I do not understand what Wayne means by saying I have it exactly backwards, except perhaps that culture is derived from ecosystem effects (past ecosystem effects on evolving mankind), and that, of course, anthropocentrism arises from a sense of consciousness and from culture. This is true, so if the "equals" signs are directional, anthropocentrism<=culture<=ecosystem effects. I just wanted us to be honest when complaining about invasive weeds. we are the greatest in that category, and because of our deep-seated cultural foundations, we are just great at not recognizing how little we differ from other species in evolving survival skills (except that we are better in doing so not only genetically, but culturally). I think that currently we have
Some of my thought here come from a discussion I have been having with other board members of the Washington Native Plant Society on the topic of : *What is a Native Plant?* We decided on the following definition, which is relevant to the above discussion because it makes a fundamental distinction between plants move by humans to this state (nay, not just humans, but light-skinned humans of European origin). We will publish this in our newsletter or journal, "Douglasia" , fortunately at least recognizing what I just said in the preamble: "What does native mean, in terms of Washingtons plant palette? Members of our Society recently decided on a general definition for Washington State. We developed this formal definition to avoid confusion when we discuss native plants and to insure that we are selling only native plants at our annual sales. Understandably, any definition may seem to narrow in some respects (for example, our definition does not include species that may have been recently introduced to Washington by birds or other non-human vectors) or too broad in other respects (for example, our definition includes species which may have been introduced by the first peoples of Washington). After considering all these issues and many more we have decided on the following definition for Washington native plants. *Washington native plants are those species that occur or occurred within the state boundaries before European contact based upon the best available scientific and historical documentation. * " I wrote to other members of the defining group that if we knew how rapidly a plant or animal had been evolving within the artificial boundaries of Washington state, and how recently its forbears had been transported here, then we would be able to make a determination of "how native" it was. I prefer the definition of native that is correctly and legally applied to persons born in the United States and its possessions. Mike ------------------- Wayne Tyson wrote: > 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." > > >
