[ECOLOG-L] Announcing new book
Dear ecolog-l folks, I share some information below on a new book recently published, co-written by Brian Fath and me, that I hope may be of interest to some on this list. Best wishes, Dan Fiscus *Announcing the Publication of:* *Foundations for Sustainability: A Coherent Framework of Life*–*Environment Relations* By Dan Fiscus and Brian Fath Academic Press, Elsevier. Published Nov. 23, 2018 Website: https://www.elsevier.com/books/foundations-for-sustainability/fiscus/978-0-12-811460-5 *Foundations for Sustainability: A Coherent Framework of Life**–Environment Relations* presents a new scientific synthesis and a new strategy for understanding and solving the problems that collectively make up the *global ecological crisis*. This book focuses on the *scientific paradigm* and the *root metaphor* of the shared *system of ideas* in industrial culture. The paradigm has been identified as the ultimate source of leverage for change in complex socio-environmental systems. This is because the paradigm of science, and the closely linked system of ideas in culture, is the social mindset “out of which the system – its goals, power structure, rules, its culture – arises” (Meadows 1999). If you change the paradigm, you have power to make systemic cultural change. The suite of environmental problems we now face – climate disruption, nitrogen cycle imbalance, mass species extinctions, ocean acidification, accumulating toxins and pollution, energy and food system stress, and on, and on – comprise a truly *systemic cultural problem*. These subset problems share an underlying root cause that cannot be easily isolated – it is not as if a single smokestack serves as a “smoking gun” and reveals an easily remedied source of the problem. Instead, these problems are systemic – they permeate our entire culture, were caused by, and are perpetuated by, everything we believe, think, and do. From basic ideas of science, to the education system, media, corporate and institutional knowledge, policies, laws, technology, and more – we are fully immersed in the systemic sources and symptoms of the crisis. Paradigm, then, is strategically the best place to work on systemic solutions. *Foundations for Sustainability* lays the scientific, conceptual and ethical groundwork for a new paradigm and an integrated cultural system of ideas. The paradigm presented is for *“science in service to Life”* where Life is defined as “Life–environment as a unified whole”. *Holistic Life Science* is founded on study of the integrated multi-scale system of Life as organism, ecosystem, and biosphere simultaneously. The book credits, cites and employs the work of many network and systems ecologists, and other thought leaders, who have contributed the ideas and methods that make this paradigm possible. Backed with research from top scientists, this book is a valuable resource for anyone seeking innovative ideas and methods in ecology, environmental science, sustainability, or systemic cultural change. For more information or to arrange talks, presentations, workshops, or courses on the book, contact me: Dan Fiscus danfiscu...@gmail.com 240-522-4243 (cell)
Re: growth, development, and throughput growth
Ashwani, Great points. So for me this brings up more questions that could help: What does ESA want to grow - in ESA itself, in the U.S., in the world, etc.? What do we want to stay about the same? What do we want to shrink? What do we want to develop or improve in quality? Plus, re: throughput: What are the links between ESA products and services and material throughput? Are there different kinds of (non-material?) throughput - like knowledge or information or others? What are the links between different types of throughput? Does an increase in knowledge or information throughput require a linked increase in material throughput? Some of these are addressed in the draft policy state on growth and stead state, but maybe worth more discussion. Some more thoughts... Dan Ashwani Vasishth wrote: Growth is a complicated word. After all, we all know that we do grow. In many ways, and throughout our lives. So growth is good too. (Personally, I hope ESA DOES grow--in many ways. But not in others.) The classic distinction in sustainability planning is between growth and development. Growth bad, development good. But even this does not do justice to the world as we know it. Throughput growth, now that's another story. There's a clear target. -- Dan Fiscus Assistant Professor Biology Department Frostburg State University 308 Compton Science Center Frostburg, MD 21532 USA 301-687-4170 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Evolution (was maladaptation...), movies, entangled bank
Wirt, Thanks. A reply and two questions: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The metaphor I tend to use however invokes a different art form, that of a movie. The study of ecology, which entails investigations into the totality of the biotic interactions we find on earth, is like the last, current frame of a movie that has been running at 24 frames per second for the last several hundred years. When we do ecology, we're looking only at the last frame of the movie. Ecology is evolution in now time, captured in the current frame, but no matter how intricately we tease apart the ecological physics of those interactions in this last frame, the interactions will never make complete sense unless they are examined over the course of the entire movie. I like this metaphor. In addition to your perspective above that ecology is mainly about the last frame, I would add that ecology was integral to interactions during *all* frames. We may not have data on the ecology of all past frames, but I think we know that relations between life forms and between life and environment were integral to the life story and to evolution from the beginning. Thus I see ecology and evolution as equals. Re: your Darwin quote: It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. When was the phrase by the Creator added or dropped? A last general question - based on your term ecological physics and use of mechanist to describe Darwin I wonder if you are in full agreement with neo-Darwinism and The Modern Synthesis? No problems for the theory or weak links at all? Statistical mechanics OK for use in biology and ecology just as in physics? I see major problems with this and need for evolution of our main paradigms and am curious as to your views. Thanks for any more, Dan -- Dan Fiscus Ecologist/PhD student Appalachian Laboratory University of Maryland C.E.S. 301 Braddock Road Frostburg, MD 21532 USA email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 301-689-7121 fax: 301-689-7200 http://al.umces.edu/~fiscus/research http://ecosystemics.org/drupal
Re: Role of modeling courses in the undergraduate curriculum
John, I don't have specific references you seek, and am not really against computer modeling, but I have myself been questioning the role of computers in education in general. I think there are studies related to the negative effects of certain kinds of computer learning, likely for younger kids like elementary through high school. My brother teaches elementary and uses computers a lot and sometimes he says kids that can do well on the computers can't do well in other arenas. This suggests to me that the context of learning is important and that if the computer does too much to make the context rare, special, glitzy, inter-active in bad ways (providing graphics and multiple choice, walking kids through by the hand, spoon feeding, like TV almost, taking away the creative and struggle and internal work parts) - then the learning may be dependent on that specialized computer context and may not be transferable or embodied via true mastery. Most of this would be moot in a typical undergrad class where computers and/or computer modeling are only one part, since the other parts would create a more general and rich context. But I thought I would mention it. Beyond that I think it important to examine that computers themselves are not sustainable. Thus I am reluctant to invest lots of blood, sweat and tears into them for any purpose, as I don't think they will be here, in this same form, in 100 or 1000 years. Without an open-ended evolutionary future they seem a dead-end to me, and I want to contribute to aspects of science and culture and education that can live long and prosper. This is a highly biased view and also minority view. I think it interesting to imagine modeling systems that *are* sustainable over the very long term (i.e., run on renewable energy and recycling materials, like all life systems). Such self-examination could perhaps add a neat, complex, self-reflexive element to computer modeling - could we model our own modeling process? Where would computer ecological modeling fit in to an ecosystem model of a town or university in terms of energy, materials, information stocks and fluxes and transformations? Can computer modeling pay its way, justify its own existence, more than compensate for what it consumes and degrades? Some thoughts... Dan Fiscus John Petersen wrote: Back in September of 05 I sent out an announcement about a conference at Oberlin College that would focus on the role of computation and modeling in the undergraduate curriculum. I was very interested when several colleagues responded on this list-serve expressing a rather negative view regarding the value of teaching modeling to undergraduates. To summarize, the arguments seemed to focus on the notion that the development of specialized and technical computer skills involved in modeling represents a counterproductive distraction. Has anyone seen this argument made anywhere in any literature? I would greatly appreciate references to papers or book chapters that adopt this view or otherwise criticize the value of modeling education for undergraduates. Beyond that I would appreciate suggestions for literature that takes any position on the pedagogical role of modeling in the undergraduate curriculum. Thanks! John Petersen Associate Professor of Environmental Studies and Biology Oberlin College
