Ecolog:
The excellent responses to this thread have been very thought-provoking.
Quotes found particularly interesting with respect to difficulties of
definition:
"Let's argue to preserve our habitats because they are valuable, beautiful,
and sacred, not because the score high on a diversity measure." --Martin
Meiss
Amen. Let us not tar the concept with measurements that are not up to the
job.
"Focusing on ecological problems associated with biological homogenization
(Lockwood and McKinney 2001) is perhaps an alternative research and
management question to pursue (see Keesing et al. 2010)" --A. Y. Yost
It is ironic that "biological homogenization" (artificial reduction in
diversity) is frequently (and fraudulently?) preceded by the "eco" suffix?
'If biodiversity is all-inclusive, it is useless in scientific practice, and
we must conceptually pull it to bits to work with it. In 1996 Takacs paid
relatively less attention to the second part of the original question here:
"Does the term capture the public's attention?" Well, how can we know? . .
. As a term, biodiversity, like "free market", sounds appealing. The devil
is in the details.' --Matt Chew
Quite. Science has not yet been overtaken by advertising, close though it
might be. Would set theory work for the scientific part?
"To force my interpretation of a broadly used term such as biodiversity upon
what subtly (or not so subtly) different meaning the writer is trying to
convey to me will only serve to limit my understanding." --Jason Persichetti
It seems that clarity is primarily the responsibility of the writer. Eschew
obfuscation.
"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be
what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise;
what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You
see?" --Alice [In Wonderland]
Making nonsense out of the sensible would seem to invite ridicule, or at
least satirization.
"I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." -- Robert
McCloskey, U.S. State Department spokesman, at a press briefing during the
Vietnam War
At long last, have spokesmen not had no sense of gobbledygook?
Semantic confusion is at the root of most conflict, and ecology itself, as a
term and a discipline, is not immune; misuse is rife, especially in the
popular lexicon. "The" ecology, for example, has grown to be a synonym for
"Nature" and "environment," and ecologists are often though of as beer-can
recyclers and Christmas-tree chippers. "Biodiversity" seems to be suffering
a similar fate. That may not be all bad, and it may be a price that must be
paid for popularization. But I get this uneasy feeling that the credibility
of ecology is at stake too. And terms like "biodiversity" that are part of
its jargon. With respect to the respect of both the public and the other
sciences, ecology may need to be more careful about terms. Vagueness and
lack of clarity can lead to a (justified?) diminution of credibility,
leaving aside the outright hostility attached by some who feel their self
interest is threatened, oddly enough, by the very system of life upon which
they depend absolutely.
Provided there is a sound foundation for the creation of the term (and it
would seem that biodiversity is thus legitimate), abandonment would not seem
reasonable; certainly not on the basis of its misuse. Continuing to define,
redefine, and explain its meaning may be necessary, along with time and
patience. After all, there is such a thing as life and life is diverse.
Broad though such a simple definition may be, it should not be invalidated
by misinterpretation nor by usurpation. Perhaps the "error" lies within the
practice of using the term in a too restricted sense?
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Meiss" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Defining biodiversity, and does the term capture the
public's attention?
Just in case you missed it, be sure to check out Andrew Yost's post
on
a parallel thread addressing this same topic. He gives the history of
term
"biodiversity" and quotes some authors with very interesting insights.
Now for my one-fiftieth of a dollar: I think it is futile and wrong
to search for one all-encompassing definition of diversity. Doing so
implies that there exists in the real world some conceptual entity that
could be mapped to the term, and that isn't necessarily so. Rather, I
suggest a pragmatic approach that selects an aspect of diversity that
relates to the problem one is discussing. If I am working on a theory or
field project that has to do with energy and nutrient flow through trophic
levels, a diversity index emphasizing biomass over other aspects may be
best
(i.e., I may not care too much whether my grass is being eaten by
antelopes
or grasshoppers, just how efficiently they convert it.) If I am studying
the evolution of host-race formation in butterflies, a diversity index
that
emphasizes species-counts might be the best thing. Would I ever want to
integrate data of the trophic-levels project with the host-race formation
project? If not, why should I care that they do not rely on the same
measure of (or definition of) diversity?
In this vein, I should point out, as another poster in that
parallel
thread did, that "diversity" is often applied to taxonomic groups rather
than ecosystems (e.g., higher phasmid diversity in Ecuador than in
Michigan). This seems pretty clear-cut, but in cases where the taxonomy
is
complex (swarms of sibling species, high phenotypic plasticity,
introgressive hybridization, etc.) it may break down.
The originator of this thread is interested in diversity relative
to
popular perceptions an public conservation policy, but I question whether
we
should resort to a rigorous definition of diversity for these purposes.
What does it get us? Why not instead focus on habitat preservation
(perhaps
keyed to charismatic megafauna), and hope that that gets done what is
needed. I submit that in most cases diversity preservation can not be
justified on scientific grounds. Rather, how we treat the environment
will
be a consequence of our economic, aesthetic, and even spiritual values
weighed against the needs of a burgeoning human population. Let's argue
to
preserve our habitats because they are valuable, beautiful, and sacred,
not
because the score high on a diversity measure. Either way, it's a sales
job
to the stake holders and decision makers, but the former is probably much
easier to sell.
Martin M. Meiss
2010/12/16 Matt Chew <[email protected]>
This has been an interesting thread. I may have missed something, but I
don't recall anyone mentioning David Takacs' book 'The Idea of
Biodiversity:
Philosophies of Paradise' (Johns Hopkins, 1996) which includes interviews
with then-prominent (mostly still active) ecologists and conservation
biologists and examines most of the conceptual points made here so far.
As
an inspiration or motivation, biodiversity still appeals to those who
consider it more scientifically substantial-sounding than 'nature'.
However, our various attempts to define it in 2010 echo those made 15
years
ago, both in their earnestness and futility. It cannot be made
simultaneously comprehensive and precise. If biodiversity is
all-inclusive,
it is useless in scientific practice, and we must conceptually pull it to
bits to work with it. In 1996 Takacs paid relatively less attention to
the
second part of the original question here: "Does the term capture the
public's attention?" Well, how can we know? Using the popular but
admittedly fraught 'Googling' method, a Google News search done just now
returned 2,625 hits for 'biodiversity' but 60,249 for 'nature'. As a
term,
biodiversity, like "free market", sounds appealing. The devil is in the
details.
Matthew K Chew
Assistant Research Professor
Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
ASU Center for Biology & Society
PO Box 873301
Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA
Tel 480.965.8422
Fax 480.965.8330
[email protected] or [email protected]
http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php
http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3319 - Release Date: 12/16/10
07:34:00
