I would challenge the statement "Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default, an adverse effect or change." Smallpox or polio vaccinations are an anthropomorphic alteration of the natural situation, but are they an adverse effect or change? I suppose some might argue that vaccines result in increased human populations, and that is an adverse effect. But now we need to define "adverse effect" -- is it adverse from a broad human perspective, or is it adverse from some other entity's perspective (Mother Nature? Creator/God/Allah/Brahma/Odin/Wicca? The Society for the Total Overall Protection of Everything Wild?).
I can think of other examples of human intervention that we might debate over whether or not they have "adverse" effects: Stopping a highly intensive wildfire before it destroys an old growth stand. Building a salmon fish ladder around a recent landslide barrier. Protecting endangered northern spotted owls from niche takeover by a natural invasion of barred owls. Providing nest boxes for cavity nesters after a blowdown of snag habitat. Granted, most human alterations of natural systems have had an adverse effect, even some well-intention alterations (e.g., introducing Russian olive and multiflora rose to improve North American wildlife habitat) but I think we're slowly learning how to do a better job than even nature can do. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Geoffrey Patton Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 19:09 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems Dear Good Ecologers: While Dr. Czech has produced an elegant and exhaustive treatise on the application of important concepts in "natural" systems, it is a bit dense and unapproachable for many. It is with deep regret that I am unable to cite the specific reference for what I am about to write. I have frequently attributed it to John Clark's Ecosystem Management while knowing that's inaccurate. However, the quote I've constucted is "Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default, an adverse effect or change." Paraphrased, Nature took millenia to achieve the current dynamic balance of plants and animals, predators and prey, entropy and enthalpy. Any alteration at Man's hand away from the natural order of things conflicts with the balance and is adverse. Thus, we should try to our last breath to make things as conducive to nature's way as possible. I think that's what we're talking about here. Cordially yours, Geoff Patton, Ph.D. 2208 Parker Ave., Wheaton, MD 20902 301.221.9536 --- On Sat, 3/7/09, Czech, Brian <cz...@vt.edu> wrote: From: Czech, Brian <cz...@vt.edu> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 5:09 PM 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_Integ rity.pdf <http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Inte grity.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 **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219957551x1201325337/aol?redir=htt p:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID %3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
