Nature - autonomous learning

128 de-naturalisationas I shall explain momentarily, is that it is false and has been shown tobe inaccurate for many years. Why, then, has it enjoyed such longevityand influence in countries like Thailand? His answer is that ‘political andsocial factors’ are the key (1996: 376). First, researchers like Eckholm,Forsyth argues, tended to arrive in the Himalayan region influenced bythe neo-Malthusianism so rife in the West during the 1970s.They were,he argues, already disposed to see the transformation of the environment asunsettling a supposed ‘balance of nature’. Second, in the particular caseof Thailand, there is a long history of tension between lowlanders anduplanders in the north. In cultural, economic and political terms, lowlandcommunities have been more central to Thai life than uplanders, who arestill perceived as ‘outsiders’ because of their geographical distance from therest of the country and their ethnic and linguistic difference from ordinaryThais. Finally, Forsyth argues that successive Thai governments have usedenvironmental conservation in the uplands as a cover for their desire togain military control over strategic high land near to the border with Laosand Myanmar.If the theory of Himalayan environmental degradation is a myth thenhow can its mythical status be demonstrated? How can it be shown to beuntrue and false?ACTIVITY 3.3Imagine you were in Forsyth’s shoes. What sorts of things do you thinkyou’d do if you wanted to dispute the theory of Himalayan environmentaldegradation? Would you contest it at the level of logic or facts or both?The obvious answer to the Activity questions is that empirical evidence needs tobe gathered that can test some or all of the following testable hypotheses incountries like Thailand:(i) upland deforestation causes increased flash flooding andsedimentation in lowland areas;(ii) upland inhabitants have cultivated land on steeper slopes aspopulation pressure has increased;