This has been an interesting conversation. Ecological functions entail putative benefits to some population or individual. It doesn't have to be a human population, so it doesn't have to be anthropocentric, but that is the second most common centrism. Biocentrism and ecocentrism are generally proxies for the most common one: idiocentrism. Biocentrism and ecocentrism involve benefits to things that benefit the author of the argument. If this seems dubious, how many times have you seen discussions of "functions" without benefits, such as "the function of mass extinction" or "the function of acid precipitation"? That suggests ecosystem function and ecosystem service are fundamentally identical concepts. Processes are more benefits-equivocal than functions. A designed system (e.g., a farm) includes processes more and less beneficial from various points of reference, but has a designed function benefiting the farmer. An accumulated system (e.g., an ecosystem) likewise includes processes but lacks a designer or a function—if your metaphysics will allow.
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] https://cbs.asu.edu/people/chew-0<http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php> http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
