Ecolog:
Methinks the battles over semantics in ecology be oft over-strained, and
thus serve to distract the issues concerned rather than increase
understanding and bring clarity. We all might benefit from a reduced
fascination with our mirrors and a reduction in king-of-the-mountain games.
Hence we often miss the mud-encased gems drawn from our cloddy rhetoric.
Chew may well be engaged in some question-begging, but we can set that aside
while we consider his attention to principle:
"It remains arguable whether ecological communities are much more than an
instantaneous reflection of the contingencies of the story of life on earth
so far. That story from here on out will likewise entail whatever happens
next." --Matt Chew
I believe I mentioned this, though my statement could not hold a candle to
Chew's more elegant prose. So barring any question-begging of my own, I must
agree with Chew on this one.
But here he may be straining against a ghost-horse; at least he did not
quote examples from the alleged offending text at which he swats, apparently
preferring to magnify the monster while ignoring the statements which align
with his point.
"But apply any metaphor you like (restoration, turning the clock
back, putting the toothpaste back into the tube, putting Humpty Dumpty back
together again) what happens next is not going to be a repeat of what
happened before, and we can never look forward with clarity or confidence
beyond simple, proximate causes and effects."
Yes, of course "we" cannot "put the toothpaste back into the tube," but we
can, as Wendell Berry once put it, ". . . increase the possibility of life
on earth, rather than to diminish it." That may be "nostalgic yearning," but
it might also be a cause and an effect promoted by a species concerned with
its future.
So somewhere between ignoring the effects of culture (or endorsing them as
"just part of the ecosystem") upon ecosystems and re-forming culture to
correct its mistakes by a process we have come to call "restoration," may
lie some truth that has not yet jelled in our individual and collective
minds.
Yea, we can argue 'till Hell freezes over, we can posture until we turn to
salt, but we also have the option of trying very hard to understand what we
really mean rather than reinforcing the semantic fences that divide us.
We can start by carefully considering Chew's remarks even if we may not be
quite sure what the 'ell 'e's talkin' about. In any case, we might be
well-advised to cite the text to which our comments actually refer rather
than indulging in vague allusions containing at least a bit of straw . . .
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Chew" <anek...@gmail.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:26 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration
This thread often employs 'natural' and 'ecological' as proxies for 'good'
or 'proper' or 'appropriate' or 'desirable'. Using some past condition to
exemplify a desired future is commonplace, but that past is always poorly
documented and most of our 'knowledge' of past conditions is selectively
conjectural or inferred. That is the standard recipe for nostalgic
yearning.
It is also clear that 'sequestering' carbon as biomass does not override
concerns the commenters have about belonging, structure and longevity, also
invoked – again vaguely – as proxies for 'good' or 'proper' or
'appropriate' or 'desirable'.
It remains arguable whether ecological communities are much more than an
instantaneous reflection of the contingencies of the story of life on earth
so far. That story from here on out will likewise entail whatever happens
next. But apply any metaphor you like (restoration, turning the clock
back, putting the toothpaste back into the tube, putting Humpty Dumpty back
together again) what happens next is not going to be a repeat of what
happened before, and we can never look forward with clarity or confidence
beyond simple, proximate causes and effects.
To paraphrase a non-ecologist, life is happening while we make other
plans. Meanwhile, ESA's finest minds make plans framed primarily by fear
and loathing of certain change in uncertain directions. To paraphrase
another non-ecologist, how's that workin' for ya?
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
mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com
http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php
http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4837 - Release Date: 02/28/12
