Modern Society Working with the Natural Balance of the Eocsystem

[Rem Nightfall]

A lot of modern society has distressed the importance of the natural cycle. Where there are humans there is no safe land nor any food most animals. Where there are humans there is death for another species due to cars. sport hunting, etc. A thought came to me that maybe if we built our modern society to work with nature, work with the ecosystem that we live in, that we may have balance between the ecosystem as well as the animals. Do you think a modern society could work with the natural balance of the ecosystem? Why or why not?

[Reonic Flux]

It will work if the illegal logging is stopped and the people who did this faced their crimes. Otherwise, no.

IMO, at least.

[i_say_sabotage]

sounds like my paper-weight...


(lol)

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

A lot of modern society has distressed the importance of the natural cycle. Where there are humans there is no safe land nor any food most animals. Where there are humans there is death for another species due to cars. sport hunting, etc. A thought came to me that maybe if we built our modern society to work with nature, work with the ecosystem that we live in, that we may have balance between the ecosystem as well as the animals. Do you think a modern society could work with the natural balance of the ecosystem? Why or why not?

There is no natural balance to the ecosystem. [/thread]

[Eris]

There is no natural balance to the ecosystem. [/thread]

Well, there sort of is, but it isn't what most people think it is. The eco-system is a self-balancing system, to a degree, naturally if you push too hard and there will be no putting humpty dumpty back together again. This really boils down to the anthropological principle: If our eco-system wasn't self-balancing, it would have broken down long ago and we wouldn't be here to conclude that it was.

What is wrong however, is the notion that nature is wise and benevolently giving. It is not. What happens to the eco-system is not a sentient process. The eco-system generally survives, but in the process, millions of species have gone extinct. Africa used to be green and lush like South America is today. Now Africa is largely a barren desert barely capable of supporting life: Such is the benevolence and wisdom of mother earth.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Well, there sort of is, but it isn't what most people think it is. The eco-system is a self-balancing system, to a degree, naturally if you push too hard and there will be no putting humpty dumpty back together again. This really boils down to the anthropological principle: If our eco-system wasn't self-balancing, it would have broken down long ago and we wouldn't be here to conclude that it was.

What is wrong however, is the notion that nature is wise and benevolently giving. It is not. What happens to the eco-system is not a sentient process. The eco-system generally survives, but in the process, millions of species have gone extinct. Africa used to be green and lush like South America is today. Now Africa is largely a barren desert barely capable of supporting life: Such is the benevolence and wisdom of mother earth.

My contention is more on the word natural, and the concept that there's a single correct way for the ecosystem to opperate.

[KeijiMaeda]

There is no natural balance to the ecosystem. [/thread]
^ This.

[Eris]

My contention is more on the word natural, and the concept that there's a single correct way for the ecosystem to opperate.

That depends on how you interpret "natural". You can both take it to mean 'as things are in nature', and 'as things should be.' I took it to mean the former, since the latter really doesn't make very much sense in this context (it seldom does in any context.)

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

That depends on how you interpret "natural". You can both take it to mean 'as things are in nature', and 'as things should be.' I took it to mean the former, since the latter really doesn't make very much sense in this context (it seldom does in any context.)

I take it to mean the later, as the former is needlessly reduntant (not many ecosystems outside of nature). I also argue that it does fit in context, because OP is seems to be assuming that we're somehow damaging the ecosystem which is silly if the word means "as things are in nature".

[Rem Nightfall]

My contention is more on the word natural, and the concept that there's a single correct way for the ecosystem to opperate.

This natural was more about as things are. And by balance here is what I mean:

Yellowstone 1935 wolves were introduced back into the park, when the wolves came back so did the beavers because the wolves eat the elk that eat what the beavers use to make their dams.
When the wolves were gone the beavers had gone too. When the wolves came back the beavers came back. That is balance.

Now as we industrialize and as we create our little communities on land that is once animals habitat we push species away and kill of species as well. We're disrupting the natural balance. Therefore if we built a city respecting the balance of an ecosystem. Would that city be better for the world?

[Eris]

This natural was more about as things are. And by balance here is what I mean:

Yellowstone 1935 wolves were introduced back into the park, when the wolves came back so did the beavers because the wolves eat the elk that eat what the beavers use to make their dams.
When the wolves were gone the beavers had gone too. When the wolves came back the beavers came back. That is balance.

Now as we industrialize and as we create our little communities on land that is once animals habitat we push species away and kill of species as well. We're disrupting the natural balance. Therefore if we built a city respecting the balance of an ecosystem. Would that city be better for the world?

If nature is so balanced, why has so many species become extinct before humanity came around?

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

This natural was more about as things are. And by balance here is what I mean:

Yellowstone 1935 wolves were introduced back into the park, when the wolves came back so did the beavers because the wolves eat the elk that eat what the beavers use to make their dams.
When the wolves were gone the beavers had gone too. When the wolves came back the beavers came back. That is balance.

Now as we industrialize and as we create our little communities on land that is once animals habitat we push species away and kill of species as well. We're disrupting the natural balance. Therefore if we built a city respecting the balance of an ecosystem. Would that city be better for the world?

So yeah Eris, "as things should be".

The thing is you're brining value judgments into a system that doesn't need them. A Yellowstone with Wolves and Beavers is no more balanced then a Yellowstone without in the long run. Something will take over any and all niches in an ecosystem.

[Eris]

So yeah Eris, "as things should be".

In the face of this new evidence, I agree.

[Rem Nightfall]

If nature is so balanced, why has so many species become extinct before humanity came around?

So that way they can adapt to a newer environment and become a new species. Or because they couldn't adapt to a newer environment.


I'll go to another example then:

Rare prong horn live in Yellowstone, during winter migration they wondered off park grounds to their normal grazing location. Noises scare them and they run. You know what noises they have to deal with a gas mining area and cars. They just plopped a noisy mining gas in the middle of this prong horns migration area.
That is disturbing their natural balance and their natural behavior.

[Eris]

So that way they can adapt to a newer environment and become a new species. Or because they couldn't adapt to a newer environment.

A new environment, sort of like the new environment humanity has introduced? Can you explain how humanity is not natural?

[Rem Nightfall]

A new environment, sort of like the new environment humanity has introduced? Can you explain how humanity is not natural?

There is a complete difference between our new environment and one that the world can handle. We use harmful chemicals, we hunt, we disrupt species, and we kill species.

Humanity is natural only if humanity is safe. And it is not. A lot of humanity has this idea or this thought that their aren't animals. And that we are more superior and that the animals are invading our space. But before we place that mining area that animal was living there. It was his space for all he knew and then you disrupt his land. We were invading his space.

The way we are changing our environment isn't safe. We're using to much natural resources, we're disrupting already played out environments and niches. We're changing the environment to fast. That is the difference.

Humanity needs to care for it's neighbors as well as themselves. Their neighbors aren't just other people. But other living beings.