Malcolm and Ecolog:
This is getting complicated, so I'm going to respond within your text,
[[thus]].
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: malcolm McCallum
To: Wayne Tyson
Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Evolution Adaptation Failure of success equals maladaptation Re:
[ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Not all organisms do adapt.
[[Certainly. I don't want to jump to a conclusion you didn't intend, but I
would say that, while we use "adapt" in a sense that could be interpreted as
having intention or purpose behind it, I don't think we really mean that; hence
we probably should not use it that way, even as convenient shorthand--it's too
open to misinterpretation. The concept of intent in terms of adaptation is
probably one of the biggest bugaboos in biology. I'm gonna try to reform
starting now. The way I think I understand it right now is that organisms are
possessed of a certain amount of genetic diversity, part of which allows them
to occupy a certain range of environmental conditions. Mutations occur and are
selected for or not selected for; maladapted populations struggle in marginal
environments, but if the environment changes to suit those same traits, they
will struggle less or even increase their survival quotient. Each population,
even each individual, is in an evolutionary dance with its environment, and
both are most likely never "ideal" matches; Even though we're a mammal, if the
Great Flood were to occur, it is unlikely that we would survive but marine
mammals most likely would, and their populations might even increase, along
with, say, krill populations. Rather than blather on like this, I will respond
to your comments and those of others who care to join the discussion. WT 6/30]]
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.
[[Well, that potential is limited, but I'm not sure I know what you mean by
"scenario." WT 6/30]]
As a consequence, most organisms that have ever existed have gone extinct.
[[I think of evolution as a continuum, not in terms of strict taxonomy, so
"going extinct" is relative (to how one classifies organisms--an artifact of
human culture, and thus somewhat, perhaps crucially, arbitrary). Certainly,
many "extremeophiles" are still around in little niches that resemble their
halcyon days of three billion years or so ago, when humans couldn't live, even
if they had evolved. More complex organisms, such as sharks, for example, are
still around even though the earliest forms are long "extinct." I'm tempted to
refer to such organisms as "highly adaptive," but I suspect that the primary
cause for their continued presence in some form is that their environment has
changed little. WT 6/30]]
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.
[[I'm not sure I understand this, but I think I would have to agree if you
mean that all organisms, including humans, tend to respond to change in a way
they "think" will give them comfort (we put on a coat when "it" gets "cold;"
the planarian worm wiggles away from a drop of saline solution. Humans might
not pick a warm enough coat, and the planarian might wiggle its way into a more
hazardous environment of a different sort. WT 6/30]]
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.
[[I would agree in some cases, disagree in others, but depending upon how
finely one splits the hairs (and splitting them very finely indeed may be what
is necessary to better understand the phenomena involved), tending goats might
be "good" for the individual goats in the short run, but "bad" for the species
in the long run. This is a feature of culture, as is growing wheat. Culture
holds the same benefits and risks for the human species. WT 6/30]]
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.
[[I tend to agree except for the "just" part. In a large and significant
sense, humans have put a stop to most selection pressures on the species,
though cultural features like modern medicine. Of course, this probably means a
more genetically diverse population for selection to act upon, since
individuals that, under so-called "primitive" conditions would not have
survived, do. WT 6/30]]
WT
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
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
--
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: 271.1.1/2973 - Release Date: 06/30/10
12:24:00
