Malcolm and Ecolog:
No argument on that! But those organisms are subject to the same feeding
feedback rules; as they (including humans) deplete the resources upon which
they depend, their "quality of life" and reproduction suffers--they adapt
(change their behavior) or "suffer" population decline, catastrophically in
some rough proportion to the excess consumption that preceded the decline. If
the decline is gradual, it is an "adjustment," if it is extreme, it is a
"bust." Humans are not exempt from this principle, but culture (egocentrism in
place of "species consciousness," coercive hierarchy in place of cooperation)
has convinced them that they can "find a way" to "feed" 9.3 billion by 2050 or
whatever through "the miracle of technology" or some other snake-oil. That's
the big difference--humans can avoid decline, degradation, famine, and they
have--through culture. But they have done it at the expense of
over-consumption, much like the organism in the Petri dish, and the
consequences will be the same because those resources are not being allowed to
recover their productivity. We are eating our seed corn, as it were, and
Monsanto's boasting, rather than being seen as some kind of savior should be
seen as a shot across the bow. And as much as I like mesa, I would prefer a
little more variety in my diet.
WT
PS: There's obviously something I'm not communicating well enough here; there's
so much that we do agree on--I hope we can back and fill to at least a clear
expression and understanding if not agreement. But I appreciate the good
critical review very much; don't give up yet!
----- Original Message -----
From: malcolm McCallum
To: Wayne Tyson
Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: Evolution Adaptation Failure of success equals maladaptation Re:
[ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Sure they do!
Check out most general ecology texts and you should find reference to an
experiment with Daphnia in which the species overshoots its resources, crashes
and then bounces above and below the carrying capacity (k). Humans do the same
thing, you can easily argue they do not altruistically do things for the good
of the species. You can easily classify humans as supertramps that can survive
in a wide range of habitats, and they can further be classified as invasive
species. And, they are not the only species that changes the environment to
serve its purposes, beavers are a classic example of yet another species that
does this when they change stream into a beaver pond. Squirrels expand
oak-hickory forests at the expense of grassland habitats by burying nuts and
acorns further and further beyond the edges. Any organism's population will
expand until its ability to use or manipulate resources for use is exhausted.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote:
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
--
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
