HUMAN ECOLOGY: BIOS 597
Spring Semester 2004
Tuesday - Thursday, 2:00-3:15 p.m.
Room 1106 Wood Hall
Dr Stephen B. Malcolm
3151 Wood Hall, tel: 387-5604, e-mail: "steve.malcolm@wmich.edu"
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~malcolm/
Department of Biological Sciences,
Western Michigan University.
Office hours: Tuesday - Thursday 10:00
a.m.-12:00 noon
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
Goal: To develop an appreciation for patterns of distribution
and abundance of Homo sapiens and the
ecological processes that generate these patterns, through lectures, reading,
multi-media, discussion and dissemination of research and understanding.
Objectives: To develop skills in the
following:
¥ Analytical thinking.
¥ Discipline-specific
information acquisition and analysis.
¥ Communication and
discussion.
¥ Objectivity and interaction
among ideas, deductive hypotheses and methods.
¥ Value of interdisciplinary
synergism (how methods from one discipline can allow another discipline to ask
and develop new questions).
COURSE DESCRIPTION
What is Human Ecology?
It is the ecology of a single species Ð us! Since we are the focus it is more challenging to be
objective and to avoid our subjective biases based on our own experience. These experiences donÕt invalidate our
appreciation for our own ecology, but our appreciation for our world and our
immediate environments is so interwoven with our cultural biases and experience
that we often lose sight of the realities that surround us. This course is designed to make us
think about these realities and how we fit within our environment at scales that
range from molecular to global.
Inevitably this course will
benefit from a synergism among many different disciplines and part of the
excitement comes from making distinctions between ecology and the other
biological sciences, but also among philosophy, human geography, sociology,
anthropology and economics.. This
generates a synergism that benefits from the product of ecologists and others talking to each other and borrowing ideas
and methods to produce something that is greater than the sum of its
components. If you perform a
literature search youÕll find that anthropology and geography are the two
disciplines that identify most readily with Òhuman ecology.Ó However, rather than focus just on Homo
sapiens from an
anthropological perspective, or the distribution of humans from a geographical
perspective, we will consider Homo sapiens from an ecological perspective by considering intrinsic
properties of human populations and life history, but also our interactions
with other species and with populations within our species.
This sounds idealistic, but
it should work given the will to succeed.
Our problem as humans is that much of what we do is governed by our
genes acting selfishly and like all other organisms we are programmed to
maximize survivorship within the confines of our environment. However, unlike other organisms we are
the first species on Earth that has evolved the ability to control resource
availability at landscape scales or even at a global scale. This makes our species unique, with
arguably an equally unique potential to control our population density, so that
resource availability is maximized on a per capita basis. Such an argument appears to invoke altruism, but while there
may be evolutionary arguments in favor of the benefits of altruism, the
argument may also be considered as being purely selfish.
So how do we resolve these
issues? I donÕt pretend that this
course will fully answer such questions.
However, we will discuss these issues and consider possible resolution
of Jeremy BenthamÕs early 19th century dilemma of maximizing two
variables simultaneously: population and resources. In the 21st century there are 6.2 billion people
alive using more resources than ever before and this reality is perhaps best
captured in this composite image from space of our cities lit up at night
around the world:
COURSE STRUCTURE AND EVALUATION
Each Tuesday session will
consist of a lecture by Steve Malcolm on the relevant topic followed by a short
discussion. On Thursdays we will
enjoy your efforts with student presentations and modeling activities. Presenters will be awarded marks for
the presentations and marks will also be awarded to all discussion participants
as described below. So if you find
it difficult to talk in public, it would be a good idea to try and make some
kind of contribution to the discussion by being well-prepared each session - no
constructive comments can ever be considered pointless or silly, so please come
prepared to say what you think, or at least try.
GRADE
ASSIGNMENT
Grades will be assigned on
the basis of the points listed below awarded for your paper presentation,
weekly discussion, computer model, Harris presentation and two exams. Each of the two exams will be based on
take-home questions that should be answered with short, succinct essays, and
figures.
|
|
points |
Paper
presentation
|
100 |
|
Discussion
participation (best
5 assessments at 20 points each) |
100 |
Computer
model
|
100 |
Harris
presentation
|
100
|
Exams
|
|
|
Exam 1 (February
19) |
100 |
|
Final Exam (April
22) |
200 |
|
TOTAL |
700 |
Grading scale:
|
B = >80% |
CB = >75% |
|
C = >70% |
DC = >65% |
|
D = >60% |
E = <60% |
Paper presentation and Harris
presentation:
I
would like each person, working in teams of three, to make a PowerPoint¨
presentation of an assigned paper to the class and encourage discussion of the
paper and concept. The paper will
be relevant to the topic for that week and either I will assign the paper or
you may choose a paper (with my approval) that you would like to present. I would also like you to work in the
same groups and make presentations that explain the ideas in Harris (1974). Both the papers and the chapters from
Harris will be assigned in class.
The assessment rubric for both of these
presentations is as follows:
Class presentations of assigned papers will
be graded on the basis of 8 criteria, worth 10 to 20 points each for a total
score out of 100. Each person in
the group will receive the same score Ð if anyone feels that a team member is
either not working or working too hard please let me know.
The
8 criteria are:
|
(1)
Overall presentation - general overview |
20
points |
|
(2)
Content of the presentation - accuracy & depth |
10
points |
|
(3)
Handout - quality of handout given to class as a summary |
10
points |
|
(4)
Understanding - relative level of appreciation for material |
10
points |
|
(5)
Clarity of presentation - ability to communicate clearly |
10
points |
|
(6)
Stimulate questions - ability to generate discussion |
10
points |
|
(7)
Handle questions - ability to explain material |
10
points |
|
(8)
Other material - use of other papers, or aids in explanation |
20
points |
|
Total |
100
points |
Discussion participation:
During presentations in the Thursday
sessions you will each be assessed on your level of participation in
discussions of the papers presented.
This will involve assessment of the frequency, extent and depth of your contributions to the
discussion. If you find it hard to
participate in public discussion it would be helpful to explain this to me as
well as make as much effort as possible to join in. Each participant in each presentation will be assessed out
of 20 points and I will add the highest 5 grades for a score out of 100. This is subjective so it helps if you
make plenty of constructive noise!
Computer modelling:
For this exercise I would like you to work
again in groups of three (limited by computers). I would like you to use Populus and its Òinteraction engineÓ to build a
model of human population growth.
In this model IÕd like you to try and examine the impact of different
mortality factors and the availability of resources to make predictions about
human population density in the future and the likely quality of life for
individuals. Further details will
be given in class.
Exams:
The two exams will consist of essay-style
questions and answers.
You are responsible for making yourself
aware of and understanding the policies and procedures in the Undergraduate
(pp. 271-272) [Graduate (pp. 24-26)] Catalog that pertain to Academic
Integrity. These policies include
cheating, fabrication, falsification and forgery, multiple submission,
plagiarism, complicity and computer misuse. If there is reason to believe you have been involved in
academic dishonesty, you will be referred to the Office of Student
Conduct. You will be given the
opportunity to review the charge(s).
If you believe you are not responsible, you will have the opportunity
for a hearing. You should consult
with me if you are uncertain about an issue of academic honesty prior to the submission of an assignment or test.