Hi Chris, Ray, Lisa, and everyone.

> CP: I think you are wrong, but, more importantly, your solution
> is.......what?

I have advocated something that goes by the name of 'synholon'. This is not
a verb.
This term relates to a 'synthesis of wholes' and individuals are essential
primordial
wholes. The word holon is the root for holy, holistic, and
hallowed.....[synholon, Gr.]

First of all I would like to say that Chris provided to me what I consider a
synopotic 'conservation biologists' perspective on functional ecology. It is
important to understand that ecosystems are not static 'structures' which
'appear' the same over decades, or have 'desired' appearances, a sort of
'shopping center' or 'mall of opportunities' that can be tweaked this way or
that way by 'technicians'. He is correct in his description: ecosystems
should be respected out of some  'holistic' sense for them....

Nor are many ecosystems subject to frequent change, and lack equilibria.
The tropical rainforests are in a perpetual and changeless state when
compared to alpine environments, arctic and many boreal environments.
Oceanic ecosystems are also not subject to frequent change. Many species
that live in oceans are millions of years old, and have specializations that
arose millions of years ago. The shark species, the teleost fishes are
ancient. There is not reason for evolutionary change in an environment
which does not change: for instance oceans and tropical rainforests. The
rainforests of Africa are between 60 and 90 million years old.

Human induced disturbances cause environmental change that is frequent
and rapid. Those species which lack evolutionary specializations which
would allow 'co-existence' fail to survive long within a human dominated
landscape. The adaptive landscape is composed of adaptive hills, peaks,
and ranges of adpative mountains. Those species inhabiting the peaks
and mountain ranges are more specialized and adapted to diverse and
intricate ecosystems, one's that are not subject to frequent change.

Boreal and temperate forests lacking in tree species diversity are subject
to catastrophic change as a result of wildfires, and insects, while tropical
rainforests are not subject to catastrophic disturbance. Windthrow
caused by hurricanes and storms are the main disturbance in a
tropical rainforest until modern man arrived on the scene with chainsaws
and antimalarials.

My main point was that based on 'organismic evolution' there is a lack of
evidence that only one species living on earth is capable of 'progressive
evolution'. Huxley was the primary advocate of a progressive evolution in
only one species: the human species was the only species that exemplifies
'progressive evolution'. This theory arises from a belief
that man is the only species that is truly 'intelligent'. Man is the
'culmination' organism of a long series of adaptations/specializations
which began from a desire of some 'salt water dependent' species to
leave an 'oligotrophic' environment, and embark on a terrestrial existence
ahead of other less adaptive species.

'Life began in nutrient-rich waters. The exhaustion of nutrients in the seas
stimulated the development of photosynthetic aquatic forms, and of grazers
on these, and of predators on the grazers. The filling up of the seas then
stimulated the colonization of the land, by several phyletic groups, and of
the air, also by several groups. Terrestrial organisms progressed from warm
moist land areas to dry and cold lands. Man is the *culmination* of one
progressive trend."[Verne Grant, Organismic Evolution].

Of course this opinion ignores the 'progressive evolution' of other
culiminating species such as the 'bracken ferns' which culminated a phyletic
group millions of years ago.

Grant critizes the criterion of Huxley, which affords mammals a high rank,
in demonstrating 'progressive evolution'. That criterion is based on one of
four characteristics which could also be used to determine the presence of
'progressive evolution' in a species or genus. In mammals, and in particular
man, that criterion is:

"Increase in control and independence of the evironment."

If there is one species that exhibits this characteristic, then it is man.
Castor canadensis, emphatically not. This trend in 'progressive evolution'
is perhaps the primary characteristic of man.

However there are three other criteria (the fourth criterion is mentioned
previously):

1.         increase in energy level of life processes...[or] metabolic rate;

2.        increase in efficiency of reproduction, including increase in care
of eggs and/or young;

3.        improvements in perception of signals from environment and in
ability to react to environmental stimuli; and,

4.        increase in control over and independence of the environment.

In fact Grant indicates that to consider man as the culmination of a long
series of progressive evolutionary events is to construe the term
"environment broadly and control narrowly, in such a way as to slant the
application of the criterion toward mankind. One would prefer a criterion
that is less anthropocentric and more biological."

Grant indicates that 'progressive evolution' is - if it is anything -
'diverse' which means that many species living today are culminations of
long series of adaptations to their environments. There is no quarantee that
mankind will outlast other 'adaptive species'. However these trends in
evolution are rather 'temporary' and 'the age of man will not last forever.
Organic evolution will probably be making new advances in future ages, when
the human species is gone from the scene. The nature of future dominant
types of organisms is unpredictable at present."

Moreover as an 'evolutionist', Grant notes that;

"We recognize three modal types of evolutionary trend as classified on this
basis. (1) Short-term specialization trends, as illustrated by a branch line
in the Hawaiian honeycreepers (Chapter 31). (2)Long-term specialization
trends, as in the evolution of the horse's hoof (Chapter 26). These types of
trends are chanelling and self-limiting. (3) Progressive evolutionary
trends, which entail general improvements in biological organization. The
series - land reptile, warm-blooded animal, intelligent mammal, intelligent
hominid - is the only *one* example of a progressive trend; another is the
series - pteridophyte, seed plant, woody angiosperm, annual herbaceous
angiosperm."

The last criterion appears to be one modal type of trend that reflects
*behaviours* and *habits* which is to say, an ethic, or ethos indicating a
long term specialization. So if the species homo sapiens is to be granted
'long-term specialization' status [it is only 2.5 million years young], then
it must be through learning. Biological organization requires adaptation of
a sort whether it be 'morphological' or 'behavioural'. The emphasis
therefore is not to learn how to 'manage' or 'manipulate' environments, but
rather to learn how to 'adapt' to different environments than the one that
began with the series, the 'land reptile'. The specialization of course is
to learn how to 'maintain' and 'conserve' existing environments, rather than
deplete them.

chao

John Foster



> CP: I think you are wrong, but, more importantly, your solution
> is.......what?
>
> [snip]
>
> > Recently in Nature magazine, a scientist reported that coincident with
the
> > arrival of humans in North America, about 12 thousand years ago,
> > there was a
> > rapid loss of species, and I don't recall how many species
> > dissappeared but
> > it was substantial. But this rate of extinction was much less than has
> > occurred as a result of humans over the last one hundred years
worldwide.
>
>
> CP: I don't know what relevance this has to landscape ecology, but John
> Alroy's article is not the last word.  There is a question about whether
> humans hunted many mammoth at all, or whether it was a macho myth dreamed
up
> by male anthropologists - man the hunter; woman the gatherer.  Whatever
the
> case, to say that some harm was done in the past by humans does not
preclude
> the possibility of a different future.  Inductive arguments are invalid.
> All swans are white... until you find a black one.
>
> Is this your vision John.  No future for humanity AND the environment?  A
> choice of either:or?
>
>
> > Biologist relate that when a species dissappears, based on records that
go
> > back millions of years ago, they term this phenomenon as 'species
> > replacement'. In these cases, such as in the Mesozoic era, there were
only
> > six species that survived in the terrestrial ecosystems of the world.
What
> > the paleontologists indicate is that all species living today
> > descended from
> > only six species.
> >
> > Thus if that is an accurate protrayal of natural selection, eg.
> > species can
> > select for themselves, manipulate their environments, then the theory
that
> > you are presenting is based on a theory called 'orthogenesis'. Your
theory
> > is similar to 'orthogenesis' which means that species have some innate
> > ability or conscious characteristic that enables them to survive
> > as species.
>
> CP: it is not "my theory".  Whatever I have said has been written about
> extensively.  As to your connection with "orthogenesis", I'm afraid I
don't
> see any connection whatsoever.  Unless you see humans as rather stupid,
> hopeless creatures; something like lemmings.  Some people don't want hope
of
> course.  It interferes with the hand wringing, and the fun you can get
from
> puritanical pleasures like pointing fingers at people and crying "witch".
>
>
> [snip bit on white skin and hair]
>
> [snip stuff on Incas and Europeans on Easter Island etc.]
>
> > I am not sure and I cannot speculate, but the earth's ecosystems
> > as a whole
> > are too fragile and too sensitive to the frequent disturbance regime
that
> > humans 'en masse' enact when they embark on the 'civilizing'
> > phase of their
> > development.
>
> CP: in my view the "fragility" of the "earth's ecosystem as a whole" is
> overstated.  Even the Exxon Valdez issue was overstated (and no, that does
> not mean I support oil spills John).  There is also evidence that things
are
> improving in many areas - reafforestation, lower pollution etc (and no,
this
> does not mean I am complacent and support no more ethical change from
> business or people John).  If you just look for all the ecological
problems
> you lose the ability to see solutions John.
>
>
> >Something has to 'control' the civilization over
> > time otherwise
> > the civilization will destroy itself through exploitation of the water
and
> > the soil.
>
> CP: Totalitarian regulation for the greater good?  Give me a break.  I
> believe environmental solutions are best entrenched through reinforced
> bottom-up ethical responses.  That doesn't preclude laws, or the threat of
> the big stick being used on the recalcitrant, but a big brother scenario
> scares the shit out of me.  I am always intrigued that the top down,
> authoritarian approach is so often the chosen means advocated by
> preservationists.  Their faith in people is often pretty near to nil.
> Though, of course, they have faith in *their* kinds of people, who are the
> best equiped to rule of course.  Better grab your George Orwell essays and
> novels again John.
>
>
> [snip hunter gatherers]
>
> > All the elements agreed, there is no substantial proof that
> > 'othogenesis' is
> > possible for humans. Every time there is a civilization, there is
> > waste...the exception appears to be with the Incan civilization which
was
> > dominated by the altiplano where it can snow almost any time of the
year,
> > and where catastrophic earthquakes that result in large scale
destruction
> > control the ability of humans to dominate their landscape. [the last
> > catastrophic event was the earthquake that killed 70,000 persons in
Valle
> > Hauscaran in 1970 when large mud flows completed destroyed
> > several towns. It
> > should be mentioned that in Cusco only about 2% of the colonial
> > buildings of
> > the Spanish still are standing].
>
>
> CP: basic epistomology.  "proof" is an elusive thing.  If you want
certainty
> John, go join a political party of the extremes, or a fundamentalist
sect -
> they specialise in it.  There is no proof I will survive tomorrow.  There
is
> no proof with regard to a particular future at all (other than that there
> will [probably?] be one, it will change, and eventually we will all be
> dead - and there is no "proof" even of that).  This is a common refrain of
> yours John.  "No proof" - "look at all the bad examples I can bring up",
as
> if *they* were proof of your favoured counterfactual (ie that we have no
> hope on this planet).  You dig deep within your considerable reading to
find
> the bad news.  You must bypass a lot of hopeful stuff - though no doubt
you
> rationalise your contempt for it in some way.  Your focus on the negative
> is - frankly - depressing.
>
>
> > Additional support for this observation is situated in Tibet which was
the
> > longest living theocracy in the history of the modern era. The only
other
> > long living theocracy was of course ancient Eqypt which lasted
> > many millenia
> > and then dissappeared 2500 years ago. The ancient Greek
> > civilization lasted
> > about 400 - 500 years. The Roman civilization did not last much
> > longer. And
> > now that western man has dominated all but Antarctica, there are
virtually
> > no remnants left of those original undisturbed ecosystems in the
> > Medditerean, the birth place of western civilization [only about 2% of
the
> > forest is left after 2000 years since the Romans began deforesting the
oak
> > forests]. What the cutting down of the oaks failed to achieve, the goats
> > finished whatever was left off. On average about 20 meters of soil was
> > washed to the sea since the first oaks were cut down for ships
> > and fuel and
> > building products.
>
> CP: what is the point of all this John?  Civilisations don't last.
> Ecosystems don't last.  Change is fundamental.  Nothing stays the same.
You
> either embrace the reality of change and uncertainty, or you hunker down
in
> a corner and rail at those who dare to walk outside.  Hope or despair,
your
> call.
>
>
> > If there was a better example than the Meditterean and Babylon,
> > it may be in
> > China. What is left of the original forests and ecosystems there? I
think
> > that China now has less than five percent of its' forests left in
> > any state
> > bordering on natural.
>
> CP: And they are currently embarking on the world's largest
reafforestation
> campaign.  Don't mention any mitigating circumstances John, whatever you
do.
>
>
> >They recently banned logging in the
> > country, following
> > Thailand, Burma, et cetera. The only country that has any substantial
> > primary forests left in Asia is Bhutan which has at least 40% of
> > it's forest
> > intact.
>
> CP: utter rubbish
>
> [snip stuff on Mennonites and RVs]
>
> [Snip the rest - except this pearler]
>
> > Thus saith Jeremiah
>
> CP: he certainly did.