Please note that I did acknowledge that cynicism has some real justification, by point was supposed to be that optimism is the only option; embracing pessimism, especially its handmaiden, ennui and inaction just because one feels one's impact may be slight, is a fundamentally fatal fatalism fetish to be foregone.
There's nothing silly about the fraction of a millimeter that one or a multitude of inputs might have on the destiny of life on earth, nay, the drop in the bucket of one individual may be decisive, at least in some way--a kind of keystone action, as it were. It will take time, time, TIME--way beyond my tenure on earth, and, I suspect, that of all of us. I am reminded at how impressed I was at the British stiff upper lip when, clickety-clacking through east London, inbound from France several years ago, upon espying a giant billboard atop a dingy factory building that defiantly declared, "TAKE COURAGE!" (I was unaware that it was referring to a brand of ale but, no matter, I still give the whole nation credit anyway.) And, I continue to stand upon my first lesson in biology from that quietly heroic, cow-college professor, Lee Haines, who never gave a damn about whether or not he was remembered for his simple genius in presenting to "we, the ignorant," two Petri dishes--one with a smear of slime and a flatworm, the other with a bacterium colony, and having us place a drop of saline solution in the first, a trace of mold in the other, and had us watch what happened in each case. All these decades later, that first lesson, that first day, that opening up of my eyes to the essence of biology and ecology, and I continue to see through the sight he gave me. Such steps are not difficult, but they don't win Nobel Prizes. They do win the eternal gratitude of those they have touched, however. I still visualize the entire earth, or any subset thereof, as a Petri dish. I don't have to know everything, but I do have to know what I don't know (credit here to a remark made by Margaret Mead, who handled both fame and criticism equally well). So, sure, I recognize that there is a lot of ignorance out there in "the public," but that brings back the earthy 19th century philosophy of Henry Shaw, who, as the character he invented, Josh Billings, once said something like, "The worst kind of ignorance ain't s' much not knowin', as 'tis knowin' s' much that ain't so." If we can get any "message" across to non-ecologists and non-scientists, we could do worse than to keep on pointing out that rising up in understanding permits us to see more and more of our own ignorance, not less. The biggest danger is leaving the impression that we are in possession of The Word, and that it is final. Moreover, "the public" needs to discover that living a life of continuous questioning is a helluva lot of fun! (The implication, of course, which should remain unmentioned--they will get it without any finger-wagging--is that relying upon frozen paradigms and failing to see the underlying truths imbedded in myths by only taking them literally leads to intellectual bondage, not freedom.) Joshin' might be a lost art, but it might be worth resurrecting as just one way of resisting inflated pomposity. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin Meiss To: Wayne Tyson Cc: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Defining biodiversity, and does the term capture the public's attention? Despite the apparent cynicism of my earlier post on this thread, I would like to accept Wayne T's optimism that the public can be brought to an understanding of biodiversity that is more sophisticated than a mere species list. However, in one sense this is opening a Pandora's box. When people realize that going beyond the mere list involves weighting the species by various criteria, they will be curious about the criteria. Is a hypothetical forest ecosystem with two tree species and one moss species more diverse than a forest with one tree species and two moss species? To a person going for a walk, or a logger, the former is certainly more diverse. This leads naturally (even if erroneously) to the conclusion that mosses don't matter as much as trees, and further, to the idea that it really doesn't matter if some human activity leads to the extinction of those little species that most people don't notice. Saying that those seemingly insignificant species might hold the cure for cancer, as has often been done, rings pretty hollow to most people, I believe, because they realize that the overwhelming majority of species DON'T hold the cure for cancer. People might accept that wiping out an "insignificant" insect would matter if it happened to be the sole pollinator of some species we really care about, but how likely is that in the temperate zone? Relying on those "charismatic megafaunae" to justify habitat preservation may also run out of steam when the stakes are high. (Some people want villagers in Africa to put up with prowling lions, but they wouldn't want it in there back yard in New Jersey.) Should we work on a diversity index that takes into account cuteness and nobleness? Saying or implying that all species are sacred and must be preserved is religion (or maybe a gut instinct for us nature lovers), but not science. At least, I think it would be hard to justify scientifically. Similarly, can we scientifically justify the (often implied) assumption that high diversity is better than low diversity in a given ecosystem? I may seem to be wandering off topic, but my point is this: educating the public about diversity and other ecological matters is empowering them, and they will use that power in the coming years to make decisions about which ecosystems to preserve and which to allow to go to ruin. The leap of faith is that an educated public will make wiser choices than a public that merely listens to or ignores what the experts say. So maybe it's not Pandora's box, after all. Finally, here's some ponderable questions for all of us: Would you be willing to die to prevent the tiger from going extinct? How about a flightless bird on a tiny island? How about a mosquito? How about the smallpox virus? Martin M. Meiss 2010/12/14 Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> Euan and Ecolog: Uhhh, I dunno, but I suspect that "the public" resents exclusion and other forms of disrespect just as intensely as do scientists and other academics and "intellectuals." First, you have to open the door. The primary deficiency (oh, hell, there are so many "primary" deficiencies, that must be wrong) is the closed-door that separates the intellectual from the anti-intellectual. "Anti-intellectualism" certainly exists, along with a host of other expressions of fear, but as long as self-styled intellectuals, some of them scientists, even ecologists slam doors in the faces of "the public," it will not decline. Biodiversity might be a perfectly reasonable term for the phenomenon of complex species assemblages and ecosystems, but understanding the term might be less important than understanding their ups and downs and requirements and limitations. Translating that for "the public" might be more important than finding a new term. "The Public," given due respect, just might be capable of rising above or extending beyond, sound bytes and terminology. Vacuums tend to be filled eventually. The phenomena related to misunderstanding and confusion and resistance to understanding might benefit (or be screwed up) by a disciplined examination of the evidence. I doubt that extended hyperbole will have much effect. WT PS: The public's ignorance of biodiversity's real meaning might not be the first step toward understanding what life is all about; stimulating curiosity and responding to enquiry once it is sparked might be the bridge that would be crowded by the multitudes once they are beckoned by the gatekeepers. I remember my astonishment when the project manager of an ecosystem restoration project upon which I was working was astonished when I inadvertently "revealed" to her that chaparral was a term for a vegetation type, not a single species of plant. She and I both made leaps out of our respective ignorances that day, and I have since tried to be more considerate of the potential for even "clear" terminology to foster unwarranted conclusions. I have since learned and re-learned that terminology that conveys clarity to the "ins" may be quite inadequate with respect to the "outs." United in the quest toward greater and greater understanding, specialists and generalists may yet be able to compound their strengths rather than to diminish each other. As to a space-holder "definition" of bio-diversity (maybe the hyphen should be left in?) for "public" consumption, one might say that biodiversity, at root, means that life forms are almost uncountable and uncounted, and each is in a process of seeking good places and good associates, just as we humans form interdependencies and encounter limitations in the business of living, dying, and changing. However, I'm sure some will come up with much better responses to Ritchie's most reasonable request. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ritchie, Euan" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:05 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Defining biodiversity, and does the term capture the public's attention? Hi everyone, I have just returned from the Ecological Society of Australia meeting and among other issues, there was much discussion about the term biodiversity. Many people argue that this term is hard to define, and importantly, the public have no idea what it actually means and therefore they have less connection/concern to preserve/conserve species and habitats. I thought it would be interesting to hear how others define biodiversity, and if this term isn't helpful for conveying the importance of species diversity to the public, what term(s) should we use? Over to you, Euan Dr. Euan G. Ritchie, Lecturer in Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, 3125, Australia. Building T, Room T3.09.3 Phone: 03 9251 7606 International: +61 3 9251 7606 Mobile: 041 888 2992 Fax: 03 9251 7626 International: +61 3 9251 7626 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Skype: euanritchie Website: http://www.deakin.edu.au/scitech/les/staff/ritchiee/ Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code 00113B Important Notice: The contents of this email are intended solely for the named addressee and are confidential; any unauthorised use, reproduction or storage of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and any attachments immediately and advise the sender by return email or telephone. Deakin University does not warrant that this email and any attachments are error or virus free. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3313 - Release Date: 12/13/10 07:35:00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3315 - Release Date: 12/14/10 07:34:00
