Re: [ECOLOG-L] Evolution Adaptation Failure of success equals maladaptation Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Evolution Adaptation Failure of success equals maladaptation Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] 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 malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org *To:* Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net *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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Evolution Adaptation Failure of success equals maladaptation Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Not all organisms do adapt. 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. As a consequence, most organisms that have ever existed have gone extinct. 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. 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. 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. 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 malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org *To:* Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net *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
[ECOLOG-L] Evolution Adaptation Failure of success equals maladaptation Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
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. -
