--- Chris Lees <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks for this response, Chris.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> C.L.: Sure. I understand this. I think it means that folks who set out
> to manage 
> any type of ecosystem have an extremely difficult job on their hands.
> How are
> you ever going to be able to judge whether any interference is going to
> lead
> to greater perturbation, or possibly be thwarting the systems own
> attempts to 
> retain a balance ? How do you assign value to one species over another
> in a
> rational way ? and so on. How do you apply these insights on a worldwide
> scale, in a practical manner, given political, economic, demographic and
> cultural pressures in the real world ? 
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> C.L.: No, I don't fully agree. Seeing ecology in terms of complex,
> dynamic chaotic
> systems is good, fine, an advance. But it just means that we really have
> very little
> idea as to when or how to best intervene, if at all. See your iterative
> loop above.
> It may be many decades before the 'more information' feedback tells you
> what
> you did or didn't do right or wrong, and we don't have that time
> available.
> 
> As I understand it, E. O. Wilson, Conservation biologists, and others,
> are 
> accepting that all of biodiversity cannot be saved, so the strategy is
> to try and
> save the richest hotspots. But I cannot see how that is going to work,
> because
> with rapid global climate change, the hotspots are all going to 'want'
> to move
> and to migrate and adapt to the change, and there aint going to be
> anywhere for 
> them to move to, partly because of natural geophysical boundaries, but
> mostly
> because of human populations (doubling in numbers, from present six
> billion,
> to 8 or 12, over the next 4 or 5 decades) utilising all available areas.
> 
> We are accustomed to the weekly tv reports of metereological
> catastrophes,
> - Orissa, Venezuela, Mozambique, etc, - but what we have to expect is
> that kind
> of event magnified by an order of magnitude, hundreds of millions of
> people
> wanting to relocate themselves on the planet's surface as they attempt
> to survive,
> whilst constantly bombarded by extreme weather events and warfare over
> the
> diminishing resources. 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Hmm. It's a fundamental issue isn't it. There are not many examples of
> benign coexistence. I don't dismiss the theoretical possibility of
> relatively
> harmless interaction. I attempt to practise it myself as an ideal. But
> the 
> practical reality that we observe is not very encouraging. We have
> exceeded
> the carrying capacity, so even if every individual lives a green
> lifestyle 
> (what chance of that ?) the mere numbers still create an unsustainable 
> impact. Think of twelve billion bears or chimpanzees all eating and 
> shitting. Just too many. But we have technology and chemicals, appetites
> and
> desires, that multiply our impact far beyond our basic biological
> behaviour.
> 
> > > 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.:Thanks for these useful suggestions. I am familiar with some.
> 
> A few days ago T.K. wrote : 
> "I think everyone needs to follow their own conscience and do what they
> can.
> Nobody knows the answers as to what will "work,"  how exactly to reverse
> the destructive course we are on. All you can do is all you can do, just
> do
> it with good intentions and with respect for all living things, with
> love
> and rage." What is 'conscience' T.K. ? How defined ? Socially
> constructed,
> or some other root ? Can conscience and good intentions be trusted as a
> reliable guide ? Consider this, from 'The Sixth Extinction',Leakey and
> Lewin.
> 
> "Biologists have been slow to venture down the path that May identified,
> (chaos in nature) partly because of the strong adherence to the notion
> of the 
> balance of nature and populations at equilibrium, and partly because
> biological 
> systems of this kind are far more complex and difficult to analyze than
> any physical
> system. As May once wrote, "To some ecologists [chaos] has an air of
> black
> magic."' Obsessed as they were with the notion of equilibrium,
> ecologists
> continued to look for evidence in its support, while routinely ignoring
> erratic behavior that implied something else was going on. In the past
> year
> or two, however, long-sought evidence of true chaotic behavior in
> ecological
> communities has been discovered, in field experiments and in theoretical
> models. We are now forced to take a very different view of the world of
> nature and what shapes the patterns we see and experience. It is deeply
> counter-intuitive, and therefore difficult to accept."
> 
> and
> 
> " Ecosystems are in
> a constant state of turmoil, both in space and time, and at any point
> some
> populations will be in decline while others may be booming. And constant
> change is vital as an engine of species diversity. "Conservationists
> should
> spend less time worrying about the persistence of particular plant or
> animal
> species," warns Walker, "and begin to think instead about maintaining
> the
> nature and diversity of ecosystem processes." Armed with the perspective
> we've gained about the nature of ecosystems, from an understanding of
> chaos
> and the dynamics of the assembly of communities, we can see that what
> Walker
> exhorts us to do is sound. But, as with all of human affairs, it is very
> difficult to manage processes that take many decades to occur. And no
> one
> likes to stand idle and watch woodlands shrink or animals die of hunger
> or
> thirst. Ultimately, however, that may be what we shall have to do."
> 
> C.L.:What I draw from this is, that, from an ecocentric or biocentric
> perspective,
> the dynamic of the total global ecosystem probably requires that we do
> indeed
> have to stand idly by and watch many hundreds of millions of humans die.
> 
> But who are 'we' ? The privileged few who can perhaps survive because of
> wealth
> and sophisticated technology ? There seems to be a profound dissonance
> here,
> between an ecological imperative and most, if not all, cultural value
> systems.
> We seem to have learned that we must allow ecosystems, in the limited
> local
> sense of 'reserves', to adjust themselves. But perhaps we have to view
> the total
> system likewise ? That seems very hard. The Sermon on the Mount, 'love
> thy
> neighbour', and similar cultural injunctions which constitute
> conscience, and
> demand compassionate intervention, may clash directly with 'non-action'
> that
> allows the biosphere to remedy itself in its own way, by shedding most,
> or even
> all, of us.
> 
> C.L.
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com


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