The literature is pretty comprehensive John on the shift in ecological
thinking away from concepts of "balance of
nature"/climax/maturity/equilibrium (though there are subtle differences and
different definitions applied, which helps confuse - take thermodynamic
non-equilibrium for instance). Names include Pickett & White, Botkin,
Budiansky, Simberloff, Drury, Wu. Worster has written essays on it. So has
Callicott with referenc to ethical implications. O'Neill in association
with heirarchy theory. You could argue that the whole dscipline of
ecological history has essentially been a part of that shift.
If there is an interest, I'm sure a number of us could get a reference list
together.
Cheers
Chris
John Foster wrote:
[snip]
> Saying that climax is dead is not appropriate for other reasons.
> One of the
> reasons is for ecosystem health reasons. Diversity and complexity confer
> great resilience to stresses caused by rapid environmental changes.
CP: This is a *very* moot point. The idea that complexity is associated
with stability is also subject to much critique. Some argue that increased
complexity can be the *cause* of more instability - much like ten monkeys
jumping up and down in the bath as compared with two.
> chao
>
> john
|