Not all organisms do adapt.
In fact, one could argue that most organisms eventually reach a scenario for
which the do not possess the potential for adaptation to new conditions. As
a consequence, most organisms that have ever existed have gone extinct.
Further, I'ld argue that although humans might
recognize the problems that could lead to their demise, they do nothing
because of the the evolutionary drive for self preservation and the
success of one's own genes. hence, they act in an entirely selfish manner
knowing well that this behavior may ultimately lead to their demise.
Whether any organism recognizes the repercussions of its actions or not is
irrelevant if the species as a whole does not possess the adaptive
plasticity to evolve a "good of the species" response. In fact, we have
failed to find any truly altruistic organisms. Therefore, if species act
for the immediate good of an individual, and we do not observe organisms
acting for the good of the species, then we certainly should expect it to be
even more rare to find a species that does things for the good of other
species because it is even less adaptive for individual reproductive
success. This is most likely the problem with humans in my opinion. We can
identify and even tell others that our species is doing things that are bad
for other species, but as a group we are evolutionary lacking the traits
capable of dealing with it. So, unless a few maladaptive individuals who
feel other species are important get control of the masses and force the
issue, no real action ever goes forward. Understand, I'm not advocating
this, but just pointing out that acting for the good of other species is
evolutionary maladaptive. Until selection pressure on humans reaches a
level where acting in these ways becomes sufficient to drive evolution, it
is unlikely we will see such changes. Humans are just acting like every
other species and there are only a few of us who are willing to do anything
about it.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote:
> 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 <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org>
> *To:* Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net>
> *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 <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.
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> 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.
