4 ms·
If we believe that balance implies stasis, then sure. Nothing like that exists, and never has. "Homeostasis means dynamical systems have fixed points in state
by hprotagonist 7y ago
If we believe that balance implies stasis, then sure. Nothing like that exists, and never has.
"Homeostasis means dynamical systems have fixed points in state space" is something that's been taught in american highschool biology since at least the mid-90s. (though they usually take more words to say the "fixed points ..." bit)
- fastball 7y agoWould you not argue that balance implies stasis? Do you not think things which are balanced should remain so unless acted upon by an outside force? Since "nature" as a concept tends to include everything except human activity, the implication of "balance of nature" is that it will remain in stasis unless acted upon by humans, which, as the article has pointed out, is not accurate.
- msiyer 7y ago>> Do you not think things which are balanced should remain so unless acted upon by an outside force? The net effect is what is important. A complex, interconnected and ever-changing system like nature cannot be evaluated so easily. You can evaluate the 'state' at a particular 'point in time', but there is no way to know if the equilibrium has been disturbed.
- pintxo 7y agoWell, if you are so focused on outside force. Weather (and climate) could easily be seen as such a force having an effect on all of nature.
- hprotagonist 7y agoI do not think that balance implies stasis, because i have spent maybe too much time studying dynamic systems whose overall behavior is constant despite everything moving all the time. tops spin, and are balanced. a sine wave is constantly changing and is balanced.
- fastball 7y agodynamic systems whose overall behavior is constant Except nature is not constant either. Stasis was probably the wrong word (I didn't use it first), but the point is that the system does not remain balanced/constant/stable as long as their is not human intervention on it. Ecologies can fail whether or not humans are involved, for almost no reason at all. That is the point. I interpreted the article as advocating for a more hands-on approach to conservation. There is a feeling among many people that if we just leave nature alone and don't create global warming, it will be great. But that is not true. Many people make the argument "we need to stop fucking up nature so that our kids can experience it". But the point of the article is that sometimes "not fucking up" is not enough.
- wavepruner 7y agoOne of the most paradigm shifting mental adjustments I've made is considering humans and our actions as nature. Which, of course, is true. So strange we don't think of ourselves as being part of what created us and would die without. Humans behavior is not an external force. When we destroy nature that is nature destroying nature, as it always has.
- dondawest 7y agoWhat is this war in the heart of nature? Why does the land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one force, but two?