dohboi wrote:
Humans are part of the ecosystem, one species within it, to be precise. So the claim that "Human ecosystems are more fragile than natural ones" doesn't really make any clear sense. It's like saying that my blood is more frail than my body.
It makes a lot of sense. We replaced natural ecosystems with our own living arrangements. Just look at any satellite image if you have a doubt about this. There is very little in the way of food that we extract directly from natural ecosystems. 99% of our food is homo grown. Marine fisheries is the last significant food we derive from natural ecosystems. Our shelters are today mainly built from concrete and wood harvested from tree farms, a man made mono culture crop.
So I just addressed food and shelter, the two most important elements that an ecosystem provides for any organism.
Let's move on to another major component to any natural ecosystem. Predator and prey dynamics. Every organism in any ecosystem is prey or predator. Even a keystone predator like a lion suffers pathogens. Humans? Well, we disrupted the natural predators (albeit temporarily) , disease and famine, starting around 200 years ago and have created our own human made equation regarding this fundamental component of any normal natural ecosystem.
So food shelter and predator and prey dynamics all under the umbrella of a human created ecosystem.
Let's move on to sanitation. A bear poops in the river or forest. A vast biodiversity of arthropods and micro organism immediately go to work. Humans? Well, the vast majority of humans shit in toilets, a huge energy intensive sanitation system processes all that crap in a thoroughly man made system where the waste is piled sky high in dumps. We have created our very own sanitation eco system. How many of you have taken a shit in the woods lately and watched those first flies arrive before you pulled up your pants?
Food, shelter, predator and prey, sanitation. What remains?
How can you claim that we haven't created our own man made ecosystem?
Where I think you are coming from though is that if we pull the lens back far enough we are ultimately part of our biosphere and will not be able to exist independently of our biosphere's fundamental healthy functioning, right?
That is the point I am also actually making. The biosphere's hiccups that are coming our way will disproportionately affect human ecosystems far more than natural ecosystems.
A vast mono culture of humans in their own self made ecosystem, relying mainly on a few mono culture crops to feed us, in a race to stay ahead of pathogens, with still enough energy to manage our sanitation. How will this vast human ecosystem manage climate change disruptions compared to say the community of rich biodiversity we find in a typical cloud forest habitat.
Here is a recent blog entry from Mount Totumas.
http://blog.mounttotumas.com/?p=2711 Scroll down and take a look at the biodiversity of Lepidoptera that can be found in this single one location on the planet. Now imagine climate change disruptions creating havoc in the stasis of these forests. Consider that among these thousands of species here many are specialists, many are opportunists and generalists in the host plants that the larvae of these species feed on. This ecosystem is not as vulnerable to disruptions when it can pull from an immense treasure trove of bio diversity to adapt to abrupt changes. Humans on the other hand, this vast mono culture, has comparatively, very poor resilience in this regard. Where is the human treasure trove of biodiversity when we not only depend on very few crops to feed ourselves but even within these few crops the genetic diversity has been reduced to a few widely distributed and often genetically modified hybrids.
We are the most vulnerable species on the planet to climate change disruptions. And our man made ecosystem is far more vulnerable then natural ecosystems to these disruptions.
There is something about this truth that disturbs you so that you continually argue against it. Is it the fact that we have been so destructive and arrogant on how we manage ourselves that to then say we are the most vulnerable, after the hubris of our actions, is somehow incompatible. Vulnerability and hubris are actually quite closely related in my world view.
From an environmental activist point of view, using the strategy of pointing out human vulnerability would seem to be a good strategy in convincing the world to take action. Aren't we human centric after all?