Sunday, February 11, 2007
What is "natural," and what is not?
The TigerHawk sister (who is following in the bloggy footsteps of her brothers, but probably wouldn't think of it that way) considers the question, which human activities are "natural," and which are not? In her capacity as an expert on the problem of invasive species, she has an opinion.
24 Comments:
By 
GreenmanTim, at
Mon Feb 12, 11:44:00 AM:
I post this reply at Biotunes in response to the Tigerhawk sister's thoughtful post.
"One cannot speak of either conservation or consumption without attending to the overarching question of values. By this I mean not merely value in the monetary sense, for there are qualitative vales that do not so easily compute on a balance sheet.
Values are either intrinsic - the right of coexistence for a species' own sake regardless of its utility or impact on other things we humans may value - or values are defined by our own species and inform how we perceive our environment and the choices we make about it. There was a heated debate along these lines last year at Gristmill, as I recall, which produced no easy resolution to the question.
A dichotomy is frequently offered that either biodiversity itself has inherent value - and hence the full expression of this diversity is preferable for its own sake - or one concludes that throughout deep geologic time there is evidence on a global and region scales of periodic cycles of species richness and paucity, which given sufficient time lead to "relatively" rapid diversification after mass extinction. If one accepts these cycles as natural, one might also conclude that the current extinction event, driven in large measure by the activities of a single species on this planet, is part of the grand scheme of things and should not be resisted as "unnatural."
To conclude that given enough deep geological time, everything shifts around so we oughtn't get all worked up about the impact of invasive species today or the anthropogenic causes of these invasions is a false premise.
Rather, the perspective of deep time shows how dramatically different today's movements and introductions of plant and animal species across wide spacial gaps are from the geologic record. Instead of taking place over many millennia and via specific land and water connections, today's introductions can come from virtually anywhere and become dominant invaders displacing those varieties already present in an extremely short period of time. Likewise, the present extinction event is more global in scope than even that which followed the Chicxulub impact that wiped out the dinosaurs and many, many other species in the northern hemisphere (especially in North America) but had a less severe effect on the southern. Nothing in the geolocic record since the evolution of terrestrial life forms on this planet compares in this regard.
As to whether every living organism should be permitted to thrive even when it may be a deadly virus or catastrophic crop pest, very few of those who advocate on behalf of biodiversity conservation have a problem with managing individual species that threaten the resources we value, and this includes human helath and wellbeing as well as broader ecological considerations. No one that I work with believes we need to reintroduce smallpox as a globally endangered organism worthy of conservation. But we are inclined to insist that human beings, the greatest change agent in this period of Earth's history, make informed choices that look beyond the short term about what we choose to conserve and what we consume.
We are, so far as we are aware, the only intelligence agent of global change to have acted on the world stage at this scale and magnitude. One does not expect an asteroid to choose where it impacts the surface, but our species has its much vaunted free will, and as such the question of both value and values is paramount.
By 
, at
Mon Feb 12, 12:53:00 PM:
All dogs are capable of inter-breeding, although survival of the offspring can be dependent on physical properties. This fact means that the differentiation of "species" of dog is recent. Each "species" has many genetic defects.
All cows, sheep, etc, can interbreed, and have many genetic defects.
Ultimately, leopards and cheetahs can interbreed, although this rarely happens, and in competition for food, they will readily slaughter each other. The split was a long time ago. They have fewer genetic defects.
Tigers and Lions can interbreed, but are seperated geographically. It is a difficult process. The split was way back.
In general, the more "domesticated" an animal has become, (more adapted to mans purpose), the more genetic defects are present.
The ultimate creature on a scale of genetic defects is Homo Sapiens. We can all interbreed, and do. The seperation into races is not explained by sunlight, or any other weather conditions. We have a brain that evolution has not demanded, - a member of a current stone age society is as intelligent.
Very recently we were the pet/domesticate of someone.
Now I will retire before the onslaught.
Do your own research on DNA alterations/similarities, yada yada, and think logically about the sepremacy of the weakest species. I have done it, but won't discuss beyond this. Don't use mainstream thought patterns, you'll get lost in hysteria.
By , at
Mon Feb 12, 01:13:00 PM:
Greenman
Rather, the perspective of deep time shows how dramatically different today's movements and introductions of plant and animal species across wide spacial gaps are from the geologic record. Instead of taking place over many millennia and via specific land and water connections, today's introductions can come from virtually anywhere and become dominant invaders displacing those varieties already present in an extremely short period of time. Likewise, the present extinction event is more global in scope than even that which followed the Chicxulub impact that wiped out the dinosaurs and many, many other species in the northern hemisphere (especially in North America) but had a less severe effect on the southern. Nothing in the geolocic record since the evolution of terrestrial life forms on this planet compares in this regard.
You need to read again about earth crust dispacement, and the meteor hits 8000bc+/-
By GreenmanTim, at
Mon Feb 12, 02:31:00 PM:
You presume, erroneously, that I have not.
Neither the displacement of the Earth's crust nor atmospheric disturbance by volcanic emission or extraterrestrial impact affect the globe as uniformly as the activities of our own species, nor have they produced extinction events in the short time frame and with the global coverage of the present one. They also have little or nothing to do with the global movement of invasive plant and animal material over vast spatial gaps, so it is odd that you would choose to reference such processes and events in response to my clipped text, above.
You are going to have to do better than a one line retort, I'm afraid.
By , at
Mon Feb 12, 03:12:00 PM:
so it is odd that you would choose to reference such processes and events in response to my clipped text, above.
Entirely appropriate.
Look again.
By , at
Mon Feb 12, 03:14:00 PM:
Tim
Your knowledge is hopelessly incorrect.
By GreenmanTim, at
Mon Feb 12, 03:35:00 PM:
How kind of you both to provide such thoughtful, transparent, well informed and articulated correction and chastisement, then. I especially appreciate the droll wit in Anonymous's contribution. I can easily understand the facts that support your argument, logically presented and well grounded in science. It is a pure delight to be the beneficiary of such enlighted and knowledgable commentary. I wish I knew who you were so that I could thank you directly, but doubtless you have reasons to remain either anonymous (Anonymous) or unverified (kam).
No matter. Case closed! Now go out and burn some gas. It will make you feel better.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Feb 12, 09:02:00 PM:
GMT - slightly off-topic. I think you would like the work of Ruddiman from UVA, who has written a work of popular science, Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum based on his area of research: climate change driven by the introduction of agriculture and domestication of animals in fairly recent human history.
By GreenmanTim, at
Mon Feb 12, 10:55:00 PM:
AVI - Thank you very much for the Ruddiman reference. I look forward to reading it.
I also noted your thoughful comments at Biotunes concerning our values that come from many places and your concern that "aesthetic questions are trying to masquerade as moral ones in (some) environmental debate." You make a legitimate point that relates directly to the question of values that lies at the heart of the choices we make.
Much as I or Tigerhawk's sister might wish differently, biodiversity for its own sake is not a strong motivator for conservation and changing human behavior. It doesn't poll well, and whenever we are presented with a choice(falsely, in my view)of either our own welfare or that of another species, humans naturally side with our own interests.
On the other hand, people overwhelmingly support clean air and water; having nice places to live, work and recreate; leaving a better world for our offspring; and the idea that some places on this planet have room for wild things and natural beauty. We don't like those wilderness places and their denizens imposed on us or in direct competition with us, but we do have strong connections to special places and are sensitive to changes in the places we care about.
I believe this is our common ground and we have plenty of room (and plenty of reasons) to discuss the best ways to safeguard the environmental values we share -while acknowledging those we do not. One tends to value more, not less, as a consequence of such interaction.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Feb 13, 12:28:00 AM:
GT, I think that your argument -- that biodiversity doesn't "poll well" -- is spot on. That fact has also resulted in "threat inflation" that has undermined the credibility of the activists. For example, I accept my sister's argument that rapid climate change is devastating to biodiversity. She accepts my point that rapid climate change does not really threaten humans -- sure, it might hurt our economy for a while, even a long while, but we are so adaptable we will probably get through pretty much anything the world throws at us. The problem comes when activists define climate change as profoundly threatening to the human race because they do not want to do the hard work of arguing the many other problems with rapid climate change. That, I think, is asinine, and it really makes one wonder whether the activists have a clue about anything.
By GreenmanTim, at
Tue Feb 13, 10:10:00 AM:
In attempting to make the issue more relevant to human interests, some environmental activists have overemphasised certain potential impacts on humans while missing the opportunity to emphasize other valid and better supported reasons for modifying our collective behavior in response to climate change.
This need to make the issue more relevant leads to tactics by some biodiversity advocates that stress, for example, the undiscovered medical values represented in biodiversity and the tangible benefits that have been realized before and may be again from naturally occuring compounds. It's the argument that promotes amazing advances, like the extract from shrimp shells that promotes rapid clotting in high-tech military field dressings. The problem is that people must weigh changes in their behavior based on two potential unknowns: will any of these undiscovered and unproven medical compounds benefit you or me directly, and will the potential and undefined changes in behavior and lifestyle that you or I may be asked to make be a sufficient offset? It is not a dishonest argument, per se, but the variables involve make it a hard sell when it comes to valuing biodiversity.
Would humanity endure these potential changes? In all likelihood we will, just as Europe endured the Black Death, but at substancial cost in life, property, treasure, and things about our environment that are meaningful to many people for many reasons, not least of which for their own sake.
A harsher planetary climate would have significant impacts on humans, particularly as it would affect the global economy and the security issues asociated with destabilization of regions and nations due to resource scarcity. There would be regional winners and losers, but in a scenario where California, for example, is a less productive bread basket because of weather extremes and sea level encroachment, the dislocation and instability that may result would present a significant crisis in food security in this country and for a region that is itself a huge economic engine.
You might think this scenario is farfetched, but others just as unlikely have happened to our national cost in recent memory and it would seem to be in our national interest to seriously assess the risks of inaction or attempts at mitigation from a security perspective, just as we spend a great degree of time and treasure today on seemingly unlikely preventive actions like monitoring distilleries in Scotland lest they become chemical weapons factories on our watch.
This is the problem that I have with this administration's indifference, if not outright aversion, to an objective engagement with the issue of climate change. It is shortsighted, partisan, and irresponsible, and we deserve better. Some proponants of taking action on climate change are equally partisan, uncritical, shrill and "asinine", to borrow your term. But many of us, regardless of politics, are none of these things and we have reasons to demand a better accounting and a timely response to this issue.
I believe the data that climate change is real and that human activity plays a roll in it are strong and convincing, while the arguments for why it matters that we act or what to do about it are not, as yet, of that quality. So let's work on those issues, all of which relate to values, and let the best available science guide our understanding of the scope of the problem and what may be at risk. There are going to be choices and tradeoffs, but they ought to be informed ones.
By , at
Tue Feb 13, 12:00:00 PM:
By , at
Tue Feb 13, 12:04:00 PM:
By , at
Tue Feb 13, 12:08:00 PM:
By , at
Tue Feb 13, 12:29:00 PM:
I believe the data that climate change is real and that human activity plays a roll in it are strong and convincing,
OH REALLY!!
I thought it was/is, a matter of science, not blind belief.
Take a look at global dimming, and think what kind of power stations are being built in China, India.
Up to the late 70s we were cooling, and everyone was worried about a repeat of a mini ice age.
Then the west put filters everywhere, and legislated about this and that, and viola, we warmed up a bit, so the idiots started banging the drum, nobody better than "the past next president" - half wit Gore.
Now India, and China are putting particulates into the atmosphere, and global dimming starts again.
Read the above report, and how the politicians are saying that THIS is the science, and when the scientists get round to finalising their report, they had better conform to the political view.
For fucks sake, can't anyone be objective anymore?
I agree on the carbon loop.
Don't confuse sustainability of consumption with climate change.
When China and India et al get rich enough to put filters everywhere, and legislate about this and that, THEN will be the time to find agressive means to take CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Do so prematurely and we'll freeze our nuts off.
This is the problem that I have with this administration's indifference, if not outright aversion, to an objective engagement with the issue of climate change. It is shortsighted, partisan, and irresponsible, and we deserve better.
Why do you have to sound so freaking pompous? You can't have an objective engagement on false science, created by political mumbo jumbo.
By GreenmanTim, at
Tue Feb 13, 12:53:00 PM:
Well, as ad hominem attacks seem to be your game, you are welcome to continue your childish rant by yourself.
Tim Abbott, clearly identified as GreenmanTim
By , at
Tue Feb 13, 12:58:00 PM:
More on the junk UN Sience
You might think, however, that in three months’ time we’ll all be able to judge for ourselves when the IPCC scientific reports are finally published. But here’s the really wicked thing. It appears that the IPCC intends to make the scientists falsify the science. An appendix on procedures for publication states:
The content of the authored chapters is the responsibility of the Lead Authors, subject to Working Group or Panel acceptance. Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter [my emphasis]. These changes shall be identified by the Lead Authors in writing and made available to the Panel at the time it is asked to accept the Summary for Policymakers, in case of reports prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories by the end of the session of the Panel which adopts/accepts the report.
Let’s pause for a second. The IPCC has said that the authors of the scientific papers will have to change their findings if they depart from the summary in order to bring them into line with it. In other words, research which apparently shows that the panic over man-made global warming is exaggerated misleading and wrong is to be altered to support the summary’s view that man-made global warming is even worse than previously thought.
There have been protests. Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl has written:
These people are openly declaring that they are going to commit scientific misconduct that will be paid for by the United Nations. If they find an error in the summary, they won’t fix it. Instead, they will ‘adjust’ the technical report so that it looks consistent.
The atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen, who produced evidence on the study of clouds and water vapour for the IPCC’s third assessment report in 2001, said of the requirement to bring the research into line with the summary statement:
If you were doing that with a business report, the federal trade commission would be down your throat.
Now, Greenmantim, if you're really interested, "junk Science" Spills the beans in great detail
Try reading it.
By , at
Tue Feb 13, 01:06:00 PM:
Oh Tim, you worry me.
So quick to pontificate at great length.
So reticent when alternate evidence is offered.
Address the facts, not personalities.
Oh, Never mind, put your head in your green sand if you wish.
I won't waste anymore of my time.
Goodbye
By GreenmanTim, at
Tue Feb 13, 02:08:00 PM:
But you write such lovely poetry, my self-described alter-ego! I had no idea you were so talented.
How can I resist such a love note, and just in time for Valentine's Day? I prefer metered verse, myself, and wonder if in your next effort you might try something dactylic - "dum-ditty dum-ditty dum-ditty dum-ditty dum-ditty dum- dum" - but still "'tis enough, 'twill serve", and really I am quite touched.
I shall of course read the evidence you provide and will gladly ignore your accompanying screed, for truly the latter does you no credit but there may yet be merit in the former.
Adieu.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Tue Feb 13, 10:47:00 PM:
the tone prevented me from even reading the alter-ego. And I might have agreed with him, too.
I may have misunderstood your intent in one paragraph, but...
As to the comment about this administration's "engagement" with climate issues, that has too much of a cultural rather than purely objective feel to me. I am oversensitive to such Berkshire viewpoints - my brother teaches at Smith, and i come from a long line of Arts & Humanities tribalists - but still think I may be onto something with the observation. George Bush is not perceived as engaging with carbon reduction, yet we are meeting what would have been Kyoto goals while the signatories do not. Bush is not perceived as doing much to rescue Africa, but has done enormously more than previous administrations. The sense of satisfaction we get when the powerful seem to share our values and care about our favorite issues has to be held in check. Results matter.
I know many folks who were very excited about voting for Bush because "he is a Christian," or at least, their particular type of Christian. I got fooled on that one in 1976 with Carter and am not falling for it again. That type of identification with POV would seem to be the worrisome end of the path you're standing at the foot of.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Wed Feb 14, 01:56:00 AM:
Biodiversity should poll better. You never know when a few million years of disparate evolution will come in handy. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) has revolutionized genetics. Without PCR, there would be no human genome project. We wouldn't know half of what we know about molecular biology, and our medical knowledge would suffer. What's that have to do with biodiversity? PCR is made possible by enzymes from thermophillic bacteria: a very exoteric and distinctive form of life. The green fluoresence protein from jellyfish and the luciferase in fireflies have also worked their way into modern biologist's toolboxes.
The diversity of species is a resource that we are just beginning to learn how to use. Each species has detailled information optimized by millenia of work. That has a lot of value...if we're smart enough to preserve it until we're smart enough to use it.
By , at
Wed Feb 14, 03:20:00 PM:
Every species has the capacity to eliminate others as it expands its terratory and competes for resources. Nature is harsh, and from a biological point of view the winner is that species which propigates. Biodiversity therefore means nothing to nature. If a species becomes more successful in the short term it will drive others to exinction.
Climate and geography limit most species and prevent large scale extinction via species competition. Humans are unique in that we are such a fast adapting and successful life form that we have overcome limitations that other life has not. We have spread to every corner of the globe, and thus are one of the few life forms capable of wiping out others.
The question is, "is that natural?" Would other species, given the success of humans, repeat our actions? Is the radical alteration of our local environment unique to humans? The answer is no. Social insects like ants create gardens and cities. Elephants knock down trees in order to get at the leaves.
It is reasonable to assume that other species would continue those behaviours even if they had the level of "power" humans possess. The fact that they have not is solely due to the fact that they are not as successful a species as humans are.
The problem with arguements based on "nature" is that creatures must be above a certain threshold to be able to even comprehend the self, and by extension act against their nature. Humans and wales are perhaps the only animals even near that threshold, and humans are the only ones capable of predicting our future and changing our nature based on that prediction.
Therefore the question itself is meaningless. So long as a species acts in a manner that causes it to survive or propigate, it is acting in accord with it's nature.
By , at
Wed Feb 14, 11:41:00 PM:
And now in the jungles of SOUTH AMERICA where the RAINFORESTS are doing quite fine the eco-freaks are becoming such a bunch of pests that the QUETZALS have given them eviction notices SQUAWK SQUAWK WERE TIRED OF YOU TREE HUGGERS JUST GO HOME SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK
By , at
Thu Feb 15, 03:31:00 PM:
GMT, have you looked at the evidence yet?
You've had enough time. Your readers are entitled to the best objective analysis.
And what's with you, AVI, does tone alter the facts. Scared of the facts are you?
Don't you think it's time that realism crept in to the debate? Scared-e-cat!!
Every species has the capacity to eliminate others as it expands its terratory and competes for resources.
Nicely argued anon. Some primates, other than man are self aware, but your point on prediction and altered actions is well made.
