[ECOLOG-L] Ecology Economics and ESA policy Observation 001
Re: ESA policy statement on economic growth. The problem is not economic growth, per se, but the ways in which it is implemented. However regrettable it may be, it may be necessary to say this, if for no other reason than that the real core truth can only be reached, as a practical matter, with such a statement as a means of helping the Big Exploiters save face and lead them beside the still waters which they, too, must drink when their RO system needs a filter change. Sometimes the art of such statements consist of such. (I couldn't do it, but I'm glad someone can.) WT PS: At the level of ecosystems, anthropogenic predation switched to exploitation at The Dawn of Culture. It has been increasing for some ten or twelve thousand years or so now, with the curve going toward exponential around 5,000 years or so ago BCE. I have long made the distinction between predation and exploitation, even to ecologists, but often without much effect. I think it is crucial; many others do not--in fact, many believe there should be no distinction at all or that they are synonymous. As mere predators, we were social, cooperative. We feasted upon the fruit of the land, and our population curves tracked those of our prey in the usual offset fashion. With culture, with CULTIVATION, we started robbing Peter to pay Paul. Rather than shifting ourselves to match the habitat, we started shifting the habitat to match us--and our fantasies. Hence, Fantastic Homo sapiens, a real cartoon character, self-writ. The fantasy has gone critical, as they say about nuclear reactors, but FHS has not adopted critical self-examination in a sufficiently significant way. Sociopaths have gone critical in the sense that they have completely lost the ability to be critical of themselves. We are all infected with the sociopath virus, with varying degrees of infection and effects. As social animals, we are, by definition, asocial when we fail to cooperate in terms of the welfare of our species rather than the individual, and we see a false inconsistency when we think that individuals must be sacrificed for the welfare of the group. All for one and one for all has fallen into disfavor--all for me is the center of our present fantasy, with, of course, the notable minority that still retains a significant social impulse. It is this meat upon which our Caesar feed[s]. The Caesar's among and within us. The Caesar Virus. Cultures (cultivators) require slaves. Some many must toil that others may enjoy excess. Our social impulses are strong, however, and to the extent that are able to overcome cultural authoritarian hierarchies, progress has been made. Literal slavery has largely been abolished, yet obeisance to hierarchies rather than the social structures that produces pulling together for the common good have preserved the net effects through consumerism and other sharing of the spoils of exploitation, aka, economics. Ecology is house-understanding. Economics is house-numbers. We presently live in a mix shifted heavily toward the latter. We have long lived in such a mix, and we are still struggling with this dichotomy. We SUBORDINATE house-understanding to house-economics for short-term gain (exploitation) at the expense of long-term sustainability. Ain't them big bubbles IMPRESSIVE though? ###
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in Economic Decisions
Thanks to all involved in this debate! To Brian Czech and CASSE, to ESA and others on ecolog-l. A very important discussion! Thanks also to Heather Reynolds, who wrote this, which I agree seems very much at the core of the issue: Eminent ecological economist Herman Daly observes (and I paraphrase here) that building the modern economy around the idea of growth is at least partly a ploy to avoid facing up to the problem of sharing. He notes: If you don't continue to grow and you still have poverty, then you have to redistribute. I think this fits in with the efforts of Brian and CASSE to clarify that growth applies to any economy taken as a whole. Perhaps if folks used the term net growth it might help to allow for growth in some sectors as long as equal shrinkage or decrease in material throughput occurred elsewhere to offset. Thus steady state economy results for any economy as a whole. It seems to me the problem of sharing as Heather notes is so deep as to be perhaps subliminal or sub-consciously below the level of normal discourse. To suggest an equal or perhaps greater importance of sharing and cooperation could challenge not only neoclassical economics, but also the mainstream of evolutionary biology. These two now are mutually reinforcing in their value of competition between individuals as the best (perhaps only?) reliable or objective means to improvement in quality of life over time, development that aids both the individual and the greater good. I think the ESA statement has some very powerful and profound aspects, even though I agree it seems to stop just short of the full subversion of the dominant cultural paradigm that is likely at the root of our environmental problems. For example, phrases like: Human wellbeing depends on numerous forms of wealth. Humanity as a whole will not necessarily be richer. are powerful in suggesting a value system that applies to all humanity as the appropriate scale for this debate. To me such language is sign that the environmental and social globalization movements are starting to catch up to the economic form of globalization. I also think this planetary scale for discourse and value judgements fits with the original CASSE ideas that we admit that the era and emphasis on growth should end - net growth, at the planetary scale, as function of population times resource use. For this to happen, if developing nations are to grow in materials use, we in the U.S. will have to do with less. Seems fair to me. Especially as part of a new story or cultural paradigm in which cooperation and mutualism are elevated to higher standards as key organizing principles in both life and economics. Thanks again, Dan -- Dan Fiscus Assistant Professor Biology Department Frostburg State University 308 Compton Science Center Frostburg, MD 21532 USA 301-687-4170 dafis...@frostburg.edu From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Heather Reynolds Sent: Mon 7/27/2009 11:12 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in Economic Decisions An unfortunate typo in my last post that should be apparent. The typo is corrected in CAPS below: The onus is put on DEVELOPED countries to lead the way towards steady state. Heather Reynolds Associate Professor Department of Biology Jordan Hall 142 Indiana University 1001 E 3rd Street Bloomington IN 47405 Ph: (812) 855-0792 Fax: (812) 855-6705 hlrey...@indiana.edu On Jul 27, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Heather Reynolds wrote: I think there was a lot more room for a less bad tasting, perhaps even palatable, compromise had the process been more inclusive. There is a difference, for example, between an explicit 'no-growth' position and a position that advocates the impossible, 'sustainable growth.' 'Even 'steady-state' has a different ring than 'no- growth'. Unfortunately, ESA has thus far consistently refrained from bringing anyone from the steady-state growth group that originally proposed the position statement to the table, so there was little hope of thoroughly debating the issues and coming to any kind of consensus position. The important thing in my mind was for ESA to avoid being used as one more excuse for continuing the status quo. It seems as if people are unaware of just how precarious our situation is with regard to exceeding resource/green infrastructure limits. And the developing world is, and will continue to, bear the brunt. ESA has an opportunity to send a wake up call. Ecologists should operate from ecological first principles. I'm not saying that means we don't have consider political realities, but refusing to compromise on our ecological first principles would open up the door to alternative political positions. One of ESA's biggest fears is that acknowledging that economic growth is unsustainable amounts to the
[ECOLOG-L] Post-doc position: Quantitative Landscape Ecologist
Post-doc position Quantitative Landscape Ecologist A post-doctoral position is available to address the question of how tax incentive and easement policies can affect biodiversity at national and regional scales. The position will involve developing and applying models to evaluate the potential effects of landscape pattern on a group of vertebrate indicator species. The chosen candidate will work closely with ecologists at the University of Washington as well as economists and ecologists at the University of Minnesota, the University of Wisconsin, the U.S. EPA, and The Nature Conservancy. The ideal candidate will have a background in landscape ecology, experience with large data sets, ArcGIS, script writing in Python, programming in R, and experience with MATLAB. They will have excellent communications skills and a strong interest in working with an interdisciplinary research team. Candidates should have a PhD in ecology, geography, or a related field. The position is full time and is available October 1st for a period of one year with renewal for another year depending on funding. Applications will be accepted until the position is filled, but preference will be given to those received before August 21st. To apply, send a CV, letter of interest describing your experience and qualifications, and contact information for three references to Josh Lawler at jlaw...@u.washington.edu. For more information about the Lawler lab, visit: http://depts.washington.edu/landecol/ or contact the above e-mail address. I will be at the ESA meeting in Albuquerque from August 3-6 and would be happy to meet with potential candidates there (contact me at jlaw...@u.washington.edu). -- Joshua J. Lawler School of Forest Resources University of Washington Box 352100 Seattle, WA 98195-2100 phone: 206.685.4367 fax: 206.616.6101 http://depts.washington.edu/landecol/ jlaw...@u.washington.edu
[ECOLOG-L] Re ESA Position Statement
One problem with this concept of sustainable economic growth is in how it's measured and communicated. Looking back through my economics texts, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the near-universal measure of economic growth (and indeed, GDP growth is still what most politicians and the media are looking to re-start in our current economic condition). That GDP is an extremely poor measure of both environmental sustainability and social well-being is so well established and argued elsewhere that it needs no further explanation here. So if we're trying to get to sustainable economic growth, how do we measure it (certainly not with GDP)? I wouldn't argue that some industries can indeed reduce our levels of resource consumption. But if we're still increasing consumption in the aggregate, our environmental impacts will of course keep growing, even if we shift some consumption into green economic sectors. A term as ill-defined and quite potentially paradoxical as sustainable economic growth requires some real qualifiers. Is corn ethanol sustainable economic growth? Are palm oil plantations that displace tropical rainforest sustainable economic growth? At least economic growth and steady-state economy are well-defined, easily understood terms. Sustainable economic growth, I fear, remains quite open to greenwashing. If we insist on using this term, it would be far preferable to define what it means, how to measure it, and what the consequences of such policies would look like (e.g., reforming GDP accounting, retiring GDP growth as a national policy goal). Ken Bagstad, PhD From: Nadine Lymn nad...@esa.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 10:46 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Re ESA Position Statement Dear All: In a recent correspondence with an individual concerned about ESA's position statement, ESA Board Member Josh Schimel points out that the Governing Board took very seriously its task of representing 10,000 ecologists and carefully deliberated in issuing the ESA statement. With his permission, I post Josh's correspondence below. Nadine Lymn ESA Director of Public Affairs The ears were not deaf. On the contrary, they were wide open. We heard and agreed with many of the fundamental points Brian, you and others had been making. But those weren't the only messages coming in and we had to balance those different perspectives. The discussion at the Governing Board meeting was extended, thoughtful, and analytical. There are a number of extraordinarily insightful and concerned people on the board. We all agreed that an ESA statement needed to highlight the conflict between two fundamental truths: 1. Humans in the developing world have a moral right to try to improve their well being. 2. There is a finite capacity of the planet to support humans and increasing resource consumption and waste production will degrade the planetary carrying capacity. Thus, we felt that the statement had to argue that we needed to balance those conflicting truths. As ecologists, we can and should focus on the second--managing the carrying capacity, but we can't tell poor people that they may not improve their living conditions. There are ethical boundaries just as there are ecological boundaries. We didn't feel that we could cross one while arguing that we must not cross the other. So, the key front section starts by highlighting that conflict, and personally I think it does it well: --- The Sustainability of Economic Growth At present, economic growth is a double-edged sword: Although it enhances the standards of living in the short-term, it can degrade the ecological infrastructure needed to sustain long-term welfare. This dichotomy may be humanity's central challenge in the 21st century-sustaining living standards and spreading the benefits of economic development to the large fraction of humanity still mired in poverty, while preserving the ecological life-support system on which future welfare depends. - The whole document is a major redraft from the initial one, which many were unhappy with because a) it focused too much on the right to develop, b) didn't emphasize the carrying capacity issues adequately, and c) read too economic-speak rather than ecological-speak. I.e. we were concerned about the same core issues you and others were highlighting, partly in response to your input. The current document focuses on the risks to ecological systems (and thus the long-term well being of humanity) and the need to manage them rationally. Those are appropriate messages for ecologists to make. However, and this may be where the apparent disagreements arise: does economic growth necessarily require increased resource consumption and environmental degradation? The economists, at least, argue that some types of economic activity actually reduce environmental impact. I think they may be right. The development of hybrid cars, solar cells, etc. all involve economic
[ECOLOG-L] ESA position on sustainable growth
Dear fellow/sister ECOLOGgers; I am not a member of ESA, but I have never had a problem with sustainable growth per se. I don't see it as continuing on the road that we're on economically or developmentally, but I see it as growth in new ways, new attitudes and new ways of thinking. To me, growth does not mean unfettered use or unlimited consumption. It means change, adaptation, paradigm shifts. But as the United States takes a fresh look at how our economy functions, we see a tremendous opportunity to adopt an approach that incorporates the value of natural ecosystems. Why can't that include Low Impact Development? Growth and development that incorporates the dynamism of the natural world we live in? Why does growth have to be viewed as bad? And by what standards do we measure value? Society at least needs to be honest about that; when using the word value in the sense of natural ecosystems, what are we talking about? Property or real estate value? Development value? Wildlife habitat value? Tourism value? Recreational value? Scenic value? Is nature valuable just cuz it exists? If everything not associated with humans is natural, then what are we? What I've been thinking is that, if we want humanity to be part of the natural world and not separate from or above it, we must learn to grow within it as much as we learn to grow it within ourselves. Pardon the touchy-feely aspect of that, but we really need to act as though we belong here and embrace the idea that all organisms on the planet struggle for survival ~ every living thing (plants, animals, insects, you name it) competes for resources, outsmarts predators, consumes and makes waste, defends itself, attacks and invades, and seeks to gain new territory through growth. So far as I know, humans are the only beings that can consciously modify our behavior and decide to limit our growth through intellect rather than instinctive reaction. Just my 2 cents' worth. Respectfully, Kelly Stettner Black River Action Team (BRAT) 45 Coolidge Road Springfield, VT 05156 http://www.blackriveractionteam.org Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:22:39 -0400 From: TUFFORD, DANIEL tuff...@biol.sc.edu Subject: Re: ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in Economic Decisions I did not participate in the ESA discussions about this so do not know = what was actually said or done, but I can understand this position in = the context of political relevance. In an earlier e-mail Brian mentioned = sound science, which is certainly a high priority. But policy in the = functioning economic and political arena implies political salience. A = no-growth position (which I personally support) will immediately = marginalize the organization that proposes it. The position is fine in = the context of an ongoing discussion of philosophical approaches but is = a boat-anchor in the real world of feasible policy development. =20 This level of compromise leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well, but I = do not know of a practical alternative. =20 Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D. University of South Carolina Department of Biological Sciences 715 Sumter St. (mail) 209A Sumwalt (office) Columbia, SC 29208 803-777-3292 (phone) 803-777-3292 (fax) tuff...@sc.edu http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of = Heather Reynolds Sent: Fri 7/24/2009 10:53 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems = Should Figure in Economic Decisions I am deeply disappointed that ESA has persisted in maintaining the=20 myth of sustainable growth in its recent position statement on the=20 ecological impacts of economic activities. What an embarrassing=20 oxymoron for ecologists to be caught promoting. The position statement is at best confusing, sending a decidedly mixed=20 message. In one breadth it acknowledges that there are limits to the=20 amount of consumption and pollution the Earth can sustain and in the=20 next it is claiming that the problem is not economic growth per se=20 and that [we can] move toward sustainable growth. It is unfortunate=20 that the many good aspects of the position statement, such as its=20 recognition of healthy ecosystems as the foundation of a sound=20 economy, the need to internalize environmental externalities, the=20 recognition of multiple forms of wealth, and the importance of=20 advancing wellbeing in a more equitable fashion across the globe, are=20 confounded with language implying that societies can continue growing=20 their economies ad infinitum. Apparently, ecologists have decided=20 that humans are unique among life forms in possessing an ability to=20 grow without limits. Corporate capitalists and the revolving door corporate lobby that we=20 call our political system will be pleased. it is just that language on=20 sustainable growth that they will
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Re ESA Position Statement
There were certainly ESA Board Members who took the time to respond and engage with members of Brian's group, Josh Schimel a shining example among them. Others who I know of that took time to thoughtfully engage were Mary Power, Rob Jackson and Margaret Lowman. Deep thanks to these people for giving Brian's group an ear. What Brian's group of some 70 ESA members wanted, however, was the chance for representation within the group that ESA put together to develop the ESA position statement. That group, ESA reported, consisted of two environmental ecologists and a mathematical ecologist. It was feared that without representation in the ESA group, the original goals of Brian's group, for ESA to make a clear statement from ecological first principles that the world has limits to growth, would become lost. Brian's group believed that only from those starting principles could rationale and equitable policies be derived. ESA maintained that its protocol did not allow for having anyone to represent Brian's group at the discussion table. Personally, I felt that ESA was too protective and cautious in disallowing participation by a member (Brian Czech) who has already established himself as an important player in the field and that excluding such input from an important stakeholder (Brian's initiating group of ESA members) risked a lengthy and perhaps ultimately failed effort to come to consensus on what is arguably the most important issue of our time. Brian's group tried to compensate for this in the only way available - by making postings to ECOLOG-L and responding to the Public Affairs Office's call for input as well as contacting Board Members by phone and email to respectfully weigh in with our criticisms of the draft ESA document. I won't speak for others here, but can say that this input included objections to the draft statement's failure to unambiguously admit limits to economic growth, to its suggestion that economic growth can be sustainable, to the statement's clear environmental economist bias (and, more fundamentally, that anyone with expertise in ecological economics was not included in the drafting group), to the statement's failure to make distinctions between growth (involving quantitative increases in physical sizes or materials fluxes) and development (involving increases in welfare through largely qualitative means that maintain the human economy within the regenerative and assimilative capacity of earth's ecosystems), and to the statement's failure to acknowledge responsibility on the part of developed countries to lead the way toward steady-state development. But such efforts cannot compete with the power afforded by having representation as a member of the drafting group. You've got to have the opportunity for meaningful face to face debate and discussion to have a hope of really persuading someone to your point of view. Perhaps the outcome would have been the same, but at least there would have been the opportunity to find out whether any consensus was possible. Josh is right, position statements are controversial or o/w what's the point of developing them. And while the current ESA position statement is disappointing, I appreciate the back and forth that has occurred over ECOLOG-L, and hope in fact that there is a lot more. Every ecologist must thoroughly study this issue and figure out where they stand on it. It seems a positive thing that the ESA Board is considering writing a piece for the Ecol Bulletin to explain more about how this piece came about and how ESA handles position statements. I hope that an opportunity is afforded Brian's group to write their view, perhaps with some opportunity for some back-and-forth responses. This process could be helpful in (a) further educating ESA about the issues and (b) getting valuable input on whether/how ESA might better handle position statements. Heather Reynolds Associate Professor Department of Biology Jordan Hall 142 Indiana University 1001 E 3rd Street Bloomington IN 47405 Ph: (812) 855-0792 Fax: (812) 855-6705 hlrey...@indiana.edu On Jul 27, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Nadine Lymn wrote: Dear All: In a recent correspondence with an individual concerned about ESA's position statement, ESA Board Member Josh Schimel points out that the Governing Board took very seriously its task of representing 10,000 ecologists and carefully deliberated in issuing the ESA statement. With his permission, I post Josh's correspondence below. Nadine Lymn ESA Director of Public Affairs The ears were not deaf. On the contrary, they were wide open. We heard and agreed with many of the fundamental points Brian, you and others had been making. But those weren't the only messages coming in and we had to balance those different perspectives. The discussion at the Governing Board meeting was
[ECOLOG-L] Q??-Depth/Fish Finders to Locate Aquatic Macrophytes
I am starting a project studying upground reservoirs (i.e., bulldozed areas next to a stream in the flat northwestern parts of Ohio into which drinking water is pumped) and we want to document the abundance of submerged macrophytes in these steep-sided systems. I have been thinking that I want to use a depth/fish finder coupled with GPS in traverses of the reservoirs to find and quantify the area with these macrophytes. Does anyone have suggestions as to 1. how well this might work (some of the advertising suggests that their units can identify fish in macrophytes and I am afraid that an off-the-shelf unit might intentionally/by design not pick up macrophytes? 2. models that have worked well? Ideally, we would like to link the data on the depth finder to a computer, so that we can analyze the data off-boat. 3. other methods we might use to rapidly quantify submerged macrophytes. Thanks. Jeff Jeffrey G. Miner, Ph.D. Associate Professor Aquatic Ecology and Fisheries Laboratory Graduate Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology Department of Biological Sciences Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43403 USA (419) 372-8330 Fax: (419) 372-2024 jmi...@bgnet.bgsu.edu http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/biology/ You must be the change you wish to see ~ Gandhi We can only be as great as our own expectations.
[ECOLOG-L] NEW BOOK: Lizards in an Evolutionary Tree: Ecology and Adaptive Radiation of Anoles
Dear ECOLOG-L: The University of California Press is pleased to announce the publication of: Lizards in an Evolutionary Tree: Ecology and Adaptive Radiation of Anoles Jonathan B. Losos is Monique and Philip Lehner Professor for the Study of Latin America in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, and Curator in Herpetology at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. http://go.ucpress.edu/Losos Adaptive radiation, which results when a single ancestral species gives rise to many descendants, each adapted to a different part of the environment, is possibly the single most important source of biological diversity in the living world. One of the best-studied examples involves Caribbean Anolis lizards. With about 400 species, Anolis has played an important role in the development of ecological theory and has become a model system exemplifying the integration of ecological, evolutionary, and behavioral studies to understand evolutionary diversification. This major work, written by one of the best-known investigators of Anolis, reviews and synthesizes an immense literature. Jonathan B. Losos illustrates how different scientific approaches to the questions of adaptation and diversification can be integrated and examines evolutionary and ecological questions of interest to a broad range of biologists. Full information about the book, including the first chapter is available online: http://go.ucpress.edu/Losos -- Lindsay Wong Electronic Marketing Coordinator University of California Press Phone: 510-643-4738 Email: lindsay.w...@ucpress.edu Website: http://www.ucpress.edu UC Press Blog: http://ucpress.typepad.com/ucpresslog/
[ECOLOG-L] Postdoctoral position in Grassland Community and Ecosystem Ecology
*Grassland Community and Ecosystem Ecology* We are seeking a postdoctoral research associate to join an ongoing study of the effects of invasion by endophyte infected grasses on the community and ecosystem dynamics of grasslands. In a large scale field experiment, we are tracking the ecological impacts of 31 different cultivars of three grass species (perennial ryegrass, tall fescue and meadow fescue) on native grasslands. Experimental plots have been invaded with grass cultivars that are either endophyte-free, endophyte-infected, or in some cases infected by novel endophytes. The successful candidate will assess how the experimental treatments affect community composition and ecosystem functioning, and have the opportunity to develop collaborative research using the established study site or to address other novel questions related to grass-endophyte interactions. In addition to participating in and supervising data collection, the incumbent will also be responsible for data analysis and manuscript preparation. Applicants must have (or be close to finishing) a Ph.D. in community or ecosystem ecology, grassland ecology, plant biology or related field, as well as experience publishing manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals. Experience with plant identification, vegetation analysis, and studying community dynamics and biogeochemical processes is desirable. Salary is commensurate with experience. This position is for two years with the possibility of renewal. The preferred start date is January 2010, but is negotiable. To apply, please send a cover letter explaining your interest in and match for the position, a CV, and the names and contact information for three referees to Jonathan Newman (jnewm...@uoguelph.ca), Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, N1G 2W1, Ontario, Canada or Hafiz Maherali (maher...@uoguelph.ca), Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada. Please feel free to email either one of us at the above addresses if you have questions about the position. Review of applications will begin September 15th, 2009 and continue until the position is filled. One of us (Hafiz Maherali) will be at the upcoming ESA meetings in Albuquerque. I am happy to meet with interested candidates to discuss the position. Please contact me via email to set up a meeting time. Hafiz Maherali Department of Integrative Biology University of Guelph Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 Canada
[ECOLOG-L] Postdoctoral position in Plant Physiological Ecology or Plant Evolutionary Physiology
*Plant Physiological Ecology or Plant Evolutionary Physiology* I am seeking a postdoctoral research associate who is broadly interested in the physiology and evolution of plant-fungal interactions and/or the ecological and evolutionary effects of invasive species on the physiological ecology of native species. The successful applicant will contribute to studies of the physiological basis of plant responsiveness to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and how the evolution of plant function is affected by invasive species and/or climate change factors that disrupt the plant-fungal symbiosis. There will also be opportunities to develop collaborative research in related areas. Responsibilities include designing greenhouse, growth chamber and field studies, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation and mentoring undergraduate and high school students in research. Applicants must have (or be close to finishing) a Ph.D. in physiological ecology, evolutionary ecology, plant biology or a related field, should have experience working in field and controlled environments and publishing manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals. Experience working with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and/or in phylogenetic ecology or ecological genetics would be an asset. Funding is available for two years, salary is commensurate with experience, and the start date is flexible. To apply, please send a cover letter explaining your interest in and match for the position, a CV, and the names and contact information for three referees to Hafiz Maherali (maher...@uoguelph.ca), Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada. Please feel free to email me at the above address if you have questions about the position. Review of applications will begin September 15th, 2009 and continue until the position is filled. I will be at the upcoming ESA meetings in Albuquerque and am happy to meet with interested candidates. Please contact me via email to set up a meeting time. Hafiz Maherali Department of Integrative Biology University of Guelph Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 Canada
[ECOLOG-L] MS Forestry Position
MS Forestry Position Department of Forestry, University of Missouri - Columbia, USA A MS graduate research assistant position is available beginning January 2010 with Drs. Michael Stambaugh and Richard Guyette (Missouri Tree-Ring Laboratory, www.missouri.edu/~guyetter) in the Department of Forestry (www.snr.missouri.edu/forestry/) at the University of Missouri. Research will involve developing multi-century reconstructions of fire events and analysis of vegetation dynamics in the Cross Timbers forest region of Oklahoma. The project will incorporate methodological techniques from the discipline of tree-ring research (dendrochronology). The successful applicant is expected to explore relationships among historic fires, climate, and vegetation dynamics; particularly the expansion and growth of eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana). This research will result in scientifically-based information in support of fire management programs. Applicants interested in this position should have an undergraduate degree in forestry, natural resources, biology, ecology, environmental sciences, or a similar field. Applicants should be capable of conducting extensive and strenuous fieldwork. Dendrochronology experience is desirable, although not required. This position includes tuition, health benefits, and stipend for 2 years that is renewable annually based on satisfactory performance. Please submit an application package that includes a cover letter, curriculum vitae, transcripts, GRE scores, and two letters of recommendation. Applications will be considered immediately and continue until the position is filled. Applicants will also apply to the Department of Forestry by 15 Oct in order to be considered for Jan 2010. See http://snr.missouri.edu/forestry/academics/graduate-admissions.php. Criteria for graduate admission acceptance to the Department can be found at: http://gradschool.missouri.edu/programs/catalog/forestry/master.php For more information contact: Dr. Michael Stambaugh Research Associate 203 ABNR Building Department of Forestry University of Missouri - Columbia Columbia, MO 65211 Tel: (573) 882-8841 Fax: (573) 882-1977 E-mail: stambau...@missouri.edu The University of Missouri is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer.
[ECOLOG-L] Terminology Meaning Context Confusion Understanding Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA position on sustainable growth
Kel et al, Yeah, that's touchy-feely alright. And another excellent reason for both getting our words, in the words of Goldilocks, just right. Context, it might be said, is everything. But unless the context is clear, as in the case where you took care to explain your definition, words like growth do not always convey the same thing to everybody, or even to a majority. The reasonable person test or common usage test can be useful in determining when one needs to qualify the meaning of a term, but even then words like sustainable, for example, are mushy enough to result in enough confusion to be dangerous. I guess that's what makes effective communication an art. Growth, in the sense of economic growth, is a hijacked term, but one where the a kind of Stockholm syndrome has set in, ripping the term out of the hands of biology and converting it to a euphemism. But in this case, the theft is so old, and the misusage so entrenched, that it must be qualified at every usage in which the context is not iron-clad. While I might wish that your definition held sway in the real world, I fear that is too wobbly to stand. But you can always use change, adaptation, paradigm shifts, eh? Use the word that provides the best fit to the context. (Well, at least we can try.) Progress is another example of a word that once meant improvement or movement forward, must now share a bed with progressives. What a tangled web we weave. And we are ensnarled in our web, hoisted upon our own petard. To avoid this dilemma, better to go the way of Jefferson than of Alexander [the Great]. Though you cannot see, when you take one step, what will be the next, yet follow truth, justice, and plain dealing, and never fear their leading you out of the labyrinth, in the easiest manner possible. The knot which you thought a Gordian one, will untie itself before you.* A being, a species, that sees itself as sapiens is perhaps making progress when changing its own PN to merely sapiens rather than sapiens sapiens, and I suppose one could call that [intellectual] growth. An occasional peek behind the curtain at our picture, especially as our visage/image grows more and more handsome, might do us all a world of good (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Picture_of_Dorian_Gray), not to mention the world and the earth a world of good. Yet, even seemingly tangled words can sometimes stimulate a sniff at a least-traveled path, eh? http://www.ram.org/contrib/road_not_taken.html WT *http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_Peter_Carr_-_August_19,_1785 PS: Tufford cuts refreshingly to the heart of the matter when he point out the difficulty of selling the truth in the real world. A knotty problem indeed . . . - Original Message - From: Kelly Stettner blackriverclea...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:26 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] ESA position on sustainable growth Dear fellow/sister ECOLOGgers; I am not a member of ESA, but I have never had a problem with sustainable growth per se. I don't see it as continuing on the road that we're on economically or developmentally, but I see it as growth in new ways, new attitudes and new ways of thinking. To me, growth does not mean unfettered use or unlimited consumption. It means change, adaptation, paradigm shifts. But as the United States takes a fresh look at how our economy functions, we see a tremendous opportunity to adopt an approach that incorporates the value of natural ecosystems. Why can't that include Low Impact Development? Growth and development that incorporates the dynamism of the natural world we live in? Why does growth have to be viewed as bad? And by what standards do we measure value? Society at least needs to be honest about that; when using the word value in the sense of natural ecosystems, what are we talking about? Property or real estate value? Development value? Wildlife habitat value? Tourism value? Recreational value? Scenic value? Is nature valuable just cuz it exists? If everything not associated with humans is natural, then what are we? What I've been thinking is that, if we want humanity to be part of the natural world and not separate from or above it, we must learn to grow within it as much as we learn to grow it within ourselves. Pardon the touchy-feely aspect of that, but we really need to act as though we belong here and embrace the idea that all organisms on the planet struggle for survival ~ every living thing (plants, animals, insects, you name it) competes for resources, outsmarts predators, consumes and makes waste, defends itself, attacks and invades, and seeks to gain new territory through growth. So far as I know, humans are the only beings that can consciously modify our behavior and decide to limit our growth through intellect rather than instinctive reaction. Just my 2 cents' worth. Respectfully, Kelly Stettner Black River Action Team (BRAT) 45
[ECOLOG-L] Unsubscribe
Bradley W. Miller Post Doctoral Fellow National Research Council National Risk Management Research Laboratory Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati OH 45224-1702 Sent from my iPhone
