Restoration: Artifact or Natural Community?

[Aardvark]

True' date=' but if the value is based upon "stability" (dynamic equilibrium) then we find that human produced ecosystems in general have less stablility than those that occur without human management. I would argue that the only kind of variable that I would use to value an ecosystem with IS stability. But I know others would feel differently.

[/quote']

 

I think we are falling into the trap of believing that if an environment is 'cleaned up' or 'restored' by humans that , that environment is in some way 'artifical' and therefore in some way less morally valuable.

 

Humans intervene and interact with great sathes of the environment. it is hard to find any purely pristine environment unaffected by human activity anywhere.

 

Often humans will act in a way to reduce the level of diversity and life in an area, acting in a way we can see as being damaging to the environment/ecosystem. Humans will then sometimes take measures to limit and reverse some of the impact of those actions. This does not then make any ecosystem in those areas unnatural or an 'artifact'.

 

We might agree that it would be better if no restoration was needed in the first place, but this is the real world. Trees get chopped down, rivers become polluted and dammed. Land becomes overgrazed and eroded. Sitting on your hands and complaining that this shouldn't have happened in the first place is sterile and pointless. To then deride efforts to reverse some of these actions is sanctamonious intellectual masturbation. Especialy in light of how very resilient nature really is. Nature simply needs an opening and it will come charging back in in all its riotous anarchic splendour, nature is never truly controlled or in any way a human 'artifact'. There is no such thing as a human produced ecosytem.

 

For humans to think otherwise is simply hubris.

[Drabav]

I think we are falling into the trap of believing that if an environment is 'cleaned up' or 'restored' by humans that , that environment is in some way 'artificial' and therefore in some way less morally valuable.

 

What is artificial, what is natural? To Katz, artificial has to do with human purpose, to you and I, that subjective meaning is different.

 

Humans intervene and interact with great swathes of the environment. it is hard to find any purely pristine environment unaffected by human activity anywhere.

 

I would agree with this statement. I would also add that it is debatable whether there is any land on this planet that exists without human disturbance of some kind. In this point, Katz would reply that the more interaction humans have with the landscape, the less inherent value it has. Or something like that. (When I speak for Katz, remember I do not always agree with his statements, and sometimes I disagree strongly.)

 

 

Often humans will act in a way to reduce the level of diversity and life in an area, acting in a way we can see as being damaging to the environment/ecosystem. Humans will then sometimes take measures to limit and reverse some of the impact of those actions. This does not then make any ecosystem in those areas unnatural or an 'artifact'.

 

Again, Katz would disagree. Personally, my planned profession is to be Wetland Restoration, so I obviously don't agree that we cannot return value to an ecosystem that has been degraded. However, I do agree that we many times cannot return all of the value lost by degradation. This is simply impossible by modern restoration standards. And I also agree that trying to return a landforms to a historical "photograph" is purely "historical ecological nostalgia", as Sayonara put it. There is more to nature than human aesthetics.

 

We might agree that it would be better if no restoration was needed in the first place, but this is the real world. Trees get chopped down, rivers become polluted and dammed. Land becomes overgrazed and eroded. Sitting on your hands and complaining that this shouldn't have happened in the first place is sterile and pointless. To then deride efforts to reverse some of these actions is sanctimonious intellectual masturbation. Especially in light of how very resilient nature really is. Nature simply needs an opening and it will come charging back in in all its riotous anarchic splendor, nature is never truly controlled or in any way a human 'artifact'. There is no such thing as a human produced ecosystem.

 

I would argue that Katz is not completely against restoration. From his his essay I see he does not outright say it is wrong. What he is speaking against is the outright destruction of an area for whatever utilitarian purpose you need it for with the idea that you can put it back exactly the same way it was when you are done. And I would agree, such a thing would be an artifact, a product of human nostalgia.

 

For humans to think otherwise is simply hubris.

 

Agreed An ecosystem, a true product of abiotic forces and biotic entities, existing within a temporal-spacial scale, a dynamic equilibrium of many parts that creates a sort of changing evolving stability, cannot be created. Such a thing can be imitated in part in laboratory, but when all parts are assembled, hydrology, ecology, pedology, under the sky, and time starts ticking, we can put no ownership on what is taking place. Yes, such a thing would definitely be hubris.

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

 

Edit: Word usage and spelling

[Guest droid]

Precisely old man and I might add to the point that mankind' date=' being a quite natural evloutionary development, is just another contributor to the "natural world."

 

Why do people insist on treating man's involvement in the ecology as somehow unnatural? It isn't as if we immigrated here from some galaxy far far away. We were born here. [/quote']

 

w3rd. also, it's a tad arrogant to assume that humans are the focal point. If a natural disaster (fire, flood, human intervention) were to destroy anything, the dynamics of the ecosystem in place would already be working to restore what was there. "Artificial" environments are older than we are. nothing just poped into existance (evolutionarily speaking). So every old growth forest and delicate biological system is the current product of some sort of intervention. Human or otherwise.

 

On the subject of human intervention being 'unnatural' because we alter our environments more so than other species have the capacity to........are we cheating, then? Anything and everything we do happens by virtue of the fact we are a species just as intertwined with other organisms on this planet. Our impact is as much a part of the natural cycle as anything. Sure, we're overacheivers, but we're not operating outside our natural capacity.

 

I think the real problem is not that we can engage in devestating activity it's that we do. But I think any species as alone as we are (or rather, as aware of our lonliness) would react in the same way. Unfortunatly our egos are so ginormous that humans like to think of themselves as A#1....when we're just the first.

 

Those cephalopods are creeping up on us though. Smart little creeps.

 

Oh, hiya, it's my second post.

[Sayonara]

WOW[/b']

You don't seem to be making much effort to explain why Hardy-Weinberg dynamics in foxes are relevant to the bits of biology we're discussing.

 

This thread is about dynamic equilibria and the value of one set of interfaces over another. It's not "2 Spp. Interactions 101".

 

 

Speaking of habitat modification, have you ever visited a pig farm? Or have you ever been around where wild hogs have been in abumdance? Now there is habitat modifiaction.

It would be helpful if you understood what "habitat" means to an ecologist. This thread is probably not the place to find out. I did specify four means of modification earlier on, none of which have you referred to.

 

I have indeed been to both a pig farm and to areas populated by pre-sanglier wild pigs (and boar, obviously, seeing as you can't walk through French woodland without tripping over them). Again, not really anything to do with the discussion - "pigs in making like the pigs shocker" glides quietly past the original question and doesn't look back.

 

 

Also, the Beaver doesn't "modify his habitat?"

I did not say that. I pointed out the non sequitur in your reasoning.

 

 

Oh, it is clearly a factor.

Please don't argue with such unqualifiable guff. IQ is an arbitrary scale for comparing humans in terms of their mental age versus their physical age. It is barely any good at intraspecies comparisons - to state that it can be used to quantify any relation to other species is ludicrous. It's an abstract concept that we made up.

By all means argue that intelligence is a factor in dominance, but bear in mind before you do that no intelligent species (including humans) is actually considered an ecologically and evolutionarily dominant one.

 

 

It is, after all, the human species that is in danger of altering the planet to the point that it is no longer fit for haditation--is it not?

No, it's not. Unless you wish to narrow your criteria by specifying an endangered species (in which case I suggest you try to pick one that is going extinct due to human-caused abiotic factors, and then show that selection is mythical.)

 

That last suggestion seems to be inconsistent with the rest of your post. On the one hand you are drawing parallels between human-led effects on ecological systems and animal-led effects, playing down the difference, but on the other you seem to be saying that we are altering the planet. Are we 'worse' or not?

[Sayonara]

If a natural disaster (fire, flood, human intervention) were to destroy anything, the dynamics of the ecosystem in place would already be working to restore what was there.

That's very unlikely. An ecosystem is not like a metronome - it won't always "swing back" to a single point of equilibrium. It's far more likely that changes to the trophic networks will fundamentally shift the relationships between the various species, leading to a different set of equilibrium dynamics.

 

And let's not forget that primary colonisers are usually unbound by interactive constraints.

[syntax252]

You don't seem to be making much effort to explain why Hardy-Weinberg dynamics in foxes are relevant to the bits of biology we're discussing.

 

Well, I guess that I am not quite sure that we are discussing the same thing. I am referring to the fact that humans evolved here on Earth just as the other animals did, and therefore to say that when we create a haditat, or an environment or an ecosystem or whatever you may wish to term it, it is not correct to call it "unnatural."

 

This thread is about dynamic equilibria and the value of one set of interfaces over another. It's not "2 Spp. Interactions 101".

 

For you, perhaps, and if I am digressing, please feel free to ignore or comment at your whim, but again, I am trying to point to the fact that all that humans do on this planet is as "natural" for the human species as all that a lion does is natural for a lion.

 

It would be helpful if you understood what "habitat" means to an ecologist. This thread is probably not the place to find out. I did specify four means of modification earlier on, none of which have you referred to.

 

That is fine and dandy to specify 4 means of modification of a habitat, but am I obligated to follow your lead? I don't think so.

 

I have indeed been to both a pig farm and to areas populated by pre-sanglier wild pigs (and boar, obviously, seeing as you can't walk through French woodland without tripping over them). Again, not really anything to do with the discussion - "pigs in making like the pigs shocker" glides quietly past the original question and doesn't look back.

 

"Pigs making like pigs" and humans making like humans is what I am referring to.

 

I regret that I am not following some set of rules that you think appropriate, but if you will just quit trying to impress us with your educational accomplishments and realize that all I am saying is that humans are just another element of the natural world, it just might be a little less exasperating for you.

 

Please don't argue with such unqualifiable guff. IQ is an arbitrary scale for comparing humans in terms of their mental age versus their physical age. It is barely any good at intraspecies comparisons - to state that it can be used to quantify any relation to other species is ludicrous. It's an abstract concept that we made up.

By all means argue that intelligence is a factor in dominance, but bear in mind before you do that no intelligent species (including humans) is actually considered an ecologically and evolutionarily dominant one.

 

Sayo, the only one in this whole damn thread who is arguing is you.

 

 

No, it's not. Unless you wish to narrow your criteria by specifying an endangered species (in which case I suggest you try to pick one that is going extinct due to human-caused abiotic factors, and then show that selection is mythical.)

 

That last suggestion seems to be inconsistent with the rest of your post. On the one hand you are drawing parallels between human-led effects on ecological systems and animal-led effects, playing down the difference, but on the other you seem to be saying that we are altering the planet. Are we 'worse' or not?

 

When I referred to IQ, I was referring to man's intelligence advantage over the other animals. This is what puts us at the top of the food chain. It is also what makes us concerned for the welfare of other animals and the ecology in general. But our intelligence is a natural evolutional development. Just as the squirrel developed the ability to climb trees and the lion developed the ability to run down the Zebra, humankind developed the ability to make tools, build houses, be concerned for the environment and even make computers so that we could engage in stimulating conversations with people all over the world.

 

But it is a natural development.

 

Therefore, getting back to the original question of, is it an artifact when we attempt to recreate conditions that existed before we screwed things up, the answer, in my opinion, is no.

[Drabav]

That's very unlikely. An ecosystem is not like a metronome - it won't always "swing back" to a single point of equilibrium. It's far more likely that changes to the trophic networks will fundamentally shift the relationships between the various species' date=' leading to a different set of equilibrium dynamics.

 

And let's not forget that primary colonisers are usually unbound by interactive constraints.[/quote']

 

True. After a disturbance as strong as what droid suggested (such as fire, flood, hurricane, tornado, glaciation) there will still be some sort of biological legacy, but more likely than not the abiotic factors of the ecosystem will be affected in such a way (be they pedic, hydric, geologic, topographic, etc) that the secondary succession of the ecosystem will lead away from the original path of primary succession and may evolve into a completly different climax community than the ecosystem caused by primary succession would have. In some cases, however, it is the disturbance itself that creates the climax comunity of an area. One example would be the effects of fire on stands of Jack Pine or prarie.

 

This is not exactly what we are trying to discuss in this thread however. The focus is on human, rather than abiotic, disturbance.

 

(On the side, I just recently read a study in Ecology journal about invasives and their relationship to change in a degraded ecosystem. I thought you may be interested, Sayonara.

 

Macdougall, A. S. and A. Turkington. (2005) Are invasive species the drivers or passengers of change in degraded ecosystems? Ecology 86: 42-55.

 

What their data shows suggests that they are merely "passengers" of the change in the ecosystem, rather than what is causing and driving the change.)

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

 

Edit: Added the part in parentheses.

[Sayonara]

Well, I guess that I am not quite sure that we[/b'] are discussing the same thing.

I can assure you we are not.

 

I am referring to the fact that humans evolved here on Earth just as the other animals did, and therefore to say that when we create a haditat, or an environment or an ecosystem or whatever you may wish to term it, it is not correct to call it "unnatural."

We (by which I mean the thread) decided that "natural" is a subjective term several posts ago. Going over that again is a step backwards.

 

I can tell you now though that one species creating an environment or an ecosystem is not normal interpopulace activity (and to a lesser extent habitats, although there are numerous exceptions to this). Whether or not you want to call this "unnatural" is up to your point of view, but if it's not within the scope of ecological interactions then it has little to do with the question.

 

 

For you, perhaps, and if I am digressing, please feel free to ignore or comment at your whim, but again, I am trying to point to the fact that all that humans do on this planet is as "natural" for the human species as all that a lion does is natural for a lion.

For me, and every other biologist in the thread, and the thread starter, and certainly for Eric Katz.

What you are trying to point out is patently incorrect. Humans are not so unnatural as many people say they are, granted, but we are ecologically unique.

 

 

That is fine and dandy to specify 4 means of modification of a habitat, but am I obligated to follow your lead? I don't think so.

You won't be "taking my lead" as if I'm telling you to limit yourself to four random things for no reason; you'll be using actual biology.

 

If you want to be taken seriously in a discussion on ecological interactions, you ought to not make up your own special branch of the science in which the complexity of the system shares its limits with what you know about.

 

 

I regret that I am not following some set of rules that you think appropriate, but if you will just quit trying to impress us with your educational accomplishments...

"I waffled about biology and a biologist corrected me! Quick, try to be scathing!"

 

I am fairly sure you can do better than that.

 

 

...and realize that all I am saying is that humans are just another element of the natural world, it just might be a little less exasperating for you.

+

"Pigs making like pigs" and humans making like humans is what I am referring to.

Humans are. Not all human activity is. BEHOLD THE MIGHTY DISTINCTION!

 

 

Sayo, the only one in this whole damn thread who is arguing is you.

Argue:

1) To put forth reasons for or against; debate.

2) To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend.

3) To give evidence of; indicate.

4) To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons.

 

 

When I referred to IQ, I was referring to man's intelligence advantage over the other animals.

Which is all well and good, but has nothing to do with eco/evo dominance.

 

 

This is what puts us at the top of the food chain.

Humans aren't part of a food chain, they are part of a food web. Notice that I say "a" and not "the"? Polar bears and great white sharks are a good example of alternate top predators - better in fact since we aren't strictly (on the whole) a predatory species in the biological sense. And let's not forget the communities we never interact with, such as oceanic sulphur chimneys.

 

Attempting to reduce ecological biology on a global scale to the assumed directionality of a single trophic network is a really, really bad idea.

 

 

It is also what makes us concerned for the welfare of other animals and the ecology in general. But our intelligence is a natural evolutional development. Just as the squirrel developed the ability to climb trees and the lion developed the ability to run down the Zebra, humankind developed the ability to make tools, build houses, be concerned for the environment and even make computers so that we could engage in stimulating conversations with people all over the world.

Fundamental attribution error. It does not follow that the mechanistic products of evolved intelligence are similarly the (inevitable or otherwise) natural product of biological evolution.

Arguing that they are will require significant evidence. Publishing a paper on the subject in Nature would probably help.

 

 

Therefore, getting back to the original question of, is it an artifact when we attempt to recreate conditions that existed before we screwed things up, the answer, in my opinion, is no.

Note that Katz's questioning of the value of restoration does not only arise where humans caused a screw-up.

The issue has already been largely answered in the thread using ecological concepts with meaning. I'm sorry you don't appreciate that, but there we go.

[Sayonara]

This is not exactly what we are trying to discuss in this thread however. The focus is on human, rather than abiotic, disturbance.

There's certainly room for cross-over, but I agree that's not what Katz was aiming for. His principles seem to be scale-independent.

[syntax252]

I can assure you we are not.

 

Indeed. I am trying to express an opinion and you seem to be trying to dazzle the readership with your vast command of scientific terms.

 

We (by which I mean the thread) decided that "natural" is a subjective term several posts ago. Going over that again is a step backwards.

 

But the original question was whether a "natural" ecosystem had more value that one that had been recreated--no?

I can tell you now though that one species creating an environment or an ecosystem is not normal interpopulace activity (and to a lesser extent habitats, although there are numerous exceptions to this). Whether or not you want to call this "unnatural" is up to your point of view, but if it's not within the scope of ecological interactions then it has little to do with the question.

 

I would call it quite natural since it happens as a natural result the species that created it. And it has everything to do with the question, since the question was one of whether or not a man made ecosystem had the same value as an ecosystem that was not man made. Is mankind a natural developement?

 

 

Humans are. Not all human activity is. BEHOLD THE MIGHTY DISTINCTION!

 

Are beaver dams part of the natural world? Anthills? Woodchuck dens?

 

Which is all well and good, but has nothing to do with eco/evo dominance.

 

Was ecodominance the question? I thought the question was one of the value of an ecosystem.

 

 

Humans aren't part of a food chain, they are part of a food web. Notice that I say "a" and not "the"? Polar bears and great white sharks are a good example of alternate top predators - better in fact since we aren't strictly (on the whole) a predatory species in the biological sense. And let's not forget the communities we never interact with, such as oceanic sulphur chimneys.

 

Well OK, if you prefer "web" to "chain." Are we not the species that feeds on all other species that we have access to, rather than the other way around?

 

Fundamental attribution error. It does not follow that the mechanistic products of evolved intelligence are similarly the (inevitable or otherwise) natural product of biological evolution.

Arguing that they are will require significant evidence. Publishing a paper on the subject in Nature would probably help.

 

Well sayo, something must have caused us to develope a higher degree of intelligence than the other animals. What would you attribute it to? Devine intervention?

 

 

Note that Katz's questioning of the value of restoration does not only arise where humans caused a screw-up.

The issue has already been largely answered in the thread using ecological concepts with meaning. I'm sorry you don't appreciate that, but there we go.

 

Well if the question has already been answered--in your opinion--why are you still posting to this thread?

[Sayonara]

Indeed. I am trying to express an opinion and you seem to be trying to dazzle the readership with your vast command of scientific terms.

What I am trying to do is show you that your opinion has no bearing on real life ecological systems, which are something I happen to know a great deal about. I'm sorry you feel the need to respond with such bad grace, but that really is your problem.

 

 

But the original question was whether a "natural" ecosystem had more value that one that had been recreated--no?

Yes. I really don't see where you're going with that, given the part of my post that it was a response to.

 

 

I would call it quite natural since it happens as a natural result the species that created it.

Since [a] species doesn't have a tendency to "create environments and ecosystems" within an equilibrial community, you can call it what you like. Just don't expect anyone to subscribe to the notion without a good explanation of what you're talking about, preferably one fitting the established models.

 

And it has everything to do with the question, since the question was one of whether or not a man made ecosystem had the same value as an ecosystem that was not man made. Is mankind a natural developement?

Refer to the post you are replying to.

 

 

Are beaver dams part of the natural world? Anthills? Woodchuck dens?

They are a part of the habitat that the community has stabilised around. Note that (a) the two are inter-dependent, and (b) they are not the only determining factors in system stability.

 

 

Was ecodominance the question? I thought the question was one of the value of an ecosystem.

Moving the goalposts - good luck with that.

 

Regardless, it was you who raised the matter of dominance when you said - out of the blue - " But the real reason that ants and prairie dogs have not taken over the planet is because they lack the IQ to do so", and then started talking about intelligence.

 

 

Well OK, if you prefer "web" to "chain."

It's not a matter of what I prefer - it's a matter of the two things being distinctly and obviously different.

 

 

Are we not the species that feeds on all other species that we have access to, rather than the other way around?

Not relevant. There are innumerable food webs, and we have barely any involvement in a tiny number of them, none whatsoever in the majority.

 

 

Well sayo, something must have caused us to develope a higher degree of intelligence than the other animals. What would you attribute it to? Devine intervention?

That has nothing to do with the section you were replying to, nothing to do with this thread, and - third time's the charm - little to do with eco/evo dominance.

 

 

You have been warned on several occasions now about your liberal and indiscrete use of the sarcasm smileys. You have all the hallmarks of a troll, and I have absolutely no compunctions about treating you in the same way I would any other troll. The choice is yours.

 

 

Well if the question has already been answered--in your opinion--why are you still posting to this thread?

I might well ask you the same question.

 

For my part, I was originally hoping to shed some light on the bits you clearly misunderstood. Now however my mandate is to stop people leaving this thread under the impression that what you have said makes sense in any scientifically useful way.

 

In other news, there is plenty more that can be discussed that is relevant to Katz's position - it's just that what you are saying isn't it.

[Drabav]

In other news, there is plenty more that can be discussed that is relevant to Katz's position - it's just that what you are saying isn't it.

 

I know that this statement is not pointed at me, but I would like to ask what other opinions and arguements you have for or against Katz position. I started this thread in hope of disscussion, and I still as well see that there is more that can be discussed.

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

[Sayonara]

As an example, we might discuss the validity of his claim that inherent value stems from the historical continuity of an ecosystem, and the degree to which this can be held to be true.

[syntax252]

What I am trying to do is show you that your opinion has no bearing on real life ecological systems' date=' which are something I happen to know a great deal about. I'm sorry you feel the need to respond with such bad grace, but that really is [u']your[/u] problem.

 

 

 

Yes. I really don't see where you're going with that, given the part of my post that it was a response to.

 

 

 

Since [a] species doesn't have a tendency to "create environments and ecosystems" within an equilibrial community, you can call it what you like. Just don't expect anyone to subscribe to the notion without a good explanation of what you're talking about, preferably one fitting the established models.

 

 

Refer to the post you are replying to.

 

 

 

They are a part of the habitat that the community has stabilised around. Note that (a) the two are inter-dependent, and (b) they are not the only determining factors in system stability.

 

 

 

Moving the goalposts - good luck with that.

 

Regardless, it was you who raised the matter of dominance when you said - out of the blue - " But the real reason that ants and prairie dogs have not taken over the planet is because they lack the IQ to do so", and then started talking about intelligence.

 

 

 

It's not a matter of what I prefer - it's a matter of the two things being distinctly and obviously different.

 

 

 

Not relevant. There are innumerable food webs, and we have barely any involvement in a tiny number of them, none whatsoever in the majority.

 

 

 

That has nothing to do with the section you were replying to, nothing to do with this thread, and - third time's the charm - little to do with eco/evo dominance.

 

 

 

You have been warned on several occasions now about your liberal and indiscrete use of the sarcasm smileys. You have all the hallmarks of a troll, and I have absolutely no compunctions about treating you in the same way I would any other troll. The choice is yours.

 

 

 

I might well ask you the same question.

 

For my part, I was originally hoping to shed some light on the bits you clearly misunderstood. Now however my mandate is to stop people leaving this thread under the impression that what you have said makes sense in any scientifically useful way.

 

In other news, there is plenty more that can be discussed that is relevant to Katz's position - it's just that what you are saying isn't it.

 

 

Well sayo ald man, let's just say that whether a chain or a web, an ecosystem of a haditat, a question of dominance or a question of artifacts versus historical creation or a question of intelligence being a natural product of the evolutionary development of mankind, or indeed, whether you can see some excuse to proclaim that "evolutionary development" is a term somehow not quite to your fancy, I can see that you are indeed quite vexed that anyone lacking a degree in biology would have the unmitigated gall to have, or-God forbid-express an opinion on the question posed by the thread's originator.

 

These are questions far above the capacity of mere lay people. (sarcasm intended)

 

But the reality of the situation is that the question is really much simpler than you portray it to be. It is really a matter of whether or not one considers mankind to be part of the natural makeup of this planet--intelligence and all.

 

If one does consider mankind to be a natural developement, then what man does is natural. If, on the other hand, one thinks that there is some sort of cut-off point at which mankind ceased to be a natural evolutionary development, then I suppose one might think that man's actions are not natural.

 

Here is where the question hinges--in my mind.

 

If man is a natural part of the environment/haditat/ecosystem/planet then his restoration of an ecosystem is as valuable as any other ecosystem. it is the same thing. Both are natural.

 

No? (why did I have to ask that?)

[Sayonara]

Well sayo ald man, let's just say that whether a chain or a web, an ecosystem of a haditat, a question of dominance or a question of artifacts versus historical creation or a question of intelligence being a natural product of the evolutional development of mankind, or indeed, whether you can see some excuse to proclaim that "evolutional development" is somehow not quite to your fancy, I can see that you are indeed quite vexed that anyone lacking a degree in biology would have the unmitigated gall to have, or-God forbed-express[/i'] an opinion on the question posed by the threads originator.

Not at all. What is vexing is the brick-wall response to information you didn't have before, and rightly so. Why would it not be vexing?

 

 

But the reality of the situation is that the question is really much simpler than you portray it to be. It is really a matter of whether or not one considers mankind to be part of the natural makeup of this planet--intelligence and all.

The question may be simple - answering it is not. One cannot possibly hope to formulate anything approaching a useful response without considering all the involved factors.

 

 

If one does consider mankind to be a natural developement, then what man does is natural.

It's not that simple, particularly (and not exclusively) since you provide no definition of "natural". Actually you have a problem here, because if you define natural in a way that is conducive to your conclusions, the argument you provided will then be circular.

 

If, on the other hand, one thinks that there is some sort of cut-off point at which mankind ceased to be a natural evolutionary development, then I suppose one might think that man's actions are not natural.

You are calling man an "evolutionary development" (without stating what you think this means) and then equating this to the rather vague entity you call "man's actions". Not only is that untenable, but you offer no means of differentiating different types of action, despite the fact that it's the crux of the issue.

 

 

If man is a natural part of the environment/haditat/ecosystem/planet then his restoration of an ecosystem is as valuable as any other ecosystem. it is the same thing. Both are natural.

No? (why did I have to ask that?)

Establishing exactly how to quantify the value of an ecosystem turns out to be even more difficult than establishing the scope of that system. See Aardvark and Drabav's posts for some idea of why it's not just a matter of simplistic semantics.

[syntax252]

Not at all. What is vexing is the brick-wall response to information you didn't have before' date=' and rightly so. Why would it not be vexing?

 

 

 

The question may be simple - answering it is not. One cannot possibly hope to formulate anything approaching a useful response without considering all the involved factors.

 

 

 

It's not that simple, particularly (and not exclusively) since you provide no definition of "natural". Actually you have a problem here, because if you define natural in a way that is conducive to your conclusions, the argument you provided will then be circular.

 

 

You are calling man an "evolutionary development" (without stating what you think this means) and then equating this to the rather vague entity you call "man's actions". Not only is that untenable, but you offer no means of differentiating different types of action, despite the fact that it's the crux of the issue.

 

 

 

Establishing exactly how to quantify the value of an ecosystem turns out to be even more difficult than establishing the scope of that system. See Aardvark and Drabav's posts for some idea of why it's not just a matter of simplistic semantics.[/quote']

 

 

Well OK, if you want a definition of "evolutionary development" then I guess I would define that as the product of the process of evolution as applied to a species. In short it is what man has become through the process of evolution.

 

It is what all species have become through the same process. The raccoon of today is an evolutionary development. Do you know of a species that is not an evolutionary development?

 

Now, since these species all developed without any outside interference (other that man's) wouldn't they all be termed as a "natural developement?"

 

Circular or rectangular, the "argument" as you seem to want to call it, is that since we are all in this world together, (man and the other animals) then one is as natural as another so when mankind restores an ecosystem, that ecosystem is just as "important" as any other.

 

In my opinion.

[Drabav]

Well OK, if you want a definition of "evolutionary development" then I guess I would define that as the product of the process of evolution as applied to a species. In short it is what man has become through the process of evolution.

 

I would argue that there is no "becoming" in evolutionary development. Every stage is intermediate, there are no missing links, and all stages blend into each other, so well in some stages that you can't easily tell the difference between one stage and the next. I would also bid that this is a process that takes place over millions of years and continues to take place as we type. There are no true "products" in evolutionary developement, just points on a line (or web) that continues far beyond what we see at this moment in both directions.

 

I would also apologize for this small tangent of mine. When I return from class, I will post on Historical Continuity and Ecosystem value.

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

[syntax252]

I would argue that there is no "becoming" in evolutionary development. Every stage is intermediate' date=' there are no missing links, and all stages blend into each other, so well in some stages that you can't easily tell the difference between one stage and the next. I would also bid that this is a process that takes place over millions of years and continues to take place as we type. There are no true "products" in evolutionary developement, just points on a line (or web) that continues far beyond what we see at this moment in both directions.

 

I would also apologize for this small tangent of mine. When I return from class, I will post on Historical Continuity and Ecosystem value.

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.[/quote']

 

When I used the term becomes, I meant it as a way of saying that it is the

result as we know it today. Even though we know that the process has not stopped, the deer of today is somewhat different than the deer of 20,000 years ago, it has "become" what it is today. I know that these terms may not be quite correct to a biologist, but, I think we all know what is being said.

[Sayonara]

Well OK' date=' if you want a definition of "evolutionary development" then I guess I would define that as the product of the process of evolution as applied to a species. In short it is what man has become through the process of evolution.

+

Circular or rectangular, the "argument" as you seem to want to call it, is that since we are all in this world together, (man and the other animals) then one is as natural as another so when mankind restores an ecosystem, that ecosystem is just as "important" as any other.[/quote']

The definition of your term is appreciated, but you still seem to be avoiding the fact that I have clearly stated I see a difference between "man" and "certain actions of man". The reason I see it is because it's there.

 

 

It is what all species have become through the same process. The raccoon of today is an evolutionary development. Do you know of a species that is not an evolutionary development?

The relevance is questionable.

 

 

Now, since these species all developed without any outside interference (other that man's) wouldn't they all be termed as a "natural developement?"

If that's what you're defining it as, one assumes so. I'll be interested to see how you reconcile this with the disparity between human and non-human dispersal and migration models.

[syntax252]

The definition of your term is appreciated, but you still seem to be avoiding the fact that I have clearly stated I see a difference between "man" and "certain actions of man"[/u']. The reason I see it is because it's there.

 

And I can understand that. but all I am saying is that what man does is what is natural for man to do, just as it is natural for the beaver to build a dam.

 

If that's what you're defining it as, one assumes so. I'll be interested to see how you reconcile this with the disparity between human and non-human dispersal and migration models.

 

I don't think it is necessary to reconcile it with anything. What is, is. Man is a thinking animal and as such might do anything. limited only by what is physically possible, his intelligence, his ambition and his resources, but he is still a quite natural being.

 

Born of the mud. Betwen his brain and his thumb, he was able to control his environment to some degree, but for him that is natural. Therefore, it seems to me that any alterations that he makes in an ecosystem, or a habitat, for whatever reasons imaginable, it is a natural event.

[Sayonara]

And I can understand that. but all I am saying is that what man does is what is natural for man to do, just as it is natural for the beaver to build a dam.

Except that it's not.

 

If you remember, I posited this idea of equal interactive values in my second post. However my third post outlined reasons why such an idea will fail (albeit very briefly), and for whatever reason you have not touched on those issues.

 

[edit]

Actually, reading back, this seems to be the critical point in the thread where a misunderstanding would (and did) do the most damage.

[/edit]

 

I don't think it is necessary to reconcile it with anything.

So you're just happy to ignore the spectrum of established theory that opposes your view. How convenient.

 

 

What is, is. Man is a thinking animal and as such might do anything. limited only by what is physically possible, his intelligence, his ambition and his resources, but he is still a quite natural being.

Rhetoric.

 

 

Born of the mud. Betwen his brain and his thumb, he was able to control his environment to some degree, but for him that is natural. Therefore, it seems to me that any alterations that he makes in an ecosystem, or a habitat, for whatever reasons imaginable, it is a natural event.

I'll say it again - that is a non sequitur.

 

You've already told us what you think. You haven't explained why you think it, or what the perceivable mechanism is.

[Drabav]

Again, syntax, you forget that, while your definition of "natural" (which, not to be rude, you have not fully provided for us) is not the same as the definition Katz holds, nor, for that matter, the same as mine. It would be good to take that into account when you post. If you are trying to sway anyone with simplistic language, its not helping the disscussion of this thread, which is truly anything but a simple matter. Were it simple, I would not have made a thread about it.

 

Now, on to Historical Continuity and Ecosystem Value. Katz argues that the ecosystem with the most value is the one that has the longest uninterupted Historical Continuity, that is, the time period where there has been no or very little human disturbance (I believe by very little he means in the sense of "take only photographs, leave only footprints" disturbance, or very near to that.). The reason we value such is for ecosystem integrity, but also Katz argues for the mear fact that we know that it has come about outside the influence of man. The first point holds some truth, of course, but the second is most definatly a debatable point, that depends upon ones direct moral attitude toward "nature", as well as ones definition of "natural". He uses an example (which you might spit upon, depending on your point of view, but hear me out) of a birch grove that he just happened upon (imaginarily) while walking. He admires how stable the grove is, how intact the trees are, and other numerous things dealing with asthetics. Later, he finds out that it was planted not 20 years back, and because of the fact that it did not come about "naturally (that is, by historic continuity of that area) it has lost some of the value he had placed upon it. He also argues that, even when he never knows that an area has lost its Historic Continuity, it still has that reduced value.

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

[Sayonara]

(On the side' date=' I just recently read a study in Ecology journal about invasives and their relationship to change in a degraded ecosystem. I thought you may be interested, Sayonara.

Macdougall, A. S. and A. Turkington. (2005) Are invasive species the drivers or passengers of change in degraded ecosystems? Ecology 86: 42-55.

What their data shows suggests that they are merely "passengers" of the change in the ecosystem, rather than what is causing and driving the change.)[/quote']

Very interesting. Does ESA accept Athens users? All I can get right now is the abstract.

 

I know that these terms may not be quite correct to a biologist, but, I think we all know what is being said

I tend to agree with that view, on the grounds that there are precious few things one could confuse it with.

[Sayonara]

If you are trying to sway anyone with simplistic language, its not helping the disscussion of this thread, which is truly anything but a simple matter. Were it simple, I would not have made a thread about it.

Furthermore, were it that simple, we would have no need for ecologists.

 

 

Now, on to Historical Continuity and Ecosystem Value. Katz argues that the ecosystem with the most value is the one that has the longest uninterupted Historical Continuity, that is, the time period where there has been no or very little human disturbance (I believe by very little he means in the sense of "take only photographs, leave only footprints" disturbance, or very near to that.).

I find this definition strange. Surely he acknowledges that at some point - which may or may not be arbitrarily selected, it doesn't really matter - any system of interfaces will lose continuity as an expected consequence of the interfaces having their presence in the system in the first place.

 

 

He uses an example (which you might spit upon, depending on your point of view, but hear me out) of a birch grove that he just happened upon (imaginarily) while walking. He admires how stable the grove is, how intact the trees are, and other numerous things dealing with asthetics. Later, he finds out that it was planted not 20 years back, and because of the fact that it did not come about "naturally (that is, by historic continuity of that area) it has lost some of the value he had placed upon it.

I would be inclined to suggest to Katz that this has more to do with him than the birch grove. However it would be remiss of me to ignore the very probable trophism and diversity differences between that grove, and one that had arisen without human interference.

[syntax252]

Except that it's not.

 

If you remember' date=' I posited this idea of equal interactive values in my second post. However my third post outlined reasons why such an idea will fail (albeit very briefly), and for whatever reason you have not touched on those issues.

 

[/quote']

 

OK, well that is fine for you to think what you think.

 

I have no problem with that. All I am expressing are the facts as I see them and those facts are that since man is part of the natural animal kingdom on this planet, then by definition, man can do nothing that is not natural.

 

Hence, if man restores an ecosystem, it is a natural ecosystem. If that system does not support the same life forms that it did before man disrupted it, then it was not properly restored, but it is still the natural result of evolution on this planet. Everything is.

 

That was the question, whether or not a restored ecosystem was of the same value as a "natural" ecosystem. My answer is that it too is a natural ecosystem.

 

I don't insist that anyone agree with that, Hell, I'm not a biologist. I don't necessarily think that only I know all the answers.