Folks,

A most informative discussion.  Thanks.

It has always seemed to me that it is not possible to really think of nature
*except* in a dynamic system mode.  I guess that is because my professional
work on water/land issues depended on change, a dynamic analysis - of course
in a very primitive way at that time.  A static examination can have limited
use, for example, as an attempt to identify linkages; but otherwise time and
associated changes always have to be an integral part of an analytical
system.

My own sense is that change is indeterminant.  Humans apparently have
achieved the capability of bending nature to particular objectives, but
still only in the relatively short run and with unknown consequences, imho.

Chris just wrote:

>Steven B.:
>  I guess I'm a bit surprised, however, that
> > 'balance' is still being seriously considered in academic circles. It
was
> > one of the ideas I learned to reject in my first ecology class lo
> > these 30+
> > years past.
>
> I am always surprised at it.  I really think there is something inate in
> humans where the status quo is always the best, and change is bad.  There
is
> some work on landscape appreciation by local communities - termed "Sense
of
> place".  If you grow up in a treeless environment, you generally value a
> treeless environment.  If you grow up with certain landscape cues, you
> generally want them retained.   But some languages are geared to
> processes/relationships rather than entities - so maybe there is more to
it
> than that.
>
Ray here:
I think that there is truth here.  Though I have no desire to go back to the
Canadian prairie where I grew up.  I am afraid of the changes that have
taken place from the time of my grandparents (late1800s) to the time of my
grandchildren now.  It seems that the change in velocity has increased
dramatically.  Humans have acquired a tremendous capability of changing
their environment.  I wonder if humans have been/are capable of assimilating
that rapid change within the slower rate (seems to me) that humans are
evolving.

By that I mean is there a psychic relationship between human & environment?
If so, what are the effects on humans of the human-induced rate of
environmental change?  It seems to me that we humans are still in the mode
of *exploiting* our environment when, perhaps we should be reconsidering
that mode given current conditions and directions.  It seems to me that the
Bush/Cheney energy "policy" of continuing the old development trend is an
example of out-moded thought processes in the light of our present and
forseeable future directions.

I think it is not change per se that bothers me, but the rate, the direction
and the potential impact on the human psyche.

I guess, I may be agreeing with you, Chris, that we don't know what "normal"
is; but, perhaps it is important to try to find out.

Enjoy you coffee!

Ray




> Sorry for the length.  Time for another coffee.
>
> Chris Perley
> "A thing is right when it tends to disturb the biotic community
> only at normal spatial and temporal scales.
> It is wrong when it tends otherwise." But don't ask me what "normal" is,
OK!
> Cos, it depends!


Ray
-------------