I cannot disagree with you Chris.  Our basic themes coincide.  I have to
agree that we don't know enough about the environment, and we need to change
our approach to the environment.  But at least we have a framework for a
solution, and every journey requires uncertain steps.  I happen to think
that framework is our growing knowledge of dynamic ecosystems and what makes
them "healthy", and human relationships (including ethical) with these
ecosystems.

As to your last comments raising the vexed question of the "rights" of human
populations (if "populations" can have rights) to grow ever more numerous, I
wonder have you ever read "Ishmael"?  Disturbing in its raising of exactly
this question of our over population.

Chris P

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Chris Lees
> Sent: Friday, 31 March 2000 20:32
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Chaos and nature
>
>
> Thanks for this response, Chris.
>
> > Chris Perley: There is always an unknowable when we deal with complex
> > systems.  Chaos theory highlights that issue.  There are so
> many potential
> > variables that can cause profound effects from apparently small
> causes.  The
> > old mechanical view of nature assumed an element of certainty.  Resource
> > managers now recognise the inherent uncertainty in ecology (for
> instance, no
> > one is quite sure why beech has mast seed years when it does - climate
> > doesn't seem to be the trigger).  The logical response is to accept the
> > uncertainty and manage within it.  The way they do so is to use adaptive
> > management - essentially an environmental management system which goes
> > through an iterative loop through - information -->  standards
> desired -->
> > choice of best management practice --> monitoring --> resulting in more
> > information --> etc. the loop is closed.
> >
> > It is a continual learning process, and one that is inherently
> humble as to
> > our understanding.
>
> C.L.: Sure. I understand this. I think it means that folks who
> set out to manage
> any type of ecosystem have an extremely difficult job on their
> hands. How are
> you ever going to be able to judge whether any interference is
> going to lead
> to greater perturbation, or possibly be thwarting the systems own
> attempts to
> retain a balance ? How do you assign value to one species over
> another in a
> rational way ? and so on. How do you apply these insights on a worldwide
> scale, in a practical manner, given political, economic, demographic and
> cultural pressures in the real world ?
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > CP: I actually think ecology is far more advanced than that.
> Knowledge of
> > chaotic dynamic systems represents something of a paradigm
> shift from the
> > older mechanical, static ideas.  It is interesting that now the
> economists
> > are starting to look at ecology as a model of how societies and
> economies
> > actually operate - not as some predictable machine based on rational
> > individuals, but as a complex system with sociological dimensions.  So
> > ecology is leading the way to other disciplines in terms of the
> way we see
> > the world.
>
> C.L.: No, I don't fully agree. Seeing ecology in terms of
> complex, dynamic chaotic
> systems is good, fine, an advance. But it just means that we
> really have very little
> idea as to when or how to best intervene, if at all. See your
> iterative loop above.
> It may be many decades before the 'more information' feedback
> tells you what
> you did or didn't do right or wrong, and we don't have that time
> available.
>
> As I understand it, E. O. Wilson, Conservation biologists, and
> others, are
> accepting that all of biodiversity cannot be saved, so the
> strategy is to try and
> save the richest hotspots. But I cannot see how that is going to
> work, because
> with rapid global climate change, the hotspots are all going to
> 'want' to move
> and to migrate and adapt to the change, and there aint going to
> be anywhere for
> them to move to, partly because of natural geophysical
> boundaries, but mostly
> because of human populations (doubling in numbers, from present
> six billion,
> to 8 or 12, over the next 4 or 5 decades) utilising all available areas.
> We are accustomed to the weekly tv reports of metereological catastrophes,
> - Orissa, Venezuela, Mozambique, etc, - but what we have to
> expect is that kind
> of event magnified by an order of magnitude, hundreds of millions
> of people
> wanting to relocate themselves on the planet's surface as they
> attempt to survive,
> whilst constantly bombarded by extreme weather events and warfare over the
> diminishing resources.
>
> > 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 ?
> >
> > CP: Stop doing harm I agree with.  But don't start from the premise that
> > human interaction is necessarily harmful, or that ecological health and
> > human community cannot coexist.
>
> Hmm. It's a fundamental issue isn't it. There are not many examples of
> benign coexistence. I don't dismiss the theoretical possibility
> of relatively
> harmless interaction. I attempt to practise it myself as an
> ideal. But the
> practical reality that we observe is not very encouraging. We
> have exceeded
> the carrying capacity, so even if every individual lives a green
> lifestyle
> (what chance of that ?) the mere numbers still create an unsustainable
> impact. Think of twelve billion bears or chimpanzees all eating and
> shitting. Just too many. But we have technology and chemicals,
> appetites and
> desires, that multiply our impact far beyond our basic biological
> behaviour.
>
> > > 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 ?
> >
> > CP: There are a number of very readable books available on the new
> > environmental paradigm.  Daniel Botkin's Discordant Harmonies
> is perhaps the
> > most celebrated.  Drury had a posthumous book release last year called
> > Chance and Change: Ecology for Conservationists.  But also
> relevant are the
> > works on environmental history, relating humanity to the
> environment (we are
> > part of the nature of nature, and should not be excluded from the
> > consideration of nature - including how we develop a "view" of the
> > environment) - William Cronon's Uncommon Ground (as well as his
> > environmental history of New England "Changes in the Land"),
> books by Donald
> > Worster, Carolyn Marchant.  One of the best looking at the relationships
> > between people and the environment is Simon Schama's Landscape
> and Memory.
> > I'd also recommend Constanza et al's Ecosystem Health, Aldo Leopold's
> > collections and Callicott's various books around that theme,
> and even the
> > work of Wendell Berry and Wes Jackson.  All touch on the nature
> of nature
> > and human relationships with the environment.
>
> C.L.:Thanks for these useful suggestions. I am familiar with some.
>
> A few days ago T.K. wrote :
> "I think everyone needs to follow their own conscience and do
> what they can.
> Nobody knows the answers as to what will "work,"  how exactly to reverse
> the destructive course we are on. All you can do is all you can
> do, just do
> it with good intentions and with respect for all living things, with love
> and rage." What is 'conscience' T.K. ? How defined ? Socially constructed,
> or some other root ? Can conscience and good intentions be trusted as a
> reliable guide ? Consider this, from 'The Sixth
> Extinction',Leakey and Lewin.
>
> "Biologists have been slow to venture down the path that May identified,
> (chaos in nature) partly because of the strong adherence to the
> notion of the
> balance of nature and populations at equilibrium, and partly
> because biological
> systems of this kind are far more complex and difficult to
> analyze than any physical
> system. As May once wrote, "To some ecologists [chaos] has an air of black
> magic."' Obsessed as they were with the notion of equilibrium, ecologists
> continued to look for evidence in its support, while routinely ignoring
> erratic behavior that implied something else was going on. In the
> past year
> or two, however, long-sought evidence of true chaotic behavior in
> ecological
> communities has been discovered, in field experiments and in theoretical
> models. We are now forced to take a very different view of the world of
> nature and what shapes the patterns we see and experience. It is deeply
> counter-intuitive, and therefore difficult to accept."
>
> and
>
> " Ecosystems are in
> a constant state of turmoil, both in space and time, and at any point some
> populations will be in decline while others may be booming. And constant
> change is vital as an engine of species diversity.
> "Conservationists should
> spend less time worrying about the persistence of particular
> plant or animal
> species," warns Walker, "and begin to think instead about maintaining the
> nature and diversity of ecosystem processes." Armed with the perspective
> we've gained about the nature of ecosystems, from an
> understanding of chaos
> and the dynamics of the assembly of communities, we can see that
> what Walker
> exhorts us to do is sound. But, as with all of human affairs, it is very
> difficult to manage processes that take many decades to occur. And no one
> likes to stand idle and watch woodlands shrink or animals die of hunger or
> thirst. Ultimately, however, that may be what we shall have to do."
>
> C.L.:What I draw from this is, that, from an ecocentric or
> biocentric perspective,
> the dynamic of the total global ecosystem probably requires that
> we do indeed
> have to stand idly by and watch many hundreds of millions of humans die.
> But who are 'we' ? The privileged few who can perhaps survive
> because of wealth
> and sophisticated technology ? There seems to be a profound
> dissonance here,
> between an ecological imperative and most, if not all, cultural
> value systems.
> We seem to have learned that we must allow ecosystems, in the
> limited local
> sense of 'reserves', to adjust themselves. But perhaps we have to
> view the total
> system likewise ? That seems very hard. The Sermon on the Mount, 'love thy
> neighbour', and similar cultural injunctions which constitute
> conscience, and
> demand compassionate intervention, may clash directly with
> 'non-action' that
> allows the biosphere to remedy itself in its own way, by shedding
> most, or even
> all, of us.
>
> C.L.
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%