Thanks to John Foster and Chris Perley for the illuminating and
constructive thoughts re forest management. Excellent stuff.
What you both seem to be advocating is a very intensive micro-
management of forest ecosystems based upon more enlightened
foundational principles. Whilst I can easily appreciate that such
an approach is an improvement over most current and past practice,
haven't you got a primary problem, in that I believe it has been
well established by the professional ecologists that there is a
fundamental 'unknowability' inherent in the development of all
ecosystems. Isn't that right ? So, it is impossible to predict the
results of interventions, however well-informed and well-
intentioned they may be. Isn't that established, or am I mistaken ?
What I'm trying to say is, that even if we could martial millions
of highly trained managers to supervise worldwide ecosystems,
making local interventions on behalf of this or that species, trying
our best to follow the laws of nature insofar as we can comprehend
them, we'd still be getting it wrong, by following a rather mechanistic
model that implies and assumes that we can indeed understand and
control and predict outcomes. Because of the intrinsic 'unknowability
factor' intensive science-based stewardship is not, and cannot be, a
sure way out of the mess we are in.
John's fascinating insights into ecological gradients is a case in
point. Nature provides that for free. Just think how much time,
money, resources and research would be required to emulate that
kind of subtlety into artificial managed forestry systems worldwide.
It seems to me that ecology is the most difficult of subjects,
and that our knowledge is really rudimentary and primitive, akin to
mediaeval medicine. The only thing that seems absolutely clear
to me is that we should definitely stop doing the things that
we _know_ to be harmful, that is, destroying the few intact and
well-established natural ecosystems that remain, desist from
the gross pollution, destruction of fisheries, reckless introduction
of GMOs, etc. Is even that possible, given the pressures ?
Restoration is worth a try - perhaps the best we can hope for;
but I don't think that we are wise and knowledgeable enough to
be able to say that we can fix what we have broken.
Chris Perley's mention of 'the nature of Nature' is relevant.
As far as I am aware, nobody has yet been able to give a really
profound and satisfactory definition as to what 'the nature of
Nature' is. Any offers ?
C.L.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|