Conservation Strategies Must Shift

[L Roebuck]

Conservation Strategies Must Shift With Global Environmental Change, Ecologists Urge

ScienceDaily (Jan. 31, 2008) — Traditional ecosystems in which communities of plants and animals have co-evolved and are interdependent are increasingly rare, due to human-induced ecosystem changes. As a result, historical assessments of ecosystem health are often inaccurate. Scientists are now suggesting that efforts should focus less on restoring ecosystems to their original state and more on sustaining new, healthy ecosystems that are resilient to further environmental change. Accepting some permanent changes may increase health of ecosystems.

Sustaining and enhancing altered ecosystems has become the new mantra for conservation and restoration managers as ecosystems continue to change in response to global warming and other environmental changes, says a new study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Full Text

[Azurerana]

It sounds like BS to me, generated by folks who don't understand a) that people are part of the ecosystem; and b) that ecosystems are not static, with or without people.

The whole point of preserving ecosystems is to preserve genetic diversity, since the more genetic diversity, the greater possibility that at least a few of a particular species (and life itself) will eventually survive, not that we have a particular species or not. The question is: is man smart enough to be 'the decider', or are we all on this big planet together?

If we think the Hippocratic oath has any merit, shouldn't we first 'do no harm' even though eventually all patients will die anyway? I'm not sure that managing land to promote our short term goals will make any difference except for our own short-term species survival -- and we're not that good at figuring that out, either.

[kenredux]

azurerana said:

It sounds like BS to me, generated by folks who don't understand a) that people are part of the ecosystem; and b) that ecosystems are not static, with or without people.

The whole point of preserving ecosystems is to preserve genetic diversity, since the more genetic diversity, the greater possibility that at least a few of a particular species (and life itself) will eventually survive, not that we have a particular species or not. The question is: is man smart enough to be 'the decider', or are we all on this big planet together?

If we think the Hippocratic oath has any merit, shouldn't we first 'do no harm' even though eventually all patients will die anyway? I'm not sure that managing land to promote our short term goals will make any difference except for our own short-term species survival -- and we're not that good at figuring that out, either.

[my red]

What other species should we endeavor to extend through time if not our own? Man-so-kind (meaning me and some others) is hot-wired for species survival and because we can talk we have a jump start over all other forms of biology.

So thank the heavens that the ball is in our court. We will certainly protect all creatures and flora (but not rocks, rocks are stupid) that collectively figure into our grandiose scheme of things.

Happily, our scheme of things finds aesthetic value in diversity and that is why I am a hardcore tree-hugger today.

And don't call me and my kind "short-termed".

[Azurerana]

I care more about the rocks and water than most humans. And I don't care who knows it.

As for 'green stuff' -- it just gets in the way of seeing the rocks. (My husband and I argue over green stuff, and furry stuff all the time.) Needless to say, I love winter.
I'm so unconcerned for human survival, I have no children. By choice. Oh, and what I meant by 'short-term species' -- we're upstarts in the history of the planet. I wouldn't call a species successful until it has been here for at least 50 million years. We're nowhere close.

I do think life is a pretty neat invention though. GO, cockroaches!
Or, just imagine what a 1.5 billion year old piece of rhyolite thinks about, and all the changes it has seen. Wow.

Other than that, I think Shakespeare and Faulker had a pretty good take on things. Sound and Fury and all that.

[plainasty]

The only thing our 'wonderful' species has been able to do is mess up the balance of millions of years of work. And I don't think we'll stop until either we all die off or continue to wither away at our natural resources until there is just nothing left.

[kenredux]

Azurana said quite casually: "...I care more about the rocks and water than most humans. And I don't care who knows it.

As for 'green stuff' -- it just gets in the way of seeing the rocks. (My husband and I argue over green stuff, and furry stuff all the time.) Needless to say, I love winter.

I'm so unconcerned for human survival, I have no children. By choice. Oh, and what I meant by 'short-term species' -- we're upstarts in the history of the planet. I wouldn't call a species successful until it has been here for at least 50 million years. We're nowhere close.

Yes you do care more about humans than rocks, Azurana. You care because you are a human and as a human the whole of your intellect and biology is directed toward the continuation of your own species and nothing else. How could it be otherwise?

And how is it that all geologists slept through their paleontology classes? The designation "species" is only a handy reference. Human beings date back to the first replication.

It would be a crying shame if we all stopped replicating.
Me? I pledge not to stop because replicating is fundamental to self-realization and it is fun.

[kenredux]

Then Mark Bauer angrily said
"The only thing our 'wonderful' species has been able to do is mess up the balance of millions of years of work. And I don't think we'll stop until either we all die off or continue to wither away at our natural resources until there is just nothing left."

Balance? What balance, Mark Baur? Mass extinctions are the rule and the blessing. Because of mass extinctions we wonderful animals evolved into the first super-animals; wonderful creatures who might save our little animal and dumb tree friends from the next episode of doom - be it the next Ice Age, the volcano, or the comet.

Hey, Baur, you are one of us aren't you? You are good and kind and caring, aren't you?

Well...are you the only good person on the planet?

[Azurerana]

kenredux said:

Yes you do care more about humans than rocks, Azurana. You care because you are a human and as a human the whole of your intellect and biology is directed toward the continuation of your own species and nothing else. How could it be otherwise?

Nope. Yes I care about a few people, quite intensely, and likely for no more than another 30 years. But the species? It gets what it deserves. No more, no less.

And how is it that all geologists slept through their paleontology classes? The designation "species" is only a handy reference. Human beings date back to the first replication.

I'm pretty sure Life with a big L will go on, regardless of what humans can do. It is pretty adaptable. Whether or not we have humans or polar bears or roses is entirely another question.

It would be a crying shame if we all stopped replicating.
Me? I pledge not to stop because replicating is fundamental to self-realization and it is fun.

I'm the oldest of five kids. Only one of us has chosen to reproduce.
I don't think we have any worry that humans as a species will quit replicating, although I truly don't see any advantage to it except to have someone to take care of one in old age, which my husband and I unfortunately will not have.

I guess I'm a sad specimen because I don't think that childbirth and 18 years or childrearing is in the slightest bit "fun."