Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Ecosystem

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

In my experience in having discussions with environmentalists, the argument that is usually put forth is that man's excessive intrusion into the environment causes a discord in the "ecosystem." Since the ecosystem is so delicate, the environmentalists claim, it is very important that human beings do not do anything to upset it.

I can attack such an argument from a moral standpoint (that environmentalism and the "ecosystem" argument attack the value of man and the very fact that he must produce in order to live). However, I am wondering how much scientific merit, if any, there is to the notion of an "ecosystem." Is there any reason to conclude that the concept of an ecosystem is flawed in some way?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest ginzershop

RG...

It seems that you might want to do some backround reading first.

A)Cybernetics and Systems theories are the philisophical underpinnings of ecological science (Im no expert but essentially it boils down to circular causality A therfore B therefore A, kind of like a feedback loop such as the one connected with your hypothalumus in your brain, or a self adjusting thermostat... with a recognition that most real life systems are much more complicated)

B) To understand how "environmentalists" get the impression that Man can inadvertantly "unbalance" the ecosystem to his own destruction and the injury of an eco system, you might want to research both documented and imagined disruptions of this system by man resulting in his own destruction;

Historical examples include the Potato Famine (check out its biological/ecological underpinnings) and the Plagues of Europe, Kudzoo in the Southern Part of the Country,

If you are looking for some light summer reading, "Prey," by Michael Creighton is a novel about how man's inability to predict what his self interests are within a complex system is ultimately destructive under certain circumstances.

C) pure scientific research will help as well... Where have the ecologissts been wrong?? (silent spring was a big flop) Where have they been right? (Anti Biotics lbecoming far less effective because of over use)

D) ISHMAEL by daniel quinn is a philisophical chop-shop... But it does have some interesting reading on the "laws of life" which man can not fail to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know if my above post was clear enough.

If you look at the underlying premises to cybernetics/systems theory you will probably discover some of its drawbacks. Having an understanding of the premises that it is built on will not help you directly until you read the actual science of ecology. (from there you will be able to explore how those premises have effected the science)

A great deal of the contreversy surrounding cybernetic/systems theory and the "sciences" that have branched off of it (Family Therapy, Ecology, some Artificial Intelligence work) has centered around the issue of epistomology.

If the "prime mover" is instead "reciprocal movers" Its very difficult to decipher what causes what. This becomes increasingly difficult when "open" and "closed" system problems are introduced.This problem becomes more difficult when more "sub components" are introduced to a system.

Now this could work to support or breakdown the importance of the "eco system"

If one were to "give up" on the ideal of knowing what results from peoples actions in a complex system than the results could go either way. (either disastorous or triumphant)

But this presents a difficulty for the objectivist who believes in the possibility of understanding reality.

the systematic study of biological relationships is a young science so while the objectivist has the belief that he will eventually be able to understand causality within a system with LITERALLY billions of sub systems and sub-syb systems, it is not something we are able to do right now.

Generally removing a component of a system does not matter, the system quickly adapts (for instance take the disk drive out of your computer) but sometimes removing a component will render the system incapable of functioning. (try removing the CPU)

The problem is that what is vital in an ecosystem is constantly evolving at an ever quickening pace. It is not possible to know which elements of a system are vital at any given time. It is probable that a system will be better able to adapt to the removal of a component if there is diversity within the system . (sort of the ecological equivalant of capitilism)

anyway. enough ranting for now... heres a link

here is a breakdown of systems theory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...