3 ms·

As I read it the point is not to restore it to a specific state it has been in before (which would entail a pretty arbitrary decision on which time period to fo

As I read it the point is not to restore it to a specific state it has been in before (which would entail a pretty arbitrary decision on which time period to focus on), but to find ways to increase the biodiversity of the ecosystem. Obviously the easiest (and probably safest) way to do that is to study earlier times where the biodiversity was higher in the specific environment, and see if you can identify some of the causes, which in many cases turn out to be the presence of apex predators.

dalke 11y ago
I would like to believe that. The Ars piece, however, defines rewilding as: "to meddle even more by (re)introducing species to a landscape in order to help it revert to a healthier, pre-human-impact state". (Italics mine.) That easy confusion is why I don't like the term "rewild". BTW, just now I researched some of the history. http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/MES/rewilding.pdf http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/MES/rewilding.pdf from 1998, which Wikipedia's "Rewilding (conservation biology)" describes as a refinement of the idea, by conservation biologists Michael Soulé and Reed Noss, characterizes the two eras of human involvement in the North American continent; the megafauna extinction from 11,000 years ago, which killed off 50 species of large mammals large in North America, and the post-Columbus wave. That ends with: > Sooner or later it is necessary to find the resources to incorporate wilderness and the entire pre-Columbian set of carnivores and other keystone species into reserve designs. Absent these, the long-term success of the continental conservation network in North America is doubtful. So it's goal is to restore the pre-Columbian era ecology, but says nothing about the involvement of the one species which defined the character of that ecology - humans - other than to argue that it should be minimized. You commented, "which in many cases turn out to be the presence of apex predators." My point boils down to the observation that humans were one of the apex predators.
- astigsen 11y ago
  > My point boils down to the observation that humans were one of the apex predators. Yes, but did they increase or decrease the surrounding biodiversity?
  - dalke 11y ago
    It depends on how you want to view the question. Compared to before the Pleistocene? Humans decreased biodiversity. But if rewilding is meant in the pre-Columbian sense, then the hypothetical would be to compare the ecology in the year 1400 had humans in the Americans died out in, say, the year 900. We simply don't know the answer to that, that I know of in my limited understanding. We do know that human fire practices change the landscape. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Yellowstone_Ecosystem#Ecosystem_management_by_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Yellowstone_Ecosystem#... mentions the decline of quaking aspen, and how one of the factors may be fire-return intervals. Humans have long used fire to clear out underbrush, but I really know so little of archaeology or related fields. So in that case? Humans may have help prevent biodiversity reduction. I can point towards Australia as an example of a longer-term ecosystem adaptation for human fire practices. The general belief is that "Burn-offs or small, cool fires were thought to be used by Aboriginal people both for hunting and for the prevention of larger fires" and "most Australian plants wouldn't be distributed around the country the way that they are now if people hadn't burned-off the land through history." - http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2010/12/aboriginal-burn-off-theory-hosed-down/ http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2010/12/aborigin... That's not saying there was more or less biodiversity, only that there are different ecosystem patterns with and without human. But I don't see how it's possible to compare biodiversity when there's been 10,000+ or 50,000+ years of ecosystem adaption. Is there less biodiversity in North and South America because of the Great American Interchange? Should pre-Panamanian land bridge be our goal once we've restored the Pleistocene era ecology? There had to be a goal besides "improved biodiversity." My goal, btw, is to point out that humans are part of the ecology.
    - astigsen 11y ago
      > My goal, btw, is to point out that humans are part of the ecology. We should not forget that, but the interesting question would be if introducing more humans into the environment _now_ would increase or decrease the biodiversity. There might be ways of living for humans that would increase the biodiversity around them (as you pointed out aborigines may have done in the past), but would anyone wish (or be capable of) living like that today? If there is no realistic prospect that the introduction of more (of todays) humans into the environment will increase the biodiversity, then it might be better to focus on other factors that could help.

dalke 11y ago

I would like to believe that. The Ars piece, however, defines rewilding as: "to meddle even more by (re)introducing species to a landscape in order to help it revert to a healthier, pre-human-impact state". (Italics mine.) That easy confusion is why I don't like the term "rewild". BTW, just now I researched some of the history. http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/MES/rewilding.pdf http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/MES/rewilding.pdf from 1998, which Wikipedia's "Rewilding (conservation biology)" describes as a refinement of the idea, by conservation biologists Michael Soulé and Reed Noss, characterizes the two eras of human involvement in the North American continent; the megafauna extinction from 11,000 years ago, which killed off 50 species of large mammals large in North America, and the post-Columbus wave. That ends with: > Sooner or later it is necessary to find the resources to incorporate wilderness and the entire pre-Columbian set of carnivores and other keystone species into reserve designs. Absent these, the long-term success of the continental conservation network in North America is doubtful. So it's goal is to restore the pre-Columbian era ecology, but says nothing about the involvement of the one species which defined the character of that ecology - humans - other than to argue that it should be minimized. You commented, "which in many cases turn out to be the presence of apex predators." My point boils down to the observation that humans were one of the apex predators.

astigsen 11y ago
> My point boils down to the observation that humans were one of the apex predators. Yes, but did they increase or decrease the surrounding biodiversity?
- dalke 11y ago
  It depends on how you want to view the question. Compared to before the Pleistocene? Humans decreased biodiversity. But if rewilding is meant in the pre-Columbian sense, then the hypothetical would be to compare the ecology in the year 1400 had humans in the Americans died out in, say, the year 900. We simply don't know the answer to that, that I know of in my limited understanding. We do know that human fire practices change the landscape. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Yellowstone_Ecosystem#Ecosystem_management_by_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Yellowstone_Ecosystem#... mentions the decline of quaking aspen, and how one of the factors may be fire-return intervals. Humans have long used fire to clear out underbrush, but I really know so little of archaeology or related fields. So in that case? Humans may have help prevent biodiversity reduction. I can point towards Australia as an example of a longer-term ecosystem adaptation for human fire practices. The general belief is that "Burn-offs or small, cool fires were thought to be used by Aboriginal people both for hunting and for the prevention of larger fires" and "most Australian plants wouldn't be distributed around the country the way that they are now if people hadn't burned-off the land through history." - http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2010/12/aboriginal-burn-off-theory-hosed-down/ http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2010/12/aborigin... That's not saying there was more or less biodiversity, only that there are different ecosystem patterns with and without human. But I don't see how it's possible to compare biodiversity when there's been 10,000+ or 50,000+ years of ecosystem adaption. Is there less biodiversity in North and South America because of the Great American Interchange? Should pre-Panamanian land bridge be our goal once we've restored the Pleistocene era ecology? There had to be a goal besides "improved biodiversity." My goal, btw, is to point out that humans are part of the ecology.
  - astigsen 11y ago
    > My goal, btw, is to point out that humans are part of the ecology. We should not forget that, but the interesting question would be if introducing more humans into the environment _now_ would increase or decrease the biodiversity. There might be ways of living for humans that would increase the biodiversity around them (as you pointed out aborigines may have done in the past), but would anyone wish (or be capable of) living like that today? If there is no realistic prospect that the introduction of more (of todays) humans into the environment will increase the biodiversity, then it might be better to focus on other factors that could help.