Page 2 of 2

Re: Natural Systems, Autopoietic Forests, and Preservation

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:48 am
by Don
Reminds me of the comment "What's the answer? Heck, we don't even know enough to ask the question."
But my exposure to ecological restoration tells me that the questions and answers HAVE to be sought in a state of grace, with sincere humility. History has shown us the most frequent result of hubris.
I'm thinking I'm starting from a different definition than that which has so far been discussed. The role of guilt in the motivation of those seeking to ecologically restore an area has a fairly large body of work in the annals of Restoration Ecology/Ecological Restoration, and I think extends into the psyche of those of us in this discussion. I'm not ready to toss the role of humans out of the "natural system"...what I think is more appropriate is to consider the level of impact we as humans can have and still retain a natural system status.
I have no pre-conditions here, but for relative populations numbers...ZPG isn't enough, war and pestilence probably isn't enough...not sure what level works, and I'm sure it would vary with the ecosystem.
To do otherwise, would mean we'd have to manage beaver populations...they do more to impact an area than any other animal I can think of. Drastic changes. Is the ecosystem better for it? I don't know, we get right into value judgements, not unlike those we'd refer to with the role of prior indigenous cultures in their environment.

Well it's late, but I wanted to voice a few thoughts that came to me as I read your posts...more later, hopefully!