JC and Ecolog: (Note to Jim: I finally found it.)
"'Ecosystem' means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit." https://www.cbd.int/recommendation/sbstta/?id=7027 I don't see that this definition excludes humans either; perhaps DeClerck will ask her mystery colleague how he/she came to that conclusion? I don't interpret the definition as necessarily relating to a plurality of units, but rather to the entire ecosystem. I've always had a bit of trouble referring to subsets of the earth's ecosystem as discrete units, even though I recognize the utility of doing so. I would like to understand what Crants means by "functional units" as well as "artifacts of ecological discontinuities." As I have said elsewhere, I see culture as a psychological phenomenon that served a utilitarian purpose--that of permitting humans to manipulate their environment far more than any other any other species--almost without limit. All animal make mistakes--mountain sheep fall off cliffs, but humans seem to grow better and better at making mistakes and institutionalizing them than other species. Insanity is not limited to Homo sapiens--sick and injured bears fly into rages and sometimes attack even humans and kill "without reason." But humans, even apparently healthy ones, have instutionalized not only killing but have found ways to rationalize almost any murder--particularly mass murder committed in the name of the culture, aka, "cult." Whereas Nature has been able to quickly take out deviants as part of ecosystem function, humans have found ways to beat that rap in countless ways. But, as my wife is fond of saying, "Nature bats last." I suspect we're past the first inning. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Crants" <jcra...@gmail.com> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems I don't see how the CBD definition excludes humans. We and our artifacts are part of the environment with which we and other organisms interact. (The part of the definition I have trouble with is "interacting as a functional unit." I think most of these functional units are artifacts of the ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the landscape.) That said, I wouldn't agree with anyone who said we are "just another animal," and I don't think the remedy to the damage we've done by considering ourselves special is to consider ourselves completely unremarkable. People who want to exclude other species from moral consideration can and will exploit either position. As we've seen, the uniqueness of humans has long been used as an excuse to treat the natural world as if it were made to serve our desires. On the other hand, if we're just another animal, then everything we do is just another amoral natural process. We can make ourselves out to be just another animal doing what we can to thrive, ignoring our unusual capacity to identify the consequences of our actions and form moral opinions about actions based on their consequences. I think we need to both recognize that we are part of nature and recognize that we are an animal with unusual abilities and impacts. In short, I advocate the Spiderman approach to nature: we are creatures of great power, and with great power comes great responsibility. Jim Crants >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of >>> Fabrice De Clerck >>> Sent: Fri 6/25/2010 11:20 AM >>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >>> 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愀 >>> >>> 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: 271.1.1/2970 - Release Date: 06/29/10 06:35:00
