Mike Marsh and Forum: Mike's program sounds excellent.
I don't want to jump to any unwarranted conclusions, but I suspect that "anthropocentrism" might be applied to either opinion--opinion, of course, being the root of the phenomenon. If my interpretation of Mike's statement is correct, is seems to me that he has it exactly backwards--anthropocentrism=culture=ecosystem effects. This is not any kind of "assault" on Mike or his statement, but an honest interpretation. I hope Mike will straighten me out by going a bit deeper into the foundations of his statement. The Forum might advance the clarity of communicating the scientific basis for the distinction between ecosystems that are and are not affected by cultural activities through further discussion. It seems to me that this distinction--or lack of distinction--could be crucial for the future of ecology as a science and for the nature of ecosystems everywhere, because opinion and politics are where the battle for the future of many life forms will be won or lost. Either the distinction is useful or it is not, no? I hope that better men and women than I will shed light upon this distinction, and take up the challenge of communicating the scientific foundations for matters relevant to his point with broadly understandable clarity. Mike's second paragraph is well-taken; we are a part of an ecosystem that cultural activities have greatly altered--as a result of anthropocentrism. WT PS: I might offer one observation: Indigenous ecosystems have generally developed interdependent interactions by evolving together; when those species associations are disturbed by external inputs, that "structure" can be radically altered. (For some relevant cases, and a discussion of human-induced effects on ecosystems, E. O. Wilson discusses several examples, beginning on page 70 of his book, "The Future of Life." One could stop reading at page 75, but the whole book is a readable examination of the subject for the scientist and "layman" alike. Even I could understand most of it.) At 10:01 PM 12/17/2007, Mike Marsh wrote: "The idea that what we do or inadvertently affect, is "cultural" while the actions and interactions of creatures in a piece of relatively native habitat (say, a forest interior in the Northwest) is "natural" seems overly anthropocentric. "Are we not members of the whole earth ecosystem, naturally evolved here on earth, and doing our little food acquisition activities, territorial displays, dispersal and migratory ventures and reproductive activities, just like all those other species (the eastern gray squirrels digging up the plants in my Seattle back yard come immediately to mind)? If this is true, then the idea of man apart becomes meaningless. We happen to be a primo invasive species, unfortunately for many other species on the planet."
