[ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Well, truly sorry for your back, Wayne, but thank you for the discussion. I also thank Jim Crant for joining the discussion as well as Matt Chew for his contributions, notably a subtitle - misanthropy, etymology and environment. Their appearance is welcome, especially since the author of the original post has become notably absent. I'm frankly surprised that someone hasn't asked us to cut this short. For everyone's sake, I will. In order to respond to Wayne's questions, I'll attempt to have the last word, but regardless, no further response will be mine. Wayne, your overall sketch seems similar to that of Richard Manning in his book AGAINST THE GRAIN. He and others, like Daniel Quinn in the fiction ISHMAEL, have made the case that with domestication, agriculture, and Western Civilization as we know it, Homo sapiens abandoned their 'natural' place in the environment to their detriment. You may certainly go through the etymology of a term for a definition but in doing so you run risk of alienating your definition from the usage of a broader audience. There have been at least 2 different denotations of the word since its etymological underpinnings. Like any other language, English is fraught with words that mean something very different today than they did at their historical roots. So, as you say, the root of any intellectual discipline is consistency in definition and usage. We must then defer to that discipline whose field of inquiry requires such consistency. I cannot imagine a top anthropologist who couldn't adequately address the question of definition. Ignoring your aversion to authorities, I will again refer you and others to the text CULTURE, THE ANTHROPOLOGISTS' ACCOUNT by Adam Kuper. This contains a thorough etymology of the term 'culture' including the academic politics that separated its usage from 'society' and designated it as a field of study for Anthropology in reference to Sociology. Though a right of passage among Anthropologists is personalizing the definition... the most definitive and, in juxtaposition to society, clarifying definition of culture is that of Talcott Parsons - to define the concept culture... transmitted and created content and patterns of values, ideas, and other symbolic-meaningful systems as factors in the shaping of human behavior and the artifacts produced through behavior. On the other hand, we suggest that the term society... be used to designate the specifically relational system of interaction among individuals and collectivies (69). In my courses, I explain the distinction between 'culture' and 'society' with a gamut of the anthropogenic coercions on human behavior. Society includes those more tangible/explainable while culture those that are more intangible/unexplainable. A good example is a foreign exchange student with you who starts to do something that you quickly stop them from doing. They ask why. It's the law, is the clearest expression of society. We just don't do that here, is the clearest expression of culture. But the two demonstrably overlap and certainly make clear distinction problematic. Nevertheless, both terms refer to a broad diversity of human behaviors, culture itself including a diverse array of created and transmitted values, ideas, and symbols. Furthermore, Jim rightly states that culture has the characteristic of existing on multiple contextual levels from human culture, if there is such a thing, at the most grand to communities that exhibit cultural forms and dynamics on the most basic level. This is what makes your assertion that 'culture is pathological' so perverse. It suggests that whatever the diversity of values, ideas, and symbols, all are inferior and destructive to individual and collective interaction. We have already fairly discredited your assertion on numerous counts that I will revisit using these established definitions. Then I will disprove the assertion wrong on another. First, the statement is logically an over-generalization, ignores evidence to the contrary, and persists with additional logical fallacies. I wholeheartedly agree with everything Jim stated in his first response to this thread. Wayne, Jim well restates my own assertion that your statement is fallacious because you are essentially saying that culture must necessarily progress in that direction (if culture could reverse its pathological direction of progress, you couldn't say it was pathological by definition). Exactly what I've told you. While you may argue that Western Culture hasn't or that Western Culture specifically is incapable, you cannot scientifically prove that all culture is incapable or that all culture hasn't. The 'test' that you set is that culture is pathological when it undermine[s] the welfare of the species more than... ensures it. By what measure? You also set this measure already. I try to look at the question of 'humans in the definition of environment' in
[ECOLOG-L] Fwd: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Yes, by important and dominant I meant keystone (even if this seems to me to be an a posteriori concept, with scarce predictive value). However, I don't think that man causes habitat modifications, and other species' extinctions, for reasons different than survival (in an eco-evolutionary sense). Up to recent times, a naive playing mind has been a very adaptive trait of our apparently neotenic species, allowing it to thrive through the millennia. I don't think that cellphones and trinkets are exceptions in this sense. Now we may be reaching the limits of this adaptation, and the evolutionary bet could be to develop a holistic mind, evolve into a k-selective species, and coevolve with other keystone (at least) species. Gianluca Polgar Messaggio originale Oggetto:Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems Data: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:08:19 -0700 Mittente: Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net A: Gianluca Polgar gianluca.pol...@gmail.com, ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Ecolog: Certainly Polgar's remarks have a ring of truth, and they remind me that a large part of the world's almost 7 billion humans are simply going about their business of survival in an increasingly degraded environment--one for which there are no reliable statistics but about which there can be little question. Worse, there are no statistics on how the once biologically rich areas in parts of the earth, Africa, for example, were fairly recently (the last century) self-sustaining but now largely dependent, ironically upon the very imperial nations which impoverished them in the latter nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and continue to do so. I have a little trouble following Polgar's meaning concerning importance and dominance. If by important Polgar means keystone, I would certainly agree that H. sapiens' departure or diminishment might have salutary effects upon biological diversity, but I would suggest that bacteria are more likely to be important biologically. If by importance Polgar means the destruction of other species for reasons unrelated to survival and a seeming determination to foul its own nest (not to mention those of other species and others of its own kind) on the basis of clearly insane whims (e.g., production of artless and valueless trinkets and planned obsolesence; cell phones, ad nauseam), it would seem that H. sapiens wins that contest hands down. But again I would emphasize that it is the development of culture that is at the root of this phenomenon. Nature may drive us, but culture drives us crazy. WT - Original Message - From: Gianluca Polgargianluca.pol...@gmail.com To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 7:42 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems I'm afraid I have far more radical ideas about humans and ecosystems. In my opinion, humans are animals, not unlike any other animal on the planet. Any possible dichotomy between humans and other animals would be arbitrary from an ecological point of view, that is, anthropocentric. I believe that the big difference perceived between Homo sapiens and other organisms (not only animals) is merely the effect of the extraordinarily disproportionate interest we express for H. sapiens. For instance, let's think at the Gaia hypothesis: does anyone think that the impact of H. sapiens on the biosphere is quantitatively and qualitatively more important than any species of denitrifying bacteria, or than cyanobacteria? How rapidly the biosphere biogeochemical cycles, which are at the base of any biological process on Earth, would change if a crucial procariote strain or lineage suddenly disappears? My educated guess is that such changes would be much more drastic than any global change induced by greenhouse gases released by H. sapiens in the atmosphere. Fortunately (also for us, I would say), such pivotal organisms cannot apparently be threatened by human activity on Earth. Analogous examples can be made for several species of insects, with huge biomasses and numbers of individuals. I personally do not think that H. sapiens is the dominant species on the planet. Its ecological impact on the biosphere is gradually decreasing as we consider organisms that are less and less ecologically (and up to a certain extent, phylogenetically) related to (e.g. interacting with) H. sapiens. This is probably the main reason why we are the only hominid species on the planet, and why so few apes presently survive (most being at risk of extinction). This is the reason why H. sapiens drove the majority of mammal megafaunas to extinction much before industrialization, and one of the reasons why there are so many environmentalist campaigns for vertebrates than for arthropods, protists, or procariotes (apart from anthropomorphic and demagogical issues). It is clear that the ability of H. sapiens (or better of some its populations) to modify its habitat for his own survival is driving
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Ecolog: Certainly Polgar's remarks have a ring of truth, and they remind me that a large part of the world's almost 7 billion humans are simply going about their business of survival in an increasingly degraded environment--one for which there are no reliable statistics but about which there can be little question. Worse, there are no statistics on how the once biologically rich areas in parts of the earth, Africa, for example, were fairly recently (the last century) self-sustaining but now largely dependent, ironically upon the very imperial nations which impoverished them in the latter nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and continue to do so. I have a little trouble following Polgar's meaning concerning importance and dominance. If by important Polgar means keystone, I would certainly agree that H. sapiens' departure or diminishment might have salutary effects upon biological diversity, but I would suggest that bacteria are more likely to be important biologically. If by importance Polgar means the destruction of other species for reasons unrelated to survival and a seeming determination to foul its own nest (not to mention those of other species and others of its own kind) on the basis of clearly insane whims (e.g., production of artless and valueless trinkets and planned obsolesence; cell phones, ad nauseam), it would seem that H. sapiens wins that contest hands down. But again I would emphasize that it is the development of culture that is at the root of this phenomenon. Nature may drive us, but culture drives us crazy. WT - Original Message - From: Gianluca Polgar gianluca.pol...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 7:42 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems I'm afraid I have far more radical ideas about humans and ecosystems. In my opinion, humans are animals, not unlike any other animal on the planet. Any possible dichotomy between humans and other animals would be arbitrary from an ecological point of view, that is, anthropocentric. I believe that the big difference perceived between Homo sapiens and other organisms (not only animals) is merely the effect of the extraordinarily disproportionate interest we express for H. sapiens. For instance, let's think at the Gaia hypothesis: does anyone think that the impact of H. sapiens on the biosphere is quantitatively and qualitatively more important than any species of denitrifying bacteria, or than cyanobacteria? How rapidly the biosphere biogeochemical cycles, which are at the base of any biological process on Earth, would change if a crucial procariote strain or lineage suddenly disappears? My educated guess is that such changes would be much more drastic than any global change induced by greenhouse gases released by H. sapiens in the atmosphere. Fortunately (also for us, I would say), such pivotal organisms cannot apparently be threatened by human activity on Earth. Analogous examples can be made for several species of insects, with huge biomasses and numbers of individuals. I personally do not think that H. sapiens is the dominant species on the planet. Its ecological impact on the biosphere is gradually decreasing as we consider organisms that are less and less ecologically (and up to a certain extent, phylogenetically) related to (e.g. interacting with) H. sapiens. This is probably the main reason why we are the only hominid species on the planet, and why so few apes presently survive (most being at risk of extinction). This is the reason why H. sapiens drove the majority of mammal megafaunas to extinction much before industrialization, and one of the reasons why there are so many environmentalist campaigns for vertebrates than for arthropods, protists, or procariotes (apart from anthropomorphic and demagogical issues). It is clear that the ability of H. sapiens (or better of some its populations) to modify its habitat for his own survival is driving the colonised systems to their carrying capacity, rapidly inverting its adaptive value. But carrying capacity is a concept based on what must be carried by the system... making this essentially a problem for H. sapiens and for ecologically related species. Nonetheless, I think that the same permanence of this trait in our r-selective culture is indeed based on this obsolete dichotomy: H. sapiens and everything else. I think that as ecologists, we should be very clear on this point, if we propose to manage our habitats and co-evolve with other organisms by means of one of our best adaptations: mind. It is often advantageous to focus on a single organism (e.g. H. sapiens or Aedes albopictus) or on a group of organisms, to address specific ecological problems. Nonetheless, I think that ecologists should promote and sustain a more holistic concept of ecology and ecosystems, with no permanent focus on a single portion or process; we reached the limits of our habitat: the biosphere must be managed as a whole
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
By its very nature, the only unquestionable authority of science is that all results and methods must be questioned. Malcolm On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: JLH: Culture is, by definition, an institutionalizing (codifying) force. But in each culture, different shards of pre-cultural social organization are present or absent in varying degrees, which accounts for the differences between them--the size of a culture's law libraries might be one measure, but not necessarily an absolute one. But the extent to which a culture relies on (coercive) codes RATHER than (voluntary) social mores is a measure of how authoritarian it is. While science is always in danger of being authoritarian (and in net effect--and sometimes by intention-- it often is), the questioning nature of science tends to preserve its social (cooperative) warp and woof, no matter how colored it has been, is, or can be, with the taint of unquestionable authority. To the extent that science reflects the essential qualities of ecosystems, its underlying character remains resilient and adaptable. WT - Original Message - From: Jamie Lewis Hedges hedge...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 9:01 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems WT, In thinking of culture as a psychological phenomenon that serve(s) a utilitarian purpose--that of permitting humans to manipulate their environment, it is important to state that this manipulation (culture) has beeen in many contexts, and can continue to be in given contexts, both utilitarian for humans and beneficial to their environment. While the institutionalization of mistakes does seem to be a characteristic behavior of modern Western Culture, it is certainly neither a characteristic definitive of culture nor a behavior characteristic of all cultures. Otherwise, we are without hope, and science is merely a utility for institutionalizing those mistakes. jlh Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone, powered by CREDO Mobile. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.439 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2981 - Release Date: 07/04/10 06:35:00 -- Malcolm L. McCallum Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
[ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
WT, In thinking of culture as a psychological phenomenon that serve(s) a utilitarian purpose--that of permitting humans to manipulate their environment, it is important to state that this manipulation (culture) has been in many contexts, and can continue to be in given contexts, both utilitarian for humans and beneficial to their environment. While the institutionalization of mistakes does seem to be a characteristic behavior of modern Western Culture, it is certainly neither a characteristic definitive of culture nor a behavior characteristic of all cultures. Otherwise, we are without hope, and science is merely a utility for institutionalizing those mistakes. jlh Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone, powered by CREDO Mobile.
[ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
2010 17:43:26 -0700 From:Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net Subject: Re: Humans in the definition of ecosystems JC and Ecolog: It appears that Crants has caught me napping. And, apparently, in a sense, CBD. I am still uncomfortable with using the same term for the earth (or, I suppose, the universe) and the kind of subsets Crants calls functional units. Still, the acid test of a term is its clarity and utility for communication, and when we speak of a vernal pool ecosystem, and the ecosystem, we are usually understood--or at least consistently misunderstood. If I have any concern, it would probably be that if people come to think of the earth as being made up of discrete ecosystems and not seen as an integrated whole . . . WT PS: Many years ago someone had created an ecosystem in a glass globe on his desk. Does anyone know if it still exists and is still functional? - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems WT and Ecolog, Since the CBD definition of ecosystem calls it a dynamic complex, not the dynamic complex, it implies that there is more than one ecosystem on earth (assuming the authors of this definition didn't define it this way to make room for any extraterrestrial life we might one day discover). The definition also says that the components of the ecosystem interact as a functional unit. I think that part of the definition of a functional unit must be that the biotic and abiotic environment inside the unit differs from that outside it, and that the shift in environment from inside to outside corresponds with the borders of the unit. (Minnesota would have a different species list from Iowa, but there's no perceptible shift in biology at the border between the two states, so they are not discrete functional units.) A deer's rumen is a functional unit. If you tried to define the borders of the rumen based purely on community composition and abiotic factors, I think you'd end up with very similar borders to what you'd see if you defined them based on the shape of the rumen. Similarly, a kettlehole bog would be a functional unit, and an outcrop of serpentine soil in California might be, too. However, an arbitrarily-defined hectare of prairie in the Nebraska Sandhills would not qualify, since organisms and nutrients would flow across the borders of that hectare plot just as freely as they would cross any random line drawn through the middle of it, and a sampling transect running across any border of that plot would find no great shift in species composition or abiotic factors corresponding with the location of the border (except by chance). There are also functional units that only exist because of what I called ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the landscape. An arbitrary hectare of prairie surrounded by many other hectares of prairie is not a functional unit, but the same hectare, surrounded by many hectares of cornfields, is a functional unit. It has different species of plants, animals, and microbes, different nutrient inputs, maybe a different annual rainfall total (if the cornfields are irrigated), more leaf litter, and a different soil composition (probably more organic matter, and much more clearly defined soil horizons in the top foot or so of soil). It likely has a different fire regime, especially if it's managed to maintain the pre-settlement vegetation. Concepts like community and ecosystem might not seem so natural to us if we did not live in a world where nature was largely relegated to islands in a sea of anthropogenic landscapes, which themselves are cut into sharp-edged patches of different land uses. When I wrote about ecosystems as artifacts of the ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the landscape, I was thinking of cases like that hypothetical hectare of prairie, where little bits of natural habitat were turned into isolated units sometime before scientists started trying to find useful labels for ecological systems. Jim Crants On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: JC and Ecolog: (Note to Jim: I finally found it.) '*Ecosystem*' means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. https://www.cbd.int/recommendation/sbstta/?id=7027 I don't see that this definition excludes humans either; perhaps DeClerck will ask her mystery colleague how he/she came to that conclusion? I don't interpret the definition as necessarily relating to a plurality of units, but rather to the entire ecosystem. I've always had a bit of trouble referring to subsets of the earth's ecosystem as discrete units, even
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
JC and Ecolog: (Note to Jim: I finally found it.) 'Ecosystem' means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. https://www.cbd.int/recommendation/sbstta/?id=7027 I don't see that this definition excludes humans either; perhaps DeClerck will ask her mystery colleague how he/she came to that conclusion? I don't interpret the definition as necessarily relating to a plurality of units, but rather to the entire ecosystem. I've always had a bit of trouble referring to subsets of the earth's ecosystem as discrete units, even though I recognize the utility of doing so. I would like to understand what Crants means by functional units as well as artifacts of ecological discontinuities. As I have said elsewhere, I see culture as a psychological phenomenon that served a utilitarian purpose--that of permitting humans to manipulate their environment far more than any other any other species--almost without limit. All animal make mistakes--mountain sheep fall off cliffs, but humans seem to grow better and better at making mistakes and institutionalizing them than other species. Insanity is not limited to Homo sapiens--sick and injured bears fly into rages and sometimes attack even humans and kill without reason. But humans, even apparently healthy ones, have instutionalized not only killing but have found ways to rationalize almost any murder--particularly mass murder committed in the name of the culture, aka, cult. Whereas Nature has been able to quickly take out deviants as part of ecosystem function, humans have found ways to beat that rap in countless ways. But, as my wife is fond of saying, Nature bats last. I suspect we're past the first inning. WT - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems I don't see how the CBD definition excludes humans. We and our artifacts are part of the environment with which we and other organisms interact. (The part of the definition I have trouble with is interacting as a functional unit. I think most of these functional units are artifacts of the ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the landscape.) That said, I wouldn't agree with anyone who said we are just another animal, and I don't think the remedy to the damage we've done by considering ourselves special is to consider ourselves completely unremarkable. People who want to exclude other species from moral consideration can and will exploit either position. As we've seen, the uniqueness of humans has long been used as an excuse to treat the natural world as if it were made to serve our desires. On the other hand, if we're just another animal, then everything we do is just another amoral natural process. We can make ourselves out to be just another animal doing what we can to thrive, ignoring our unusual capacity to identify the consequences of our actions and form moral opinions about actions based on their consequences. I think we need to both recognize that we are part of nature and recognize that we are an animal with unusual abilities and impacts. In short, I advocate the Spiderman approach to nature: we are creatures of great power, and with great power comes great responsibility. Jim Crants -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Fabrice De Clerck Sent: Fri 6/25/2010 11:20 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems Dear Friends, An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition? Here is the original question: The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an authoritative quote that balances the CBD愀 All reactions welcome, and citations welcome! Fabrice Fabrice DeClerck PhD Community and Landscape Ecologist Division of Research and Development CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501 (506) 2558-2596 fadecle...@catie.ac.cr Adjunct Research Scholar Tropical Agriculture Programs The Earth Institute at Columbia University
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] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Matt and Ecolog: Matt, thanks for the link; some of the periods of time that the globes (and Aney's plastic jug--13 years and presumably still going) have continued to retain the same set of organisms are most interesting. Certainly Chew can stipulate that he is right that each ecosystem can be stipulated, but I am interested primarily in those which exist beyond stipulation. If nutrients (energy) were cycled through the organisms endlessly, that would indeed be an ecosystem. If, however, the system required some stipulated management, it would be a transitory toy. Still, there are principles illustrated by the mere fact that reproduction and death occurs (if, in fact, it does) through several cycles without any sustained trend toward degradation, that is impressive; runaway production of gasses and the disappearance of species apparently does not occur if the level of light input is within tolerances and it is neither too hot nor too cold. Perhaps these little glass ecospheres tell us all we need to know, and every principle of ecology is contained therein--it's all a matter of scale and complexity. Just because Biosphere II failed may not imply that a contained ecosystem at a larger, more complex scale is impossible, only that the lessons have not yet been learned well enough. What were the flaws in the Biosphere II theoretical foundations? WT PS: I give Chew no argument that stipulations are made; I only contend that they are not necessary, and, in fact, that stipulating is too confining to approach the mystery of the continuum of life at any scale. Observing differences and changes and patterns and all the details that make them up, however, is not stipulating. Stipulating is, however, a useful way of stating the limitations of the conclusions drawn from such observations, always limited as they are. The trouble comes in when we forget the limitations and jump to conclusions beyond the stipulated boundaries. - Original Message - From: Matt Chew anek...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 10:21 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems Well, we're approaching the end/beginning of the loop now. But to answer Wayne's last question first, you can buy such a thing whenever you like via outlets such as http://www.1worldglobes.com/ecospheres.htm . Still, no one has escaped from the need to stipulate the ecosystem of interest, which can be any set of interacting abiotic and biotic objects and an energy source to drive it. So it might be the components of the 'biosphere' plus solar and geothermal energy inputs and some minerals, or it might be a few shrimp, some algae, seawater, air, and miscellaneous microorganisms in a glass ball. Whether it's 'functional' depends entirely on the needs or expectations of its participants or observers. Function and purpose are stipulative, too. Matt Chew ASU Center for Biology Society mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:00 PM, ECOLOG-L automatic digest system lists...@listserv.umd.edu wrote: There are 7 messages totalling 655 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Physiology Productivity Promises and BS Re: [ECOLOG-L] worlds authorities in sustainable ag/meat/ag ecology 2. Possible contact for sea turtle gulf restoration project 3. Humans in the definition of ecosystems (2) 4. Arid Lands Restoration Specialist 5. Short-Term Position: Science Curriculum Design 6. Job: Senior Research Assistant, Jornada Basin Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) -- Date:Fri, 2 Jul 2010 09:29:25 +0100 From:Anna Renwick anna.renw...@bto.org Subject: Re: Physiology Productivity Promises and BS Re: [ECOLOG-L] worlds authorities in sustainable ag/meat/ag ecology I think there are two issues here: 1) GM crops 2) massive biotech companies like Monsanto Perhaps it may be better to look at each of these separately. Dr Anna R. Renwick Research Ecologist British Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2PU, UK Tel: +44 (0)1842 750050; Fax: +44 (0)1842 750030 Registered Charity No 216652 (England Wales) No SC039193 (Scotland) Company Limited by Guarantee No 357284 (England Wales) Opinions expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily those of the BTO. -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Annemarie Kramer Sent: 01 July 2010 12:40 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Physiology Productivity Promises and BS Re: [ECOLOG-L] worlds authorities in sustainable ag/meat/ag ecology I am only joining the discussion now, but enterprises like Monsanto do raise concerns. There is a documentary on you tube that critically shows what is behind them and makes you think you don't
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
WT and Ecolog, Since the CBD definition of ecosystem calls it a dynamic complex, not the dynamic complex, it implies that there is more than one ecosystem on earth (assuming the authors of this definition didn't define it this way to make room for any extraterrestrial life we might one day discover). The definition also says that the components of the ecosystem interact as a functional unit. I think that part of the definition of a functional unit must be that the biotic and abiotic environment inside the unit differs from that outside it, and that the shift in environment from inside to outside corresponds with the borders of the unit. (Minnesota would have a different species list from Iowa, but there's no perceptible shift in biology at the border between the two states, so they are not discrete functional units.) A deer's rumen is a functional unit. If you tried to define the borders of the rumen based purely on community composition and abiotic factors, I think you'd end up with very similar borders to what you'd see if you defined them based on the shape of the rumen. Similarly, a kettlehole bog would be a functional unit, and an outcrop of serpentine soil in California might be, too. However, an arbitrarily-defined hectare of prairie in the Nebraska Sandhills would not qualify, since organisms and nutrients would flow across the borders of that hectare plot just as freely as they would cross any random line drawn through the middle of it, and a sampling transect running across any border of that plot would find no great shift in species composition or abiotic factors corresponding with the location of the border (except by chance). There are also functional units that only exist because of what I called ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the landscape. An arbitrary hectare of prairie surrounded by many other hectares of prairie is not a functional unit, but the same hectare, surrounded by many hectares of cornfields, is a functional unit. It has different species of plants, animals, and microbes, different nutrient inputs, maybe a different annual rainfall total (if the cornfields are irrigated), more leaf litter, and a different soil composition (probably more organic matter, and much more clearly defined soil horizons in the top foot or so of soil). It likely has a different fire regime, especially if it's managed to maintain the pre-settlement vegetation. Concepts like community and ecosystem might not seem so natural to us if we did not live in a world where nature was largely relegated to islands in a sea of anthropogenic landscapes, which themselves are cut into sharp-edged patches of different land uses. When I wrote about ecosystems as artifacts of the ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the landscape, I was thinking of cases like that hypothetical hectare of prairie, where little bits of natural habitat were turned into isolated units sometime before scientists started trying to find useful labels for ecological systems. Jim Crants On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: JC and Ecolog: (Note to Jim: I finally found it.) '*Ecosystem*' means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. https://www.cbd.int/recommendation/sbstta/?id=7027 I don't see that this definition excludes humans either; perhaps DeClerck will ask her mystery colleague how he/she came to that conclusion? I don't interpret the definition as necessarily relating to a plurality of units, but rather to the entire ecosystem. I've always had a bit of trouble referring to subsets of the earth's ecosystem as discrete units, even though I recognize the utility of doing so. I would like to understand what Crants means by functional units as well as artifacts of ecological discontinuities. As I have said elsewhere, I see culture as a psychological phenomenon that served a utilitarian purpose--that of permitting humans to manipulate their environment far more than any other any other species--almost without limit. All animal make mistakes--mountain sheep fall off cliffs, but humans seem to grow better and better at making mistakes and institutionalizing them than other species. Insanity is not limited to Homo sapiens--sick and injured bears fly into rages and sometimes attack even humans and kill without reason. But humans, even apparently healthy ones, have instutionalized not only killing but have found ways to rationalize almost any murder--particularly mass murder committed in the name of the culture, aka, cult. Whereas Nature has been able to quickly take out deviants as part of ecosystem function, humans have found ways to beat that rap in countless ways. But, as my wife is fond of saying, Nature bats last. I suspect we're past the first inning. WT
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
JC and Ecolog: It appears that Crants has caught me napping. And, apparently, in a sense, CBD. I am still uncomfortable with using the same term for the earth (or, I suppose, the universe) and the kind of subsets Crants calls functional units. Still, the acid test of a term is its clarity and utility for communication, and when we speak of a vernal pool ecosystem, and the ecosystem, we are usually understood--or at least consistently misunderstood. If I have any concern, it would probably be that if people come to think of the earth as being made up of discrete ecosystems and not seen as an integrated whole . . . WT PS: Many years ago someone had created an ecosystem in a glass globe on his desk. Does anyone know if it still exists and is still functional? - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems WT and Ecolog, Since the CBD definition of ecosystem calls it a dynamic complex, not the dynamic complex, it implies that there is more than one ecosystem on earth (assuming the authors of this definition didn't define it this way to make room for any extraterrestrial life we might one day discover). The definition also says that the components of the ecosystem interact as a functional unit. I think that part of the definition of a functional unit must be that the biotic and abiotic environment inside the unit differs from that outside it, and that the shift in environment from inside to outside corresponds with the borders of the unit. (Minnesota would have a different species list from Iowa, but there's no perceptible shift in biology at the border between the two states, so they are not discrete functional units.) A deer's rumen is a functional unit. If you tried to define the borders of the rumen based purely on community composition and abiotic factors, I think you'd end up with very similar borders to what you'd see if you defined them based on the shape of the rumen. Similarly, a kettlehole bog would be a functional unit, and an outcrop of serpentine soil in California might be, too. However, an arbitrarily-defined hectare of prairie in the Nebraska Sandhills would not qualify, since organisms and nutrients would flow across the borders of that hectare plot just as freely as they would cross any random line drawn through the middle of it, and a sampling transect running across any border of that plot would find no great shift in species composition or abiotic factors corresponding with the location of the border (except by chance). There are also functional units that only exist because of what I called ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the landscape. An arbitrary hectare of prairie surrounded by many other hectares of prairie is not a functional unit, but the same hectare, surrounded by many hectares of cornfields, is a functional unit. It has different species of plants, animals, and microbes, different nutrient inputs, maybe a different annual rainfall total (if the cornfields are irrigated), more leaf litter, and a different soil composition (probably more organic matter, and much more clearly defined soil horizons in the top foot or so of soil). It likely has a different fire regime, especially if it's managed to maintain the pre-settlement vegetation. Concepts like community and ecosystem might not seem so natural to us if we did not live in a world where nature was largely relegated to islands in a sea of anthropogenic landscapes, which themselves are cut into sharp-edged patches of different land uses. When I wrote about ecosystems as artifacts of the ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the landscape, I was thinking of cases like that hypothetical hectare of prairie, where little bits of natural habitat were turned into isolated units sometime before scientists started trying to find useful labels for ecological systems. Jim Crants On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: JC and Ecolog: (Note to Jim: I finally found it.) '*Ecosystem*' means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. https://www.cbd.int/recommendation/sbstta/?id=7027 I don't see that this definition excludes humans either; perhaps DeClerck will ask her mystery colleague how he/she came to that conclusion? I don't interpret the definition as necessarily relating to a plurality of units, but rather to the entire ecosystem. I've always had a bit of trouble referring to subsets of the earth's ecosystem as discrete units, even though I recognize the utility of doing so. I would like to understand what Crants means by functional units as well as artifacts of ecological discontinuities. As I have said elsewhere, I see culture as a psychological phenomenon that served
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. - Original Message - From: Fabrice De Clerck fd2...@columbia.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 8:20 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems Dear Friends, An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition? Here is the original question: The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s All reactions welcome, and citations welcome! Fabrice Fabrice DeClerck PhD Community and Landscape Ecologist Division of Research and Development CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501 (506) 2558-2596
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] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:14 PM, malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote: I do not really see ANY difference between the variation in human culture, and the variation in social behavior of any other organism. I do. A difference of degree is still a difference. I think it's important not to conflate continuous variation with an absence of variation. This is, after all, and ecology forum. If differences in degree are meaningless, that leaves us with very little to discuss. And I do think the variation in human culture is greater than the variation in the cultures of other species on earth. Given that humans vary in oral and body language, clothing, housing preferences, agricultural practices, religion, social graces, music, vehicle design, and countless other cultural traits, and that we inhabit nearly every continent and large island on the planet, I find it close to impossible to believe that any other species on earth displays such a high degree of cultural variation. Jim Crants
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
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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Ecolog: I know that I am out standing alone in left field on this one, but like most crazy people, I'm sticking to my analysis (until persuaded otherwise) and setting up a picnic to tempt other marginal types: Humans are social animals. Other animals are social. But only humans are cultural. From the standpoint of survival of Homo sapiens, those populations that are more social than cultural (more primitive than modern) are most likely to survive if the cultural house of cards collapses. Until then, they may be at greatest risk from the effects of culture. Ironic, eh? WT http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=culturesearchmode=none culture mid-15c., the tilling of land, from M.Fr. culture and directly from L. cultura a cultivating, agriculture, figuratively care, culture, an honoring, from pp. stem of colere tend, guard, cultivate, till (see cult). The figurative sense of cultivation through education is first attested c.1500. Meaning the intellectual side of civilization is from 1805; that of collective customs and achievements of a people is from 1867. For without culture or holiness, which are always the gift of a very few, a man may renounce wealth or any other external thing, but he cannot renounce hatred, envy, jealousy, revenge. Culture is the sanctity of the intellect. [William Butler Yeats] Slang culture vulture is from 1947. Culture shock first recorded 1940. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cult cult 1610s, worship, also a particular form of worship, from Fr. culte (17c.), from L. cultus care, labor; cultivation, culture; worship, reverence, originally tended, cultivated, pp. of colere to till (see colony). Rare after 17c.; revived mid-19c. with reference to ancient or primitive rituals. Meaning devotion to a person or thing is from 1829. Cult. An organized group of people, religious or not, with whom you disagree. [Rawson] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=societysearchmode=none society 1530s, friendly association with others, from O.Fr. societe, from L. societatem (nom. societas), from socius companion (see social). Meaning group of people living together in an ordered community is from 1630s. Sense of fashionable people and their doings is first recorded 1823. social (adj.) c.1500 (implied in socially), characterized by friendliness or geniality, also allied, associated, from M.Fr. social (14c.), from L. socialis united, living with others, from socius companion, probably originally follower, and related to sequi to follow (cf. O.E. secg, O.N. seggr companion, which seem to have been formed on the same notion; see sequel). Meaning living or liking to live with others, disposed to friendly intercourse is attested from 1729. Meaning pertaining to society as a natural condition of human life first attested 1695, in Locke. Social climber is from 1926; social work is 1890; social worker 1904. Social drink(ing) first attested 1976. Social studies as an inclusive term for history, geography, economics, etc., is attested from 1938. Social security system of state support for needy citizens is attested from 1908. - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 8:31 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:14 PM, malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote: I do not really see ANY difference between the variation in human culture, and the variation in social behavior of any other organism. I do. A difference of degree is still a difference. I think it's important not to conflate continuous variation with an absence of variation. This is, after all, and ecology forum. If differences in degree are meaningless, that leaves us with very little to discuss. And I do think the variation in human culture is greater than the variation in the cultures of other species on earth. Given that humans vary in oral and body language, clothing, housing preferences, agricultural practices, religion, social graces, music, vehicle design, and countless other cultural traits, and that we inhabit nearly every continent and large island on the planet, I find it close to impossible to believe that any other species on earth displays such a high degree of cultural variation. Jim Crants No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.439 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2973 - Release Date: 06/30/10 12:24:00
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
of a balanced reciprocity...not necessarily equilibrium, stasis, homeostasis or simple stability...but still in general a kind of equal weighting, value, importance, dominance, or causal driving by the biotic and abiotic realms. If we tried to address what is special about humans as animals, in this context of ecosystem as a functional biotic-abiotic unit...what to emphasize? One option would be to say that when humans enter the integrated functional whole of an ecosystem, the relationship is no longer reciprocal or balanced between biotic and abiotic realms. This does not necessarily have to mean that this change is bad, just that it is different from ecosystems without humans. The change would be compatible with the idea of the anthropocene era in which humans are the main driving force of change...even geologic, atmospheric, biogeochemical, species extinctions, etc. changes...on the planet. Another very general analogy would be to say that without humans the organisms and communities within ecosystems (biotic) adapt themselves mainly to survival needs as defined by abiotic changes, but humans (biotic) adapt (alter) the abiotic (and biotic) environment to our own needs. This is grossly general...and not even a clearly separable difference between humans and other species, especially those studied as ecosystem engineers, but it is a rough start. So...a revised approach would be to leave the definition of ecosystem as it is (or one of the other classic or widely used versions by Odum and others), but to add some modifier to another term or type of ecosystem and define that one differently. This might be coupled human-natural ecosystems or human-dominated ecosystems or human ecosystems or ecosystems with humans. But I think you open a can of worms that has to remain fuzzy and open-ended, because I think it an open question as to whether we humans can continue this lopsided relationship and continue to alter the environment to our needs and wishes. If the pendulum swings back as we reach the environmental limits of the planet, then the old and original ecosystem definition may be fine. If we find some way to transcend these planetary limits or boundaries...then we humans really are special enough to require an expanded definition of ecosystem. Some thoughts...would be fun to discuss more... Dan -- Dan Fiscus Assistant Professor Biology Department Frostburg State University 308 Compton Science Center Frostburg, MD 21532 USA 301-687-4170 dafis...@frostburg.edu -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Fabrice De Clerck Sent: Fri 6/25/2010 11:20 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems Dear Friends, An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition? Here is the original question: The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s All reactions welcome, and citations welcome! Fabrice Fabrice DeClerck PhD Community and Landscape Ecologist Division of Research and Development CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501 (506) 2558-2596 fadecle...@catie.ac.cr Adjunct Research Scholar Tropical Agriculture Programs The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
I don't see how the CBD definition excludes humans. We and our artifacts are part of the environment with which we and other organisms interact. (The part of the definition I have trouble with is interacting as a functional unit. I think most of these functional units are artifacts of the ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the landscape.) That said, I wouldn't agree with anyone who said we are just another animal, and I don't think the remedy to the damage we've done by considering ourselves special is to consider ourselves completely unremarkable. People who want to exclude other species from moral consideration can and will exploit either position. As we've seen, the uniqueness of humans has long been used as an excuse to treat the natural world as if it were made to serve our desires. On the other hand, if we're just another animal, then everything we do is just another amoral natural process. We can make ourselves out to be just another animal doing what we can to thrive, ignoring our unusual capacity to identify the consequences of our actions and form moral opinions about actions based on their consequences. I think we need to both recognize that we are part of nature and recognize that we are an animal with unusual abilities and impacts. In short, I advocate the Spiderman approach to nature: we are creatures of great power, and with great power comes great responsibility. Jim Crants -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Fabrice De Clerck Sent: Fri 6/25/2010 11:20 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems Dear Friends, An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition? Here is the original question: The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an authoritative quote that balances the CBD愀 All reactions welcome, and citations welcome! Fabrice Fabrice DeClerck PhD Community and Landscape Ecologist Division of Research and Development CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501 (506) 2558-2596 fadecle...@catie.ac.cr Adjunct Research Scholar Tropical Agriculture Programs The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
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. - Original Message - From: Fabrice De Clerck fd2...@columbia.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 8:20 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems Dear Friends, An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition? Here is the original question: The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s All reactions welcome, and citations welcome! Fabrice Fabrice DeClerck PhD Community and Landscape Ecologist Division of Research and Development CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501 (506) 2558-2596 fadecle...@catie.ac.cr Adjunct Research Scholar Tropical Agriculture Programs The Earth Institute at Columbia University No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.439 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2966 - Release Date: 06/27/10 06:35:00
[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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
I would suggest reading O'Neill, Robert V. (2001). Is It Time to Bury the Ecosystem Concept? (With Full Military Honors, of Course!). *Ecology*, 82: 3275-3284. The eminent authors concludes in the article there is need to make revisions in the concept of ecosystem. Especially, as far as the role and place of humans is concerned. He points out that the humans are the ultimate invasive species in the ecosystem that alters both the biotic and abiotic components. A must read and very interesting article. Ajay Sharma PhD Student, SFRC, UF, Gainesville, FL On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Daniel A Fiscus dafis...@frostburg.eduwrote: Fabrice, An interesting and evocative question and dilemma! I should really think on it over time and reply in depth...but some thoughts of the top instead... I agree with other repliers that the definition really does not exclude humans per se...unless we focus on the special aspect of your ID of humans as special animals. So I think the CBD definition is OK in the broadest sense of all animals. But I also agree that humans are special animals...so what could we change? My core idea of ecosystem as I remember Tansley to have originally coined it mentioned and emphasized reciprocal influence between the abiotic and biotic realms. And I think it a reasonable extension to also suggest the definition so far includes a sense of a balanced reciprocity...not necessarily equilibrium, stasis, homeostasis or simple stability...but still in general a kind of equal weighting, value, importance, dominance, or causal driving by the biotic and abiotic realms. If we tried to address what is special about humans as animals, in this context of ecosystem as a functional biotic-abiotic unit...what to emphasize? One option would be to say that when humans enter the integrated functional whole of an ecosystem, the relationship is no longer reciprocal or balanced between biotic and abiotic realms. This does not necessarily have to mean that this change is bad, just that it is different from ecosystems without humans. The change would be compatible with the idea of the anthropocene era in which humans are the main driving force of change...even geologic, atmospheric, biogeochemical, species extinctions, etc. changes...on the planet. Another very general analogy would be to say that without humans the organisms and communities within ecosystems (biotic) adapt themselves mainly to survival needs as defined by abiotic changes, but humans (biotic) adapt (alter) the abiotic (and biotic) environment to our own needs. This is grossly general...and not even a clearly separable difference between humans and other species, especially those studied as ecosystem engineers, but it is a rough start. So...a revised approach would be to leave the definition of ecosystem as it is (or one of the other classic or widely used versions by Odum and others), but to add some modifier to another term or type of ecosystem and define that one differently. This might be coupled human-natural ecosystems or human-dominated ecosystems or human ecosystems or ecosystems with humans. But I think you open a can of worms that has to remain fuzzy and open-ended, because I think it an open question as to whether we humans can continue this lopsided relationship and continue to alter the environment to our needs and wishes. If the pendulum swings back as we reach the environmental limits of the planet, then the old and original ecosystem definition may be fine. If we find some way to transcend these planetary limits or boundaries...then we humans really are special enough to require an expanded definition of ecosystem. Some thoughts...would be fun to discuss more... Dan -- Dan Fiscus Assistant Professor Biology Department Frostburg State University 308 Compton Science Center Frostburg, MD 21532 USA 301-687-4170 dafis...@frostburg.edu -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Fabrice De Clerck Sent: Fri 6/25/2010 11:20 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems Dear Friends, An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition? Here is the original question: The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s All reactions welcome
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
...well in my opinion that definition is not necessarily specist, unless you do not consider humans as animals, as they obviously are. James, would you please add some details to the problems with the part interacting as a functional unit? Ecosystems (once spatially and temporally - and arbitrarily - defined) can be described in terms of structures and functions... can't they? I agree, as Ricklefs (2008) points out, that understanding ecological and evolutionary processes and mechanisms of comunities often requires a wider perspective at regional to global level, and not at the level of local assemblages, but this seems to me to be another question. After all, it is perfectly feasible to observe ecological and evolutionary processes observing populations of bacteria in a relatively very limited space and time interval, treating a simple Petri dish as your ecosystem. Cheerio, Gianluca Gianluca Polgar, PhD Evolutionary ecologist University of Malaya, Institute of Biological Sciences Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia www.mudskipper.it Il 26/06/2010 19.49, James J Roper ha scritto: Not only that, but if you have read Ricklefs 2008, the Disintegration of the Ecological Community (Am. Nat 172:741 - DOI: 10.1086/593002), you might even realize that THAT ecosystem definition leaves a lot to be desired, especially the part interacting as a functional unit. Cheers, Jim Fabrice De Clerck wrote on 25-Jun-10 12:20: Dear Friends, An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition? Here is the original question: The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s All reactions welcome, and citations welcome! Fabrice Fabrice DeClerck PhD Community and Landscape Ecologist Division of Research and Development CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501 (506) 2558-2596 fadecle...@catie.ac.cr Adjunct Research Scholar Tropical Agriculture Programs The Earth Institute at Columbia University
[ECOLOG-L] ECOSYSTEM DEFINITION (s) Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Dear dialogue participants: Definitions imply authority, but are useful place-holders in the ongoing dialogue we have labeled science, and the subset of intellectual enquiry we call ecology. We accept such definitions provisionally, until a better one comes along; it is always useful to explore the most difficult questions--endlessly, you say? Of course, endlessly. In a dialectic, each participant wishes to convince the other of the validity of their concept; in a simple dialogue, the parties jointly explore phenomena. Chew this over--if you like. . WT - Original Message - From: Fabrice De Clerck fd2...@columbia.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 8:20 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems Dear Friends, An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition? Here is the original question: The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s All reactions welcome, and citations welcome! Fabrice Fabrice DeClerck PhD Community and Landscape Ecologist Division of Research and Development CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501 (506) 2558-2596 fadecle...@catie.ac.cr Adjunct Research Scholar Tropical Agriculture Programs The Earth Institute at Columbia University No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.439 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2966 - Release Date: 06/27/10 06:35:00
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Fabrice, An interesting and evocative question and dilemma! I should really think on it over time and reply in depth...but some thoughts of the top instead... I agree with other repliers that the definition really does not exclude humans per se...unless we focus on the special aspect of your ID of humans as special animals. So I think the CBD definition is OK in the broadest sense of all animals. But I also agree that humans are special animals...so what could we change? My core idea of ecosystem as I remember Tansley to have originally coined it mentioned and emphasized reciprocal influence between the abiotic and biotic realms. And I think it a reasonable extension to also suggest the definition so far includes a sense of a balanced reciprocity...not necessarily equilibrium, stasis, homeostasis or simple stability...but still in general a kind of equal weighting, value, importance, dominance, or causal driving by the biotic and abiotic realms. If we tried to address what is special about humans as animals, in this context of ecosystem as a functional biotic-abiotic unit...what to emphasize? One option would be to say that when humans enter the integrated functional whole of an ecosystem, the relationship is no longer reciprocal or balanced between biotic and abiotic realms. This does not necessarily have to mean that this change is bad, just that it is different from ecosystems without humans. The change would be compatible with the idea of the anthropocene era in which humans are the main driving force of change...even geologic, atmospheric, biogeochemical, species extinctions, etc. changes...on the planet. Another very general analogy would be to say that without humans the organisms and communities within ecosystems (biotic) adapt themselves mainly to survival needs as defined by abiotic changes, but humans (biotic) adapt (alter) the abiotic (and biotic) environment to our own needs. This is grossly general...and not even a clearly separable difference between humans and other species, especially those studied as ecosystem engineers, but it is a rough start. So...a revised approach would be to leave the definition of ecosystem as it is (or one of the other classic or widely used versions by Odum and others), but to add some modifier to another term or type of ecosystem and define that one differently. This might be coupled human-natural ecosystems or human-dominated ecosystems or human ecosystems or ecosystems with humans. But I think you open a can of worms that has to remain fuzzy and open-ended, because I think it an open question as to whether we humans can continue this lopsided relationship and continue to alter the environment to our needs and wishes. If the pendulum swings back as we reach the environmental limits of the planet, then the old and original ecosystem definition may be fine. If we find some way to transcend these planetary limits or boundaries...then we humans really are special enough to require an expanded definition of ecosystem. Some thoughts...would be fun to discuss more... Dan -- Dan Fiscus Assistant Professor Biology Department Frostburg State University 308 Compton Science Center Frostburg, MD 21532 USA 301-687-4170 dafis...@frostburg.edu -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Fabrice De Clerck Sent: Fri 6/25/2010 11:20 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems Dear Friends, An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition? Here is the original question: The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s All reactions welcome, and citations welcome! Fabrice Fabrice DeClerck PhD Community and Landscape Ecologist Division of Research and Development CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501 (506) 2558-2596 fadecle...@catie.ac.cr Adjunct Research Scholar Tropical Agriculture Programs The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
I am confused by the original question. The CBD definition does not exclude humans. Nor does it refer only to pristine areas. And I do not agree that a general definition of something as broad as ecosystem should single out humans or any other species. Joe Poston High Point NC USA On Jun 25, 2010, at 11:20 PM, Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net wrote: Instead of looking for recent, confounded definitions, I prefer to go back to simpler, classical definitions such as: Any area of nature that includes living organisms and nonliving substances interacting to produce an exchange of materials between the living and nonliving parts is an ecological system or ecosystem. (Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology, 1953) That definition would cover an ant-colonized crack in my driveway, the urban system I live in, and the pristine (almost) wilderness that contains my footprints. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Fabrice De Clerck Sent: Friday, 25 June, 2010 08:21 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems Dear Friends, An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition? Here is the original question: The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s All reactions welcome, and citations welcome! Fabrice Fabrice DeClerck PhD Community and Landscape Ecologist Division of Research and Development CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501 (506) 2558-2596 fadecle...@catie.ac.cr Adjunct Research Scholar Tropical Agriculture Programs The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Not only that, but if you have read Ricklefs 2008, the Disintegration of the Ecological Community (Am. Nat 172:741 - DOI: 10.1086/593002), you might even realize that THAT ecosystem definition leaves a lot to be desired, especially the part interacting as a functional unit. Cheers, Jim Fabrice De Clerck wrote on 25-Jun-10 12:20: Dear Friends, An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition? Here is the original question: The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s All reactions welcome, and citations welcome! Fabrice Fabrice DeClerck PhD Community and Landscape Ecologist Division of Research and Development CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501 (506) 2558-2596 fadecle...@catie.ac.cr Adjunct Research Scholar Tropical Agriculture Programs The Earth Institute at Columbia University -- James J. Roper, Ph.D. Ecology, Evolution and Population Dynamics of Terrestrial Vertebrates Caixa Postal 19034 81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com mailto:jjro...@gmail.com Telefone: 55 41 36730409 Celular: 55 41 98182559 Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064 Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715 Ecology and Conservation at the UFPR http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ Home Page http://jjroper.googlespages.com James Roper's citations http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/james-roper1/ In Google Earth, copy and paste - 25 31'18.14 S, 49 05'32.98 W
[ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Dear Friends, An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition? Here is the original question: The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s All reactions welcome, and citations welcome! Fabrice Fabrice DeClerck PhD Community and Landscape Ecologist Division of Research and Development CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501 (506) 2558-2596 fadecle...@catie.ac.cr Adjunct Research Scholar Tropical Agriculture Programs The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Instead of looking for recent, confounded definitions, I prefer to go back to simpler, classical definitions such as: Any area of nature that includes living organisms and nonliving substances interacting to produce an exchange of materials between the living and nonliving parts is an ecological system or ecosystem. (Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology, 1953) That definition would cover an ant-colonized crack in my driveway, the urban system I live in, and the pristine (almost) wilderness that contains my footprints. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Fabrice De Clerck Sent: Friday, 25 June, 2010 08:21 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems Dear Friends, An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition? Here is the original question: The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s All reactions welcome, and citations welcome! Fabrice Fabrice DeClerck PhD Community and Landscape Ecologist Division of Research and Development CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501 (506) 2558-2596 fadecle...@catie.ac.cr Adjunct Research Scholar Tropical Agriculture Programs The Earth Institute at Columbia University
