BIODIVERSITY A LUXURY? A Thread From Sinking Life Boat

I am an ecologist, with a PhD from one of the greatest, Howard Odum.
Diversity and stability was very much a part of my graduate education.

When I first taught in China, in 1984, I was amazed to see an entire
landscape, most of the East of China, without ANY NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS
except for some nice forests in the purple Mountains, say a few thousand
hectares. My hosts said it had been like that for 2000 years. I saw no
natural systems, no nature at all except that which could live in rice
fields etc. I suppose there was a lot of insect and microbiological
diversity, but few or fish or mammal or plant or bird species.
Civilizations came and went, populations went up and down with famines
and soil mismanagement and wars but the people stayed and unevenly
increased for at least 2000 years. Boiling the drinking water and having
a good harvest was key. I wondered what utility biodiversity had for
these people over 2000 years.

Today the one + billion people in China are being kept alive by a huge
influx of fertilizer from fossil fuels, strong central control and for
the moment imports of food and oil.

I love biodiversity more than most, but to what degree is it a luxury
for survival compared to the absolute dependence on fossil fuels and,
for the moment, fossil fueled agriculture?

I know the arguments (well) but have not had the critical importance of
most biodiversity explained to me well by today's ecologists.
Charlie Hall
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just had to take a crack at Charles question about the importance of biodiversity.

The "East of China, without ANY NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS" in 1984 had most of its
"NATURAL [self managing, nutrient conservative, species diverse, solar energy driven] ECOSYSTEMS"
incrementally simplified during the thousands of years before Charles got there in 1984.

These "NATURAL [self managing, nutrient conservative, species diverse, solar energy driven] ECOSYSTEMS"
--------------------------------------had been replaced --------------------------------------------
by HUMAN [artificially managed, nutrient leaky, species poor, human sweat and solar energy driven] ECOSYSTEMS whose
productivity (as Charles has pointed out) increasingly depended upon "a huge influx of fertilizer from
fossil fuels, strong central control and for the moment imports of food and oil."

Charles asks "what utility biodiversity had for these people over 2000 years."

In the words of Joni Mitchell's song: "You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone".

The people in East of China will discover - too late - that the fossil energy and fossil fuel dependent nutrient inputs
were essential for ARTIFICIAL management of the simplified ECOSYSTEMS that had kept "the one + billion people in China" alive.

The resilience and self managing repair capabilities of the NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS are no longer there so that
--------------------- absent the fossil energy and fossil fuel dependent nutrient inputs -----------------------------
most of these people will starve, due to the steady deterioration and decreasing carrying capacity( soil productivity/food production potential) of the impoverished, simplified ecosystems whose ORGANISATION depends upon the input of exogenous energy, nutrients and sweat that will no longer be available because of geological depletion (of fossil energy) and exhaustion of its HUMAN MANAGERS (due to lack of food).

What will ocurr is a viscious spiral of decreasing food production >> exhaustion of HUMAN MANAGERS >> deterioration of human constructed earth works /terraces / erosion control infrastructures >> leading to even more decreased food production, further exhaustion and die-off of HUMAN MANAGERS and >> massive erosion losses of agricultural soils that are now fully exposed to the ravages of natural forces.

At that point Charles and the people of East China will discover why it is necessary to "love biodiversity" and realise that biodiversity is only "a luxury for survival compared to the absolute dependence on fossil fuels and, .... fossil fueled agriculture" ///// FOR THE MOMENT.

If you overshoot the TRUE carrying capacity of the self managing ecosystems that supported your ancestors you will die when their TRUE carrying capacity is revealed.
Peter Salonius
________________________________________
Sure, and I definitely think that what Peter said is likely to happen as high grade foossil fiels dwindle. BUT, and maybe this is my point, for the last 2000 years many (more) Chinese would have starved (assuming same birth rates as happened in fact) if we had left the area in high diversity natural ecosystems. By generating and managing low diversity, high productivity natural systems the Chinese have made it at least this far -- with the help of fossil fuels.

If anyone is interested I have put up some new links on my web page that go to our new Biophysical Economics site, as well as an entire course "The global environment and the evolution of human culture" staring yours truly with great guest appearances by Albert Bartlett, David Pimentel, Ariel Lugo, Bob Costanza and others all captured on video and available free and at a click. This might be my contribution to what I think was Britt-Marie's original intention of providing teaching materials.
Charlie
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles writes:

“for the last 2000 years many (more) Chinese would have starved (assuming same birth rates as happened in fact) if we had left the area in high diversity natural ecosystems. By generating and managing low diversity, high productivity natural systems the Chinese have made it at least this far -- with the help of fossil fuels.”

This statement is confused drivel for the following reasons:

1. If we (the Chinese) “had left the area in high diversity natural ecosystems” there would not have been enough land available to orchestrate the MAN MADE temporarily high productivity agricultural ecosystems -- dependent upon incremental mining of native nutrient capital, destruction of native ecosystem integrity, fertilizers and motive power from fossil fuel – that allowed the increased food production that provided the energy for the
“birth rates as happened in fact”.

2. To assign the generated and HUMAN MANAGED “low diversity, high productivity …. [MAN MADE] systems” the descriptor of “natural” as Charles has done demonstrates abysmal ignorance of what is “natural”. How can any system that is dependent on energy subsidies from fossil fuels --- laid down over millions of years and being used up in the blink of an historical eye -- and – non renewable mining/degradation of soil productivity --- be described as “natural”.

3. If the Chinese has not converted their “high diversity natural ecosystems” into MAN MADE high productivity agricultural ecosystems, then “for the last 2000 years many (more) Chinese would [NOT] have starved” because they would never have been born, see:

'WORLD FOOD AND HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH' at:

http://www.panearth.org

-- which makes it obvious that people increase their fertility produce enough offspring to use and then exceed the carrying capability of their supporting ecosystems (natural or MAN MADE). Following this increase in numbers to meet and exceed the limits of carrying capacity --------- their numbers are adjusted downwards by starvation (boom and bust).

Increased food and the prospect of increased food in the future increases human fecundity (and that of all other animal species), while decreased food and the prospect of decreased food in the future decreases human fecundity (and that of all other animal species).

Peter Salonius
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this mystery, Peter. The interdependence between human and other life on earth is hard for people to comprehend. I like to pose the question, what defines a healthy balance between man and nature. I use the word healthy in the same way a physician would in looking at the interdependent parts of the human body. I think it is hard for humans to realize how important natural ecosystems are because they are anthropocentric in their thinking. It is only when a biologist looks at an ecosystem as a doctor looks at his patient that the biologist sees the advantages of "natural" that you have enumerated -- diverse, resilient, stable, efficient in terms of energy and material fluxes, etc. As you mentioned, the consequences for humans will be more evident when they no longer have the luxury of fossil fuels. I don't think you have to "love biodiversity" to see the advantages, but it helps.
John Hoff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 05/03/2009, at 11:17 PM, Salonius, Peter wrote:
How can any system that is dependent on energy subsidies from fossil fuels --- laid down over millions of years and being used up in the blink of an historical eye -- and – non renewable mining/degradation of soil productivity --- be described as “natural”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or sustainable?

Peter has composed an excellent summary question that can easily be put to, and DEMAND answer from, any and all blurry-eyed cornucopians.

As for the 'worth' of biodiversity, there are few conceptual issues which vex me more than this one does.
The problem stems from this society's abysmal understanding, and lack of care, of what biodiversity actually is. This ignorance, and an accompanying arrogance, are driven and maintained by fossil fuel intoxication. The condition produces an utter inability to comprehend the meaning or merit of anything much. Certainly nothing outside of the realm of that intoxication. Hence Greens promote global travel as a 'good'.

In fact, biodiversity acts to capture, store and distribute solar energy.
Every part of this biological system depends upon every other part, especially the dynamically complete and balanced structure of the ALL the parts directly around them.

So how vital is this function, and how is it irrelevant is it to the security of human existence?

Drawing on fossil fuels distorts this reality, but only temporarily.
Similarly drawing down on other capital components (soil, natural biomass capacity) can distort this reality, but again, only temporarily. The collapse of civilisations tells us this in repetition.

Cornucopians have no grasp of either history or applied physics.
Neither do they grasp biological time when they cite 2,000 years of activity as a convincing proof of the durability of a human depletion activity
Neither do they understand comparative rates of change.
200 years of fossil fueled industrial expansion has immensely exceeded the depletion rendered by, and the consequences pursuant to, any (now failed?) 2,000 year regimes of agricultural expansion. When the account becomes due on this current round of biodiversity liquidation woe betide the account holders.

On 06/03/2009, at 4:43 AM, John Hoff wrote:
I don't think you have to "love biodiversity" to see the advantages, but it helps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People that 'love biodiversity' do so because it is vital to them. Although in today's society even that 'love', where it does exist, is often a diminished, overly self-gratifying and somewhat distorted one.

Love is a human metaphysical state than enables an individual to maintain extreme care and sacrifice toward the loved one, thus supporting the existence of the 'other' and one's ongoing relationship with it.

The mark of a successful society is its ability to inculcate love for nature, at very least it's most locally vital or sensitive components, into the group's constituents.

Without such communally embraced and expressed love, the society gets pretentiously full of its own importance and ultimately eats the floor out from under itself. Personally I think this condition is the essence of the bible's Garden of Eden myth.

Greg Wood
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good insights Greg. According to Martin Buber, we can relate to nature in the same way we can relate to human beings. We are essentially relational, and more rationalizing than rational. Love of nature is still part of our culture, but it seems to have been replaced by infatuation with inventions. To some extent, organized religions have been replaced by the institutions of science and technology. In countries like Canada and Australia, scientists are the new priests. I am not trying to discredit rationality, but rather the Polyanna-ish belief that scientists and engineers can solve all of our problems. We need to accept our pathetic ignorance of nature before we can make further progress in understanding it. Understanding it wouldn't be so important if we could just let it be.
John Hoff