I found the following explanation on an educational web site developed by the University of Illinois Extension:
Web of Life: An ecosystem is made up of all the living animals and plants and the non-living matter in a particular place, like a forest or lake. All the living things in an ecosystem depend on all the other things - living and non-living for continued survival - for food supplies and other needs. In some ways, the actions and reaction that take place within an ecosystem are like a spider web - when one strand is broken, the web starts to unravel. What affects one part of an ecosystem, affects the whole in some way.
I have always been fascinated by this analogy for an ecosystem. In fact, no defined ecosystem exists independent of another, so the analogy can be extended to encompass all life on the planet. NASA has even extended this concept beyond our planet to encompass space.
The one part of the description above that I take issue with is the broken strand analogy. A spider web, our apt web of life analogy, does not unravel if one strand is broken, or even if two strands are broken. Spider webs, and life, are much stronger, and more resilient than that.
The final statement, that what affects one part of an ecosystem affects the whole in some way, is very true. If something changes, the entire system must adjust, or adapt, to that change. Sometimes the adjustments are catastrophic for other parts of the system, sometimes beneficial, but the change itself is unavoidable.
This brings us to what I call the human bias in the web of life: avoidance of change. Change is an inevitable part of life. Ecosystems, like all living organisms, rise and fall, but life goes on. Perhaps not as we currently know it, but life does go on.
I look at it this way, if change did not occur, we humans, as a species, would never have come into existence. And try as we might, there is no way we can exist on this planet and not have an impact on the system of life in which we live. It is a fallacy to think we can.
Change is inevitable. Adapt or die - as a species this is our 'choice.' Trying to maintain the status quo is an impractical strategy. Instead we need to explore ways to bring our way of living into harmony with the ever-changing world around us.
So what's my point. Let's take the greehouse gas (GHG) regulatory-behemoth-in-the-making that is the current hot environmental topic. Is counting GHGs and creating a cap-and-trade system going to help us to live in harmony within our ecosystem? I have my doubts. It seems more about accounting than anything else (see the GHG calculators available everywhere online). I am pleasently surprised at the increasing focus on developing renewable energy sources - wave generators, wind farms, current turbines - these are all examples of human ingenuity tapping into the living energy available all around us. Maybe GHG regulation will accomplish something in moving us closer to the ideal.
I truly hope so.
Web of Life: An ecosystem is made up of all the living animals and plants and the non-living matter in a particular place, like a forest or lake. All the living things in an ecosystem depend on all the other things - living and non-living for continued survival - for food supplies and other needs. In some ways, the actions and reaction that take place within an ecosystem are like a spider web - when one strand is broken, the web starts to unravel. What affects one part of an ecosystem, affects the whole in some way.
I have always been fascinated by this analogy for an ecosystem. In fact, no defined ecosystem exists independent of another, so the analogy can be extended to encompass all life on the planet. NASA has even extended this concept beyond our planet to encompass space.
The one part of the description above that I take issue with is the broken strand analogy. A spider web, our apt web of life analogy, does not unravel if one strand is broken, or even if two strands are broken. Spider webs, and life, are much stronger, and more resilient than that.
The final statement, that what affects one part of an ecosystem affects the whole in some way, is very true. If something changes, the entire system must adjust, or adapt, to that change. Sometimes the adjustments are catastrophic for other parts of the system, sometimes beneficial, but the change itself is unavoidable.
This brings us to what I call the human bias in the web of life: avoidance of change. Change is an inevitable part of life. Ecosystems, like all living organisms, rise and fall, but life goes on. Perhaps not as we currently know it, but life does go on.
I look at it this way, if change did not occur, we humans, as a species, would never have come into existence. And try as we might, there is no way we can exist on this planet and not have an impact on the system of life in which we live. It is a fallacy to think we can.
Change is inevitable. Adapt or die - as a species this is our 'choice.' Trying to maintain the status quo is an impractical strategy. Instead we need to explore ways to bring our way of living into harmony with the ever-changing world around us.
So what's my point. Let's take the greehouse gas (GHG) regulatory-behemoth-in-the-making that is the current hot environmental topic. Is counting GHGs and creating a cap-and-trade system going to help us to live in harmony within our ecosystem? I have my doubts. It seems more about accounting than anything else (see the GHG calculators available everywhere online). I am pleasently surprised at the increasing focus on developing renewable energy sources - wave generators, wind farms, current turbines - these are all examples of human ingenuity tapping into the living energy available all around us. Maybe GHG regulation will accomplish something in moving us closer to the ideal.
I truly hope so.
