such as a White Paper

conservation tillage

that stressed the environmental

benefits of no-till farming. This had an important effect on

farmers’ attitudes toward no-till farming, assessing both the

environmental benefits and costs of no-till farming.

Following the floods in the upper Mississippi River

Valley in 1993, the SWCS supported Internet-linked com-

munications with members about farm practices and their

effects on the great flood. This program led to an 80%

increase in farmer participation in the emergency Wetlands

Reserve Program. The SWCS also played a key role in

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Soil conservation

promoting conservation language and funding in the 1996

federal farm bill.

In 2002, an initiative was established to examine the

conservation implications of

climate

change. This project

was set up after the National Climatic Data Center com-

mented on the 20% increase of precipitation intensity.

Continuing education programs on the latest develop-

ments in land and water management are carried out through

workshops, field trips, conferences, and symposiums. The

SWCS now sponsors a program for certifying professionals

in soil erosion and

sediment

control. As part of its educa-

tional mission, the SWCS publishes the Journal of Soil and

Water Conservation, a bimonthly publication that reports the

results of new natural resource and agricultural research.

[Kenneth N. Brooks]

ESOURCES

RGANIZATIONS

Soil and Water Conservation Society, 7515 NE Ankeny Road, Ankeny,

IA USA 50021-9764 (515) 289-2331, Fax: (515) 289-1227, Email:

webmaster@swcs.org, <http://www.swcs.org>

Soil, buried

see

Buried soil

Soil compaction

The forcing together of

soil

particles under pressure, usually

by foot or vehicle traffic.

Compaction

decreases soil porosity

and increases

bulk density

. The degree of compaction is

determined by the amount of pressure applied and soil char-

acteristics, including clay, water, and organic matter con-

tents. Although compaction sometimes can be beneficial by

improving seed and root contact with the soil and by increas-

ing the soil’s ability to hold water, most compaction is detri-

mental to plants and soil animals. It can destroy soil structure,

decreasing water intake,

percolation

, gas exchange, and

biological activity, while increasing water

runoff

erosion

and

resistance

to root penetration. Soil compaction often

is a serious problem in agricultural fields, forests, range lands,

lawns, and

golf courses

. Conversely, soil compaction is

necessary for most construction purposes.

Soil conservation

is the protection of soil against excessive

loss of fertility by natural, chemical, or artificial means. It

encompasses all management and land-use methods pro-

tecting soil against degradation, focusing on damage by

ero-

sion

and

chemicals

. Soil conservation techniques can be

1315

divided into six categories, crop selection and rotation,

fertil-

izer

and lime application,

tilth

, residue management, con-

touring and strip cropping, and mechanical (e.g.,

terracing

While the potential dangers of chemical degradation

and soil erosion were recognized as early as the American

Revolution, it was not until the early 1930s that soil conser-

vation became a familiar term. The soil conservation move-

ment was a result of the droughts during the 1930s, the

effects of water erosion, the terrific dust storms created by

wind erosion in the Great Plains, and by the urging of

Hugh

Hammond Bennett.

Dr. Bennett, a soil scientist from North Carolina,

recognized the erosion damage to previously

arable land

in the Southeast, Midwest, and elsewhere in the 1920s and

1930s. In 1929, he published a bulletin entitled “Soil Ero-

sion, A National Menace” and started a successful personal

campaign to get federal support, beginning with a $160,000

appropriation by Congress to initiate a national study. In

1933, the

U.S. Department of the Interior

named Bennett

as head of the Soil Erosion Service, which conducted soil

erosion control demonstrations nationwide. In 1935, the

Soil Conservation Service

, led by Bennett, was established

as a permanent agency of the

U.S. Department of Agri-

culture

Soil degradation problems addressed include

soil com-

paction

salinity

build-up, and excessive soil acidity. Be-

cause soil and water are so intimately related, the program

also deals with

water conservation

and

water quality

Under M. L. Wilson, then Assistant Secretary of Agricul-

ture, the Soil Conservation Service established conservation

districts guided by elected officials assisted by Soil Conserva-

tion Service personnel. Currently there are more than 3,000

districts in the United States.

Sharing the cost of conservation became federal policy

with the passage of the Soil Conservation and Domestic

Allotment Act of 1936. The act funded the shift of croplands

to “soil-building” crops and established soil conservation

practices on croplands and

grasslands

. The Great Plains

Conservation Program, enacted by Congress in 1956, sought

to shift some of the highly

erodible

land from cropland to

grassland. The Water Bank and Experimental Rural Clean

Waters Programs were an attempt to resolve disputes over

drainage

of “potholes” in the Midwest and Great Plains

and demonstrate the influence of soil and water conservation

practices on water quality.

As early as the 1930s, the federal government began

to purchase “submarginal” lands outright. The Conservation

Reserve segment of the Soil Bank (1956-1960) bought sub-

standard farmland to conserve soil and alleviate surplus crop

production. The current

Conservation Reserve Program

authorized in a 1985 farm bill, paid farmers to convert land

from cropland to grassland or trees under a long-term lease.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Soil Conservation Service

Currently the “sodbuster,” “swampbuster,” and conservation

compliance programs attempt to force farmers to comply

with soil and water conservation programs to be eligible for

other government programs, such as price supports.

The role of the Soil Conservation Service has changed

over the years, but its central mission is still to provide

technical information for good

land use

. Today the Soil

Conservation Service is highly concerned with environmen-

tal problems, water quality, wetland preservation, and prime

farm land protection, as well as urban concerns related to

their mission. The soil conservation movement has spawned

a number of professional societies, including the

Soil and

Water Conservation Society

and the World Association of

Soil and Water Conservation. See also Conservation tillage;

Contour plowing; Dust Bowl; Environmental degradation;

Soil organic matter; Strip-farming; Sustainable agriculture

[William E. Larson]

ESOURCES

OOKS

National Academy of Sciences. Soil Conservation. 2 vols. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1986.

Wilson, G. F., et al. The Soul of the Soil: A Guide to Ecological Soil Manage-

ment. 3rd ed. Agaccess, 1996.

Yudelman, M., et al. New Vegetative Approaches to Soil and Water Conserva-

tion. Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund, 1990.

Soil Conservation Service

Soil erosion

is an age-old problem recorded in many docu-

ments of human civilizations. In the United States, Simms

traces concern for soil erosion, and attempts to combat it,

back to the very first European settlers.

U.S. Department

of Agriculture

(USDA) bulletins on soil erosion date back

at least to “Washed Soils: How to Prevent and Reclaim

Them,” dated 1894.

The contemporary

Soil Conservation

Service (SCS)

was predated by the Bureau of Soils in the USDA, later

called the Bureau of Chemistry and Soils. The catalyst for

an action agency was

Hugh Hammond Bennett

, a soils

scientist who went to work for the Bureau of Soils in 1903.

From his urging, the USDA published the classic circular

on “Soil Erosion, A National Menace,” in 1928. Further

pressure by Bennett resulted in the establishment of a tempo-

rary agency, the Soil Erosion Service, in the

U.S. Depart-

ment of the Interior

in 1933, what Simms describes as “the

first national action program of soil

conservation

anywhere

in the world.” Bennett was the agency’s first director.

Hugh Bennett pushed his agenda hard, and his “pri-

mary tenet of soil conservation” can still be seen in the

activities of the service today: “No single practice will suffice.

1316

A physical inventory of the land of the farm should be made,

and each should be used in accordance with its adaptability

and treated in accordance with its needs.”

In 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an

executive order transferring the Soil Erosion Service to the

USDA. The Department of Agriculture immediately con-

solidated all of its activities bearing on erosion control into

the agency. Also in 1935 the Soil Conservation Act was

passed and signed into law, establishing a permanent Soil

Conservation Service in the USDA, with Hugh Bennett as

the first Director. In 1994 The Soil Conservation Service

became the Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS).

Scanning lists of publications from the Natural Re-

sources Conservation Service shows work on a surprising

range of contemporary conservation concerns. As one might

expect, topping the list are numerous soil surveys of various

counties in the United States: a

soil survey

of Esmeralda

County, New York in 1991, one of the Asotin County area

in Washington, and one of Crockett County, Tennessee.

Less expected is a paper on

salinity

control in Colorado.

Also included are status reports of various NRCS programs:

status of water quantity and

water quality

programs, and

the situation regarding

wetlands

and riparian programs.

The NRCS also publishes a wide variety of maps, depicting,

for example, major watersheds in Michigan, land resource

regions and major land resource areas, and soil erosion in

Colfax County, Nebraska.

The Service provides appropriate databases for com-

puter research, including a pesticides properties database for

environmental decision-making, state soil geographic data-

bases, and a computer design for grassed waterways. The

NRCS provides local landowners a “how-to” video (1990)

on “Better Land, Better Water.” The United States still has

severe erosion problems—Steiner notes that “only 3.23% of

the cropland in the United States was considered adequately

protected by the NRCS in 1983.” But, this and other conser-

vation problems are not nearly as severe as they would be

without Bennett’s wisdom, foresight, and tenacity. He set

the stage for 50 years of research and action by the national

network of Natural Resources Conservation Service offices

and agents.

[Gerald L. Young Ph.D.]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Simms, D. H. The Soil Conservation Service. New York: Praeger, 1970.

Steiner, F. R. Soil Conservation in the United States: Policy and Planning.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990.