Chris Lees wrote:  Thursday, 30 March 2000 22:40
>
>
> Thanks to John Foster and Chris Perley for the illuminating and
> constructive thoughts re forest management. Excellent stuff.
>
> What you both seem to be advocating is a very intensive micro-
> management of forest ecosystems based upon more enlightened
> foundational principles. Whilst I can easily appreciate that such
> an approach is an improvement over most current and past practice,
> haven't you got a primary problem, in that I believe it has been
> well established by the professional ecologists that there is a
> fundamental 'unknowability' inherent in the development of all
> ecosystems. Isn't that right ? So, it is impossible to predict the
> results of interventions, however well-informed and well-
> intentioned they may be. Isn't that established, or am I mistaken ?

Chris Perley: There is always an unknowable when we deal with complex
systems.  Chaos theory highlights that issue.  There are so many potential
variables that can cause profound effects from apparently small causes.  The
old mechanical view of nature assumed an element of certainty.  Resource
managers now recognise the inherent uncertainty in ecology (for instance, no
one is quite sure why beech has mast seed years when it does - climate
doesn't seem to be the trigger).  The logical response is to accept the
uncertainty and manage within it.  The way they do so is to use adaptive
management - essentially an environmental management system which goes
through an iterative loop through - information -->  standards desired -->
choice of best management practice --> monitoring --> resulting in more
information --> etc. the loop is closed.

It is a continual learning process, and one that is inherently humble as to
our understanding.



> What I'm trying to say is, that even if we could martial millions
> of highly trained managers to supervise worldwide ecosystems,
> making local interventions on behalf of this or that species, trying
> our best to follow the laws of nature insofar as we can comprehend
> them, we'd still be getting it wrong, by following a rather mechanistic
> model that implies and assumes that we can indeed understand and
> control and predict outcomes. Because of the intrinsic 'unknowability
> factor' intensive science-based stewardship is not, and cannot be, a
> sure way out of the mess we are in.
>
> John's fascinating insights into ecological gradients is a case in
> point. Nature provides that for free. Just think how much time,
> money, resources and research would be required to emulate that
> kind of subtlety into artificial managed forestry systems worldwide.
>
> It seems to me that ecology is the most difficult of subjects,
> and that our knowledge is really rudimentary and primitive, akin to
> mediaeval medicine.

CP: I actually think ecology is far more advanced than that.  Knowledge of
chaotic dynamic systems represents something of a paradigm shift from the
older mechanical, static ideas.  It is interesting that now the economists
are starting to look at ecology as a model of how societies and economies
actually operate - not as some predictable machine based on rational
individuals, but as a complex system with sociological dimensions.  So
ecology is leading the way to other disciplines in terms of the way we see
the world.

The only thing that seems absolutely clear
> to me is that we should definitely stop doing the things that
> we _know_ to be harmful, that is, destroying the few intact and
> well-established natural ecosystems that remain, desist from
> the gross pollution, destruction of fisheries, reckless introduction
> of GMOs, etc. Is even that possible, given the pressures ?

CP: Stop doing harm I agree with.  But don't start from the premise that
human interaction is necessarily harmful, or that ecological health and
human community cannot coexist.

> Restoration is worth a try - perhaps the best we can hope for;
> but I don't think that we are wise and knowledgeable enough to
> be able to say that we can fix what we have broken.
> Chris Perley's mention of 'the nature of Nature' is relevant.
> As far as I am aware, nobody has yet been able to give a really
> profound and satisfactory definition as to what 'the nature of
> Nature' is. Any offers ?

CP: There are a number of very readable books available on the new
environmental paradigm.  Daniel Botkin's Discordant Harmonies is perhaps the
most celebrated.  Drury had a posthumous book release last year called
Chance and Change: Ecology for Conservationists.  But also relevant are the
works on environmental history, relating humanity to the environment (we are
part of the nature of nature, and should not be excluded from the
consideration of nature - including how we develop a "view" of the
environment) - William Cronon's Uncommon Ground (as well as his
environmental history of New England "Changes in the Land"), books by Donald
Worster, Carolyn Marchant.  One of the best looking at the relationships
between people and the environment is Simon Schama's Landscape and Memory.
I'd also recommend Constanza et al's Ecosystem Health, Aldo Leopold's
collections and Callicott's various books around that theme, and even the
work of Wendell Berry and Wes Jackson.  All touch on the nature of nature
and human relationships with the environment.

>
> C.L.
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%