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.


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