pcray:
“Completely untrue. Lots of animals have a huge influence on ecosystems, whether its positive or negative is always debatable depending on what point of view you hold. Most of the ones with a huge influence are invasive species, and thus you could attribute them to humans. But we only say that because invasive species change the status quo, the original inhabitants have a huge impact too but we call their impact "normal." For instance, the simple oceanic algae is responsible for a large percentage of the oxygen in our atmosphere, from which all air-breathing animals are dependent on.”
You’re right. However, humans are the only animals that are truly conscious of their effect on the environment. As such, we have a moral obligation to do as little harm as possible. That was my point.
“Thats B.S. too. 1. No such thing as laws of equilibrium. Nature just means "whatever happens, happens." Very few species are stable, or ever were stable, as environments change so quickly. Equilibrium was a concept cooked up by those who view nature as a perfectly ordered, never changing ecosystem before humans screwed things up.”
Read PP 2 & 3: http://www.sustainablescale.org/ConceptualFramework/UnderstandingScale/BasicConcepts/EcosystemFunctionsServices.aspx
Definition: Ecosystem: An ecosystem is the integrated collection of living things and non-living things that, together, create a STABLE home for life of various kinds.
Read more: http://biology.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_is_an_ecosystem#ixzz0L9vrp7Uy&C
The concept of equilibrium within an ecosystem is a way to explain fluctuations, not dismiss them. Those fluctuations occur about a baseline. No biologist would ever claim thing don’t change within an ecosystem. That would be a stupid thin to say. Clearly there are fluctuations on many levels and to many variables within an ecosystem on many time scales.
In fact, I would say by its very definition, an ecosystem is stable.
“We are still very much affected by the ups and downs of nature. The one advantage we have is the ability to transport goods over long distances, thus when one ecosystem changes we can take from another. Drought in the midwest? We'll just take our food from the east. Nonetheless, if there were a global tragedy, like a major volcanic supereruption, you'd see just how much we are still dependent on the ups and downs of nature.”
I never said we were not at all affected by environments fluctuations. We are, however, not nearly as affected as other animals. And, many of the measures we take to adapt to those fluctuations have a negative effect on the rest of the ecosystem (energy procurement, use of naturally resources on a large scale, transportation pollution, etc.).
The concept of biological equilibrium is generally much more subtle than a volcanic super eruption. That would be the kind of global event that may cause Punctuated Equilibrium (different context: evolution).
Bottom line: ALL species are stable in over time unless some catastrophic change occurs to perturb ecosystem (and possibly global) variables to the point where one or more species cannot survive without significant genetic changes in order to adept. Due to the interdependence of species within an ecosystem, what affects one, affects many if not all to a greater or lesser extent.
“The definition of "mistake" is questionable. For instance, we pretty much eradicated the original forest. What was once primarily an old growth forest of enormous hemlock and american chestnutt is now dominated by much smaller oak, cherry, beech, etc. This is manmade destruction on the largest scale. A disaster? For trout and big tree lovers, yes. But for most forestland wildlife, it was the best thing that could ever happen. We have a much higher carrying capacity for deer, turkey, squirrels, chipmunks, coyotes, and basically every forestland animal thanks to those hardwoods, while larger tracts of virgin forest throughout the northeast hold considerably less wildlife.
I say this not because I'm glad that we did it, but because it is very hard to find a clearcut "mistake", as somebody always benefits. Ok, so we hate mine acid drainage? But we're happy with the power in our houses, winter time heat, and thousands of metal tools that make life easier, and give us the free time to even notice the negative effects. Every time you do anything, there are those rejoicing and those cursing.”
Well, that was my point about the introduction of brown trout that have now naturalized to our streams. We aren’t going to turn the ecological clock back 150+ years. I really don’t think we can nor do I think we should. In fact, I meant that we often create bigger problems by trying to correct the original problem. We simply do not have the knowledge nor the wisdom to make those decisions.
Now was it a “mistake” to wantonly destroy entire forests or mine and use coal without any regard for the consequences. Clearly YES! I know you don’t think clear cutting forest now is a good idea. There is a more enlightened and responsible way to harvest trees. I also know you don’t think coal is the best energy source. As far as tools, you told me coal use in stele production is quite minimal.
The timber and coal industries fueled the industrial revolution, but we are still cleaning up…
Back on topic: We can debate the merits (or wisdom) of trying to restore Paiute cutthroat trout to Silver King Creek. I’m really on the fence about this. In theory, it would be nice to “reset the clock” to a time prior to the introduction of the invasive species negative effects on the trout in question. I just don’t think we can get the job done, at least not without unforeseen consequences.
