Malcolm and Ecolog:
One could argue (I do) that culture is, in the long run, a psychopathology, a
maladaptive trait in the clothing of "success," through which the seeds of
failure (degradation and extinction) are sown. An organism in a Petri dish dare
not extinguish all of it resources, or even exceed its replacement rate, if it
cares to maintain a population commensurate with that rate--humans do, but they
can't resist the fantasy that beyond the next ocean lies yet another land to
plunder (after all, it's worked before). One can live in jet-set luxury for a
while if one can grab enough resources from greater and greater distances from
the natal habitat to get around the replacement rate problem, but it can't last
for such a species--that's culture. Social behavior is, fundamentally,
cooperation, mutualism, and, in its rape-state, the buddy system on
steroids--culture. I see a LOT of difference. But granted, it's "only" a matter
of degree--a HUGE degree.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: malcolm McCallum
To: Wayne Tyson
Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
"What distinguishes humans from the other organisms is the psychological
phenomenon of culture"
One could argue that "culture" is nothing but variation in an adaptive trait
or set of traits.
Therefore, we could easily interpret intraspecific variation as aspects of
culture, especially where
it involves communication within the local population. Frogs, birds, and I
suspect insects all
show variation in signals such as calling for mates and interpretation of
those calls.
I do not really see ANY difference between the variation in human culture,
and the variation in
social behavior of any other organism.
Malcolm
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote:
Ecolog:
It is healthy to continue to subject any concept or definition to scrutiny,
and it beats reliance upon authority. Words are convenient labels that ideally
convey the same meaning to all others, but this is rarely the case. "Ecosystem"
is reasonably well defined by the various "authorities" cited, at least among
ecologists and others seriously interested in understanding how life forms
work, but, like a lot of terms, it sometimes gets "hijacked" at various times
and the meaning gets twisted. Some who use the term have a poor understanding
of its meaning. Ecology may well be the most difficult of all phenomena to
study; it is a very complex subject.
It may not be so much that ecosystem is in need of redefinition but that
the terminology used in writing and speaking about it has become far too
convoluted, full of terms that are themselves poorly defined and recklessly
used. Part of this springs from a sincere effort to develop terms that
represent entire concepts so they don't have to be repeated, but part of it
also can be phony-needless convolutions and vague definitions that serve mainly
as jargon when simpler, plainer words would do the job better. It is too easy
to get so ensnarled in pseudo-academic jargon that one forgets what one was
examining in the first place. Ecologists have long been accused of being a
"soft" science, and some ecologists, intimidated by such criticism, have gone
into defense mode with both arcane language and meaningless math to appear to
be "more scientific."
Ecology IS "soft." It is "squishy" and elusive. But that is because it is
complex, not "soft" in the sense of being "easy" or merely "philosophical." Its
study requires a synthesis of an impossibly wide intellectual pursuit that
spans all of the other disciplines, from physics to a kind of philosophy of
reality, far from, and beyond, the presumptions of Plato and Socrates about the
meaning of life and all that.
Certainly, however, some ecologists do come at the subject from such
philosophical directions as concerns about moral action and intuition, and as
long as all stay open to observing reality rather than insisting upon the
confirmation of prejudices, all will sort out eventually. Certainly ecology and
the ecosystem concept will benefit from reexamination, and any refinement or
replacement of those terms will be beneficial to an honest intellectual
pursuit. But what are those replacement terms?
WT
PS: As to whether or not humans are "part" of the ecosystem (or any subset
thereof), certainly they are, like any other organism. What distinguishes
humans from the other organisms is the psychological phenomenon of culture,
which has enabled cultural humans to change their environment to suit them
rather than changing (evolving) to suit the environment. Nature, or reality,
however, is indifferent to destiny, and will, as Louis Ziegler once said,
"shrug off Homo sapiens with no more concern that she has countless other
species in the history of the earth."
----- Original Message ----- From: "Fabrice De Clerck" <fd2...@columbia.edu>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 8:20 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Dear Friends,
An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD
definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas
are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems
that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition?
Here is the original question:
The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and
micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a
functional unit.
I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the
picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has
there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an
authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s
All reactions welcome, and citations welcome!
Fabrice
********************************************************
Fabrice DeClerck PhD
Community and Landscape Ecologist
Division of Research and Development
CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501
(506) 2558-2596
fadecle...@catie.ac.cr
Adjunct Research Scholar
Tropical Agriculture Programs
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
********************************************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.439 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2966 - Release Date: 06/27/10
06:35:00
--
Malcolm L. McCallum
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology
1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.439 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2970 - Release Date: 06/29/10
06:35:00
