Novel Ecosystems

February 4, 2010

“It’s the end of the world as we know it…..

….. and I feel fine”

The Long Term Ecology module is having a strange effect on me.
When we start looking beyond ourselves – beyond a lifetime, beyond the century, beyond the millennium and beyond the time human beings have on earth – everything seems fine. We as a species have been on this planet for a negligible part of its life time, and so although we may leave some permanent scars, whatever we do on this earth is likely to be relatively insignificant. And what one individual does in his life time is sure to be completely insignificant.
I had an uneasy feeling after the first session, but it really got to me with a paper by James Harris and his friends, titled ‘ecological restoration and global climate change’, which we had to read for the class on ‘determination of baselines and natural system variability’.
Whenever we try to undo the damage and destruction we have caused in the natural world – ‘restoration’, the first question that comes up is what do we want to restore to? The general idea is to take it back to ‘the ecosystem present before human influence became pronounced on the landscape’ (the definition of a baseline). But how far back do we go to define this baseline? Twenty years? To a point before industrialisation? But what about the fires and other manipulation by indigenous people, possibly thousands of years ago? I would tend to go with ‘before industrialisation’, and would modify the baseline definition to ‘the ecosystem present before fossil-fuel aided human influence became pronounced on the landscape’.
And I thought I was OK with that. Indigenous people and their rubbing sticks for fire in slash and burn agriculture was acceptable. They were a part of the ecosystem, and interacted with it on a somewhat equal footing. Us modern lot, with JCBs and selective herbicides are not. We’ve had an unfair advantage, and the ability to destroy it completely. So as far as I’m concerned, in our efforts to save the planet we should try not to meddle with the natural world too much – only try to take things back to the way they were a few 100 years ago. Not try to play God and intensively ‘manage’ forests under the arrogant assumption that we understand how it all works.
But then along came the Harris paper (and the lecture) and disturbed my peace. The global climate is changing at an unprecedented rate – rainfall is becoming erratic, sea levels are rising, the temperature is going up and everything is altogether more unpredictable. Our first reaction is to try to stop it all and possibly slow down climate change. But are we really going to be able to stop the gas guzzlers? We can perhaps slow them down a bit, but with the whole world now aspiring to the very lifestyle and values (of greed and accumulating wealth) that is destroying the world there seems little hope. From any angle climate change looks inevitable.
Animal and plant species are also going to have to adapt very rapidly if they want to survive. Population ranges are going to have to move away from the equator and towards the poles to find suitable cooler habitats. Or perhaps up mountain slopes to higher altitudes. Unfortunately though, they can’t really do that any more. We’ve got all the land around them, and have fenced them into ‘protected areas’. So species are going to die out, and ecosystems are going to stop functioning. Unless we are able to find and introduce other species that can survive in the new conditions to replace the roles played by the locally extinct ones. We can’t just try to restore things back to the way there were, because we can’t reverse climate change. We need to experiment at a massive scale – a mix and match between a host of species to create ‘novel ecosystems’.
Our iconic Nilgiri tahr will go up and up the mountains, but they won’t be able to evolve wings fast enough, so our best bet would be to catch them all and throw them in with their Himalayan cousins.
Perhaps stop trying to fight lantana. Just modify its genes slightly so that the herbivores can eat it.
When it gets too hot for the cerana and dorsata bees we transport their African relatives over to see how they can cope.
We don’t have a choice – even with our limited understanding we have to try and play God.
It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

About these ads

5 Responses to “Novel Ecosystems”

  1. V Rakesh said

    Indeed – with our painfully limited knowledge, we need to strike a balance!

    Good to see an update!

  2. emma said

    some days, tarsh, you make me feel intensely sad.

  3. Heera said

    Your effort tremendous …but we need to get proactive participation.Thank God for all the research and study you have put in …There is hope and that leaves us with just one way to go …onward and towards the goal..
    Cheers Tarsh !!

  4. Pavlicek Gov said

    May be you should take a step back and stop being so judgemental and stop using all kinds of value laden terms. I have done climate change research and climatologists do not like the change we see in models. But I do not believe scientists are doing any one a favour by imposing their moral views into any scientific field.
    Moreover, rowing against the stream is not really likely to be of any succes. The estimate (a perfectly acceptable one) is that by 2050 we are emitting 21 GTon instead of the currect 7,5-8 GTon.
    This will have a huge impact on climate. Accept it.
    This does not mean: do nothing.
    Than when it comes to changes in the landscape and novel ecosystems. In contrast with CO2 I believe we are talking about living things here. In the case of animals: sentient beings. I see ecologists getting so carried away with their envisioned “pristine ecosystems” (in which there seems to be a place of soemsort of archaic men) that they lack any empathy with newcomers. This ideology (rather than scientific field) is becoming more and more religious, extrimist and is causing harm to individuals to the greater good of the ideology (or the system). So my advice to you is to look forward. Not to look back. More than 80% of the landsurface has newcomers brought there by us. Our influence is there and with a growing population, this is not likely to abate. with more trade, an articifat is more and more exchange of species. There is nothing right, wrong, unnatural or natural about it. It simply is a fact. I think the most artificial thing is trying to manipulate the system back in some sort of ideal, past one. It also won’t succeed on any appreciable scale and it has no absolutistic value in it. It is simply your opinion. So my advice to you is to learn to observe much more than to judge. Let things go their way. And read scientific papers. You’ll see that novelecosystems are rarely less biodiverse, do not “disfunction” and that extinctions (13500 per annum or 27000) are rarely caused by new species (and than on islandlike habitats only). Things change. Accept it. And enjoy the change as much as you can, because it won’t change back. And it is not good nor bad. It is.

  5. Redefining Oblivion wishes you a Very Happy, Healthy, Prosperous and Purposeful 2012, and beyond.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: