> John:
> On heirarchies, get a copy of Eugene Odum's 1998 book "Ecological
Vignettes"
> Harwood Academic Publishers ISBN 90-5702-522-1. There, Chaper 3 is on
"What We
> Learn from Ecology about Organization."  This chapter has 2 vignettes:
"The
> basic organizational plan for both humans and nature involves hierarchies
> consisting of successive levels of organization."  A second vignette here
is
> "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Seems sensible to me.
There
> are also a basic paper in Ecology by Stan Rowe in 1961 on "The Level of
> Integration Concept and Ecology 42(2): 420-427.  The field of General
Systems
> Theory is fascinating. It's a mystery as to why the Ecosphere and its
organisms
> can hold it all together and why they have done it for so long. Must be
> heirarchies out there.

Hi Ted,

I had the pleasure of listening to Stan Rowe at UBC Forestry Faculty where I
obtained a BSF in Natural Resources Management. I agree that hierarchies
exist, but these hierarchies are found only in 'living systems' that is:
trophic levels, predator prey relations, but many food hierarchies are only
'relative' which means that as a species becomes more adapted in behavior
and evolves more specialized structures [hummingbirds, Monarch Butterflies,
et cetera] these species-pairs are enabled to occupy new niches. This is
what is meant by organization at a very basic level. In one respect the
level of organization may become more simplified as exampled by a
species-pair which becomes entirely 'interdependent'.

Levels in nature are not 'automatically hierarchical' either...it is an
error in logic to assume that non-living processes are hierarchical. It all
depends on the temporal scale...that insolation from the sun has been
relatively constant since life began is only one example. The idea of
hierarchies assumes the attribute of change, but most change in nature
occurs over very long periods of time...millions of years. Interestingly the
nothofagus forests in NZ and in Chile are really remnants of much more
extensive forests that existed prior to the evolution of many modern
flowering plants like maple for instance. This is why the only species of
alnus that occurs in South America is located in the Andes. It looks just
like Alnus tenuifolia, or mountain alder...and interestingly enough the only
species of raspberry that occurs in South America that is native looks just
like ours in North America, but there are many more Rubus species in NA than
there are in SA. The raspberries are perrenials that have secondary
branches. Here we only have canes with one ramet or shoot.

I could write about a hundred other transmigrants from NA such as the Puma,
Dwarf Mistletoe, etc. Interestingly the Mistletoe in the Andes is much
larger than it is in Canada. It is huge...but it is essentially
similar....but Nothofagus and Auracaria do not grow here. The southern most
extent of the Pinus species is in Honduras, the southern most extent of the
Oak is in Costa Rica. But there are no native Pinus species in SA...only
introduced species like Pinus radiata, and Honduran pine. It is too bad too
that in the Andes of Peru that there has been very little reforestation with
native trees but only Eucalyptus and Pinus. These plantations are often
sickly, especially above 3500 meters....

The human species is exhibiting in some regions a trend toward a
species-pair. This is because most domestic plants and animals are losing
the capacity to exist in nature, and secondly as domestic species become
more dependent on humans, their ability to evolve in a natural ecosystem
becomes 'fortuitous' at best. Lots of examples here: the ancester to the
cow, corn, et cetera. So one of the phenomena that is occurring at a very
rapid rate in terms of evolution is this trend toward dependency. One
example that I can think of is the use of GE plants. In western Canada the
farmers there have discovered GE pollen contaminating all their crops. As a
result of the fact that the GE crops are 'herbicide resistant' they are
finding it difficult, if not impossible' to remove the GE crops from their
farmlands. Once the human has 'conquered nature' with the use of various
technologies that control the 'managed ecosystem' the result appears to be
manifold: cross contamination, leaching of agriculture chemicals, and
resistance to pesticides.

There are many other examples such as the use of 'plus trees' selected from
few parents which are used as 'certified seeds' for plantation forests in
Canada and elsewhere. This Baconian mindset of 'ministering' and 'doctoring'
what does not need to be fixed will over a few years result in ecosystem
dysfunction. It has already impacted forests...but the scale is not as great
as it will become. Take for instance the 'accidental' and 'deliberate'
release of European Carp into Lake Winnipeg. The result of this is very
serious for the native species. Ducks to fish have been extirpated. Up to
half the native fish have been displaced already and most of the natural
reed beds have been ruined by the Carp.

Whether it is accidental or deliberate when man dominates the landscape
there are serious consequences for most species. Accelerated erosion,
climate change, and even the potential end of life on earth is possible. Who
can believe it?





>
> I appreciate your postings John, but tend to ignore this listserv since it
is so
> dominated by a few anti-environmentalist zealots. The listserv should be
> re-named "anti-enviroethics."
>
> Ted
>
>
> --
> Ted and Linda Mosquin, Box 279, Lanark, Ontario K0G 1K0 Canada
> Tel: (613) 267-4899;   Fax: (613) 264-8469
> URL: <http://www.ecospherics.net> (literature on ecocentric/ecospheric
ethics)