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
**************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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.9/1988 - Release Date: 03/06/09
19:17:00
