I am anticipating that someone will make the argument that humans are "natural' and that MAN-aged systems are thereore natural. However I use the terms NATURAL and ARTIFICIAL as useful terms to differentate natural systems that are essentially first-order autopoietic and artificial systems that are largely created or maintained by humans exterior to the system. In a sense these managed systems that are autopoietic in the second order. Second order in the sense that these managed systems are being controlled to lesser or greater degrees by humans (and therefore are not true first order autopoietic systems. However because they are managed by first order autopoietic systems (humans) then they themselves are no longer truly natural or of first order.
The key to understanding autopoietic is to consider the location or original of the system's control or its "operating manual". Regarding a natural system, the "operating manual" is the collective genome of the living communiity; the DNA or blueprint for the system is internal to that system and hence self-created or AUTOPOIETIC. Managed systems are largely created by DNA that is exterior or outside the system's boundary. According to this logic, automobiles, houses, computers, and managed forests are artificial because that all are created or actively regulated by human hands. By the way, I consider NATURE to be the collective genome of all living systems and their environment. NATURE is self-creating and self-regulating. We distinguish humans from nature because NATURE is a complex, dynamic system controlled by unconscious processes, by natural selection. We appreciate NATURE because it is NOT controlled by us...it is "WILD". I wouldn't consider a ZOO to be an expression of nature or a natural place since humans decide which animal reproduces with which other and humans are controlling the environment of these animals. All of us on this list intuitively know the difference between a zoo and nature, a natural forest and a managed plantation. The difficulty comes in placing each forest on the NATURAL.............................ARTIFICIAL continuum. Sorry for the rant... Gary Gary A. Beluzo Professor of Environmental Science Division of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Holyoke Community College 303 Homestead Avenue Holyoke, MA 01040 [email protected] 413 552-2445 On Oct 17, 2009, at 7:07 AM, Joseph Zorzin wrote: > That's one of Gary Beluzo's favorite terms and he's one of the few > people who understands it and uses it (he may have coined the term) > so I'm sure he'll elaborate. I have a sense of the meaning and I > kinda like it- I believe for Gary, it's what happens in old growth > forests- to what extent it may be a useful principle in any sort of > managed forest is the 60 million dollar question. > > In particular, the question is interesting regarding forests managed > for old growth structures, as described in that brochure. > Joe > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Andrew Joslin > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 1:56 PM > Subject: [ENTS] Re: "Restoring Late-Successional Forest Structure"??? > > > Joe, can you get me (us) up-to-speed on the term "autopoietic" as > applied to forest ecology? It sounds like you mean self-regenerating > or > self-maintaining, not sure though. > -AJ > > Joseph Zorzin wrote: > > check out > > http://www.masswoods.net/images/stories/pdf/forest_mgr_guide_ls_structure_web.pdf > > > > comments? > > > > Gary Beluzo? What say ye about this? Those restored pseudo semi old > > growth forests won't be autopoietic? > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
