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 <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org>
> *To:* Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net>
> *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.
