More IS Better! Diversity Begets Stability
	found on Science written by JearBear16, edited by Humberto (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sun 2 Mar 12:38pm
		"As worldwide biodiversity continues to decline, the question everyone asks is, 'Why should we care?'," asserts JearBear16. "Scientists studying complexity of biological communities had concluded that persistent ecosystems would be those dominated by a few strongly interacting species(see bottom). Knock a few of those species off, and we've got problems, but otherwise, oh well! This conclusions didn't seem to accord to patterns observed in nature, however. A paper in this week's Science [free abstract, paid for full article if not at a subscribing campus] takes this viewpoint to task, pointing out it is based on the premise that organisms don't adapt to changing conditions by switching to other food sources (e.g. if you take away the pie in front of me, I'll just cry about it instead of eating the ice cream sitting next to it). Assuming that organisms do adapt, mathematical models show that as one increases the diversity of a community, the more easily the entire system will stabilize. The implications for overfishing, deforestation, and the consolidation of diversity into a few invasive species are quite stunning, and gives a firm rallying point for many environmentalist organizations."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 30 commentsbest: 4 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Space: 1999   by MiceHead       at Sun 2 Mar 12:46pm score of 1     The way I always figured it, by the time we reduced bio-, cultural, and racial-diversity to nil, we'd have moved away from this big blue gem of ours. We can ban Martian fruit imports, wow ourselves with Venusian religious rites, and laugh at those wacky Jovian stereotypes. =MiceHead - The Stock Market for the Next 100 Years   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Deaf ears   by newkindakick       at Sun 2 Mar 1:08pm score of 2 compelling     It's depressing to read about all of this admirable, thorough, good-faith scientific research, knowing all the while that it's generally just falling on deaf ears. Is any amount of evidence ever going to convince a logging company, or the senators it lobbies, or the Bush administration? Of course I'm not saying that they should give up, I'm just saying that if I was a scientist, I'd be checking to see if I had enough sick days to just take off all the time between now and 2004. I wouldn't normally do this kinda thing   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Re: Deaf ears   by marduk_kur       at Sun 2 Mar 4:59pm score of 2 funny   in reply to comment 2     I think scientists are totally psyched about the previous theories, and are probably quite annoyed by these rebels and their new approach. Non-linear dynamics (chaos math), complexity theory, and massive computer simulation are all really hard. It would make their lives easier if they could cut out enough variables in thier models that simple algebra would make useful predictions. "5 or 6 species? I can model that easy!" Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: Deaf ears   by ignoblus       at Sun 2 Mar 5:04pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 2     "It is not up to you to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist from it." -The Talmud It never was that simple, and it still isn't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  What's the problem?   by marduk_kur       at Sun 2 Mar 1:38pm score of 1     What's the matter with you granola munching hippies anyway? We're going to keep the worms, grass, cows and people. Nobody needs that other crap for anything, do they? We'll even keep some trees for ya! Ingrates. Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Re: What's the problem?   by Linux Ate My Dog!       at Sun 2 Mar 1:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     Keep this up and we will stick Michael York on you! "He's old school." -- byrne   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Maybe more is better?   by somebaudy       at Sun 2 Mar 1:50pm score of 1     Is there anything to counter the argument favoring biodiversity: that somewhere in a rare and endangered flower in the brazilian rain forest there maybe a molecule that could cure cancer, aids etc. ? [sig]"insert something witty here"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Re: Maybe more is better?   by jimmry       at Sun 2 Mar 2:57pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 4     Sort of. There's the idea that if you argue in general to protect nature because of its current or potential benefits to humans then someone will come along with a cost-benefit analysis to prove it's more cost effective to destroy the resource for economic gain because the income from that activity is greater than the value of the benefit the resource could provide. More philosophically, some people are disturbed by protect-nature-because-it-helps-us arguments because the argument is human-centric. These arguments imply that nature is worth saving because it has value to us, rather than because it has intrinsic value. Obviously, these objections don't discount the argument you pose, but they do suggest that there may be larger issues worth considering regarding the impact of the arguments we use to support or deny a particular position. Many people will only be convinced to protect "nature", species or communities by anthropocentric arguments, but those who argue for protection on such grounds might want to have something else up their sleeve 'cause they might need it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: Maybe more is better?   by veratrine       at Sun 2 Mar 3:18pm score of 2 intriguing   in reply to comment 4     There're plenty of arguments for clearing out species: Weeds compete for space in my cornfield, lowering the yields--better get rid of them to maximize my profits. Commercial roses don't smell like anything, but they do make it to the florist's in better shape--better not let other kinds of roses grow nearby or they might mess up my hybrids. The swamp next door to my subdivision produces lots of nasty stinging insects--better spray them all for the greater comfort of their human neighbors. Your counter argument--that nature can produce miracle cures--is valid. Just recently, a kind of scottish slime has been discovered that produces an antibiotic that kills an antibiotic-resistant staph bug that poses a serious post-operation threat to surgery patients. But, of course, there's another side to diversity, too. As easily as a miracle cure can arise from the diversity of nature, so, equally easily, can a horrible plague like AIDS or ebola appear, a product not of man's choices (like the staph), but exactly of biodiversity. Moreover, the diseases don't have to be painstakingly isolated by researchers--they come to us. Six of one, half dozen of the other. eggiwegs...I'd like to smash 'em!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: Maybe more is better?   by JearBear16       at Sun 2 Mar 4:29pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 9     A lot of that viewpoint comes from the general mindset of a sort of barebones mindset. Essentially, we only need to have what is necessary for our survival and enjoyment. The rest can be pruned off, as it were. All of these extinctions, these frogs and bugs going extinct, eh, we don't need 'em anyway. Get rid of the mosquitos, they're pests! Begrudginly, science has somewhat supported this viewpoints, as a lot of mathematical interactions webs (i.e. equations describing systems paramaterized using predation and competition relationships between species) have shown that the most stable systems are those with only a few strongly interacting species. By stability, I mean that when some serious perturbation happens to the system (think oil spill, overfishing, or somesuch), the system will eventually return to a state similar to or near its original position. Add more species and more interactions, and all sorts of messines ensues. Something happens to the system and it can shift into a dramatically different state or crash entirely. Clearly this is not desireable, so hey, why not relax those regulations and let us strip back nature around us to the bare bones. Its safer and more enjoyable! For the majority of folks, common sense rebels at this perspective. There's the rare cure for cancer argument, but that doesn't always hold a lot of water. There's the 'appreciate nature for itself' or 'protect all of God's creation' arguments, but those eventually crumble in the face of self-interest and business. What's exciting about this paper is that it shows that by relaxing a fairly unreasonable assumption that was always implicit in past models, science does show that the bare-bones man-knows-best argument isn't really valid. If anything, with the possibilty for big disturbance evens rising given the way the world is going, every little bit we can preserve helps to keep the natural world around us (agriculture, even) functioning without problem. It's in our own best interest in both the short and long term. man + hydrodynamic forces = me   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Maybe more is better?   by ookpik       at Mon 3 Mar 5:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     1.There're plenty of arguments for clearing out species... but they are irrelevant to ecosystem stability. monocultures, the opposite of biodiversity, may pass a cost-benefit analysis in controlled commercial situations, but they are not "stable." monocultures like veratrine's corn field and commercial roses don't even fall under the model of "a few strongly interacting species"-- they are solo species, and as such are in the constant precarious position of needing to be artificially defended against all diseases, predators, competitors, and impure sexual partners because there is no internal balance to the system. 2. of course, there's another side to diversity...equally easily, can a horrible plague like AIDS or ebola appear, a product not of man's choices (like the staph), but exactly of biodiversity. epidemics rarely just "appear" or "come to us"-- usually humans go to them, or invite them over by disrupting their home ecosystem. when people migrate into previously underpopulated areas (e.g., a recently deforested area, or veratrine's subdivision next to a swamp), they expose themselves to all the local diseases that nobody used to come in contact with, and they make the known diseases behave in unpredictable ways. when people expand agriculture or cities, they introduce crowded, monocultural, easy supplies of food into new areas, so that disease-carrying pests such as rodents and insects are attracted into human settlements. when people dam rivers, they create huge breeding ponds for mosquitoes (a famous disease vector). this is not a product of biodiversity; it is what happens when biodiversity is reduced and opportunistic species such as microbes, insects, and rodents have a field day. veratrine's arguments are only relevant to profit and human comfort, in itself a profitable commodity. they are not a reason to fear biodiversity for its own sake. everything is so neat!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Maybe more is better?   by Ernest Scribbler       at Sun 2 Mar 6:31pm score of 1.5 scholarly   in reply to comment 12     This paper does not contain data. It is just a model, and if it's own premises do not hold, then its applicability in the real world is questionable. I think it's a little misleading to state that up until now the debate has run mostly in favour of the school who believe that diversity begets stability. Strong opinions are held on both sides, and one of the most cited long-term datasets (Naeem et al 1994) asserted support for the diversity-stability relationship in grassland, and also the general hypothesis that higher diversity promotes greater productivity. I'm not overly familiar with the diversity-stability debate, but the diversity-productivity debate became most contentious over the issue of sampling effect: the more species you include in your species mixtures, the more likely you are to include some keystone species, such as a nitrogen-fixing legume in the mix, thus introducing the positive diversity-productivity relationship as an artifact. As an aside I should add that these types of experiments may not be the type of data that could be used by the present author as the investigators used randomly chosen species from a larger mixture, not necessarily compatible with his contention that it is long-term species co-occurrence that introduces stability. Another point to note is that there is very little evidence supporting the hypothesis that the rate of decomposition, that is physical and chemical breakdown of dead organic matter to its constituent elements, is in any way related to species diversity of plant litter or that of decomposing organisms. I believe that the general evidence is that it is not, although again, the inclusion of a single species in mixes of randomly chosen plant litter may introduce such a relationship. This is an important point because decomposition is just as important to "ecosystem function" as production. I support preserving biodiversity because I find more diverse systems, with fewer weeds, more attractive and peaceful. Living in a privileged (Western) country I am willing to see some of my taxpayer dollars set aside to protect them from the interests of business.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: Maybe more is better?   by JearBear16       at Sun 2 Mar 7:05pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 19     Yes, the general role of biodiversity in ecosystem function debate is rather contentions on both sides. As Duffy pointed out in his 2002 Oikos review, 99% of the studies thus far have just looked at primary producers (plants), rather than herbivores and carnivores. The reason this model is so intriguing is that it looks at a variety of connectance webs with a variety of trophic levels, which has the potential to change the whole game. While it is just a mathematical model (and I wonder what would happen if the assumption that all species adapt to their food source at a different rate is relaxed), it does point out a rather glaring assumption that had been made in past models, and relaxes it to a fascinating effect. And given the long history of optimal foraging theory, this new approach does make a good deal more sense. man + hydrodynamic forces = me   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  medium rare   by dangerous richard       at Sun 2 Mar 2:50pm score of 1     it's dog eat dog out there, and there ain't enough goddamm dogs. look mommy, there's an airplane up in the sky...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Commercial Environmentalism   by Nameless Cynic       at Sun 2 Mar 2:56pm score of 1.5 informative     I know nobody around here likes to bash on our esteemed President, but you might remember that he was Governor of Texas prior to this. Since I was born in Texas and have family there, I got to watch him sell the state to whichever polluter brought the deepest pockets to the table. So I expect to see the oil derricks looming over Yellowstone any day now. I'll just recommend a book by Douglas Adams, since we're talking about bio-diversity. Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Why am I so bitter?   by Victor Lazlo       at Sun 2 Mar 3:21pm score of 1.5 nuanced     Hey, the Rapture is coming soon, doesn't matter what we do to the planet. Science is wrong, doesn't matter what you can prove, all that counts is what you believe. You tell people they have to cut back, sacrifice, change what they are doing, they don't believe in that. Poul Anderson wrote a science fiction story called "Brain Wave." The premise was there are areas of the galaxy that act as suppressants on intelligence and we moved out of one of them. Well, now I believe we are moving into one of them. Explains a lot.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Re: Why am I so bitter?   by advancedatheist       at Sun 2 Mar 4:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     Hey, the Rapture is coming soon, doesn't matter what we do to the planet. Science is wrong, doesn't matter what you can prove, all that counts is what you believe. You tell people they have to cut back, sacrifice, change what they are doing, they don't believe in that. Unfortunately this kind of attitude has reached some high places in U.S. politics. Poul Anderson wrote a science fiction story called "Brain Wave." The premise was there are areas of the galaxy that act as suppressants on intelligence and we moved out of one of them. Well, now I believe we are moving into one of them. Explains a lot. I think a better explanation for human stupidity is that we're already living in the Matrix. "There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Just so long as   by dasc       at Sun 2 Mar 4:20pm score of 2 funny     we don't run out of Soylent Green. I can't get enough of that stuff. And bananas. Don't want to run out of bananas. You pooped in the refrigerator and you ate a whole wheel of cheese How'd you do that I'm not even mad Thats amazing   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  Re: Just so long as   by Astuo       at Sun 2 Mar 5:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Don't worry dasc; if we start running out of Soylent Green, we'll send for you right away to help solve the problem. Vernacular? That's a derby!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Just so long as   by dasc       at Mon 3 Mar 10:46am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     Don't worry dasc; if we start running out of Soylent Green, we'll send for you right away to help solve the problem. Eat me! You pooped in the refrigerator and you ate a whole wheel of cheese How'd you do that I'm not even mad Thats amazing   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  tragedy of the commons   by axeon       at Sun 2 Mar 4:34pm score of 1.5 compelling     The tragedy of the commons: it's in everybody's collective interest to save the commons, but not sufficiently in any one person's interest to save it for everybody else. I went to a presentation by an international conservation group once that showed the decrease in conserved land, habitat diversity etc. down through the decades of the last century. It was horrendous: every ten years, you lost something like 75% of your holdings. If this was a war where the land had been seized, you would think, "We're doomed! Surrender! Surrender!" In fact, it was so unbelievably discouraging I thought the environment doesn't stand a chance. I still think it doesn't. But it's not because of Bush, or some unreformed section of the population, or something that can be helped. To explain better I should start with the mistake people most often make when discussing this issue. I think people, when looking at a large social problem, are too likely to impart a motive or a unity where the isn't one. They say, People are too uneducated to save the environment. If they were better educated or if the right laws were in place, this could be stopped. If only we could do that! But in talking about 'the people' in this way, they assume a unity that does not exist: something that is especially true outside the West, where large organizations like 'government', etc. have very well-defined roles that practically everybody perceives and understands. Along the wild, unevenly populated terrain where so much environmental diversity can be found, however, the 'people' or the 'government' do not exist. There is no one culture - governmental or otherwise - for people to appeal to, to make their case. There is hardly a culture of any kind; it's basically a frontier. That means there are just a bunch of disconnected individuals, and they are all striving to make a living off the land without reference to anyone or anything else. There is no one 'enemy' to fight. There are a million little mouths that gnaw the environment away; close one and ten others spring open behind it. That's why the environment will continue to be degraded, on an on, until it reaches some hard final point where only the last vestiges can be saved by the mixed blessing of tourism. Probably the best that can be hoped for - if you look at the unforgiving historical record, showing how quickly huge swaths of land have been eradicated continuously until today - is to slow it down a little. But is that really going to help? This is fatalism, I know, but sometimes fatalism is the best answer when every other one must fail.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  Re: tragedy of the commons   by Kate       at Sun 2 Mar 11:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     In any country there is no one culture to 'appeal to' in order to make the case for environmentalism, nor are environmental problems the fault of only individuals or only organizations. Environmentalists and scientists often simplify cultures in order to attribute environmentalism to one cause. It seems as if you are guilty of the same error; you see environmental problems as insolvable and thus you suggest there is no way to solve them by asserting that there are no agents (cultures) that exist to 'appeal to'. While these non-Western cultures may be confusing and numerous, they certainly do exist. They are one level at which environmental change can be addressed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Works for economies as well.   by advancedatheist       at Sun 2 Mar 4:49pm score of 1 irrelevant     As the recent thread on Plastic about Nauru shows, diverse economies work better than ones overspecialized in a few kinds of productive activities. So you have to wonder when the U.S. will reach the "tipping point" into instability as we export more and more tangible production to countries like China while becoming increasingly dependent on parasitic "services" for our livelihoods. We're not just losing the factories that go along with these jobs. We're also losing the skills & disciplines these industries require -- forms of cognitive capital that will be next-to-impossible to replace in an emergency, caused, for example, by a breakdown in relations with China. If we had followed the comparative-advantage dogma developed by British economist 200 years ago, today we would all still be farming while the U.K. does all the world's manufacturing. Progress often requires ignoring the economists and doing what we intuitively know is the right thing in the long run. "There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  Seems right too me   by Disgruntled Engineer       at Sun 2 Mar 9:54pm score of 1.5 compelling     Biodiversity of course begets stability. It seems that there are many example of this. I would argue that nature/evolution did not create the current system for no other reason than just mere accident. Take a look at computers systems. The more diverse the networks in terms of operating systems, interfaces, etc the more stable and more protected they are against viral threats or attacks. One could look at economics as well. We could have one large system that is entirely controlled and "forced" to be stable for the benefit of mankind. Or we could have a distributed system that can evolve and change to current needs, desires etc. One is a communist/markist central planning model the other is Capitalism. It is my belief that all capitalism is, is a bunch of little communsisms ( afterall companies are definitely run like a centrally planned environment, with top down control ) but they are sufficiently small enough that they compete in a evolutionary framework, which generally I believe makes the system more stable overall. The species that are the least diversified in terms of gene pool are most prone to being eradicated by disease. Cheetahs are a good example of such a species that has a very shallow gene pool. As a system as a whole, all of the species on the planet for a stable ecosystem. That does not mean that it is not ever changing, though for the most part on a timescale longer than an individual human life or finitely many. Sure the system can afford to lose a species here or there, but which ones? What if we eradicated bees off the planet tomorrow? This would have massive implications as they are one of the primary vectors for plant pollination. I agree with other comments though. I'm not sure you can frame this in a cost benefit frame work since basically all that happens is people will agree, sure we need to protect some species so as to protect our own way of life but surely not this one here that's a pain in my ass. It should be that other guy who has to stop what he's doing. The the line just keeps getting moved until you reach a point where the system has become seriously unstable. Unfortunately we don't seem to have much choice. The only thing that currently matters in a policy framework is how much something costs. Hell Risk Analysis is wrought with this kind of analysis. How many lives do we allow to be lost before we recall an automobile. Well how many species then. What's acceptable? For some perspective on the environmental argument from a "rational" business economic point of view one could read the "Ecology of Commerce" by Paul Hawken. To those who wish to frame this in a economic framework its should be noted that David Suzuki and colleagues estimated that the value of the processes that the world provides to us, ie air/water purification, desalination, etc has an economic value greater per year than the entire world GDP. I for one am sure gonna love it when all our GDP is being spent on providing those things that we used to be able to take for granted (which of course is part of the problem ).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  Re: Seems right too me   by Ernest Scribbler       at Mon 3 Mar 1:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 21     I agree with your idea that it could be informative to examine diversity in manmade systems and look for analogies with how diversity affects natural systems. In fact, many of the ideas that diversity and stability interact are derived from economic models. However: I would argue that nature/evolution did not create the current system for no other reason than just mere accident. This is an incorrect way of viewing ecosystems, that I believe is called the "watchmaker's argument". That is, natural systems have been created by some unseen hand and are meant to optimize some function, such as stability, diversity, or productivity. However, these views can be challenged on two counts. The first is that organisms in their environment are not, by evolutionary theory, working to realize some collective, harmonious goal. They are responding to their abiotic environment and the presence of competitors in order to maximize their own fitness interests. Secondly, the idea that plant communities now and historically tend towards some sort of set assemblages has been called into question by ecologists such as Gleason, who asserted that communities are basically "grab-bags" of species from the larger surrounding environment, whose composition depends upon individual species dispersal and the presence of predators and competitors. Since communist systems are planned for some harmonious goal, while purely capitalist systems are more analogous to real ecosystems, your analogy of communist systems failing due to low diversity is suspect. Perhaps communist systems are most analogous to "superorganisms" with low adaptability to external economic change, rather than as ecosystems. However, again, I agree with your idea that capitalist economical systems may behave analogously with ecosystems, where individuals or corporations are the organisms. The question remains open: are more diverse economic systems more stable? I don't know much about this topic, but I would ask first, when would we conclude that diversity is important? Is the relationship likely to be linear, or will it level off at some point of low diversity, as ecosystems often do? Gotta go, but I'll look over the rest of your comment later.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Seems right too me   by Disgruntled Engineer       at Mon 3 Mar 10:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 28     Well I didnt mean to imply that nature was some sort of Blind Watchmaker or that its the divine hand of god. However, while from a Game Theoretic strickly evolutionary point of view all organisms solely look out for their own self interest, or that is the party line thus far. That however does not necessarily explain some of the things we see in nature. For example cooperation among animals, ie packs of wolves of armies of ants. Some Symbiotic and parasitic relationships also require more than a simple looking out for my own butt point of view. Now I in no way mean to imply god by this but perhaps there are some other underlying principles that we have yet to discover which do indeed lead to diversity as a general optimsiation. As said from a game theoretic point of view, rational self interest is the only stable strategy, but this is not globally optimising, only locally optimising... ( the problem of sub-optimisation) however there are examples of global optimisation that occur in nature. For example SEX. Sexual reproduction leads to a more stable diverse genetic pool, but to move from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction, requires a switch from rational self interest in the immediate to group optimal strategy in the end. As to my communism argument. Perhaps yes a communist system is a super organsim that cannot evolve or adapt quickly. But a ecosystem which has few species that are highly dependant on each other cannot adapt or absorb shock easily either. Capitalism ( the truly adam smith theoretical model... not what we have ) is really just a bunch of little communism but they are diverse and compete, so that the system can evolve and absorb shock more readily. Is it a perfect analogy? Perhaps not but I think it illustrates the idea. cheers   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  If fashionistas ran the planet...   by wagamama       at Mon 3 Mar 7:41am score of 1     Life would be so much simpler if we could only organize the ecosystem like we organize our closets. Throw out everything that's 'not working', pare Earth's wardrobe down to a few essentials, make sure everything is color -coordinated, ( penguins and pandas always in good taste!)and accessorize, accessorize, accessorize! Pretentious? Watashi?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  Another Colour to Paint with   by Ursa Minor       at Mon 3 Mar 7:59am score of 1     Tan'si, This is not really related, but I wanted to toss it into the mix- how important is diversity when it comes to the human paradigm? And what does it mean when ideas and perspectives become extinct? The interesting thing about Cree language is that everything in our reality is classified as alive or dead. It is almost two languages: one for those things seen as animate and one for those things seen as inanimate. Verbs are conjugated, not on gender or relation to time, but on whether the noun they have built a relationship with is seen as having a life or not. In Cree, a tree is seen as animate, while wood is not. A rock that is used as a tool is considered to have a life, but a rock that is just a rock does not. A flower is inanimate, while some items of clothing are animate. Cree is the most wide spread spoken Aboriginal language in Canada; however, it is facing the onslaught of English-speaking media and Western education systems. Many Aboriginal languages are facing an uphill battle to stay alive. This is especially true of Aboriginal languages with a small population base. Culture and language are inseparable, so the struggle to preserve Aboriginal languages is also a struggle to maintain Aboriginal cultures. As the commerce inspired propagation of Western culture spreads into every little nook and cranny of the world, more and more cultures are becoming threatened by the might of English speaking media, Western Education systems and advertising. The definition of 'assimilate' is: 'to be come more like'. If a Native run business wants to attract non-Aboriginal business it must 'become more like' those Non-Aboriginal businesses in order to attract them. This law is very apparent not only to Aboriginal businesses, but to any Aboriginal person who is looking for a job or apartment. If all Aboriginal people are assimilated, then the thought processes and ideas that make Aboriginal people distinct will be lost, in effect creating a blind spot in the thought processes of mankind. If the people who think in these different ways are lost, then who will be there to suggest these ideas when mankind needs them? The Wheel of Life is always turning. Ursa Minor   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  Diversity - a universal principle?   by JackH       at Mon 3 Mar 10:50am score of 1     I'm a great disbeliever in anything that smacks of "universal principles" - usually, they're merely logical structures imposed on a messy, chaotic reality. But if anything could be termed "universal", I think the desirability of diversity is it. And no, I don't mean "diversity" as we mean it nowadays in the United States - diversity of skin color and gender, but uniformity of thought. Humans seem very uncomfortable with diversity, though. Think about it - our current global system is based fundamentally on absorbing the entire world into one family, one market. This goes beyond the perversions the desire for power inevitably introduces - many people who might be against an "evil empire" would still desire a "federal world", encompassing all of humanity. And most likely, these people would react with exactly the same level of violence to anyone who wanted out as those who they oppose. And yet diversity flourishes everywhere when people aren't consciously trying to destroy it. I think there's a compulsion - not biological, but cultural and religious - to envelop all of existence into one family, where the lion shall lie down with the lamb and chaos, uncertainty, and chance are banished forever. It's the ancient imperative of order uber alles. Whether or not it is a good order is irrelevant - for, in this view, chaos can never be good. An orderly hell is better than a disorderly heaven. This is about fear of the dark beyond the campfire. Maybe, though, we've got it all wrong. Maybe order is not in opposition to chaos, but a partner. Maybe order needs chaos, and maybe an uncertain world, a free world, whether of thousands of communities, thousands of languages or thousands of species, is actually better than a crushed, optimized, rationalized, sterile and orderly landscape. Maybe the dark beyond the campfire isn't evil after all. "If you demonstrate a personality deficit in comparison to the likes of John Kerry, you've got major problems" - Anon   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  nature is doomed we are next.   by the_nameles_one       at Tue 4 Mar 11:48am score of 1     Well it is fine to go on about the tragedy of the commons, but this isn't a problem limited to one area, it's a world wide problem. We screw up ecosystem functions (soil stability, water availability, pest control, regulation of local weather, ect.) and we slit our own throats. I will submit that the human species is currently exceeding the earths ability to support us (in ecologist terms we are "exceeding carrying capacity"). Either we correct the problem (by using technology to increase the earths carrying capcity or reducing our population) or we will be corrected. It's like gravity what goes up must come down. Populations that exceed carring capacity undergoes a population crash. I do not intend to watch the human population of this planet crash. Basic theory on population growth and corrections For further reading on human population trends over history "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]