Re: Ecology and Optimality

["Judith Rosen" <***>]

The biggest tangible (and causal) problem with attempted management of
"native" and "non-native" species within an ecosystem is one of
"side-effects". My father did a lot of work on principles of optimality and
said that any kind of measures to counteract the consequences (of
inadvertant side-effects resulting from a so-called non-native organism
being introduced into some "established" ecosystem).... are very likely to
fail and to generate new (unintended and possibly unpleasant) side-effects
of their own. The reasons for this are many, but the most obvious one to me,
from a non-scientific viewpoint as I've been observing these things, is that
there is a total lack of common sense involved. As John K. pointed out,
change is often viewed by humaity with great alarm, even though it is
something that is a "constant" in ecosystems. Secondly: I notice that the
"experts" always seem to use a sledgehammer when a tweezer is called for.

Judith


From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] The Gibbs Paradox & Ecology


> Hi Tim and list;
>
> Quick remark as this is my main field (not to imply that I have a right
> answer, just keen interest) - so I'll try to add some background
>
> This is a common problem in ecology, however it is actually a problem of
> scale, as implied in the questions about when something can be
> considered "native." It is difficult to get such precise concepts in
> ecology that one can say they are A or B, as in the idealized
> experiments in physics. We've discussed around this idea before, but if
> one reduces to a different kind of idealism, more appropriate
> distinctions might be made, such as formal systems and natural systems,
etc.
>
> "Native" refers to long-term presence, which is relative to the
> adaptation time of the invader and other organisms. It has some
> historical baggage in the idea of climax communities and equilibrium in
> ecology, both of which are not being questioned much like Newtonian
> mechanics had to yield to a more precise theory in physics. But in the
> case of ecology the new ideas are more complex, not more precise. Now we
> think of dynamics in a landscape mosaic with no equilibrium state; yet
> various kinds of dynamic stability do emerge, like stable limit cycles,
> perhaps attractor modes if one analyses that way, etc. Still, it is
> possible to talk in relative terms about whether a new organism has had
> time to build stable interactions or is acting like a bull in a china
> shop. Discord in nature is ultimately costly and it seems that some sort
> of "agreement" develops between species to divide up resources, time,
> space, etc. It takes time to form those agreements. Its not unlike
> someone moving into a new town with a tight social order. There is an
> unquantifiable time after which you are no longer a newcommer, and it is
> an agreement among neighbors.
>
> For humans to decide nativeness requires no small degree of speculation.
> So I agree with the sentiment expressed here in that regard - who's to
> say that a species movement isn't "natural?" After all, there was the
> mammalian radiation across the land bridge of Panama, human migration
> across the bering streight, etc. Perhaps several generations are enough
> to erase the memory, but effects can still be discussed many generations
> hence.
>
> However, the issue of Fish & WS management is quite a bit more involved.
> I too find it amusing to see supposedly objective scientific
> justification for management action when in truth it is a value
> judgement. The science is there, saying that invasives can wreak havoc
> on existing systems and produce rapid changes that we may not find
> desirable - but there it is again; our desires. Who's to say rapid
> change, perhaps even change killing a million people, is bad? Perhaps
> some of those people, but not the ones who end up thriving on the
> change. Ecology is dynamic.
>
> Ecological restoration has a problem establishing the goals of
> restoration. The current ideal is to do that through community consensus
> (a partial myth) or some reasonable process for reaching a "fair"
> balance of values. Some like migratory birds and they are used to them,
> so manage to keep them. Others like the carp. What does nature like?
> Mostly nature likes whatever it ends up doing.
>
> Still, I come to the conclusion for myself that ecosystem management is
> very important. Not because we can define what the proper state of
> things should be, but because we can predict that extremely rapid change
> will be harmful to us and probably many other species. It is the rate of
> change that is the issue here, not the quality of it. Human pressure is
> changing our ecologies at an unprecedented and accellerating rate. We
> currently rival the largest natural extinction event in geologic history
> for the numbers of all taxa. We're even threatening our traditional food
> supply. So the principle of preservation may be too simple an idea, but
> it is really a simplification of the precautionary principle, which is
> that the first priority should be to do no unnecessary harm. Balancing
> that for all nature is like discussing the common good of the people in
> political circles. But just because we can prove that there isn't an
> objective answer, doesn't mean the problem is small or that we can
> escape it.
>
> Here, again, I find Rosen's approach refreshing because it can help
> model the interplay between values and their material results. The idea
> of no single largest model, is analogous, or identical, to saying there
> is no single right answer. But we don't give up, we invent a new way of
> thinking about the problem. Although we might say some terms like
> "native" is not a "real physical property" (implying that we give value
> to physical properties); it is also possible to enter into a thought
> system where all properaties, physical or otherwise, are equally "real"
> with regard to understanding our experience (the goal of science) and
> managing our experience (the goal of management).
>
> In today's ecological economics parlance some degree of tangibility has
> been added by talking about ecosystem "goods and services." Long
> discussions are possible on those terms as well, but it pegs the problem
> to what humans want and perceive rather than seeking some universal
> value system. That has also been attempted. HT Odum was almost religious
> about natural "emergy" - a calculation he invented and attached great
> "natural value" to. Others seemed to agree that all values we can know
> are human values. I can argue either side. I tend to think it is again a
> matter of scale. On immediate practical and decision making scales we
> use our best judgement of what is good. That is based mostly on
> experience and some science. Anyone who proposes a universal value is
> probably doomed to failure; however, a means of working with the
> complexity of human values may turn out to be a good enough complex
> model for nature that a good social process might adequately reflect
> natural values (or perhaps create them).
>
> - J Kineman