Wild Sanctuary wrote:
> Thanks for the article by Stille. I had read it and it is interesting
> mostly because of it's cryptic defensiveness of human impact. My
> problem with the basic premise is that, while humans have left their
> booted footprints deep in the soils of the wild natural everywhere on
> earth, there was a time (and still is among some few remaining groups
> of humans such as the Bayaka, the Kaluli, the Pitjanjara, the Jivaro)
> when we lived more closely connected to the wild and very possibly
> lived within a kind of biological equilibrium. Within those
> boundaries, as difficult as it may have been to survive, the natural
> world offered a kind of solace and place of respite pretty much
> unknown to most of us more tethered to the urban paradigm (whether or
> not we live outside of a city).
I saw one more thing here, a somewhat different take. It comes when you
ask why these folks are studying the city. I've been a biologist, tied
to the realities of that world for some time. I've watched funding dry
up more and more. Meanwhile in order to hold a job it's necessary to
publish. It's hard to think of a research project that will require less
funds than studying what's just outside your door. Field surveys, even
in a city require very little in the way of equipment.
I just finished putting together material for a CD. What is the purpose
of this CD, why was it allowed? It's charity fundraising for Georgia's
non-game wildlife research, that's the bottom line. Research of this
type is more and more dependent on charity and fundraisers. Volunteers
provide a significant percentage of the labor as well.
So, before we think these biologists are somehow defending human impact,
they may have a different purpose, like surviving.
I've studied urban environments a fair amount. It's especially
interesting if you get out your microscope. 3000 species? There are
probably more than that in protozoa alone. It's always amusing to see
folks thinking they are talking about life when all they notice or talk
about is higher plants and animals.
As a ecologist I don't worry too much about biological equilibrium. That
implies some sort of steady state ideal. And that's just not how it
works. Change is the routine of biology. And humans as they are now are
very transitory. Maybe humans will just be the catalist for a new burst
of evolutionary activity. They are part of the biological equilibrium,
such as it is.
I'm not impressed with what was found. The biomass is way too low, and
not self sustaining. I'm certainly not going to expect much of the
oxygen in my next breath to have come from city plants.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|