Brian, Adam and all, Another angle I like to consider is that we could treat natural and human nature and naturalness of humans all as flexible and open to our creative and participatory input and action. One quick citation for this approach is the book by Wes Jackson - "Becoming Native to this Place". Rather than treat "natural" as a static, objective, absolute, immutable term and reality, we can decide, assert, agree and act to make ourselves natural, as well as what that means to us. Many of us are not native to this place (Wes Jackson in Kansas or myself in Western Maryland) yet following Jackson's lead we could make a different reality - we could become native, or become natural, a natural part of the local environment, community, ecosystem able to co-exist with other species, self-sustain over the long-term and maybe even do more good than harm. I think it is a good question and topic of discussion, and even if messy, confusing or difficult still worth wrestling with. If it points to deep issues like paradigmatic stances of objectivist versus participatory human-nature relations, and lets people consider the implications, then it seems to have real value. A few rough thoughts on this...a topic I have also ponder all through grad. school and after... Dan Fiscus -- Dan Fiscus Assistant Professor Biology Department Frostburg State University 308 Compton Science Center Frostburg, MD 21532 USA 301-687-4170 dafis...@frostburg.edu
________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Czech, Brian Sent: Sat 3/7/2009 5:09 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems It's true that "natural" is just semantics in some contexts, but defining the term can affect the way our public lands are managed. See for example the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Here is one proposal for a frame of reference for natural conditions: http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf <http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf> Brian Czech, Visiting Professor Natural Resources Program Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, Virginia 22043 ________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve Kunz Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our place in the world. We have the "intelligence" to control our environment on a large scale. Our control of otherwise "natural" systems can throw them out of balance, or at least, into a new balance. In an extreme case, this intelligent control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own species and most others (think: nuclear war). The planet doesn't care if this happens, and some species will survive and help start things over. Is the result "natural" or "unnatural"? At that point, it's just semantics anyway. Peace! Steve Kunz In a message dated 3/5/2009 6:08:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, atom.fuller...@gmail.com writes: I'm a grad student who reads the list-serve to look for job opportunities, but these threads on agroecosystems and climate change bring up a question I have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to, namely: Are humans to be considered a part of the natural world? On the one hand, humans are clearly a species of mammal living on the planet. Science in general follows the Copernican Principle: don't assume there is anything particularly unique about your place in the world. I doubt many of you would consider us to have been specifically placed on the planet and set apart from other forms of life. And yet, when it comes to the things humans do, a clear distinction is made between human causes and natural ones, human modified ecosystems and wild ones. And it is definitely useful to make distictions between human effects and natural ones when studying many ecosystems-I've certainly done it in my own research. So why is this true? How can natural humans cause unnatural effects (or is one assumption false, despite both seeming reasonable)? Can only humans harm the environment? What's the difference between an invasive species being introduced to an island by humans, or the same one arriving on the foot of a bird? What does harming the environment mean, anyway? Somewhat like the two perspectives above, I have seen it defined as: (A) changing the environment from it's original natural or pre-human state (which natural state? how do you define your baseline?), and (B) Making the environment less capable of supporting human life (supporting human life now or indefinietely? at what standard of living?). Those two goals aren't always compatable. So, comments? Thoughts? How do you resolve this? Adam
