- [Belief in the 'balance of nature'] may be hindering our ability to intelligently consider the consequences of climate change.
The natural environment, as it is currently understood by science, is in a constant state of flux.
Upheaval, not balance, is the norm.
That we believe otherwise has proven problematic for the teaching of basic ecological literacy
This is an idea that my (seasonal environmental job) coworkers and I have discussed a lot. We can't talk about the natural world as something that is separate from the man-made environment. We have to understand that humans are a part of the ecosystem, and that the positive and negative influences of our built environment are also part of the ecosystem, whether we like it or not. "Untouched" nature isn't really a thing, even though our favorite nature writers like to paint us that picture. THIS! I learned ecology/evolution through an "equilibrium" lens. Yes, that explanation is valid for some things, but it can't be the backbone of our viewpoint. I can't pretend to have a solution to the way we teach it, but I was reading the article and waiting for this to come up.The "balance of nature" idea, with its implication that the natural world would revert to a peaceful, idyllic state of man simply kept his hands off, does not lend itself to a serious exploration of that question.
The first step in solving this problem, the authors of the study contend, is educating the educators—specifically, middle school and high school teachers, many of whom are currently spreading misinformation.
Nice share. Before clicking, I thought this was gonna be about invasive species and growing, declining, and drifting populations. Think for example, barred owls expanding west or coyotes expanding east, asian carp, etc. That said, this article does bring to mind a conversation I had a while back with someone who was convinced that as far as the environment was concerned, Chernobyl was a net benefit. It was interesting to try and figure things out because on the one hand, the reduction in human activity gave the natural environment room to grow, but on the other hand, radiation is obviously no bueno and it doesn't just disappear or dissipate over night and we're still, decades later, trying to figure out how and how much it has affected the soil, water, plants, and animals in the area.
Genuinely curious, what was the argument? Because, like, as far as the environment was concerned, Chernobyl was a net benefit.
radiation is obviously no bueno
The argument that was put forth was that the lack of human activity allowed populations to rebound and for animals to engage in more natural behavior. The conversation we ended up having was exploring what's important to look at. Overall population growth? Animal activity? The health of individual animals? One of the really interesting questions asked was, if animals in the wild tend to have shorter life spans than their counterparts in captivity (due to threats of injury and illness, trouble finding food, etc.) how much should radiation be considered an issue if animals might die of other causes before radiation poisoning and cancer ever set in? Mind you, my friend and I aren't scientists and we were just shooting the breeze, so we were more exploring questions and ideas than hard data. That said, actual researchers are looking into these things. I wouldn't be surprised if the answer in the end is "Well, it's a bit of a mixed bag." It has been 30 years since the world's worst nuclear accident, yet it is still not clear how badly the local wildlife has been affected by the radiation
Woahh that's wild. I never thought about it from that perspective. It's a bit scary to think that an area that we consider "damaged beyond repair" could actually provide an ecosystem that's in better shape than the animals' current home. That third article is fascinating!!!
I was once told by a very wonderful person that life will do everything in its power to go on living and that we should take comfort in that, but we should never forget that its our responsibility to do what we can to ensure the life lived is worth living. If you think the third article is interesting, you should look into Bioremediation techniques for repairing radioactive damage. I read about this stuff from time to time because I'm genuinely worried about certain groups in the green movement promoting Nuclear Energy as a reasonable means of reducing our carbon footprint. I'll save you from my spiel, but sufficed to say I heartily disagree and if you ever asked her, Dala will tell you I am not a fan of nuclear energy in the slightest and if given the opportunity, I'll rant for a good while against it.It's a bit scary to think that an area that we consider "damaged beyond repair" could actually provide an ecosystem that's in better shape than the animals' current home.
No doubt applewood will elaborate and drop better resources, but what surprised me was how local populations of wolves and their prey skyrocketed in nearby areas. Wildlife is thriving there, oddly.