MSc (Zoology) / Department of Zoology

Le milieu littoral des espaces insulaires ultra-marins intertropicaux français est doublement impacté par les aléas hydro-climatiques et sismiques naturels, et par les actions anthropiques déstabilisatrices locales ou globales. Le mémoire traite spécifiquement des cas de Wallis & Futuna et de Lifou (archipel des Loyauté) dans le Pacifique sud et de Mayotte dans l’océan Indien. Il aborde, sous une approche pluridisciplinaire, les différentes facettes du potentiel d’adaptation des populations locales aux variations du niveau marin de différents ordres : ponctuel (associés aux vagues de tempêtes et de tsunami) et global (avec la transgression liée au réchauffement climatique mis en évidence par la communauté scientifique). La montée des eaux, qui semble inéluctable à moyen terme, et les risques hydro-climatiques et sismiques (tsunamis) actuels impliquent que les sociétés devront, dans un futur plus ou moins proche, ajuster leur vision des modes d’occupation de l’espace et tout particulièrement celle du domaine littoral sur lequel vit l’essentiel des populations des îles étudiées. Le croisement des différentes approches disciplinaires abordées dans le mémoire permet de proposer des méthodes et des outils novateurs en vue d’une optimisation des stratégies d’adaptation à la montée des eaux. / The coastal environment of French overseas territories is both affected by the hydroclimatic and natural seismic hazards, and local or global destabilizing anthropogenic actions. This PhD deals specifically with cases of Wallis and Futuna and Lifou (Loyalty Islands) in the South Pacific, and Mayotte in the Indian Ocean. In a multidisciplinary approach, it gets onto the different facets of the adaptation potential of local societies when it comes to changes at sea level: occasional (associated with storm waves and tsunami) and global (with sea level rise related to global warming). The sea level rise, that seems inevitable in the medium term, hydro-climatic and seismic (tsunami) risks, means that local societies will probably adjust and organize their territories in a different way, especially coastal area (the most occupied space at the island scale). The different disciplinary approaches crossing can offer innovative tools and methods for optimizing the sea level rise adaptation strategies.

Dans le domaine des sciences cognitives, la plupart des études sur la communication humaine se sont intéressées à la manière dont on comprend la communication et non pas à la manière dont on l’évalue. D’après le cadre théorique de la vigilance épistémique (Sperber et al., 2010) les êtres humains disposent d’un ensemble de mécanismes dédiés à l’évaluation des messages qui servent à se protéger d’informations potentiellement trompeuses et qui permettent de communiquer de manière fluide et relativement honnête. D’après ce cadre théorique, le raisonnement aurait évolué pour permettre une discrimination plus fine des messages. La principale fonction du raisonnement serait argumentative : il s’agirait de trouver des arguments pour convaincre les autres et d’évaluer les arguments d’autrui afin d’acquérir des croyances plus solides (Mercier & Sperber, 2011). Si le raisonnement est le résultat d’une adaptation, ces compétences devraient être relativement universelles et on ne devrait pas avoir à les enseigner. L’universalité et le développement précoce de ces compétences permettraient donc de montrer qu’elles ne reposent pas sur un apprentissage culturel spécifique. Cependant, la plupart des études sur le raisonnement et l’argumentation chez les adultes comme chez les enfants, et par conséquent les principaux résultats qui soutiennent la théorie argumentative du raisonnement, se limitent à un échantillon restreint des sociétés humaines : les cultures occidentales. Aussi, on pourrait penser que ces caractéristiques du raisonnement sont davantage l’expression de facteurs culturels plutôt que des traits universaux. Ce travail de thèse s’intéresse à cette question en déployant une approche interculturelle (en comparant les sociétés occidentales, orientales et traditionnelles) et développementale. Les cultures traditionnelles et orientales diffèrent des cultures occidentales sur de multiples aspects - tels que la tradition philosophique, l’approche parentale ou l’accès à l’éducation formelle - qui sont particulièrement pertinents pour tester ces prédictions adaptatives. Le rôle de la discussion a souvent été sous-estimé dans le domaine du raisonnement, à l’exception de certaines études développementales très influentes (Doise & Mugny, 1984; Perret-Clermont, 1980). En coupant le raisonnement de son contexte argumentatif, les psychologues du raisonnement l’ont privé de l’une de ses forces : l’échange d’arguments avec les autres. Dans une première étude, nous avons montré que dans une population traditionnelle – les Mayas indigènes du Guatemala – la discussion en groupe amène à de meilleures performances que le raisonnement individuel. De tels résultats avaient déjà été rapportés pour des populations occidentales et orientales. Deux caractéristiques du raisonnement peuvent expliquer ces résultats : the biais vers son côté, qui empêche les individus d’améliorer leurs performances individuelles, et l’habilité à évaluer les arguments des autres, qui permettent aux individus de bénéficier des discussions de groupes (Article 1). Dans trois études exploratoires, nous avons apporté des preuves que le bénéfice de l’argumentation peut aussi s’étendre au raisonnement moral. La première étude confirme que les arguments peuvent faire changer les individus d’avis même dans des jugements moraux impliquant une forte charge émotionnelle. En revanche, les seconde et troisième études n’ont pas permis de révéler des effets notables de la discussion sur les jugements moraux (Chapitre 2). Avant l’âge de trois ans, les enfants échangent des arguments avec leurs parents et leurs frères et sœurs. Cependant, aucune expérience n’a montré que les enfants de cet âge sont sensibles à la qualité des arguments. Dans une première étude, nous fournissons des preuves expérimentales que les enfants de deux ans sont sensibles à la force des arguments (Article 3)... / Within cognitive science, most studies of communication have focused on how we understand communication and not on how we evaluate it. According to the epistemic vigilance framework (Sperber et al., 2011) a set of mechanisms would be devoted to evaluating other people's messages to protect us from potentially misleading information, allowing communication to work smoothly and to remain mostly honest. In this framework, reasoning would have evolved to allow for a finer grained discrimination of messages. The main function of reasoning would be argumentative: to find reasons in order to convince others, and to evaluate others' reasons in order to adopt better supported beliefs (Mercier & Sperber, 2011).If reasoning is an evolved adaptation, these skills should be relatively universal and they should not have to be taught. Universality and early development is suggestive of skills that do not rest on specific cultural learning. However, most of the studies on reasoning and argumentation, either with adults or children, and consequently the main results supporting the argumentative theory of reasoning, are limited to a small range of human societies: Western cultures. One can argue that the features of reasoning might be the expression of specific cultural factors rather than universals traits. The present thesis addresses this question by deploying a cross-cultural (comparing Western, Eastern, and traditional societies) and a developmental approach. Traditional and Eastern cultures differ from Western cultures in dimensions such as philosophical tradition, parenting styles, or access to formal education that are particularly relevant to test these adaptive predictions.The role of discussion has been often underestimated in the field of reasoning, with the exception of some influential developmental research (Doise & Mugny, 1984; Perret-Clermont, 1980). Cutting reasoning from its argumentative contexts, psychologists of reasoning deprived it from one of its strength, the exchange of arguments with others. In a first study we showed that, as reported in Western and Eastern populations, group discussion yields better performance than individual reasoning in a traditional population – indigenous Maya from Guatemala. Two features of reasoning can account for this improvement: the myside bias, which precludes individuals from improving their performance on their own, and the ability to soundly evaluate others’ arguments, which allows individuals to benefit from group discussions (Article 1). In three exploratory studies we brought some evidence that the benefit of argumentation could be extended to moral judgments. The first one confirms that arguments can make people change their mind even on some emotionally charged moral judgments. By contrast, the second and the third ones failed to reveal consistent effects of discussion on moral judgments (Chapter 2).Before the age of three, children exchange arguments with their parents and siblings, but no experiment has demonstrated that they are sensitive to argument quality. In a first study we provide experimental evidence that 2-year-olds are sensitive to argument strength (Article 3). However, these skills might have been fostered by the particular cultural context of Western middle- and upper-class families, to which most children studied belong. No experimental data had been gathered in Eastern or traditional societies. A series of experiments first revealed that, as reported in Western culture, Mayan (Article 4) and Japanese (Article 7) children can discriminate between a strong (perceptual) argument and a weak (circular) argument. Second, Mayan (Article 4) and Western (Article 5) children are shown to follow the testimony of a dominant over that of a subordinate while Japanese participants favor the testimony of the subordinate (Article 8). ...

Submitted by Maicon Juliano Schmidt (maicons) on 2015-07-10T16:55:55Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Rodolfo Souza da Silva.pdf: 9923682 bytes, checksum: 9f79c4fb3d2f53bcdc1f92ae3f2b6fa0 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-07-10T16:55:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Rodolfo Souza da Silva.pdf: 9923682 bytes, checksum: 9f79c4fb3d2f53bcdc1f92ae3f2b6fa0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-03-24 / CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / PROSUP - Programa de Suporte à Pós-Gradução de Instituições de Ensino Particulares / Diante da chamada "Era do Acesso" o conhecimento tradicional associado à biodiversidade das sociedades tradicionais tornou-se uma verdadeira matéria-prima da indústria biotecnológica, sendo objeto de bioprospecção e direitos de propriedade intelectual por empresas alimentícias, farmacêuticas e entidades de pesquisa e desenvolvimento. Com base nos princípios do consentimento prévio informado e da repartição justa e equitativa dos benefícios, previstos na Convenção de Diversidade Biológica e na Medida Provisória 2.186-16, devem os interessados na bioprospecção do saber tradicional ser autorizados pelos seus detentores, assim como dividir os benefícios oriundos dos bioprodutos e das pesquisas desenvolvidas. Entretanto, no que pertine à repartição de benefícios, esta pode acarretar a imposição de valores privados e de cunho capitalista, causando riscos à dinâmica social e às práticas culturais dessas comunidades, as quais são construídas sob valores coletivos e comunitários. A partir desta constatação, o presente trabalho pretende analisar em que medida os princípios do consentimento prévio informado e da repartição de benefícios são capazes de promover a conservação dos bens socioambientais das sociedades tradicionais, quando os produtos desenvolvidos têm como base os conhecimentos tradicionais associados. Para tanto, a pesquisa utiliza quanto ao método de abordagem o dialético, com objetivo exploratório, mediante uma pesquisa bibliográfica e documental, a partir de uma perspectiva interdisciplinar. Mesmo diante de uma regulamentação internacional e nacional, indústria e pesquisadores se utilizam constantemente de discursos que pretendem desproteger o saber tradicional e legitimar a não obtenção e realização do consentimento prévio informado e da repartição de benefícios. Em razão das peculiaridades das sociedades tradicionais, as quais se autodeterminam em aspectos coletivos, comunitários e de solidariedade, estas possuem uma cultura diferenciada, pelo que o conhecimento tradicional associado à biodiversidade integra a sua diversidade cultural. Diante dessa diversidade e a sua relação com o meio ambiente, os movimentos sociais na América Latina e no Brasil, influenciaram a incorporação de direitos na Constituição Federal de 1988, fazendo surgir a sociobiodiversidade como nova categoria jurídica. Com a lógica capitalista e de desenvolvimento da indústria biotecnológica, a qual não considera os aspectos da sociobiodiversidade, um diálogo intercultural e uma gestão da inovação biotecnológica mostram-se um caminho para gerenciar a complexidade e as diferentes visões dos atores envolvidos na prática bioprospectiva do saber tradicional, inserindo os direitos socioambientais nesse contexto. A partir da constatação da existência de outros pressupostos jurídicos para bioprospecção, como os princípios da precaução, equidade intergeracional e da função social da propriedade, critica-se o consentimento prévio informado e a repartição de benefícios, demonstrando que o atendimento destes deve ser feito em harmonia com os demais pressupostos jurídicos existentes, de maneira a ser possível conservar a sociobiodiversidade das sociedades tradicionais, garantindo o seu uso sustentável e a manutenção de suas vidas. Sugere-se, nesse fio condutor, critérios a serem considerados quando da definição dos benefícios e sua repartição: 1) os aspectos da sociobiodiversidade dos grupos tradicionais, a partir dos valores, práticas culturais e organizações sociais; 2) o meio ambiente onde vivem esses grupos e onde será acessado o recurso genético da biodiversidade; 3) requerimento e concessão de patentes e de quaisquer benefícios de forma compartilhada com as sociedades tradicionais. / In the face of “The Age of Access", traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity of traditional societies has become raw material of the biotechnology industry, being subject of bioprospecting and intellectual property rights for food, pharmaceutical and research and development companies. Based on the principles of prior informed consent and benefits sharing, benefits provided by Convention on Biological Diversity and Medida Provisória nº.2.186-16/01, the interested in bioprospecting of traditional knowledge must be authorized by their holders and share the benefits derived from research and development of bioproducts. However, in respect the benefits sharing, this can lead to the imposition of private and capitalist values, causing risks to the social dynamics and cultural practices of these communities, which are performed under collective and community values. From this finding, the present study aims to analyze to what extent the principles of prior informed consent and benefit sharing are able to promote the conservation of environmental goods of traditional societies, when the developed products are based on the traditional knowledge. For this, the research uses the dialectic approach method, with exploratory objective, through a bibliographic and documentary research, from an interdisciplinary perspective. Even in the face of a international e and national regulation, researchers and industry constantly use discourses that seek unprotect the traditional knowledge and legitimize the non-obtainment and non-realization of the prior informed consent and benefit sharing. Because of the peculiarities of traditional societies, which consider themselves in collective, community and solidarity aspects, these communities have a different culture, being the traditional knowledge associated integrated in your cultural diversity. Given this diversity and its relationship with the environment, social movements in the Latin America and Brasil influenced the incorporation of rights in the Federal Constitution of 1988, emerging sociobiodiversity as new legal category. With the capitalist and development logic of the biotechnology industry, which does not consider aspects of sociobiodiversity, intercultural dialogue and management of biotechnology innovation shows a way to manage the complexity and the different views of the actors involved in the practice of bioprospecting traditional knowledge, inserting socioenvironmental rights in this context. From the establishment of the existence of other legal requirements for bioprospecting, such as the principles of precaution, intergenerational equity and social function of property, is criticized the prior informed consent and benefits sharing, showing that the treatment of these should be done in harmony with other existing legal requirements in order to be able to conserve the sociobiodiversity of traditional societies, ensuring the sustainable use of their resources and maintenance of their lives. It is suggested in this context, some criteria to be considered when defining the benefits and its allocations: 1) sociobiodiversity aspects of traditional groups, from the values, cultural practices and social organizations;2) the environment where live these groups and where will be accessed and where the genetic resources of biodiversity; 3)application and granting patents and any benefits jointly with traditional societies.