Ecological damage?

[CanadaAotS]

length of DNA chain is not a good indication btw. I'm no geneticist (if thats a word ) but I know alot of species have many redundant copies of dna strings... making them seem alot longer or more complicated then they really are.

 

And you cant say that a food system never collapses.

 

What if the earth was rapidly pushed to an orbit closer then even mercury? or something else completely catastrophic. An event of that magnitude could very well kill off all life on the planet. I doubt any species on earth would be able to adapt... even ground dwelling ones and the like. That would completely collapse most if not all food webs and ecological systems on the planet...

 

THAT would definetly be ecological damage Lol...

 

EDIT: btw, very cool name chupacabra

[Chupacabra]

And you cant say that a food system never collapses.

What if the earth was rapidly pushed to an orbit closer then even mercury? or something else completely catastrophic. An event of that magnitude could very well kill off all life on the planet. I doubt any species on earth would be able to adapt... even ground dwelling ones and the like. That would completely collapse most if not all food webs and ecological systems on the planet...

 

THAT would definetly be ecological damage Lol...

 

True, but such apocaliptical events are very rare/unlikely. And, notice, even a catastrophical event (whatever it was) that resulted in dinosaurs extinction opened ways to the evolution of mammals and helped us to come here.

[CanadaAotS]

The dinosaur extinction wasn't even all that apocaliptic compared to the first big extinction, forget exactly when, may have been pre-cambrian or cambrian. 90% of all lifeform species died out...

 

With this "Earth goes into random orbit" thing, it would be more like 99.9999...% of lifeforms dieing out. A few species of microscopic organisms that live deep deep in the ground might survive... but even thats doubtful lol

[Sayonara]

My point is that, in ecology, nothing is destroyed (except when extinction occurs). The balance of nature is never destroyed. Ecological change (or damage) simply results in a new balance point. Food webs are not 'collapsed' or destroyed - simply morphed into a new food web.

Consider the Aral Sea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

[SkepticLance]

Consider the Aral Sea: [/url]

 

Yes. That is an extreme example, and one that few, if any, would claim as not being ecological damage. However, even though the change is dramatically undesirable, the principle still applies. The ecosystem was not destroyed - but morphed into something else. The balance of nature is not lost, just moved to a different, albeit seriously undesirable, balance point.

 

My favourite example is bell frogs in Sydney, Australia. In seeking for venues for the Sydney 2000 Olympics, a team found a polluted pond that 'begged' to be redeveloped. However, ecologists found a thriving population (the world's largest) of a threatened species of bell frog. Turns out that the main cause of their loss of numbers was a fungus from Africa (chytrids) which kills amphibians wholesale. This polluted pond though, was more toxic to the fungus than the frogs. By living there, they 'self-medicated' and stayed healthy where other bell frogs in clean water were killed off. Moral of the story : do not jump to conclusions about which environments are desirable.

[Sayonara]

Yes. That is an extreme example, and one that few, if any, would claim as not being ecological damage. However, even though the change is dramatically undesirable, the principle still applies. The ecosystem was not destroyed - but morphed into something else. The balance of nature is not lost, just moved to a different, albeit seriously undesirable, balance point.

If I walk around a finance company building, wiping out entire departments with toxic spray, I am not turning it into a shipping company. I am making it incapable of proper functioning. As well as racking up the years in solitary. Of course some parts might continue to function for a while, because I might not get around to, say, the mail room or the canteen, but eventually the meals are going to start piling up, and the mail sorters will have nothing to work with.

 

The term "destruction" in this sense does not mean total erradication (although that is where it can lead, and in the case of the Aral Sea it is probably inevitable by now). It means the irreversible disturbance of the trophic network. Stating that the "balance point" gets moved is a massive assumption that cannot be unilaterally applied. It's also academically useless as it does not tell us what is actually happening within the community in any ecological sense whatsoever.

Terms like the "balance of nature" should be either avoided entirely or replaced with the applicable and universally utilised academic term.

 

My favourite example is bell frogs in Sydney, Australia. In seeking for venues for the Sydney 2000 Olympics, a team found a polluted pond that 'begged' to be redeveloped. However, ecologists found a thriving population (the world's largest) of a threatened species of bell frog. Turns out that the main cause of their loss of numbers was a fungus from Africa (chytrids) which kills amphibians wholesale. This polluted pond though, was more toxic to the fungus than the frogs. By living there, they 'self-medicated' and stayed healthy where other bell frogs in clean water were killed off. Moral of the story : do not jump to conclusions about which environments are desirable.

Ecological balance does not deal in morals or desire.

 

Had the pond not been polluted in the first place, it would not be a retreat for the bell frogs. Their presence is just as much a symptom of human interference as the pollutants, and the fact that they can avoid a fungus that is lethal to them neither validates a decision to leave the pond in a damaged state, nor does it mean that the pond a "desirable" environment.

 

It is of more benefit to the frogs, to be sure, but not to the ecosystem that inhabited it before human intervention. Pawning off an entire community on the basis of one outside species benefitting when we have facilitated that species' intrusion is bad enough, but to attach human sentiments to a trophic network problem serves no useful purpose. Nor is it an ecologically-grounded view.

[Chupacabra]

The term "destruction" in this sense does not mean total erradication (although that is where it can lead, and in the case of the Aral Sea it is probably inevitable by now)

Eradication of sea ecosystems - yes. But they will be replaced by marsh or desert ones.

Ecological balance does not deal in morals or desire.

...but to attach human sentiments to a trophic network problem serves no useful purpose.

 

You are contradicting yourself. "Polluted" pond and "unpolluted" pond, in fact, contain different ecosystems. And by preferring one state to another, you, actually, impose your ethical and estetical views on natural processes and ecosystems.

 

Had the pond not been polluted in the first place, it would not be a retreat for the bell frogs. Their presence is just as much a symptom of human interference as the pollutants, and the fact that they can avoid a fungus that is lethal to them neither validates a decision to leave the pond in a damaged state, nor does it mean that the pond a "desirable" environment

 

No, it does. If this frogs are of great value (because they are threatened species), and species living in "clean" lakes are not threatened thus much, then cleaning such a lake would do harm to biodiversity.

[Sayonara]

Eradication of sea ecosystems - yes. But they will be replaced by marsh or desert ones.

I don't really see how that makes the trophic network any less irreversibly disturbed.

 

 

You are contradicting yourself. "Polluted" pond and "unpolluted" pond, in fact, contain different ecosystems. And by preferring one state to another, you, actually, impose your ethical and estetical views on natural processes and ecosystems.

I do not prefer one state to the other. Attaching the sentimental value of "goodness" to a pond being polluted simply because a species of frog is using it as a refuge is an arbitrary value judgement.

Because of this, I am not arguing that we should knee jerk and go the other way just to be contrary - I am making the point that the frogs' plight should not necessarily be considered in the ecological analysis of the pond.

 

Furthermore, it would be entirely fallacious to consider "helping" a threatened species to be the same thing as safeguarding the ecosystem we happened to find it in (and in fact safeguarding ecosystems in the first place is essentially unpredictable meddling too, but that's a whole other thread right there).

 

 

No, it does. If this frogs are of great value (because they are threatened species), and species living in "clean" lakes are not threatened thus much, then cleaning such a lake would do harm to biodiversity.

Now it is you who is contradicting yourself.

 

You have no information about the lake other than (a) it has this one species of bell frog in it, and (b) it is considered polluted, which we can assume to be in comparison to some former state.

 

I think we both know that - based on that meagre information, and a modicum of ecological knowledge - if the lake was cleaned and all the frogs died, biodiversity would still increase, not decrease.

 

I also don't see how being a "threatened species" increases the "value" of an organism. What units are you working with there? And since when was extinction not an ecological product?

[Chupacabra]

I don't really see how that makes the trophic network any less irreversibly disturbed.

Well, the climate might change, the precipitation might increase (or some technical measures taken), and Aral sea might revive again. Then its ecosystem could be fully revived by introducing organisms provided no endemic Aral species get extinct during present crisis. Only in this case the change in ecosystem could be deemed irreversible

 

I am making the point that the frogs' plight should not necessarily be considered in the ecological analysis of the pond.

 

Furthermore, it would be entirely fallacious to consider "helping" a threatened species to be the same thing as safeguarding the ecosystem we happened to find it in

 

So, you just place more value on safeguarding ecosystem functioning then on a fate of species. Cannot agree with you here.

 

I think we both know that - based on that meagre information, and a modicum of ecological knowledge - if the lake was cleaned and all the frogs died, biodiversity would still increase, not decrease.

 

Wrong. Imagine this is the only lake on Earth habitated by this species. Then by cleaning it we'll make the frog species extinct. We can reproduce any ecosystem as long as we know its species composition and environmental requrements. Still, we yet cannot resuscitate any extinct species. So, only species extinctions are truly irreversible (at least, presently)

[Sayonara]

Well, the climate might change, the precipitation might increase (or some technical measures taken), and Aral sea might revive again. Then its ecosystem could be fully revived by introducing organisms provided no endemic Aral species get extinct during present crisis. Only in this case the change in ecosystem could be deemed irreversible.

The sea actually split into two it was so badly depleted. The South sea is estimated to disappear within 15 years. The North sea has had some extensive work done on it and looks to be stable now (albeit vastly diminished). Fish stocks have been reintroduced for fishing but it is by no means accurate to say that this is a restoration of the pre-1918 ecosystem.

 

Theoretically we could duplicate the ecosystem with reintroduction, but there are two problems:

 

1) We do not know the exact composition of the pre-1918 ecosystem, which no longer exists,

 

2) The structure and mechanisms of the seas have entirely changed (e.g. salinity increases, change in the surface area to volume ratio due to the split, subsequent changes in evaporation rate and therefore further shifts in salinity, the fact that the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya rivers were diverted away, the stonking great dam that has been built through the middle, the massive plains of salt and toxic chemical deposits that surround the shores, ... etc etc).

 

 

So, you just place more value on safeguarding ecosystem functioning then on a fate of species. Cannot agree with you here.

It seems inconsistent of you to mention harming biodiversity in one post, then "side with" saving one species over an ecosystem in the next.

 

Especially since in your last post you picked me up on what you perceived to be an arbitrary value judgement.

 

 

Wrong. Imagine this is the only lake on Earth habitated by this species.

It is not the only population though, is it?

 

You don't get to say "ahhhhh haaaa, you are wrong because I introduced imaginary elements in to the scenario."

 

If that were the scenario, I might take a different view. But it is not.

 

 

Then by cleaning it we'll make the frog species extinct. We can reproduce any ecosystem as long as we know its species composition and environmental requrements. Still, we yet cannot resuscitate any extinct species. So, only species extinctions are truly irreversible (at least, presently)

The bottom line is that one species leaving an ecosystem is less damaging to biodiversity in that system than multiple species leaving the ecosystem. Whether or not the species leave/s the system due to extinction is spurious and irrelevant.

 

It occurs to me that the absence of that one species might have a bigger impact on the trophic network of the habitat than the absence of the multiple species, but that is not the same thing.

 

Species go extinct all the time, but ecosystems have a tendency to work around the holes.

 

Let me ask you something else. What good will it do to preserve that population of bell frogs if the rest of the ecosystem in the polluted pond is going to fail?

Before you reply, it might help to have a think about why amphibians are not so fatally affected by the pollutants in the water as are other organisms in the habitat.

[Chupacabra]

The bottom line is that one species leaving an ecosystem is less damaging to biodiversity in that system than multiple species leaving the ecosystem. Whether or not the species leave/s the system due to extinction is spurious and irrelevant.

 

Depending on what you mean by biodiversity. Should we always strive for biodiversity (e.g., species richness) of any particular ecosystem? Not sure.

 

And, let me ask you, why should we put a bigger value on ecosystems with more complicated trophic networks? If we have some economic, aestetical or other reasons to value particular ecosystem, we should do it. But an ecosystem shouldn't have a big intrinsic value just because it has a large biomass, bioproductivity or has a complicated trophic network.

 

What should be valued, though, is the biodiversity of the biosphere as a whole, because an extinction of any species means irretreavable loss of genetic information. And if a protection of endangered species requires a reduction in species reachness of some local ecosystems, it should be done without hesitation.

 

Anyhow, measures to exterminate rats and other introduced species who threaten endemic bird populations in places like New Zealand, actually reduce local "biodiversity"

[Sayonara]

Dammit... I was about to go to bed. Do me a favour and PM me so I don't forget to reply, because I don't know when I will be on again this week

[Sayonara]

Right, I am back. Sorry for the ludicrous wait.

 

Depending on what you mean by biodiversity. Should we always strive for biodiversity (e.g., species richness) of any particular ecosystem? Not sure.

Personally I think we ought to strive not to damage biodiversity where it already exists, but NOT that we ought to artificially and arbitrarily decide that biodiversity needs to be shored up. As you will know, with an ecological background, determining whether or not a species or web is "destined" to collapse is something that is unfortunately beyond the capacities of many of the people who are given that decision.

 

In the case of this pond (which is turning into something of a bug bear for us both), the unpolluted pond with its ecosystem intact and (possibly) no bell frogs is clearly more biodiverse than the polluted pond that has a bell frog population, and not much else.

 

And, let me ask you, why should we put a bigger value on ecosystems with more complicated trophic networks?

Complex trophic networks are a key indication of biodiversity, and they have vastly more scope for absorbing disruption, even at the species level.

 

If we have some economic, aestetical or other reasons to value particular ecosystem, we should do it.

That is an entirely anthropocentric attitude that flies in the face of ecological thinking.

 

But an ecosystem shouldn't have a big intrinsic value just because it has a large biomass...

I have never made such a claim.

 

...bioproductivity or has a complicated trophic network.

You say "intrinsic value". I take this to mean it is of value to the inhabitants of the system, and the systems with which it interfaces. In such a case bioproductivity and the complexity of the trophic networks are absolutely vital indicators of that value.

 

The only alternative meaning I can think of for that bit (that makes sense) is that you are talking about the value of these ecosystems to us, which explains a lot if true.

 

What should be valued, though, is the biodiversity of the biosphere as a whole, because an extinction of any species means irretreavable loss of genetic information.

True, but the point I am trying to get across here is that our meddling in such extinction events does not magically endow the event with ecological significance, nor does it retrospectively give the species in question any special diversity significance.

 

And if a protection of endangered species requires a reduction in species reachness of some local ecosystems, it should be done without hesitation.

Despite the ideas that (a) this smashes diversity in that system, and (b) the species you are trying to "save" (for whatever reasons) is probably reliant upon (a) not happening?

 

Anyhow, measures to exterminate rats and other introduced species who threaten endemic bird populations in places like New Zealand, actually reduce local "biodiversity"

This supports my over-riding point that meddling ex post facto is not automatically a good thing, ecologically speaking.

[SkepticLance]

Chupacabra said :

 

Anyhow, measures to exterminate rats and other introduced species who threaten endemic bird populations in places like New Zealand, actually reduce local "biodiversity"

 

Actually, speaking as a New Zealander who is extremely interested in nature conservation, I have to mostly disagree with this. It is true that, with enough effort, anything can be stuffed up.

 

However, mostly, efforts to eliminate rats and other pests have resulted in substantial increases in biodiversity.

 

For example : I am a member of the "Friends of Tiritiri Matangi" . This is a bunch of people replanting and repopulating with native birds the island of Tiritiri Matangi. A few years back we had a massive rat killing effort. The poisons killed a few native birds, but the care we took minimised that. And the results were spectacular. We saw a population explosion of the rare and endangered birds on the island. This was so effective that we are now mist netting these same birds to export them to other islands, since Tiritiri Matangi now has an excess!

 

I can name a whole lot of other places within New Zealand where results have been similar. Places where species on the edge of extinction are now growing in numbers very rapidly. Getting rid of pests, if done professionally and effectively, is an amazing tool for increasing biodiversity.

[Chupacabra]

Personally I think we ought to strive not to damage biodiversity where it already exists

Why ought we? What's so special about biodiversity as a property of ecosystem we should protect and promote as an intrinsic value, regardless of its relation to other properties?

 

That is an entirely anthropocentric attitude that flies in the face of ecological thinking.

The only alternative meaning I can think of for that bit (that makes sense) is that you are talking about the value of these ecosystems to us, which explains a lot if true.

 

Don't you thing we as humans are merely an another species of biospere? No other plant or animal really bothers about things like biodiversity or trophic nets, they just mind their own survival and reproduction. And all them together functions on laissez-faire or A. Smith "unvisible hand" principle. A thing if we as a species will do our best to mind our OWN interests, in will serve the best for ecosystems and a biosphere as a whole. And this by no means flies in the face of ecological thinking.

[Kygron]

CharonY said :

In general I'd say that ecological damage is probably given as a more or less sudden disruption of the given state of a system, resulting in an ecosystem that is distinctly different from the starting point

 

Thank you for this. An honest attempt at a good definition.

 

Only criticism I have of this definition is that it encompasses a lot of what seems to be necessary natural changes. For example : the land slides I first mentioned, that provide an essential habitat for some species that would otherwise go extinct. Any comments?

I wanted to reply to this older post briefly:

 

I like the above definition. Like you said, there's only a "change of balance". If one environment appears often enough, whether through natural means or "damage" of any kind, some organism will adapt to it. You end up with forms of damage that are nessesary for certain life forms, but that doesn't make it any less damaging to the original inhabitants.

 

If you're trying to find the point that change becomes damage, there isn't one. Instead, all change is damage. It's the damage that varies in scale and time frame. Don't ask IF damage was done, but how much and to what ends.

[Sayonara]

Why ought we? What's so special about biodiversity as a property of ecosystem we should protect and promote as an intrinsic value, regardless of its relation to other properties?

I am not saying we should promote biodiversity, as that is affirmative action which I am warning against as much as I am warning against negative action.

 

What I am saying is that we should take steps to not alter biodiversity through anthropogenic stimuli.

 

The reason for this - and the importance of biodiversity - is that biodiversity is both the product and indicator of an ecologically strong and intrinsically healthy habitat.

Not only does declining biodiversity indicate a drop in the stability of a system, but it also increases the pressures on that system that prevent recovery.

 

I am not advocating that we take steps to isolate and preserve habitats on a whim. I am saying that we need to be more aware of our effects on ecological systems, so that we can make more informed decisions about which ones actually need remedial or control actions from us.

 

 

Don't you thing we as humans are merely an another species of biospere?

Yes, but at the same time you must acknowledge that our biocultural status is absolutely unique on this planet. We are in a position to do massive damage to other species, damage that would fall into the "abiotic" ecological category, damage which may remain undetected, and damage that can come from both negligent behaviour or from misguided attempts to "help".

 

No other plant or animal really bothers about things like biodiversity or trophic nets, they just mind their own survival and reproduction.

If they had the capability to appreciate and understand things like biodiversity or trophic nets, one would hope that they would come to realise their ability to "mind their own survival and reproduction" relies on having a sound ecological relationship with the other species in their habitats and biosphere.

 

 

And all them together functions on laissez-faire or A. Smith "unvisible hand" principle. A thing if we as a species will do our best to mind our OWN interests, in will serve the best for ecosystems and a biosphere as a whole. And this by no means flies in the face of ecological thinking.

Well yes, it does actually.

 

Ecology deals with species interfaces, habitat and system structure (i.e. inter-relations), and the related aspects of inter-specific population dynamics. You seem to be disregarding those pesky elements as and when it suits you, which I am finding difficult to fathom. Are we discussing ecology or not?

 

If humans stick their heads in the sand and mind their own "ecological business", as it were, there will be nothing left on which our species can support itself in virtually no time. Which can hardly be said to be the best thing for ecosystems and biodiversity as a whole, unless one's idea of the ultimate ecosystem is a planet populated with dying humans.

[SkepticLance]

I suspect that the biggest problem with human impact on global ecosystems is our variability. That is, we do not settle down to doing the same thing over and over for thousands of years. Our way of life is constantly changing. This means that other organisms are unable to adapt.

 

There are other organisms that have a massive impact on ecosystems. The African elephant, for example, is responsible for the vast tracts of grassland in Africa, and the destruction of large areas of rainforest. Any tree that dares to grow up high gets pushed over so the elephants can browse on its top leaves. Since this has been going on for so long (millions? of years), the ecology has adapted and there is a diverse set of grassland species.

 

Humans, though, keep changing.

[Chupacabra]

I am not saying we should promote biodiversity, as that is affirmative action which I am warning against as much as I am warning against negative action.

 

What I am saying is that we should take steps to not alter biodiversity through anthropogenic stimuli.

 

What's so wrong about altering biodiversity? No ecosystem is stable, even without human impact they are in ordinary changes. For instance, at the end of last Ice age climate changed abruptly several times, with Europe and NA ecosystems turning from tundra to forest and vice versa. Eruptions of megavolcanoes, falling asteroides and other such natural things can cause massive devastations. So, why shoud we worry so much about any changes only because they are through anthropogenic stimuli?

What's so special about the latter?

 

If humans stick their heads in the sand and mind their own "ecological business", as it were, there will be nothing left on which our species can support itself in virtually no time. Which can hardly be said to be the best thing for ecosystems and biodiversity as a whole, unless one's idea of the ultimate ecosystem is a planet populated with dying humans.

 

Well, I'm not saying we are permitted to destroy or change ecosystems, standing in our own light. Right the opposite: if our action harms our own ecology in short or long run, such an action should be avoided.

But what about situations when our own interests are not involved or even contradict those of "natural wellbeing"?

I'll give you an example. Take some wetland area in a third-world country with very rich biodiversity. It could be turned onto rice paddy, which could give income and food for a lot of people. Still, you would probably object to such transformation because it will reduce biodiversity and destroy natural trophic nets.

[Sayonara]

What's so wrong about altering biodiversity? No ecosystem is stable, even without human impact they are in ordinary changes. For instance, at the end of last Ice age climate changed abruptly several times, with Europe and NA ecosystems turning from tundra to forest and vice versa. Eruptions of megavolcanoes, falling asteroides and other such natural things can cause massive devastations. So, why shoud we worry so much about any changes only because they are through anthropogenic stimuli?

What's so special about the latter?

What's so special about the latter is that it potentially could be more damaging than all the other factors put together, but - uniquely - we as a species have the mental capacity and the physical means to do something about it.

 

Consider that no other species in history has had both the capacity to compete or predate other species into extinction or husbandry to the extent that we do, and likewise no other species in history has had the ability to analyse the consequences of such actions or appreciate why they might not be such a good idea.

 

It is all very well saying that ecosystems change all the time - that's completely true, after all. But we can't always model the effects of our actions on ecosystems because our species and its behaviours are so vastly removed from everything else in the biosphere. And that makes interference dangerous for us, as well as for other species. You don't need to go far to see examples of this in the real world.

 

 

Well, I'm not saying we are permitted to destroy or change ecosystems, standing in our own light. Right the opposite: if our action harms our own ecology in short or long run, such an action should be avoided.

But what about situations when our own interests are not involved or even contradict those of "natural wellbeing"?

I'll give you an example. Take some wetland area in a third-world country with very rich biodiversity. It could be turned onto rice paddy, which could give income and food for a lot of people. Still, you would probably object to such transformation because it will reduce biodiversity and destroy natural trophic nets.

It is possible to integrate the paddy and the existing wetland in a fashion that maintains diversity, however a venture such as this is likely to be motivated by either money or hunger, and the participants are not likely to want to invest the time and resources in protecting other species that they do not value.

That is the kind of thinking that I am challenging here. Understand that I am not saying it "does not happen that way", I am saying we need to stop doing things that way.

 

There are always alternatives. In the paddy example, there is absolutely no need for a species as sophisticated as ours to use existing wetland in order to grow rice. We are capable of creating artificial environments through the use of technologies such as hydroponics.

Unfortunately such achievements are not always possible, but where they are possible I fully advocate their use in order to mitigate our impact on diversity. As a species, we have the ability to make it work. As different nations, some rich, some poor, it's going to be very difficult.

 

Additionally, a lot of the ecological arguments for current human behavioural ecology patterns fall apart rapidly, for two reasons:

 

Firstly, as I have already mentioned, as a species our interfaces with other systems are so bizarre and unlike anything else that our models simply don't account for them. Predictions, therefore, are understandably unreliable.

 

Secondly, we are so far beyond our equilibrium population that we pose a significant threat to everything around us (and increasingly to ourselves) - we are, make no mistake, a plague upon this planet.

 

I suspect that the biggest problem with human impact on global ecosystems is our variability. That is, we do not settle down to doing the same thing over and over for thousands of years. Our way of life is constantly changing. This means that other organisms are unable to adapt.

That is an excellent point, and one which I do not think is often considered in discussions such as this.

 

People have a tendency to focus in on quite small space or time spans in ecological discussions, and as a result highly significant factors like this can often be overlooked.

[SmallIsPower]

herpguy.

Thank you for your efforts.

However, I am not sure of the depth of your understanding of ecology. (No offense intended).

 

Ecological change is pretty much ubiquitous. However, such change, even when driven by the worst excesses of human effort does not destroy a food web. Merely changes it. We may get a lake that is pure and pristine, and so damage it that it is overwhelmed by bacteria - both photosynthetic (cyanobacteria) and anaerobic (which cause the nasty smells from bogs). However, a food web is still present and active. In fact, the purest lakes often have the lowest biomass and biological productivity. By contaminating them with nutrients we may make the lake far more biologically productive, but still call the result undesirable.

 

This is why I have a problem with definition. If something cannot be clearly defined, its value as a scientific measure is debatable. Yet ecological or environmental damage is very important. it needs clear definition.

 

It is tough to define. If we buldoze even a desert to create nice houses, we may be inceasing the ascetic value, but decreasing biodiversity.

 

I think most of us are interested in ecological damage in the sense that as we use up resources faster than we renew then, earth's biomass (and carrying capacity) drops. That seems to be the most important interest. If eutriphication increases the planet's biomass and carrying capicity, it's good from an ecological standpoint, in fact, in time "intellegent eutriphication" might be considered good public policy, and genetically engineering organisms for carbon sequestration might be considered the most legitimate reason for creating GMOs.

[Sayonara]

It's about time carrying capacity came into this conversation

[Chupacabra]

If eutriphication increases the planet's biomass and carrying capicity, it's good from an ecological standpoint, in fact, in time "intellegent eutriphication" might be considered good public policy, and genetically engineering organisms for carbon sequestration might be considered the most legitimate reason for creating GMOs.

The point is, there is no such thing as "ecological standpoint". You can evaluate the situation from the standpoind of particular species and population, from the standpoind of humanity or different social groups, etc. But talking about a common all-embracing "ecological standpoin" is a complete nonsense.

[ecoli]

The point is, there is no such thing as "ecological standpoint". You can evaluate the situation from the standpoind of particular species and population, from the standpoind of humanity or different social groups, etc. But talking about a common all-embracing "ecological standpoin" is a complete nonsense.

I can't say I'd agree with that. What's your reasoning?

[Chupacabra]

Consider that no other species in history has had both the capacity to compete or predate other species into extinction

 

Really? I thought many extinction events in the past were due to competition between species, with weaker species surrendering to more adaptated.

 

Additionally, a lot of the ecological arguments for current human behavioural ecology patterns fall apart rapidly, for two reasons:

 

Firstly, as I have already mentioned, as a species our interfaces with other systems are so bizarre and unlike anything else that our models simply don't account for them. Predictions, therefore, are understandably unreliable.

 

Secondly, we are so far beyond our equilibrium population that we pose a significant threat to everything around us (and increasingly to ourselves) - we are, make no mistake, a plague upon this planet.

 

I think the foundadions of your views are not scientific. They are indeed religious ones. You believe everything natural is good and every human intervention, whatever its direction and purpose, is harmful by definition. I think it stems from Judeo-Christian notion of God creating perfect World and us humans spoiling it through sin and misconduct.

 

You contend that we should avoid any intervention in nature because we could harm ecology and aren't always able to precict the consequences of our actions. Yet, I believe that we are entitled to manage natural processes and make our environment better for us. Ecology as a science should provide us with knowledge about ecological interrelations and the prognoses of the possible consequences of our actions, and not just wave a banner "don't touch anything cause u can spoil something"