Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems

[William Silvert]

The EU Water Quality Directive takes a similar approach and refers to 
"pristine conditions" as the standard. Not all scientists agree that 
pristine conditions are ideal - for example, is it really bad to make a 
highly oligotrophic water body more productive? Natural conditions do not 
arise from any goal-seeking behavour but can come about by accident. What 
about deserts of basaltic rocks left by volcanoes?


And speaking of deserts, how far back should we look to define naural 
conditions? It has been suggested that the Sahara was lush and green before 
humans overgrazed it. The fires that destroyed the forests of northern 
Newfoundland may have been caused by humans or by lightning, we have no way 
of determining which. And what about the depradations of our ancestors, 
early hominoids who hunted many animals to extinction. If we could bring 
back the wooly mammoth, would that enhance or destroy natural conditions?


Aside from issues of ambiguity, I think that referring to any change from 
natural conditions as adverse is unrealistic. The idea that we should return 
the wheatfields that feed human populations to savannah may be 
philosophically intriguing, but it won't happen and we should instead try to 
find ways of making the real world function optimally. What the optimum is 
poses a difficult set of questions, but natural conditions are not the 
answer.


Bill Silvert


- Original Message - 
From: "Geoffrey Patton" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 3:09 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems


It is with deep regret that I am unable to cite the specific reference for 
what I am about to write. I have frequently attributed it to John Clark's 
Ecosystem Management while knowing that's inaccurate. However, the quote 
I've constucted is "Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default, 
an adverse effect or change." Paraphrased, Nature took millenia to achieve 
the current dynamic balance of plants and animals, predators and prey, 
entropy and enthalpy. Any alteration at Man's hand away from the natural 
order of things conflicts with the balance and is adverse. Thus, we should 
try to our last breath to make things as conducive to nature's way as 
possible. 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems

[Veldman, Robert]

Completely agreed with Dave's response.  Most of our corrective actions that 
have a positive effect are normally due to some anthropomorphic action that 
caused the negative impact to nature in the first place.  Unless we let nature 
take it's course and allow it to happen naturally, it is a negative effect.  
Unless we see "man" as part of nature which can be argued but our actions do 
not fit the natural cycle.

Robert Veldman, MS | Senior Scientist | Golder Associates Inc. 
44 Union Boulevard, Suite 300, Lakewood, Colorado, USA 80228
T: +1 303-980-0540 | D: +1 303 987-4400 | F: +1 303-985-2080 | C: +1 
831-915-0098 | E: rveld...@golder.com | www.golder.com 

Wisdom is actually using the knowledge we have gained and putting it to action
Work Safe, Home Safe  

This email transmission is confidential and may contain proprietary information 
for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. Any use, distribution or 
copying of this transmission, other than by the intended recipient, is strictly 
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and 
delete all copies. Electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized 
modification, deterioration, and incompatibility. Accordingly, the electronic 
media version of any work product may not be relied upon.    

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of David M. Lawrence
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 6:37 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems

I highly doubt we can do better than nature for most other species on 
the planet -- the only species we can do a "better job than even nature 
can do" is our own and a handful of domesticated species.  For the rest, 
test outcome we can manage is to do a less bad job than we have been doing.

Dave

Warren W. Aney wrote:
> I would challenge the statement "Any alteration of the natural situation is,
> by default, an adverse effect or change."  Smallpox or polio vaccinations
> are an anthropomorphic alteration of the natural situation, but are they an
> adverse effect or change?  I suppose some might argue that vaccines result
> in increased human populations, and that is an adverse effect.  But now we
> need to define "adverse effect" -- is it adverse from a broad human
> perspective, or is it adverse from some other entity's perspective (Mother
> Nature?  Creator/God/Allah/Brahma/Odin/Wicca?  The Society for the Total
> Overall Protection of Everything Wild?).
> 
> I can think of other examples of human intervention that we might debate
> over whether or not they have "adverse" effects:  Stopping a highly
> intensive wildfire before it destroys an old growth stand.  Building a
> salmon fish ladder around a recent landslide barrier. Protecting endangered
> northern spotted owls from niche takeover by a natural invasion of barred
> owls.  Providing nest boxes for cavity nesters after a blowdown of snag
> habitat.
> 
> Granted, most human alterations of natural systems have had an adverse
> effect, even some well-intention alterations (e.g., introducing Russian
> olive and multiflora rose to improve North American wildlife habitat) but I
> think we're slowly learning how to do a better job than even nature can do.
> 
> Warren W. Aney
> Senior Wildlife Ecologist
> Tigard, Oregon
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Geoffrey Patton
> Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 19:09
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems
> 
> 
> Dear Good Ecologers:
>  
> While Dr. Czech has produced an elegant and exhaustive treatise on the
> application of important concepts in "natural" systems, it is a bit dense
> and unapproachable for many.
>  
> It is with deep regret that I am unable to cite the specific reference for
> what I am about to write. I have frequently attributed it to John Clark's
> Ecosystem Management while knowing that's inaccurate. However, the quote
> I've constucted is "Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default,
> an adverse effect or change." Paraphrased, Nature took millenia to achieve
> the current dynamic balance of plants and animals, predators and prey,
> entropy and enthalpy. Any alteration at Man's hand away from the natural
> order of things conflicts with the balance and is adverse.  Thus, we should
> try to our last breath to make things as conducive to nature's way as
> possible.
>  
> I think that's what we're talking about here.
> 
> 
> 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems

[David M. Lawrence]

I highly doubt we can do better than nature for most other species on 
the planet -- the only species we can do a "better job than even nature 
can do" is our own and a handful of domesticated species.  For the rest, 
test outcome we can manage is to do a less bad job than we have been doing.


Dave

Warren W. Aney wrote:

I would challenge the statement "Any alteration of the natural situation is,
by default, an adverse effect or change."  Smallpox or polio vaccinations
are an anthropomorphic alteration of the natural situation, but are they an
adverse effect or change?  I suppose some might argue that vaccines result
in increased human populations, and that is an adverse effect.  But now we
need to define "adverse effect" -- is it adverse from a broad human
perspective, or is it adverse from some other entity's perspective (Mother
Nature?  Creator/God/Allah/Brahma/Odin/Wicca?  The Society for the Total
Overall Protection of Everything Wild?).

I can think of other examples of human intervention that we might debate
over whether or not they have "adverse" effects:  Stopping a highly
intensive wildfire before it destroys an old growth stand.  Building a
salmon fish ladder around a recent landslide barrier. Protecting endangered
northern spotted owls from niche takeover by a natural invasion of barred
owls.  Providing nest boxes for cavity nesters after a blowdown of snag
habitat.

Granted, most human alterations of natural systems have had an adverse
effect, even some well-intention alterations (e.g., introducing Russian
olive and multiflora rose to improve North American wildlife habitat) but I
think we're slowly learning how to do a better job than even nature can do.

Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Tigard, Oregon

-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Geoffrey Patton
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 19:09
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems


Dear Good Ecologers:
 
While Dr. Czech has produced an elegant and exhaustive treatise on the

application of important concepts in "natural" systems, it is a bit dense
and unapproachable for many.
 
It is with deep regret that I am unable to cite the specific reference for

what I am about to write. I have frequently attributed it to John Clark's
Ecosystem Management while knowing that's inaccurate. However, the quote
I've constucted is "Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default,
an adverse effect or change." Paraphrased, Nature took millenia to achieve
the current dynamic balance of plants and animals, predators and prey,
entropy and enthalpy. Any alteration at Man's hand away from the natural
order of things conflicts with the balance and is adverse.  Thus, we should
try to our last breath to make things as conducive to nature's way as
possible.
 
I think that's what we're talking about here.




Cordially yours,

Geoff Patton, Ph.D.
2208 Parker Ave., Wheaton, MD 20902  301.221.9536

--- On Sat, 3/7/09, Czech, Brian  wrote:

From: Czech, Brian 
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 5:09 PM

It's true that "natural" is just semantics in some contexts, but
defining the term can affect the way our public lands are managed.  See for
example the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  Here is one proposal for a frame of
reference for natural conditions:



http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integ
rity.pdf
<http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Inte
grity.pdf>





Brian Czech, Visiting Professor
Natural Resources Program
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center
7054 Haycock Road, Room 411
Falls Church, Virginia 22043



From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve
Kunz
Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems



In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our  place in
the world.  We have the "intelligence" to control our environment  on
a large
scale.  Our control of otherwise "natural" systems can throw  them
out of
balance, or at least, into a new balance.  In an extreme case,  this
intelligent
control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own  species and most
others (think: nuclear war).  The planet doesn't care if  this happens, and
some
species will survive and help start things over.  Is  the result
"natural" or
"unnatural"?  At that point, it's just semantics  anyway.

Peace!

Steve Kunz

Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems

[Warren W. Aney]

I would challenge the statement "Any alteration of the natural situation is,
by default, an adverse effect or change."  Smallpox or polio vaccinations
are an anthropomorphic alteration of the natural situation, but are they an
adverse effect or change?  I suppose some might argue that vaccines result
in increased human populations, and that is an adverse effect.  But now we
need to define "adverse effect" -- is it adverse from a broad human
perspective, or is it adverse from some other entity's perspective (Mother
Nature?  Creator/God/Allah/Brahma/Odin/Wicca?  The Society for the Total
Overall Protection of Everything Wild?).

I can think of other examples of human intervention that we might debate
over whether or not they have "adverse" effects:  Stopping a highly
intensive wildfire before it destroys an old growth stand.  Building a
salmon fish ladder around a recent landslide barrier. Protecting endangered
northern spotted owls from niche takeover by a natural invasion of barred
owls.  Providing nest boxes for cavity nesters after a blowdown of snag
habitat.

Granted, most human alterations of natural systems have had an adverse
effect, even some well-intention alterations (e.g., introducing Russian
olive and multiflora rose to improve North American wildlife habitat) but I
think we're slowly learning how to do a better job than even nature can do.

Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Tigard, Oregon

-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Geoffrey Patton
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 19:09
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems


Dear Good Ecologers:
 
While Dr. Czech has produced an elegant and exhaustive treatise on the
application of important concepts in "natural" systems, it is a bit dense
and unapproachable for many.
 
It is with deep regret that I am unable to cite the specific reference for
what I am about to write. I have frequently attributed it to John Clark's
Ecosystem Management while knowing that's inaccurate. However, the quote
I've constucted is "Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default,
an adverse effect or change." Paraphrased, Nature took millenia to achieve
the current dynamic balance of plants and animals, predators and prey,
entropy and enthalpy. Any alteration at Man's hand away from the natural
order of things conflicts with the balance and is adverse.  Thus, we should
try to our last breath to make things as conducive to nature's way as
possible.
 
I think that's what we're talking about here.



Cordially yours,

Geoff Patton, Ph.D.
2208 Parker Ave., Wheaton, MD 20902  301.221.9536

--- On Sat, 3/7/09, Czech, Brian  wrote:

From: Czech, Brian 
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 5:09 PM

It's true that "natural" is just semantics in some contexts, but
defining the term can affect the way our public lands are managed.  See for
example the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  Here is one proposal for a frame of
reference for natural conditions:



http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integ
rity.pdf
<http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Inte
grity.pdf>





Brian Czech, Visiting Professor
Natural Resources Program
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center
7054 Haycock Road, Room 411
Falls Church, Virginia 22043



From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve
Kunz
Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems



In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our  place in
the world.  We have the "intelligence" to control our environment  on
a large
scale.  Our control of otherwise "natural" systems can throw  them
out of
balance, or at least, into a new balance.  In an extreme case,  this
intelligent
control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own  species and most
others (think: nuclear war).  The planet doesn't care if  this happens, and
some
species will survive and help start things over.  Is  the result
"natural" or
"unnatural"?  At that point, it's just semantics  anyway.

Peace!

Steve Kunz




In a message dated 3/5/2009 6:08:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
atom.fuller...@gmail.com writes:

I'm a  grad student who reads the list-serve to look for job opportunities,
but  these threads on agroecosystems and climate change bring up a question
I
have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to, namely: Are humans to  be
considered a p

Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems

[Daniel A Fiscus]

Brian, Adam and all,
 
Another angle I like to consider is that we could treat natural
and human nature and naturalness of humans all as flexible
and open to our creative and participatory input and action. 
One quick citation for this approach is the book by Wes 
Jackson - "Becoming Native to this Place". Rather than treat
"natural" as a static, objective, absolute, immutable term and
reality, we can decide, assert, agree and act to make ourselves
natural, as well as what that means to us. Many of us are not
native to this place (Wes Jackson in Kansas or myself in 
Western Maryland) yet following Jackson's lead we could 
make a different reality - we could become native, or become
natural, a natural part of the local environment, community,
ecosystem able to co-exist with other species, self-sustain
over the long-term and maybe even do more good than harm.
 
I think it is a good question and topic of discussion, and even
if messy, confusing or difficult still worth wrestling with. If it
points to deep issues like paradigmatic stances of objectivist
versus participatory human-nature relations, and lets people 
consider the implications, then it seems to have real value.
 
A few rough thoughts on this...a topic I have also ponder all
through grad. school and after...
 
Dan Fiscus
 
 
 
 
 
-- 
Dan Fiscus
Assistant Professor
Biology Department 
Frostburg State University 
308 Compton Science Center 
Frostburg, MD 21532 USA 
301-687-4170 
dafis...@frostburg.edu



From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Czech, 
Brian
Sent: Sat 3/7/2009 5:09 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems



It's true that "natural" is just semantics in some contexts, but defining the 
term can affect the way our public lands are managed.  See for example the 
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy of the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service.  Here is one proposal for a frame of reference for 
natural conditions:



http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf
 
<http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf>




Brian Czech, Visiting Professor
Natural Resources Program
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center
7054 Haycock Road, Room 411
Falls Church, Virginia 22043



From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve Kunz
Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems



In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our  place in
the world.  We have the "intelligence" to control our environment  on a large
scale.  Our control of otherwise "natural" systems can throw  them out of
balance, or at least, into a new balance.  In an extreme case,  this intelligent
control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own  species and most
others (think: nuclear war).  The planet doesn't care if  this happens, and some
species will survive and help start things over.  Is  the result "natural" or
"unnatural"?  At that point, it's just semantics  anyway.

Peace!

Steve Kunz




In a message dated 3/5/2009 6:08:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
atom.fuller...@gmail.com writes:

I'm a  grad student who reads the list-serve to look for job opportunities,
but  these threads on agroecosystems and climate change bring up a question  I
have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to, namely: Are humans to  be
considered a part of the natural world?  On the one hand, humans  are clearly
a species of mammal living on the planet.  Science in  general follows the
Copernican Principle: don't assume there is anything  particularly unique
about your place in the world.  I doubt many of  you would consider us to
have been specifically placed on the planet and  set apart from other forms
of life.  And yet, when it comes to the  things humans do, a clear
distinction is made between human causes and  natural ones, human modified
ecosystems and wild ones.  And it is  definitely useful to make distictions
between human effects and natural  ones when studying many ecosystems-I've
certainly done it in my own  research.

So why is this true?  How can natural humans cause  unnatural effects (or is
one assumption false, despite both seeming  reasonable)? Can only humans harm
the environment?  What's the  difference between an invasive species being
introduced to an island by  humans, or the same one arriving on the foot of a
bird?  What does  harming the environment mean, anyway?  Somewhat like the
two  perspectives above, I have seen it defined as: (A) changing the
environment  from it's original natural or pre-human state (which natural
state? how 

[ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology Natural Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems

[Wayne Tyson]

Honorable Forum:

It is intellectually healthy to continue to discuss meanings, particularly 
when the discussion sharpens rather than muddies distinctions. That is, 
after all, why language is useful. Language breaks down when it is used to 
manipulate rather than communicate.


Context is important, particularly when a term can mean different things in 
different contexts, but terms are most useful when they are universal in 
their meaning. In some academic contexts, for example, terms may be defined 
more or less sharply than in the general context of the broader usage in 
society at large. Beyond the sometimes necessary realm of technical jargon 
and shorthand, any discipline stands to benefit from terminology that is as 
universal, that has the same meaning in the broader context of society and 
in the realm of academic discipline. Sometimes, as in "ecology," for 
example, the meaning of terms becomes muddied by overly broad application, 
when distinctions become unclear or marginally relevant to the more 
disciplined definition. "Natural," however, while it may suffer from some 
misuse (as in advertising, which is, by its nature [no pun], artificial), 
has long served to distinguish that which is artificial from that which 
simply IS, without interference. Nature is natural; that which interferes 
with it is artificial.


WT

- Original Message - 
From: "Czech, Brian" 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 2:09 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems


It's true that "natural" is just semantics in some contexts, but defining 
the term can affect the way our public lands are managed.  See for example 
the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy of 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  Here is one proposal for a frame of 
reference for natural conditions:




http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf 
<http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf>





Brian Czech, Visiting Professor
Natural Resources Program
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center
7054 Haycock Road, Room 411
Falls Church, Virginia 22043



From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve 
Kunz

Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems



In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our  place 
in
the world.  We have the "intelligence" to control our environment  on a 
large

scale.  Our control of otherwise "natural" systems can throw  them out of
balance, or at least, into a new balance.  In an extreme case,  this 
intelligent
control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own  species and 
most
others (think: nuclear war).  The planet doesn't care if  this happens, 
and some
species will survive and help start things over.  Is  the result "natural" 
or

"unnatural"?  At that point, it's just semantics  anyway.

Peace!

Steve Kunz




In a message dated 3/5/2009 6:08:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
atom.fuller...@gmail.com writes:

I'm a  grad student who reads the list-serve to look for job 
opportunities,
but  these threads on agroecosystems and climate change bring up a 
question  I
have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to, namely: Are humans to 
be
considered a part of the natural world?  On the one hand, humans  are 
clearly

a species of mammal living on the planet.  Science in  general follows the
Copernican Principle: don't assume there is anything  particularly unique
about your place in the world.  I doubt many of  you would consider us to
have been specifically placed on the planet and  set apart from other 
forms

of life.  And yet, when it comes to the  things humans do, a clear
distinction is made between human causes and  natural ones, human modified
ecosystems and wild ones.  And it is  definitely useful to make 
distictions

between human effects and natural  ones when studying many ecosystems-I've
certainly done it in my own  research.

So why is this true?  How can natural humans cause  unnatural effects (or 
is
one assumption false, despite both seeming  reasonable)? Can only humans 
harm

the environment?  What's the  difference between an invasive species being
introduced to an island by  humans, or the same one arriving on the foot 
of a

bird?  What does  harming the environment mean, anyway?  Somewhat like the
two  perspectives above, I have seen it defined as: (A) changing the
environment  from it's original natural or pre-human state (which natural
state? how do  you define your baseline?), and (B) Making the environment
less capable of  supporting human life (supporting human life now or
indefinietely?  at  what standard of living?

Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems

[malcolm McCallum]

The term 'natural' is not considered by most to be a 'good' term to
use in scientific articles.  It is better to use terms/phrases such as
undistrubed, minimally disturbed, etc.  At first, this may seem like a
nit-picky idea as, of course we all know what natural is!  Well, maybe
not.  Many suggest that a 'natural area' is one free from human
encroachment.  Of course, this contradicts the whole notion that
humans are in fact part of the natural system and therefore, lack of
human encroachment may actually be unnatural!  Because of the great
confusion created by the use of this term, most encourage us to avoid
using it.  When we discuss urbanized versus non-urbanized habitat,
agronomic vs. non-agronomic, grazed vs. ungrazed, old growth forest
vs. tree farms, etc. there is a fairly clear understanding of what we
are discussing.  However, anytime someone states that something is in
a natural or non-natural state, it opens the gate to an unending
series of questions and clarifications that do little more than
distract us from the focus of the original discussion.

On the other hand, ASTM Standard Methods does have lists of
standardized terminology for use in environmental science and other
fields.  I do not recall 'natural' being on any of these lists,
however, they do contain many other terms that are frequently misused
in popular and scientific writing.

I hope this is useful for your attempts!

malcolm

On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Czech, Brian  wrote:
> It's true that "natural" is just semantics in some contexts, but defining the 
> term can affect the way our public lands are managed.  See for example the 
> Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy of the U.S. 
> Fish and Wildlife Service.  Here is one proposal for a frame of reference for 
> natural conditions:
>
>
>
> http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf
>  
> 
>
>
>
>
> Brian Czech, Visiting Professor
> Natural Resources Program
> Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
> National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center
> 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411
> Falls Church, Virginia 22043
>
> 
>
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve 
> Kunz
> Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems
>
>
>
> In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our  place in
> the world.  We have the "intelligence" to control our environment  on a large
> scale.  Our control of otherwise "natural" systems can throw  them out of
> balance, or at least, into a new balance.  In an extreme case,  this 
> intelligent
> control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own  species and most
> others (think: nuclear war).  The planet doesn't care if  this happens, and 
> some
> species will survive and help start things over.  Is  the result "natural" or
> "unnatural"?  At that point, it's just semantics  anyway.
>
> Peace!
>
> Steve Kunz
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 3/5/2009 6:08:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> atom.fuller...@gmail.com writes:
>
> I'm a  grad student who reads the list-serve to look for job opportunities,
> but  these threads on agroecosystems and climate change bring up a question  I
> have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to, namely: Are humans to  be
> considered a part of the natural world?  On the one hand, humans  are clearly
> a species of mammal living on the planet.  Science in  general follows the
> Copernican Principle: don't assume there is anything  particularly unique
> about your place in the world.  I doubt many of  you would consider us to
> have been specifically placed on the planet and  set apart from other forms
> of life.  And yet, when it comes to the  things humans do, a clear
> distinction is made between human causes and  natural ones, human modified
> ecosystems and wild ones.  And it is  definitely useful to make distictions
> between human effects and natural  ones when studying many ecosystems-I've
> certainly done it in my own  research.
>
> So why is this true?  How can natural humans cause  unnatural effects (or is
> one assumption false, despite both seeming  reasonable)? Can only humans harm
> the environment?  What's the  difference between an invasive species being
> introduced to an island by  humans, or the same one arriving on the foot of a
> bird?  What does  harming the environment mean, anyway?  Somewhat like the
> two  perspectives above, I have seen it defined as: (A) changing the
> environment  from it's original natural or pre-human state (which natural
> state? how do  you define your baseline?), and (B) Making the environment
> less capable of  supporting human life (supporting human life now or
> indefinietely?  at  what standard of living?).  Those two goals aren't  always
> com

Re: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems

[Geoffrey Patton]

Dear Good Ecologers:
 
While Dr. Czech has produced an elegant and exhaustive treatise on the 
application of important concepts in "natural" systems, it is a bit dense and 
unapproachable for many. 
 
It is with deep regret that I am unable to cite the specific reference for what 
I am about to write. I have frequently attributed it to John Clark's Ecosystem 
Management while knowing that's inaccurate. However, the quote I've constucted 
is "Any alteration of the natural situation is, by default, an adverse effect 
or change." Paraphrased, Nature took millenia to achieve the current dynamic 
balance of plants and animals, predators and prey, entropy and enthalpy. Any 
alteration at Man's hand away from the natural order of things conflicts with 
the balance and is adverse.  Thus, we should try to our last breath to make 
things as conducive to nature's way as possible. 
 
I think that's what we're talking about here.



Cordially yours,

Geoff Patton, Ph.D.
2208 Parker Ave., Wheaton, MD 20902  301.221.9536

--- On Sat, 3/7/09, Czech, Brian  wrote:

From: Czech, Brian 
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 5:09 PM

It's true that "natural" is just semantics in some contexts, but
defining the term can affect the way our public lands are managed.  See for
example the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  Here is one proposal for a frame of
reference for natural conditions:

 

http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf
<http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf>


 

 
Brian Czech, Visiting Professor
Natural Resources Program 
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center
7054 Haycock Road, Room 411
Falls Church, Virginia 22043



From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve Kunz
Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems



In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our  place in
the world.  We have the "intelligence" to control our environment  on
a large
scale.  Our control of otherwise "natural" systems can throw  them
out of
balance, or at least, into a new balance.  In an extreme case,  this
intelligent
control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own  species and most
others (think: nuclear war).  The planet doesn't care if  this happens, and
some
species will survive and help start things over.  Is  the result
"natural" or
"unnatural"?  At that point, it's just semantics  anyway.

Peace!

Steve Kunz




In a message dated 3/5/2009 6:08:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
atom.fuller...@gmail.com writes:

I'm a  grad student who reads the list-serve to look for job opportunities,
but  these threads on agroecosystems and climate change bring up a question  I
have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to, namely: Are humans to  be
considered a part of the natural world?  On the one hand, humans  are clearly
a species of mammal living on the planet.  Science in  general follows the
Copernican Principle: don't assume there is anything  particularly unique
about your place in the world.  I doubt many of  you would consider us to
have been specifically placed on the planet and  set apart from other forms
of life.  And yet, when it comes to the  things humans do, a clear
distinction is made between human causes and  natural ones, human modified
ecosystems and wild ones.  And it is  definitely useful to make distictions
between human effects and natural  ones when studying many ecosystems-I've
certainly done it in my own  research.

So why is this true?  How can natural humans cause  unnatural effects (or is
one assumption false, despite both seeming  reasonable)? Can only humans harm
the environment?  What's the  difference between an invasive species being
introduced to an island by  humans, or the same one arriving on the foot of a
bird?  What does  harming the environment mean, anyway?  Somewhat like the
two  perspectives above, I have seen it defined as: (A) changing the
environment  from it's original natural or pre-human state (which natural
state? how do  you define your baseline?), and (B) Making the environment
less capable of  supporting human life (supporting human life now or
indefinietely?  at  what standard of living?).  Those two goals aren't 
always
compatable.  So, comments?  Thoughts?  How do you  resolve this?

Adam


**A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219957551x1201325337/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)

[ECOLOG-L] "Natural" systems

[Czech, Brian]

It's true that "natural" is just semantics in some contexts, but defining the 
term can affect the way our public lands are managed.  See for example the 
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy of the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service.  Here is one proposal for a frame of reference for 
natural conditions:

 

http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf
 

 

 

 
Brian Czech, Visiting Professor
Natural Resources Program 
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center
7054 Haycock Road, Room 411
Falls Church, Virginia 22043



From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve Kunz
Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems



In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our  place in
the world.  We have the "intelligence" to control our environment  on a large
scale.  Our control of otherwise "natural" systems can throw  them out of
balance, or at least, into a new balance.  In an extreme case,  this intelligent
control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own  species and most
others (think: nuclear war).  The planet doesn't care if  this happens, and some
species will survive and help start things over.  Is  the result "natural" or
"unnatural"?  At that point, it's just semantics  anyway.

Peace!

Steve Kunz




In a message dated 3/5/2009 6:08:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
atom.fuller...@gmail.com writes:

I'm a  grad student who reads the list-serve to look for job opportunities,
but  these threads on agroecosystems and climate change bring up a question  I
have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to, namely: Are humans to  be
considered a part of the natural world?  On the one hand, humans  are clearly
a species of mammal living on the planet.  Science in  general follows the
Copernican Principle: don't assume there is anything  particularly unique
about your place in the world.  I doubt many of  you would consider us to
have been specifically placed on the planet and  set apart from other forms
of life.  And yet, when it comes to the  things humans do, a clear
distinction is made between human causes and  natural ones, human modified
ecosystems and wild ones.  And it is  definitely useful to make distictions
between human effects and natural  ones when studying many ecosystems-I've
certainly done it in my own  research.

So why is this true?  How can natural humans cause  unnatural effects (or is
one assumption false, despite both seeming  reasonable)? Can only humans harm
the environment?  What's the  difference between an invasive species being
introduced to an island by  humans, or the same one arriving on the foot of a
bird?  What does  harming the environment mean, anyway?  Somewhat like the
two  perspectives above, I have seen it defined as: (A) changing the
environment  from it's original natural or pre-human state (which natural
state? how do  you define your baseline?), and (B) Making the environment
less capable of  supporting human life (supporting human life now or
indefinietely?  at  what standard of living?).  Those two goals aren't  always
compatable.  So, comments?  Thoughts?  How do you  resolve this?

Adam


**A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219957551x1201325337/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)