Completely agreed with Dave's response. Most of our corrective actions that have a positive effect are normally due to some anthropomorphic action that caused the negative impact to nature in the first place. Unless we let nature take it's course and allow it to happen naturally, it is a negative effect. Unless we see "man" as part of nature which can be argued but our actions do not fit the natural cycle.
Robert Veldman, MS | Senior Scientist | Golder Associates Inc. 44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300, Lakewood, Colorado, USA 80228 T: +1 303-980-0540 | D: +1 303 987-4400 | F: +1 303-985-2080 | C: +1 831-915-0098 | E: rveld...@golder.com | www.golder.com Wisdom is actually using the knowledge we have gained and putting it to action Work Safe, Home Safe This email transmission is confidential and may contain proprietary information for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. Any use, distribution or copying of this transmission, other than by the intended recipient, is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. Electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration, and incompatibility. Accordingly, the electronic media version of any work product may not be relied upon. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of David M. Lawrence Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 6:37 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems I highly doubt we can do better than nature for most other species on the planet -- the only species we can do a "better job than even nature can do" is our own and a handful of domesticated species. For the rest, test outcome we can manage is to do a less bad job than we have been doing. Dave Warren W. Aney wrote: > 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) -- ------------------------------------------------------ David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com USA | http: http://fuzzo.com ------------------------------------------------------ "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo "No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
