Well, the idea of climax goes like this. Take your little patch of
pine-hardwood hammock. If we could go back 100 years or so and burn it, or
chop it down, or plow it under, or something like that, then leave it alone,
it would, today, look still pretty much the same. In other words, the
"climax" state is one which inevitably will occur in an ecosystem given time
and the absence of outside disturbance. The more recent view is that if we
went back a hundred years ago and did one of those disturbances, then there
is no telling what it would be today. The changes would be stochastic,
random, and the end result would not be predictable. The changes you have
seen over your life time have been just that, random changes influenced more
by local conditions than anything else. There is no absolute end, no
progress toward an optimum state. There is no set end, nor set stages in the
development of any given system, it's all changes.

Steven

Nothing is true, all is permitted, nothing
is true, all is permitted, nothing is true,
all is permitted, nothing is true. . .
              The Adventures of Omar Khyyam

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ray Lanier
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ethical implications of environmental change


Hello Steven,

Thanks for the summary and for the reference; I'll follow up.

A couple of more questions.

1.  When one considers the particular time horizon applicable to a
particular problem, is it possible the "climax" might be an applicable term?
For example, looking at a human life span would it be unreasonable to
consider a particular phase in an ecosystem evolution as "climax" while that
would be totally inappropriate in evolutionary time?  I'm thinking of my
little "patch" :-) of pine-hardwood hammock.  I've been watching it for 25
years now; while I see much change in some specifics -  new growth of
wildflowers in a little clearing associated with a large number of butterfly
species.  But, the totallity is still pine-hardwood.  However, I well know
that geological time has brought with it many radical changes that I can see
in road cuts, etc.

The major changes that I have seen over my life-time have been human
induced.  Of course, I know that there is also a long-run evolutionary
change.  The relationship is sort of like amplitude modulation of radio
signals; a high frequency as a carrier of the audio signal.  An important
problem for us is to figure out how to distinguish between the two and what
might the "appropriate" relationship (if there is such as "appropriate").
Do you folks think so?

2.  We talk about the fact that humans are a part of nature.  And I agree.
But, there has been a major change in the human over time, physically, etc.,
but also culturally.  Humans have always used nature but at such a low level
that there was little impact over time.  Now, however, we with substantial
increased #s, have developed tools that enable us to drastically impact
nature.

Wasn't it Einstein who said something like "humans have learned to use
nature but have not developed mentally enough to use it intelligently" (I
know that's not the quote but it gives the sense).

I think I understand and agree with much that is said here about change &
humans in nature.  Most folks of my persuasion that I know agree.  But,
where we differ from much that is said here, is directly about the *way*
humans interact in nature; the changes in the way and in the potential for
humans to over-ride nature's evolution process.  The questions that arise
relate to how do we determine the limits, if any, that we should impose on
ourselves; how do we determine what is "acceptable" change - how do we
define it, and many related questions that we seem not to be addressing.

Enough for now.  Thanks folks for your ideas, comments.

Ray