Re: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems
The EU Water Quality Directive takes a similar approach and refers to pristine conditions as the standard. Not all scientists agree that pristine conditions are ideal - for example, is it really bad to make a highly oligotrophic water body more productive? Natural conditions do not arise from any goal-seeking behavour but can come about by accident. What about deserts of basaltic rocks left by volcanoes? And speaking of deserts, how far back should we look to define naural conditions? It has been suggested that the Sahara was lush and green before humans overgrazed it. The fires that destroyed the forests of northern Newfoundland may have been caused by humans or by lightning, we have no way of determining which. And what about the depradations of our ancestors, early hominoids who hunted many animals to extinction. If we could bring back the wooly mammoth, would that enhance or destroy natural conditions? Aside from issues of ambiguity, I think that referring to any change from natural conditions as adverse is unrealistic. The idea that we should return the wheatfields that feed human populations to savannah may be philosophically intriguing, but it won't happen and we should instead try to find ways of making the real world function optimally. What the optimum is poses a difficult set of questions, but natural conditions are not the answer. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Geoffrey Patton gwpatt...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems It is with deep regret that I am unable to cite the specific reference for what I am about to write. I have frequently attributed it to John Clark's Ecosystem Management while knowing that's inaccurate. However, the quote I've constucted is Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default, an adverse effect or change. Paraphrased, Nature took millenia to achieve the current dynamic balance of plants and animals, predators and prey, entropy and enthalpy. Any alteration at Man's hand away from the natural order of things conflicts with the balance and is adverse. Thus, we should try to our last breath to make things as conducive to nature's way as possible.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems
Completely agreed with Dave's response. Most of our corrective actions that have a positive effect are normally due to some anthropomorphic action that caused the negative impact to nature in the first place. Unless we let nature take it's course and allow it to happen naturally, it is a negative effect. Unless we see man as part of nature which can be argued but our actions do not fit the natural cycle. Robert Veldman, MS | Senior Scientist | Golder Associates Inc. 44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300, Lakewood, Colorado, USA 80228 T: +1 303-980-0540 | D: +1 303 987-4400 | F: +1 303-985-2080 | C: +1 831-915-0098 | E: rveld...@golder.com | www.golder.com Wisdom is actually using the knowledge we have gained and putting it to action Work Safe, Home Safe This email transmission is confidential and may contain proprietary information for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. Any use, distribution or copying of this transmission, other than by the intended recipient, is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. Electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration, and incompatibility. Accordingly, the electronic media version of any work product may not be relied upon. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of David M. Lawrence Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 6:37 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems I highly doubt we can do better than nature for most other species on the planet -- the only species we can do a better job than even nature can do is our own and a handful of domesticated species. For the rest, test outcome we can manage is to do a less bad job than we have been doing. Dave Warren W. Aney wrote: I would challenge the statement Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default, an adverse effect or change. Smallpox or polio vaccinations are an anthropomorphic alteration of the natural situation, but are they an adverse effect or change? I suppose some might argue that vaccines result in increased human populations, and that is an adverse effect. But now we need to define adverse effect -- is it adverse from a broad human perspective, or is it adverse from some other entity's perspective (Mother Nature? Creator/God/Allah/Brahma/Odin/Wicca? The Society for the Total Overall Protection of Everything Wild?). I can think of other examples of human intervention that we might debate over whether or not they have adverse effects: Stopping a highly intensive wildfire before it destroys an old growth stand. Building a salmon fish ladder around a recent landslide barrier. Protecting endangered northern spotted owls from niche takeover by a natural invasion of barred owls. Providing nest boxes for cavity nesters after a blowdown of snag habitat. Granted, most human alterations of natural systems have had an adverse effect, even some well-intention alterations (e.g., introducing Russian olive and multiflora rose to improve North American wildlife habitat) but I think we're slowly learning how to do a better job than even nature can do. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Geoffrey Patton Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 19:09 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems Dear Good Ecologers: While Dr. Czech has produced an elegant and exhaustive treatise on the application of important concepts in natural systems, it is a bit dense and unapproachable for many. It is with deep regret that I am unable to cite the specific reference for what I am about to write. I have frequently attributed it to John Clark's Ecosystem Management while knowing that's inaccurate. However, the quote I've constucted is Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default, an adverse effect or change. Paraphrased, Nature took millenia to achieve the current dynamic balance of plants and animals, predators and prey, entropy and enthalpy. Any alteration at Man's hand away from the natural order of things conflicts with the balance and is adverse. Thus, we should try to our last breath to make things as conducive to nature's way as possible. I think that's what we're talking about here. Cordially yours, Geoff Patton, Ph.D. 2208 Parker Ave., Wheaton, MD 20902 301.221.9536 --- On Sat, 3/7/09, Czech, Brian cz...@vt.edu wrote: From: Czech, Brian cz...@vt.edu Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 5:09 PM It's true that natural is just semantics in some contexts, but defining the term can
[ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology Natural Re: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems
Honorable Forum: It is intellectually healthy to continue to discuss meanings, particularly when the discussion sharpens rather than muddies distinctions. That is, after all, why language is useful. Language breaks down when it is used to manipulate rather than communicate. Context is important, particularly when a term can mean different things in different contexts, but terms are most useful when they are universal in their meaning. In some academic contexts, for example, terms may be defined more or less sharply than in the general context of the broader usage in society at large. Beyond the sometimes necessary realm of technical jargon and shorthand, any discipline stands to benefit from terminology that is as universal, that has the same meaning in the broader context of society and in the realm of academic discipline. Sometimes, as in ecology, for example, the meaning of terms becomes muddied by overly broad application, when distinctions become unclear or marginally relevant to the more disciplined definition. Natural, however, while it may suffer from some misuse (as in advertising, which is, by its nature [no pun], artificial), has long served to distinguish that which is artificial from that which simply IS, without interference. Nature is natural; that which interferes with it is artificial. WT - Original Message - From: Czech, Brian cz...@vt.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 2:09 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems It's true that natural is just semantics in some contexts, but defining the term can affect the way our public lands are managed. See for example the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Here is one proposal for a frame of reference for natural conditions: http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf Brian Czech, Visiting Professor Natural Resources Program Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, Virginia 22043 From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve Kunz Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our place in the world. We have the intelligence to control our environment on a large scale. Our control of otherwise natural systems can throw them out of balance, or at least, into a new balance. In an extreme case, this intelligent control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own species and most others (think: nuclear war). The planet doesn't care if this happens, and some species will survive and help start things over. Is the result natural or unnatural? At that point, it's just semantics anyway. Peace! Steve Kunz In a message dated 3/5/2009 6:08:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, atom.fuller...@gmail.com writes: I'm a grad student who reads the list-serve to look for job opportunities, but these threads on agroecosystems and climate change bring up a question I have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to, namely: Are humans to be considered a part of the natural world? On the one hand, humans are clearly a species of mammal living on the planet. Science in general follows the Copernican Principle: don't assume there is anything particularly unique about your place in the world. I doubt many of you would consider us to have been specifically placed on the planet and set apart from other forms of life. And yet, when it comes to the things humans do, a clear distinction is made between human causes and natural ones, human modified ecosystems and wild ones. And it is definitely useful to make distictions between human effects and natural ones when studying many ecosystems-I've certainly done it in my own research. So why is this true? How can natural humans cause unnatural effects (or is one assumption false, despite both seeming reasonable)? Can only humans harm the environment? What's the difference between an invasive species being introduced to an island by humans, or the same one arriving on the foot of a bird? What does harming the environment mean, anyway? Somewhat like the two perspectives above, I have seen it defined as: (A) changing the environment from it's original natural or pre-human state (which natural state? how do you define your baseline?), and (B) Making the environment less capable of supporting human life (supporting human life now or indefinietely? at what standard of living?). Those two goals aren't always compatable. So, comments? Thoughts? How do you resolve this? Adam
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems
Brian, Adam and all, Another angle I like to consider is that we could treat natural and human nature and naturalness of humans all as flexible and open to our creative and participatory input and action. One quick citation for this approach is the book by Wes Jackson - Becoming Native to this Place. Rather than treat natural as a static, objective, absolute, immutable term and reality, we can decide, assert, agree and act to make ourselves natural, as well as what that means to us. Many of us are not native to this place (Wes Jackson in Kansas or myself in Western Maryland) yet following Jackson's lead we could make a different reality - we could become native, or become natural, a natural part of the local environment, community, ecosystem able to co-exist with other species, self-sustain over the long-term and maybe even do more good than harm. I think it is a good question and topic of discussion, and even if messy, confusing or difficult still worth wrestling with. If it points to deep issues like paradigmatic stances of objectivist versus participatory human-nature relations, and lets people consider the implications, then it seems to have real value. A few rough thoughts on this...a topic I have also ponder all through grad. school and after... Dan Fiscus -- 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 Czech, Brian Sent: Sat 3/7/2009 5:09 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems It's true that natural is just semantics in some contexts, but defining the term can affect the way our public lands are managed. See for example the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Here is one proposal for a frame of reference for natural conditions: http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf Brian Czech, Visiting Professor Natural Resources Program Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, Virginia 22043 From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve Kunz Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our place in the world. We have the intelligence to control our environment on a large scale. Our control of otherwise natural systems can throw them out of balance, or at least, into a new balance. In an extreme case, this intelligent control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own species and most others (think: nuclear war). The planet doesn't care if this happens, and some species will survive and help start things over. Is the result natural or unnatural? At that point, it's just semantics anyway. Peace! Steve Kunz In a message dated 3/5/2009 6:08:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, atom.fuller...@gmail.com writes: I'm a grad student who reads the list-serve to look for job opportunities, but these threads on agroecosystems and climate change bring up a question I have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to, namely: Are humans to be considered a part of the natural world? On the one hand, humans are clearly a species of mammal living on the planet. Science in general follows the Copernican Principle: don't assume there is anything particularly unique about your place in the world. I doubt many of you would consider us to have been specifically placed on the planet and set apart from other forms of life. And yet, when it comes to the things humans do, a clear distinction is made between human causes and natural ones, human modified ecosystems and wild ones. And it is definitely useful to make distictions between human effects and natural ones when studying many ecosystems-I've certainly done it in my own research. So why is this true? How can natural humans cause unnatural effects (or is one assumption false, despite both seeming reasonable)? Can only humans harm the environment? What's the difference between an invasive species being introduced to an island by humans, or the same one arriving on the foot of a bird? What does harming the environment mean, anyway? Somewhat like the two perspectives above, I have seen it defined as: (A) changing the environment from it's original natural or pre-human state (which natural state? how do you define your baseline?), and (B) Making the environment less capable of supporting human life (supporting human life now or indefinietely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems
I would challenge the statement Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default, an adverse effect or change. Smallpox or polio vaccinations are an anthropomorphic alteration of the natural situation, but are they an adverse effect or change? I suppose some might argue that vaccines result in increased human populations, and that is an adverse effect. But now we need to define adverse effect -- is it adverse from a broad human perspective, or is it adverse from some other entity's perspective (Mother Nature? Creator/God/Allah/Brahma/Odin/Wicca? The Society for the Total Overall Protection of Everything Wild?). I can think of other examples of human intervention that we might debate over whether or not they have adverse effects: Stopping a highly intensive wildfire before it destroys an old growth stand. Building a salmon fish ladder around a recent landslide barrier. Protecting endangered northern spotted owls from niche takeover by a natural invasion of barred owls. Providing nest boxes for cavity nesters after a blowdown of snag habitat. Granted, most human alterations of natural systems have had an adverse effect, even some well-intention alterations (e.g., introducing Russian olive and multiflora rose to improve North American wildlife habitat) but I think we're slowly learning how to do a better job than even nature can do. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Geoffrey Patton Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 19:09 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems Dear Good Ecologers: While Dr. Czech has produced an elegant and exhaustive treatise on the application of important concepts in natural systems, it is a bit dense and unapproachable for many. It is with deep regret that I am unable to cite the specific reference for what I am about to write. I have frequently attributed it to John Clark's Ecosystem Management while knowing that's inaccurate. However, the quote I've constucted is Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default, an adverse effect or change. Paraphrased, Nature took millenia to achieve the current dynamic balance of plants and animals, predators and prey, entropy and enthalpy. Any alteration at Man's hand away from the natural order of things conflicts with the balance and is adverse. Thus, we should try to our last breath to make things as conducive to nature's way as possible. I think that's what we're talking about here. Cordially yours, Geoff Patton, Ph.D. 2208 Parker Ave., Wheaton, MD 20902 301.221.9536 --- On Sat, 3/7/09, Czech, Brian cz...@vt.edu wrote: From: Czech, Brian cz...@vt.edu Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 5:09 PM It's true that natural is just semantics in some contexts, but defining the term can affect the way our public lands are managed. See for example the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Here is one proposal for a frame of reference for natural conditions: http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integ rity.pdf http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Inte grity.pdf Brian Czech, Visiting Professor Natural Resources Program Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, Virginia 22043 From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve Kunz Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our place in the world. We have the intelligence to control our environment on a large scale. Our control of otherwise natural systems can throw them out of balance, or at least, into a new balance. In an extreme case, this intelligent control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own species and most others (think: nuclear war). The planet doesn't care if this happens, and some species will survive and help start things over. Is the result natural or unnatural? At that point, it's just semantics anyway. Peace! Steve Kunz In a message dated 3/5/2009 6:08:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, atom.fuller...@gmail.com writes: I'm a grad student who reads the list-serve to look for job opportunities, but these threads on agroecosystems and climate change bring up a question I have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to, namely: Are humans to be considered a part of the natural world? On the one hand, humans are clearly a species of mammal living on the planet. Science in general follows the Copernican Principle: don't assume there is anything
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems
I highly doubt we can do better than nature for most other species on the planet -- the only species we can do a better job than even nature can do is our own and a handful of domesticated species. For the rest, test outcome we can manage is to do a less bad job than we have been doing. Dave Warren W. Aney wrote: I would challenge the statement Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default, an adverse effect or change. Smallpox or polio vaccinations are an anthropomorphic alteration of the natural situation, but are they an adverse effect or change? I suppose some might argue that vaccines result in increased human populations, and that is an adverse effect. But now we need to define adverse effect -- is it adverse from a broad human perspective, or is it adverse from some other entity's perspective (Mother Nature? Creator/God/Allah/Brahma/Odin/Wicca? The Society for the Total Overall Protection of Everything Wild?). I can think of other examples of human intervention that we might debate over whether or not they have adverse effects: Stopping a highly intensive wildfire before it destroys an old growth stand. Building a salmon fish ladder around a recent landslide barrier. Protecting endangered northern spotted owls from niche takeover by a natural invasion of barred owls. Providing nest boxes for cavity nesters after a blowdown of snag habitat. Granted, most human alterations of natural systems have had an adverse effect, even some well-intention alterations (e.g., introducing Russian olive and multiflora rose to improve North American wildlife habitat) but I think we're slowly learning how to do a better job than even nature can do. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Geoffrey Patton Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 19:09 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems Dear Good Ecologers: While Dr. Czech has produced an elegant and exhaustive treatise on the application of important concepts in natural systems, it is a bit dense and unapproachable for many. It is with deep regret that I am unable to cite the specific reference for what I am about to write. I have frequently attributed it to John Clark's Ecosystem Management while knowing that's inaccurate. However, the quote I've constucted is Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default, an adverse effect or change. Paraphrased, Nature took millenia to achieve the current dynamic balance of plants and animals, predators and prey, entropy and enthalpy. Any alteration at Man's hand away from the natural order of things conflicts with the balance and is adverse. Thus, we should try to our last breath to make things as conducive to nature's way as possible. I think that's what we're talking about here. Cordially yours, Geoff Patton, Ph.D. 2208 Parker Ave., Wheaton, MD 20902 301.221.9536 --- On Sat, 3/7/09, Czech, Brian cz...@vt.edu wrote: From: Czech, Brian cz...@vt.edu Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 5:09 PM It's true that natural is just semantics in some contexts, but defining the term can affect the way our public lands are managed. See for example the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Here is one proposal for a frame of reference for natural conditions: http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integ rity.pdf http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Inte grity.pdf Brian Czech, Visiting Professor Natural Resources Program Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, Virginia 22043 From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve Kunz Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our place in the world. We have the intelligence to control our environment on a large scale. Our control of otherwise natural systems can throw them out of balance, or at least, into a new balance. In an extreme case, this intelligent control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own species and most others (think: nuclear war). The planet doesn't care if this happens, and some species will survive and help start things over. Is the result natural or unnatural? At that point, it's just semantics anyway. Peace! Steve Kunz In a message dated 3/5/2009 6:08:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, atom.fuller...@gmail.com writes: I'm a grad student who reads the list-serve to look for job opportunities, but these threads on agroecosystems
[ECOLOG-L] Natural systems
It's true that natural is just semantics in some contexts, but defining the term can affect the way our public lands are managed. See for example the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Here is one proposal for a frame of reference for natural conditions: http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf Brian Czech, Visiting Professor Natural Resources Program Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, Virginia 22043 From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve Kunz Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our place in the world. We have the intelligence to control our environment on a large scale. Our control of otherwise natural systems can throw them out of balance, or at least, into a new balance. In an extreme case, this intelligent control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own species and most others (think: nuclear war). The planet doesn't care if this happens, and some species will survive and help start things over. Is the result natural or unnatural? At that point, it's just semantics anyway. Peace! Steve Kunz In a message dated 3/5/2009 6:08:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, atom.fuller...@gmail.com writes: I'm a grad student who reads the list-serve to look for job opportunities, but these threads on agroecosystems and climate change bring up a question I have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to, namely: Are humans to be considered a part of the natural world? On the one hand, humans are clearly a species of mammal living on the planet. Science in general follows the Copernican Principle: don't assume there is anything particularly unique about your place in the world. I doubt many of you would consider us to have been specifically placed on the planet and set apart from other forms of life. And yet, when it comes to the things humans do, a clear distinction is made between human causes and natural ones, human modified ecosystems and wild ones. And it is definitely useful to make distictions between human effects and natural ones when studying many ecosystems-I've certainly done it in my own research. So why is this true? How can natural humans cause unnatural effects (or is one assumption false, despite both seeming reasonable)? Can only humans harm the environment? What's the difference between an invasive species being introduced to an island by humans, or the same one arriving on the foot of a bird? What does harming the environment mean, anyway? Somewhat like the two perspectives above, I have seen it defined as: (A) changing the environment from it's original natural or pre-human state (which natural state? how do you define your baseline?), and (B) Making the environment less capable of supporting human life (supporting human life now or indefinietely? at what standard of living?). Those two goals aren't always compatable. So, comments? Thoughts? How do you resolve this? Adam **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219957551x1201325337/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID %3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems
The term 'natural' is not considered by most to be a 'good' term to use in scientific articles. It is better to use terms/phrases such as undistrubed, minimally disturbed, etc. At first, this may seem like a nit-picky idea as, of course we all know what natural is! Well, maybe not. Many suggest that a 'natural area' is one free from human encroachment. Of course, this contradicts the whole notion that humans are in fact part of the natural system and therefore, lack of human encroachment may actually be unnatural! Because of the great confusion created by the use of this term, most encourage us to avoid using it. When we discuss urbanized versus non-urbanized habitat, agronomic vs. non-agronomic, grazed vs. ungrazed, old growth forest vs. tree farms, etc. there is a fairly clear understanding of what we are discussing. However, anytime someone states that something is in a natural or non-natural state, it opens the gate to an unending series of questions and clarifications that do little more than distract us from the focus of the original discussion. On the other hand, ASTM Standard Methods does have lists of standardized terminology for use in environmental science and other fields. I do not recall 'natural' being on any of these lists, however, they do contain many other terms that are frequently misused in popular and scientific writing. I hope this is useful for your attempts! malcolm On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Czech, Brian cz...@vt.edu wrote: It's true that natural is just semantics in some contexts, but defining the term can affect the way our public lands are managed. See for example the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Here is one proposal for a frame of reference for natural conditions: http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf Brian Czech, Visiting Professor Natural Resources Program Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, Virginia 22043 From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve Kunz Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our place in the world. We have the intelligence to control our environment on a large scale. Our control of otherwise natural systems can throw them out of balance, or at least, into a new balance. In an extreme case, this intelligent control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own species and most others (think: nuclear war). The planet doesn't care if this happens, and some species will survive and help start things over. Is the result natural or unnatural? At that point, it's just semantics anyway. Peace! Steve Kunz In a message dated 3/5/2009 6:08:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, atom.fuller...@gmail.com writes: I'm a grad student who reads the list-serve to look for job opportunities, but these threads on agroecosystems and climate change bring up a question I have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to, namely: Are humans to be considered a part of the natural world? On the one hand, humans are clearly a species of mammal living on the planet. Science in general follows the Copernican Principle: don't assume there is anything particularly unique about your place in the world. I doubt many of you would consider us to have been specifically placed on the planet and set apart from other forms of life. And yet, when it comes to the things humans do, a clear distinction is made between human causes and natural ones, human modified ecosystems and wild ones. And it is definitely useful to make distictions between human effects and natural ones when studying many ecosystems-I've certainly done it in my own research. So why is this true? How can natural humans cause unnatural effects (or is one assumption false, despite both seeming reasonable)? Can only humans harm the environment? What's the difference between an invasive species being introduced to an island by humans, or the same one arriving on the foot of a bird? What does harming the environment mean, anyway? Somewhat like the two perspectives above, I have seen it defined as: (A) changing the environment from it's original natural or pre-human state (which natural state? how do you define your baseline?), and (B) Making the environment less capable of supporting human life (supporting human life now or indefinietely? at what standard of living?). Those two goals aren't always compatable. So, comments? Thoughts? How do you resolve this? Adam
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems
Dear Good Ecologers: While Dr. Czech has produced an elegant and exhaustive treatise on the application of important concepts in natural systems, it is a bit dense and unapproachable for many. It is with deep regret that I am unable to cite the specific reference for what I am about to write. I have frequently attributed it to John Clark's Ecosystem Management while knowing that's inaccurate. However, the quote I've constucted is Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default, an adverse effect or change. Paraphrased, Nature took millenia to achieve the current dynamic balance of plants and animals, predators and prey, entropy and enthalpy. Any alteration at Man's hand away from the natural order of things conflicts with the balance and is adverse. Thus, we should try to our last breath to make things as conducive to nature's way as possible. I think that's what we're talking about here. Cordially yours, Geoff Patton, Ph.D. 2208 Parker Ave., Wheaton, MD 20902 301.221.9536 --- On Sat, 3/7/09, Czech, Brian cz...@vt.edu wrote: From: Czech, Brian cz...@vt.edu Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Natural systems To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 5:09 PM It's true that natural is just semantics in some contexts, but defining the term can affect the way our public lands are managed. See for example the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Here is one proposal for a frame of reference for natural conditions: http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf Brian Czech, Visiting Professor Natural Resources Program Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, Virginia 22043 From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve Kunz Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our place in the world. We have the intelligence to control our environment on a large scale. Our control of otherwise natural systems can throw them out of balance, or at least, into a new balance. In an extreme case, this intelligent control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own species and most others (think: nuclear war). The planet doesn't care if this happens, and some species will survive and help start things over. Is the result natural or unnatural? At that point, it's just semantics anyway. Peace! Steve Kunz In a message dated 3/5/2009 6:08:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, atom.fuller...@gmail.com writes: I'm a grad student who reads the list-serve to look for job opportunities, but these threads on agroecosystems and climate change bring up a question I have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to, namely: Are humans to be considered a part of the natural world? On the one hand, humans are clearly a species of mammal living on the planet. Science in general follows the Copernican Principle: don't assume there is anything particularly unique about your place in the world. I doubt many of you would consider us to have been specifically placed on the planet and set apart from other forms of life. And yet, when it comes to the things humans do, a clear distinction is made between human causes and natural ones, human modified ecosystems and wild ones. And it is definitely useful to make distictions between human effects and natural ones when studying many ecosystems-I've certainly done it in my own research. So why is this true? How can natural humans cause unnatural effects (or is one assumption false, despite both seeming reasonable)? Can only humans harm the environment? What's the difference between an invasive species being introduced to an island by humans, or the same one arriving on the foot of a bird? What does harming the environment mean, anyway? Somewhat like the two perspectives above, I have seen it defined as: (A) changing the environment from it's original natural or pre-human state (which natural state? how do you define your baseline?), and (B) Making the environment less capable of supporting human life (supporting human life now or indefinietely? at what standard of living?). Those two goals aren't always compatable. So, comments? Thoughts? How do you resolve this? Adam **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219957551x1201325337/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID %3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
