Ecology Biodiversity Laws 101215
Ecology is such a squishy, fuzzy, fractal, chaotic phenomenon, it's no
wonder definitions of terms are such a challenge.
Defining, pinning down, measuring something that is infinitely complex and
continuously changing may be impossible, even irrelevant. If true, that
would mean a fundamental paradigm shift away from conventional practice.
Consciously or unconsciously, ecologists and others who ponder the wonder of
life seem to variously try to conventionally measure, then intuit, relate,
and re-check, only to find an infinity of not-quite-fits, and measure again
in a cycle that is simultaneously revealing, frustrating, close, and far, in
a never-ending quest for some Holy Grail of certainty when contentment may
lie in an acceptance of small glimpses of "this wonder of life."
Trying to hammer this genie into a bottle in the image of our
self-conception may be useful up to a point (it is quite a challenge to
avoid trying to put such phenomena into terms we already know, and a
fearsome prospect to open our hearts and minds to a kind of osmosis wherein
we assume a more passive than aggressive posture and "let it happen") where
the phenomena we glimpse "write" the rules and we are mere stenographers.
Critical thinking is all very well, but when it comes to being critical
about our own thinking-well, that sort of thing just isn't usually done, is
it? We are uncomfortable with the idea that the error might lie in the
certainty of our views (definitions, methods, yes, even numerical
"discipline" . . . ) rather than in challenges to them.
Yet the history of scientific advance is written, not about the certainty of
paradigms, but of the heretical challenges that, at long last, finally break
through. We are, after all, a social species, and conformity to groupthink
is historically tied closely to the very survival that enabled us to
entertain the luxury of contemplation of something besides our next meal-or
mega-fortune.
As an example of such an heretical challenge, we might look at the concept
of biodiversity and the conclusions that are derived from it. Biodiversity,
for example, might be a valid concept based on an intuitive hunch, and like
all hunches in history, the concept must stand up to continuous testing; the
problem comes in when we stop the testing. An assemblage of species that is,
say, largely (99 percent or some other large number) composed of one species
(or of low genetic diversity) with a large number of species (or of high
genetic diversity) might be as resilient as its environment makes possible.
Historically, the earth of, say, 3.7 billion years BCE might have been an
approximation of that hypothetical. Given the literal hell's fire and
brimstone that life apparently has had to endure to reach its present level
of complexity, one might be able to conclude that such "low diversity" might
have possessed an as yet not understood kind of flexibility not dependent
upon diversity.
I dunno . . . what say y'all?
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mimi Tzeng" <mwtz...@gmail.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOG-L Digest - 13 Dec 2010 to 14 Dec 2010
(#2010-341)
Funnily enough, I was recently faced with exactly that problem - though on
a
very small-scale, non-Nobel Prize winning level. The task was to write a
brief intro for an online article directory about Biodiversity, aimed at
the
general web-browsing public. I came up with:
"Biodiversity can refer to genetic diversity within a species, species
diversity within an ecosystem, ecosystem diversity within a region, or all
three of them taken together. In each case, it's a combination measure of
the total number of genes, species, or ecosystems (called "richness") and
their abundances relative to each other.
For example, an ecosystem where one species comprises 99% of the total
number of individuals isn't very diverse, even if there are hundreds of
other species in the other 1%. Likewise, high genetic diversity within a
species is crucial to how well it can adapt to changing environmental
conditions - and its survival in the long term.
Biodiversity has become an increasingly important part of policy planning
for issues in resource and environmental conservation. The loss of
biodiversity has an impact in other areas, like medicine and
bioinformatics.
Learn more about all aspects of biodiversity with the articles below."
I'm open to suggestions on how to improve this if anyone has any. The live
version is at http://www.brighthub.com/guides/biodiversity.aspx. Bright
Hub
is one of the few content sites with basic science articles; the article
topics are based on what people actually search about (as opposed to what
people probably ought to be searching about).
Regards,
Mimi Tzeng
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ritchie, Euan" <euan.ritc...@jcu.edu.au>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: segunda-feira, 13 de Dezembro de 2010 23:05
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Defining biodiversity, and does the term capture the
public's attention?
Hi everyone,
I have just returned from the Ecological Society of Australia meeting and
among other issues, there was much discussion about the term
biodiversity.
Many people argue that this term is hard to define, and importantly, the
public have no idea what it actually means and therefore they have less
connection/concern to preserve/conserve species and habitats. I thought
it
would be interesting to hear how others define biodiversity, and if this
term isn't helpful for conveying the importance of species diversity to
the
public, what term(s) should we use?
Over to you,
Euan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3317 - Release Date: 12/15/10
07:34:00
