Are all natural systems resilient? What about the early successional systems that human agriculture approximates? Are all cultural systems, including hunter-gatherer societies or the Catholic Church, brittle?
Jane On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: > Honorable Forum: > > Ecosystems are resilient; cultural "systems" are brittle. "Nature" is > indifferent, not "caring." The ecosystem adapts (by "structural > alterations," aka extinction and population shifts in ratio) to change, > whether culture survives or not. Que sera, sera. > > WT > > 'Cause suicide is painless, > It brings on many changes, > And I can take or leave it if I please > > --Mike Altman > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren W. Aney" <a...@coho.net> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:58 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: > [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! > > >> Since Wayne cited the precautionary principle, I'll second what he says >> with >> some simpler and more direct language: If we act now under the premise >> that >> climate change is human-caused, and we are wrong about this cause, then >> the >> costs will be high but the benefits could still be tremendous in terms of >> reduced pollution and reductions in reliance on non-renewable carbon based >> energy sources. If we fail to act now under the premise that climate >> change >> is not human-caused, and we are wrong, the human and environmental costs >> could be catastrophic, particularly in third world and developing >> countries. >> >> Warren W. Aney >> Senior Wildlife Ecologist >> Tigard, OR >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news >> [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson >> Sent: Tuesday, 03 March, 2009 20:48 >> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] >> Thank you for responding to the survey! >> >> Y'all: >> >> Hamilton's point is well-taken--the devil is in the details. Speaking of >> circularity, "the boy who cried wolf" phenomenon might be on the opposite >> side of the clock diagram from "crying in the wilderness," each on the >> other >> >> side of the vertical or "midnight" position, i.e., "worlds" apart in one >> sense, but in the apparent sense close together. >> >> While I maintain a state of suspended judgment in the absence of evidence, >> neither do I recognize absence of evidence as evidence of absence. >> >> While CO2 well might be a surrogate for habitat destruction that is at >> once >> sufficiently vague and sufficiently (or vaguely) "scientific," I have >> decided to not cloud the issue just in case the right things get done, >> even >> if for the wrong reasons. >> >> It may well be true that one can't add up all the carbon emissions >> directly >> caused by culture, the possibility of a sort of "keystone" or "domino" >> effect might be laid in the lap of Homo sapiens, and there is little doubt >> that there is prima facie evidence that the contributions therefrom have >> increased for the last ten millennia or so. So . . . a case in absolute >> refutation is similarly difficult. Therein might lie the (evil or >> saintly?) >> "genius" behind the carbon obsession? >> >> In any case, it seems clear that, particularly given the probable futility >> of sufficient actual reduction ("credits" and other means of capitalizing >> upon the rage), the precautionary principle is probably preferable to the >> needless and heedless fraction of the unique human talent for consuming >> outside energy/mass cycles. >> >> That is, no matter how inevitably nutty human expression may be, no matter >> how "wrong" some might be, a change in current trends could benefit the >> earth and its life--even, perhaps, including the guilty parties. >> >> A Pax upon us all, great and small . . . >> >> WT >> >> "The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual >> discipline." --Raymond Gilmore >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Hamilton" <rhami...@mc.edu> >> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:11 AM >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! >> >> >>> Don't know if you want to post a contrasting view, but I'll offer one >>> up. >>> >>> No question that human generated CO2 is causing global warming, in my >>> opinion. There is, however, no evidence of a deleterious effect, >>> especially given the fact that the climate does and will change one way >>> or another anyways. Models predicting catastrophes have been overblown >>> to a degree that is embarrassing to an informed scientist, and results a >>> in classic "boy who cried wolf" type loss of credibility for informed >>> scientists. >>> >>> With respect to our ecological impact, habitat destruction is the #1 >>> negative human impact, and the overall ecological footprint is the real >>> issue, not just the "carbon footprint". There is no activity we engage >>> in as humans that is worse than the building of modern cities, >>> especially when you factor in the type of agricultural practices needed >>> to support those cities. The carbon footprint approach also strongly >>> discriminates against those living in poorer, more rural areas, singling >>> out the activities that support the economies in those areas as the >>> major problem, as opposed to the much more destructive activities of >>> people who live in urban areas, particularly modern urban areas. It's >>> obvuiously more politically prudent to attack the weak. >>> >>> There is an issue with global warming, but it is relatively minor, as >>> far as we know at this point in time, and it appears to be just another >>> way of deflecting the real issue, habitat conversion. Allowing people in >>> large modern cities to feel good about themselves re environmental >>> issues while continuing on with the most destructive of lifestyles. >>> >>> I recall reading many months ago about Leonardo DeCaprio wanting to buy >>> a tropical island and build an eco friendly resort being presented as >>> evidence of some sort of environmentally responsible act. Ridiculous, of >>> course, but one of the best examples of the sort or poor thinking that >>> drives a lot of the pop culture based environmental movement. >>> >>> Rob Hamilton >>> >>> >>> >>> "So easy it seemed once found, which yet >>> unfound most would have thought impossible" >>> >>> John Milton >>> ________________________________________ >>> >>> Robert G. Hamilton >>> Department of Biological Sciences >>> Mississippi College >>> P.O. Box 4045 >>> 200 South Capitol Street >>> Clinton, MS 39058 >>> Phone: (601) 925-3872 >>> FAX (601) 925-3978 >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---- >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.6/1981 - Release Date: 03/03/09 >> 07:25:00 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1983 - Release Date: 03/04/09 > 07:41:00 > -- ------------- Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. student, University of Georgia co-founder, <a href="http://www.worldbeyondborders.org";>World Beyond Borders</a> Check out my blog, <a href="http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com";>Perceiving Wholes</a> "Political power comes out of the look in people's eyes." --Kim Stanley Robinson, _Blue Mars_
