The systems ecology paradigm (SEP) emerged in the late 1960s at a time when societies throughout the world were beginning to recognize that our environment and natural resources were being threatened by their activities. Management practices in rangelands, forests, agricultural lands, wetlands, and waterways were inadequate to meet the challenges of deteriorating environments, many of which were caused by the practices themselves. Scientists recognized an immediate need was developing a knowledge base about how ecosystems function. That effort took nearly two decades (1980s) and concluded with the acceptance that humans were components of ecosystems, not just controllers and manipulators of lands and waters. While ecosystem science was being developed, management options based on ecosystem science were shifting dramatically toward practices supporting sustainability, resilience, ecosystem services, biodiversity, and local to global interconnections of ecosystems. Emerging from the new knowledge about how ecosystems function and the application of the systems ecology approach was the collaboration of scientists, managers, decision-makers, and stakeholders locally and globally. Today’s concepts of ecosystem management and related ideas, such as sustainable agriculture, ecosystem health and restoration, consequences of and adaptation to climate change, and many other important local to global challenges are a direct result of the SEP.

There is an old salesmen's and actors’ axiom which goes something like this: If one's intended audience can be convinced of the premise upon which some subsequent argument will be based, then ‘selling’ the final product – be it an automobile or a dramatic portrayal – is easy. The title chosen for this paper might convey a premise of virtual equivalence between the two terms ‘psychopathy’ and ‘dangerousness’. I do not entirely accept that premise, and hope that by the end of this paper the concept of psychopathy as I have come to know it will be elucidated and that of dangerousness broadened.

Psychopathy

First, the business of elucidation. I will not pretend to define ‘psychopath’ here. I would draw attention, however, to the probable differences between different psychiatrists’ definitions of the term, and differences between possible intellectual, impressionistic, and practical ways of viewing the disorder and its victims. There are intellectual, or at least administrative, differences between the meanings of the term in Great Britain and the United States. One can see these by perusing the work of many psychiatrists, including Craft, Cleckley, Jenkins, and others (Jenkins, 1960, 1973; Craft, 1965; Cleckley, 1976). The mental image or impression which is conjured up by the term ‘psychopath’ is of course a personal one. In my own case I must admit that it is based in large part upon conversations at my father's knee. He is a psychiatrist, not a psychopath.