Jamieson raises the question on page 171 of whether there is such a thing as a natural balance. This is a crucial question, especially if we are inclined to think (as Aliesha suggests) that an ecocentric perspective will clarify for us the nature and source of an environmental ethic. Since the ecosphere is a dynamic and sometimes riotous system of smaller, equally dynamic systems interacting with each other, it is seriously difficult to say in what such a balance of nature might actually consist.
We marvel at a dynamic equilibrium between predators, prey, and fauna in a mature island ecosystem, for example, and value its stability, diversity (of several kinds) and resilience. But to do so requires us to choose a time slice in which we view it, ignoring the prior periods of creative-destructive disequilibrium which made it what it now is.
We cannot, that is, assume that our simple idea of healthy ecospheric balance is more than another anthropocentric wish-projection; we will have to show, conceptually and scientifically, that it is an independently credible notion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Interesting problem. How does Jamieson include humans and their (technological) products in the (balanced) mix? Or should we prioritize (romanticize?) a state of nature prior to the introduction of widespread human development? We are, after all, thoroughly "natural" too. Tearing down a condo to make room for nonhuman animal homes just trades one species' interests/products for another's.
Jamieson acknowledges the complexities of human intervention in the environment as part of natural processes, and is critical of many simplistic efforts to distinguish native from exotic species, etc.
It is pretty hard (at least for me) to visualize this mature island ecosystem without thinking of some awful place like a zoo or maybe even a reservation. Why would we need to choose a time to view it? Maybe never?
As soon as humans step foot on that land, they'll discover something they want to pick apart and try to put back together. They will try to understand it, but in doing so they ruin the very essence that the island held. Even if we do not think of the island as coming to fruition because of humans, we will end up destroying it one way or another. Directly, by interfering with the natural habitat by going to the island. Or, indirectly through climate changes and pollution.
Humans are able to investigate through science what seems to be the correct natural balance for organisms, but science itself keeps evolving into more everyday showing us we may not know all necessary to decide on what is natural. Humans may not have been around long enough to see the big picture of what is natural even for ourselves. We are learning through our mistakes with technological advancements and industrialization that some of our capabilities may not be best for humans or the environment. We are shifting back to becoming more of our natural selves by learning from our mistakes, planning and preventing further destruction of the natural world attempting to find a balance between our necessities of life and our desire to want more, which also may be natural for humans.
Amanda LEtoile
I liked what Jamieson was saying about these things 25 years ago. I should probably read his more recent work.
Some of these comments seem to miss the analytical point of the example. The question is whether an (imaginary) island ecosystem that is in complex, dynamic, diverse, symbiotic equilibrium is in any objective sense healthier, from the point of view of the ecosphere, than a barren rock (a simpler and even more stable system). Granted WE like it better for various reasons, but is it?
I agree with Aliesha here, no matter how humans go about it, we are usually interfering with ecosystems in general. Whether it be through over-population, excessive consumption or clearing out land, we are harshly contributing to negative outcomes in our environment. This is something that we have been doing through the years, and it never turns out the way as planned. For example: Years ago, fisher cats were released on Glastenbury Mountain to maintain the porcupine population that was interrupting camping life. This of course ended with too many fisher cats and no more porcupine in sight.It is interesting to think about it as David Johnson has, the idea of trading one species interests for another's. This happens all the time as Jamieson has pointed out in chapter six in discussing the value of nature.
I do not think a rock is healthier than an ecosystem. rocks are constantly breaking down, whereas an ecosystem has some ability to regenerate itself. Eventually, the rock will break down entirely into soil and, if i remember correctly, this is when plants become truly important in keeping the rock's nutrients within the ecosystem. so, while the ecosystem has the ability maintain itself, the rock will continue to break down; thus, the ecosystem is more stable.
As pleasant as it sounds, I don't understand how natural balance or dynamic equilibrium could ever actually occur again on this planet. Even to define such a state would be quite challanging. If that state was ever reached, it would be disrupted each and every time a predator eats its prey, etc. Therefore, there would be a constant fluctuation around that equilibrium. When would too much fluctuation above or below this state throw off the balance? On another note, I truly believe this balance is unattainable with humanity in existence. Possibly, millenia after the next mass extinction, some type of natural balance will occur again on our planet... until the next species of intelligent life evolve and destroy the planet again.
Post a Comment