Ray:
> Recently the three of you have used "heirarchy" in a positive sense (I
> thought) when relating to ecosystems.
>
> For me, that term is problematic with its connotations of
> dominance/subjection, I believe it is a male created concept.  I associate
> it with the evolution of the western Judeo-Christian philosophy that has
> come down to us and seems to be engulfing the world.  In that view, man
> dominates woman, nature and all he surveys.  To me, it is a linear view
that
> interfers with our fundamental understanding of ecosystems and the
> relationships with the human system.
>
> In my view, ecosystems are quintessially "interrelated", "cooperative" and
> "cyclical".  Let me outline my view for your comments.

I agree. The problem with the idea that ecosystems change is that the term
change is already included in the definition of nature. The word nature is
derived from that which changes, is in motion. The supernatural, the realm
of eternals, forms, or eidos, does not change (see Plato, Plotinus, etc.)

But change is not permanent, thus the notion of a hierarchy in nature is
illusory...

Even the Greek word for nature <Phusis> means change from which <physis>
originates. But that which changes remains the same because it is cyclic.

Cyclicity, periodicity, reciprocity and return are the boundaries of the
possible...change in nature does not mean of course that change is
permanent.

Thus in the long term, the term of nature, the one that outstrips, the idea
of change is bounded. Change of state means that in the summer there are
flowers, and bluebirds, and in the winter there is ice on the lake, people
skating, and a flock of chickadee's in the birch tree.

When taking the longer term perspective, say the evolutionary perspective,
there is no change in the moist tropical forest, the river where the
crocadile lives.

When taking the even longer term perspective, say the geological
perspective, then there is change in the moist tropical forest, the river,
the grassland.

Depending the temporal perspective, there is change and no-change, but the
change that is perceived is not true, or fatal change, but rather small
changes like 'species replacement', evolutionary branching of stem species
into new niches, et cetera. The fact that crocodiles still roam the earth is
proof that some ecosystems do not change. Evolutionary selection would not
work in favour of the crocodile if ecosystems changed all that often, and
whereas the horse is a relatively new species on the earth, it is only
because of the modern extent of grasslands that horses have evolved to their
present form. They run fast, they are big, and they can live in the
winter...grasses are angiosperms, not ferns, or equisetum.

"Forests were very widespread in the early Tertiary, but climatic changes
during the Miocene caused these extensive forests to break up and be
partially replaced by open savannas and prairies. In the Pliocene the area
of open grassland continued to spread at the expense of forest.

The early Tertiary Equidae (horses) were forest-dwelling herbivores with a
browsing mode of feeding....In the Miocen, however, a branch line of the
horse family tree moved into the open savanna and grassland habitats and
adopted a grazing mode of feeding. This change in habitat and food habits
took place in North America. It must have exposed the branch to strong new
selective pressures, which can account for many of the observed evolutionary
trends." [page 258, Organismic Evolution, Verne Grant, Freeman, 1977].

The grassland biome is the 'most' newest biome on earth. It was being
created the moment that Columbus arrived in North America. It is still being
created in Mongolia where Bhuddists live lightly on the land, nomadic and
full of the celebration of feeling. But in North Emergencica the grasslands
have all but dissappeared, being re-instated are several 'species-pairs'
appointed by MAN.

Only 1% of the grassland biome exists in any natural condition in North
America (Emergencica)

spater

john