Landscape Ecology in Asian Cultures pp 129-137

Part of the Ecological Research Monographs book series (ECOLOGICAL) | Cite as

Have Ecological Human Rights Been Globally Lost? A Conflict of Ecological Spatial Requirements and Cultural Landscape Opportunities in Modern Homo sapiens

  • Anastassia M. Makarieva
  • Victor G. Gorshkov
  • Bai-Lian Li

Abstract

The commonly respected set of human rights includes the right for food and water, which are direct consequences of the biological design of our species. However, as we argue, this list of inherent rights is not complete, as illustrated by the analysis of ecological space scaling and social group size in other mammalian species. The size of individually controlled territory (home range), which scales proportionally to body mass, is estimated to be of the order of 4 km2 per individual in a mammalian species equal in size to Homo sapiens. The urbanized landscapes of modern civilization, with concentrated living at high population densities, violate this inherent ecological demand of the species. The behavioral, biological, ecological, and social causes and consequences of this violation are discussed. It is argued that coping with the global ecological and environmental challenges will be impossible without focused scientific studies of the genetically encoded ecological requirements of our species.

References

  1. Adams ES (2001) Approaches to the study of territory size and shape. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:277–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker PR (1983) Insect territoriality. Annu Rev Entomol 28:65–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlstead K, Fraser J, Bennett C et al (1999) Black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) in U.S. Zoos: II. Behavior, breeding success, and mortality in relation to housing facilities. Zoo Biol 18:35–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fokin IM (1978) The Dipodoidae. Leningrad University Press, LeningradGoogle Scholar
  5. Gorshkov VG (1995) Physical and biological bases of life stability: man, biota, environment. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gorshkov VG, Makar’eva AM (2001) On the possibility of physical self-organization of biological and ecological systems. Dokl Biol Sci 378:258–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gorshkov VG, Gorshkov VV, Makarieva AM (2000) Biotic regulation of the environment: key issue of global change. Springer-Praxis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Hayden B (1981) Subsistence and ecological adaptations of modem hunter/gatherers. In: Harding RSO, Teleki G (eds) Omnivorous primates: gathering and hunting in human evolution. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 344–421Google Scholar
  9. Kelt DA, Van Vuren DH (2001) The ecology and macroecology of mammalian home range area. Am Nat 157:637–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lutz W, Qiang R (2002) Determinants of human population growth. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 357:1197–1210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lutz W, Testa MR, Penn DJ (2006) Population density is a key factor in declining human fertility. Popul Environ 28:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Makarieva AM, Gorshkov VG, Li B-L (2004) Body size, energy consumption and allometric scaling: a new dimension in the diversity-stability debate. Ecol Complex 1:139–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Makarieva AM, Gorshkov VG, Li B-L (2005a) Energetics of the smallest: do bacteria breathe at the same rate as whales? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 272:2219–2224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Makarieva AM, Gorshkov VG, Li B-L (2005b) Why do population density and inverse home range scale differently with body size? Implications for ecosystem stability. Ecol Complex 2:259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Makarieva AM, Gorshkov VG, Li B-L et al (2008) Mean mass-specific metabolic rates are strikingly similar across life’s major domains: evidence for life’s metabolic optimum. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:16994–16999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mitani JC, Rodman PS (1979) Territoriality: the relation of ranging pattern and home range size to defendability, with an analysis of territoriality among primate species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 5:241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mitchell J (1989) The “greenhouse” effect and climate change. Rev Geophys 27:115–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rappaport RA (1971) The flow of energy in an agricultural society. Sci Am 225:117–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sibly RM, Hone J (2003) Population growth rate and its determinants: an overview. In: Sibly RM, Hone J, Clutton-Brock TH (eds) Wildlife population growth rates. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 11–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stanley SM (1979) Macroevolution: pattern and process. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  21. Whittaker RH, Likens GE (1975) The biosphere and man. In: Lieth H, Whittaker RH (eds) Primary productivity of the biosphere. Springer, Berlin, pp 305–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Winterhalder B, Baillargeon W, Cappelletto F et al (1988) The population ecology of hunter-gatherers and their prey. J Anthropol Archaeol 7:289–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anastassia M. Makarieva
    • 1
  • Victor G. Gorshkov
    • 1
  • Bai-Lian Li
    • 2
  1. 1.Theoretical Physics DivisionPetersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Russian Academy of SciencesGatchina, St. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Ecological Complexity and Modeling Laboratory, Department of Botany and Plant SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations