The other day in a comment I informed someone that there was no "balance of nature". It was as if I'd blasphemed. The person I was commenting with was incredulous, it was as if I'd denied the existence of gravity. I figure it's time for another Balance of Nature post.
The people I'd most like to reach with this message are called science writers. I wish somehow I could paste the statement above their keyboard. "There is no balance of nature!!" When I read a news account or story on a website and I come upon the word "balance" I figure I've had fair warning. The following block quote is from Pacific Standard...
It is the "balance of nature," a concept pretty much everyone accepts — with the notable exception of ecologists. The natural environment, as it is currently understood by science, is in a constant state of flux.
Upheaval, not balance, is the norm.
That we believe otherwise has proven problematic for the teaching of basic ecological literacy, according to a just-published paper by psychologist Corinne Zimmerman of Illinois State University and ecologist Kim Cuddington of Ohio University. Their study of students at two major Midwestern universities found the discredited "balance of nature" idea is widely held among both science majors and the general student population. What's more, it is extremely difficult to dislodge.
"They're almost unable to reason logically about environmental problems because they keep bumping into this cultural concept," Cuddington said. "It's influencing their thought processes."
http://www.psmag.com/...
Now more than ever before, with the looming mass extinction due to climate change , we need people "able to reason logically about environmental problems".
above a good conversationalist for discussing ephemeral theories of nature, the grizzy bear.
The last time I posted similarly I got some great comments. I'll repost them without attribution unless someone wants their name attached, in which case I can go back and insert.
"Nature" isn't a person or an ideology.
Rather, it's the label we slap on the visible end result of processes resulting from the physical properties of a Universe that genuinely doesn't give a crap about us or any other species.....
So there is no such thing as a 'balance of nature'. The clearest evidence of this is the harsh reality of extinction. Species don't exist in stasis or 'balance'. They're simply contenders for energy and organization. When a species consumes all the available resources, or runs into a more effective competitor for same, its numbers crash- often to zero.
Below is the tipping point or chaos theory view. Sounds like the predator pit idea from Alaska which is the idea that you can maintain prey and predators at high levels for both unless you allow predators to become so numerous that they deplete prey sending the populations of both on an irreversible downward plunge until they reach a new stability far below their potential.
The thing about natural balances is they occur at different points. For instance, a meadow may be able to balance at a rabbit population of about 200, or of about 30, but not at populations in between, not for long. The population numbers which tend towards stability over some period of time are called "strange attractors" in complexity science, aka chaos theory.
So you run nature through a tipping point, you end up at a balance on the other side of it, which will tend to hold stable for a while. But it can be a very different balance than the one you entered the tipping point from. It might be a natural balance in which, for instance, the meadow has a carrying capacity for far fewer rabbits - or the world has a carrying capacity for a few tens of millions of people rather than 7 billion.
How about these simple eight words.
Dynamic systems don't really have such equilibrium points.
Above zombie elk about to meat an equilibrium point.
Below a disagree-er but I think he's an environmentalist not an ecologist.
your argument isn't a strong one.
One of the biggest discussions among environmental scientists is the role of homeostasis, what and where the setpoints are and how much deviation from them is possible before feedback loops (usually good) or positive feedback (usually bad despite the name) kick in.
This argument is far from simple and far from settled. It is wrong to portray it as either.
We do need to act as if there is no such thing as homeostasis though as, not only does this make good sense on the human induced climate change front (which definitely is an issue) but it would be best practice even if there were no problem whatsoever as it represents good stewardship.
And it received the reply below.
I don't think the debate is about the existence of homeostasis - it's what allows organisms or ecosystems to continue to exist in a healthy state over a variety of conditions and over time. But there are misconceptions about what homeostasis is and what it can accomplish.
In the example in the article cited, people assume that some natural process, probably homeostasis, prevents predators from hunting their prey to extinction, which isn't true.
Another misconception is that something like homeostasis or "nature's balance" will return a disturbed system to its original conditions. That won't work as a medical treatment plan when you've acquired a serious disease, it won't work for the atmosphere/climate system, it won't work for wilderness areas, and it won't even work for your lawn or backyard. You might as well believe that dust bunnies will clean your house if you just wait long enough.
Natural processes aren't teleological - they don't proceed to some desired goal, and the idea that they do has nothing to do with homeostasis or even science and everything to do with religion.
Thanks to all who contributed last time, I'd of reprinted all but was constrained by space.