People of the environment
Just because something is man-made doesn’t mean that it is not natural.
This is a rebuttal of certain popular misconceptions which featured in the blog "People VS the Environment" by Hani Montan which appeared here on Open Forum recently.
That piece states a common misconception, specifically the "Maintenance of the balance in nature". The environment has no such a thing. There is NO balance of nature. If there was a balance of nature then things would never change, but unbalanced change is precisely what nature does. Infact we have even named this concept- it’s called…."EVOLUTION".
The environment is a complex chaotic self-adapting system operating far from equilibrium that tends to increase in overall complexity in the long run. It never has, is not and will never be in balance.
Also, the article tries to convince us that we humans are destroying the environment due to overpopulation. However, in reality concepts such as "pollution", "resource depletion" and "environmental degradation" are subjectively relative. When these words are used to describe the environment it is almost always from the view point of humanity being considered as the most important entity on earth.
Just to give a different perspective to illustrate the relativity of these concepts: Imagine you went back in time about 2.5 to 3 billion years ago and surveyed the planet earth. At this time there was hardly any oxygen in the atmosphere and lots of carbon-dioxide. You would see that the most complex sub-system in the environment are the cyanobacteria. When you examine the bacteria you notice that they are releasing oxygen into the atmosphere and removing the carbon-dioxide by photosynthesis. In other words from the perspective of the bacteria they are "polluting" the atmosphere with oxygen and depleting the natural resource of carbon-dioxide.
However, even though the oxygen they produce is useless to them and the depletion of the carbon-dioxide detrimental to the long term survival of their species, their actions overall were beneficial to us. The oxygen that they released is the very oxygen necessary to sustain the life of all eukaryotic life forms, which includes us humans, that are alive to today!
Likewise, in the present observe the photosynthesis reaction in a tree, from the perspective of the tree it is polluting the air with oxygen and depleting the carbon-dioxide: this is contrary to the conclusion drawn from the perspective of humans, for us when a tree produces oxygen it is not pollution. One species environmental catastrophe is another species god-send!
Furthermore, the "pollution" that a lot of people see in the environment is really just an personal aesthetic judgement- for example, a plastic bag lying in the gutter outside a house is considered environmental pollution but when it is being used to store something in a cupboard inside the same house it is not. Since it is in the environment in both cases how can it really be pollution in one case while not the other? (Don’t get me wrong here: I’m not saying that we shouldn’t put our rubbish in a bin. I do put my rubbish in a bin; but only because it is an eye-sore and not because of some irrational idea that it is "environmentally friendly" to.)
The environment really has no notion of the commonly held concepts "pollution", "resource depletion" and "environmetal degradation" – only humans.
Another point that should be made regards the common misconception that us humans, our actions and our technology are somehow not part of the environment. We all consider every other animal to be part of the nature so why should humans be any different. We all consider birds and the nest they build, beavers and the dams they build, an wombat and burrows it digs and insects and the hives they make to be part of the nature. So why should we consider something that we build to not be part of nature? Surely it is inconsistent to say the above examples are part of nature but that a house or a mine is not part of nature. Therefore everything must be part of nature- including cars, plastic, mines, etc.
Just because something is man-made doesn’t mean that it is not natural.
Since the environment has no notion of "pollution" and everything is really just part of the environment, it leads to the question: "How do we measure the health of the environment?"
Logically, since just one species or even a whole sub-ecosystem are just part of the environment and not the whole, the continuing existence or health of an individual species or sub-system within the environment cannot be considered more important and of greater concern than the whole environment. The part cannot be more important than the whole. Consequently, the true measure of the overall "health" of environment cannot be taken relative to the view point an individual species or a collection of species within the environment.
A little reflection leads to the conclusion that the true measure has to be something intrinsic to the whole environment overall. Further, once it is understood that the environment is a chaotic self-adapting compound system that tends to increase in complexity in the long run, we reach the conclusion that:
The true measure of the "health" of the environment is the magnitude of its overall mathematical complexity and its ability to keep increasing it.
Returning to examining the planet again, like in the cyanobacteria example but this time in the present era and searching for complexity, we discover that mammalian brain tissue is the most complex structure/sub-system on earth. Especially important to note is the incredible complexity found in a human brain*. The complexity of the planet since the arrival of the species homo-sapiens has astronomically increased and is still increasing. Even though it appears that we are reducing the complexity of the planet by destroying the "natural" world, we are in fact increasing it because we replace the parts we destroy with even more complex systems. eg: when we clear land, we replace the "native" environment with crops and these crops provide food for us and other animals- all up the overall balance is an increase in complexity.
Thus, increasing the total number of humans on the planet is not necessarily bad policy for maintaining the health of the environment. Although, it should be noted that in the definition above it also requires consideration for the complexity to keep increasing in the future. So we should only increase population to the extent that we can keep increasing it in the future. Obviously if we were to double our number overnight then we would have major problems which may in the future result in a smaller population than we have today, but the population doesn’t dramatically increase like this.
The population can only increase to the extent that there is enough food available for the new generation to grow to reproducing age. It is rather obvious that we can NEVER have more people than what the world can support when averaged over the time. The limit of food available today is nature’s an inbuilt negative feedback limiter on our population’s future growth.
During the last few thousand years, the amount of food available has increased overtime due to the evolution of technology hence our population has increased. Unfortunately, do to the chaotic nature of the environment there are the times when food suddenly becomes scarce, but these are normally just short term fluctuations. If food was to become scarce for long periods then the population will naturally decrease to the sustainable level. The environment automatically adjusts our population to the appropriate loading levels that it can support. In the long run it takes care of itself, you don’t need to worry about it.
I should remark that even though we have caused and are still causing the greatest increase in complexity the world has known, we humans suffer from delusions of grandeur: we seem to think that we the pinnacle of evolution. We are not! We are just a step in the process of evolution. It is pretty obvious what will soon become the next greatest source of new complexity – and that is technology. Eventually we can expect the complexity of technological entities such as computers to evolve to surpass that of humans.
Overall, the environment is doing fine and there is definitely more complexity increasing evolution yet to come!
Having said all this, I do agree with previous article in that we should be doing more to improve education levels in third world countries. It would go a long way to improving to their lot.
*(Admittedly- it is quite debatable whether a human brain is the most complex individual thing since there are about half a dozen species of mammal with bigger brains- the biggest being the sperm whale is about 6x bigger than ours, but it hard to compare the complexity due to the differences in the amount of folding and interconnections. Indeed some species of cetaceans appear to have more complex folding structure than humans in homologous parts of their brain. However, even if some cetacean brains do have more complexity, the combined mass of the human brain tissue is more than whale brain tissue simply because there are so many humans so overall humanity has more complexity. Anyway, regardless of which particular mammalian species contributes to the most individually to complexity the most important point is that across all mammals the total amount of brain tissue worldwide- and hence complexity- is increasing and atleast exponentially. New Zealand is a prefect case in point- before the arrival of humans there were no mammals present, but now the country is covered with humans and other mammals. In Australia likewise, there are now more mammals than ever before- less "native" mammalian species admittedly but overall more mammalian brain tissue. All up, it is true to say that when compared to pre-homo-sapiens times the recent total increase in the combined total mass of all mammal brain tissue and hence complexity is due primarily to us humans either directly or indirectly.)
Hani.Montan
June 19, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Response to guagga
Hi guagga,
The following is a copy of my comments posted on my blog titled "People VS the Environment"
There are some events in nature (based on negative and positive feedback) to make some scientists believe in the equilibrium theory and other events prove to other scientist that the natural environment is in constant state of flux.
Some scientists describe it as in state of "Upheaval".
Call it what you like, but we shouldn't get bogged down in interpretations, because science itself is in state of flux. This is what distinguishes science from religion. Science doesn't accept today's conclusions as an absolute, whilst religious beliefs are absolute. Science deals with facts and when facts are changed, conclusions are changed too.
An established fact for example, is population explosion increases demand for agriculture and grazing. This in turn results in many forests* together with nutrient to disappear, flooding and soil erosion rates to become high. With agriculture and industrial technologies, we have caused nature to become unbalanced. Humans don't understand the living planet well enough to know how to manage it. Science should be allowed to soften the human environmental impact on ecosystems and natural selection. Human have altered the atmosphere and is capable to bring it back to point of balance, "Equilibrium"**. Birth control is only a starting point, because people compete with other species; use more resources, cause pollution and climate change, which damage the ecosystems and cause global warming.
*In his blog titled "People of the Environment", guagga claims:
"When we clear land, we replace the "native" environment with crops and these crops provide food for us and other animals- all up the overall balance is an increase in complexity." Aided by satellites and supercomputers the research by Dr William Clark proved that the environmental damage of the last century was so extensive that replenishing the forests is impossible. Deforestation in Sudan, Hondurans, Easter Island, The Amazon basin and Indonesia is clear evidence of the environmental destruction we are causing. Replacing these forests with crop to feed more people is even more damaging, not only by the farm animals' methane gas, but the biodiversity destruction. ** In his comments on this blog and his own blog titled "People of the Environment", guagga states: "The environment is a complex chaotic self-adapting system operating far from equilibrium that tends to increase in overall complexity in the long run. It never has, is not and will never be in balance."
Yet in his own blog, he states:
"During the last few thousand years, the amount of food available has increased overtime due to the evolution of technology hence our population has increased. Unfortunately, do to the chaotic nature of the environment there are the times when food suddenly becomes scarce, but these are normally just short term fluctuations. If food was to become scarce for long periods then the population will naturally decrease to the sustainable level. The environment automatically adjusts our population to the appropriate loading levels that it can support. In the long run it takes care of itself, you don't need to worry about it."
Doesn't this mean the return to the point of balance, "Equilibrium?"
quagga
June 20, 2009 at 4:42 am
Some details about equilibrium and complexity
It seems that we must be referring to different ideas when we use the word "equilibrium". What I mean by equilibrium follows the definitions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrium, particularly the those dealing with chemical and physical equilibrium.
Also, these links point out how the Earth is indeed increasing in complexity:
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
–http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth
As you see from these links, the universe and everything within is definitely unbalanced and not it equilibrium -even space itself is expanding and not in balance. Over time, any system found in the universe evolves and the overall the combined result of that evolution eventually leads towards a more complex state.
(On a light note- there is one particular instance of a system evolving that amuses me. Specifically, within the system of our language -and yes language is a system of the universe- the definition of evolution has itself has evolved over time. Indeed the meaning has become larger in scope and more complex.)
Admittedly the universe chaotically evolves so sometimes systems are destroyed- eg: a bush fire or on a grander scale a supernovae- however the universe just bounces back and from this destruction eventually evolves more complexity. For example, all of the heavier elements such are carbon, iron, oxygen, etc are the result of second, third, etc., generation stars: first generation stars which burned hydrogen exploded and the simple nuclear systems within the stars were completely destroyed but the environment (ie. universe) just bounced back and created even more complex nuclear reaction systems by forming new stars out of the debris of the old. Some of these second and even higher generation stars likewise eventually blew up- the resulting debris (which contained the newly created heavier atomic elements) are the very matter that you and I are created from- we literally are star dust.
It should be noted, that when a new system evolves it doesn't have to be more complex in itself than any other system that already exists. Some new systems are simpler than the old system they replace. However, overall in the long run the TOTAL complexity of the environment increases.
It is not true for us to say that the universe KNOWINGLY evolves towards complexity- this is actually a meaningless statement for us to make (so it's not false either). But it is true to say that the universe DOES increase in complexity when averaged over time- although it happens randomly- (at least it in the way that we understand random to mean).
I should make an interesting point here I brushed over in my argument. In my article I claim that environment controls our population- which it does. Also that humans and own technology are just part of the environment- which we are. Well, then you could argue against me by saying: it is actually hypocritical for me to say that humans shouldn't deliberately control our population but we should leave it to the environment because I clearly state that we are part of the environment so if we do make a decision to reduce our population then indeed the environment is controlling it self. This is a perfectly valid point and does indeed indicate a flaw in the reasoning of my article. When I wrote the article I was perfectly aware of this, but choose to gloss over it because it muddies the water. My reply to this charge is that for me performing actions to increase complexity is the guiding maxim that I believe we should live by. According to this precept, If we are to control our population it should be done with the intention of increasing universal complexity. If by limiting or decreasing the population we could increase complexity then I would support it. However, it appears that our best option to achieve increased complexity is to increase the population. This increased population than leads to increases in technology which feedbacks. As a result of this continual increase in technology, I believe we will soon have immeasurable complexity gains- we will soon hit the technological! (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity)
Indeed, even for people who believe the best action in life is to protect humanity but not necessarily increase complexity- the best way to do this is to increase technology. It is technology that allows us on the whole to be healthy and wealthy.
(As a last remark: You state in your response that science is not religion. It is quite easy to philosophically frame science as a religion and it just happens to be the religion in believe in. I think I might even write a article about that…)
sally.rose
June 20, 2009 at 5:10 am
We’re listening…..
Science my Religion, by quagga. I look forward to it !
Hani.Montan
June 27, 2009 at 5:54 am
Response to quagga’s response
The following is a copy of comments posted on my blog titled "People VS the Environment"
For those of you who read quagga's blog titled "People of the Environment", the following is a response to his response to my comments of Sat. 20/06/2009:
In his response he states: "Also, the article tries to convince us that we humans are destroying the environment due to overpopulation. However, in reality concepts such as "pollution", "resource depletion" and "environmental degradation" are subjectively relative. When these words are used to describe the environment it is almost always from the view point of humanity being considered as the most important entity on earth."
The assertion that humanity should not be considered as the most important entity on earth is somewhat baffling. It doesn't take into consideration the natural survival and the survival of the specie's instincts. Do we have to abandon our natural instincts and follow the speculative theory of increasing the mathematical complexity of the environment, as he states below?
"The true measure of the "health" of the environment is the magnitude of its overall mathematical complexity and its ability to keep increasing it."
Mathematical complexity must be based on a mathematical model. Mathematical model is usually based on inputted assumptions. Who can say that all assumptions are factored-in and who can tell that the inputted assumptions are correct?
Do we have to increase the environmental complexity to a point of crescendo and wipe-out most of the species including humans?
Who can tell that human plaguing of the environment will increase its complexity?
Who can tell that farming and grazing (to feed more people and destroy the evolving biodiversity) will increase or decrease the environmental complexity?
Do we want to deal with facts or theories? Isn't it better to give the planet the benefit of the doubt to give future generation a chance?
The message in my blog "People VS the Environment" is for politicians to ignore religious leaders' advocacy of "Go forth and multiply", which can destroy the hope of future generations. Religious dogmas don't allow science to race ahead of population growth. Religious leaders, throughout the history of religions were always active in retarding science, because of the threat it poses to their lucrative business.
Equally, I hope scientists do not promote theories as ultimate facts until are proven.
foggy
June 28, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Balance and ecology
Hi Quagga, I like to keep to the simple picture-the particular tree-its particular bird-its particular fruit-the particular insect,the roles they play in the fertilisation and dispersal of the seeds,this is ecology in balance.if any one of them is made to finish off!! the graph of the proliferation of this tree goes down, the "optimum-ness" of that balance is lost.your views are correct. i feel quasi philosophical about them.not because they are so but because i have not had the time to get its meaning "formed "as you have exactly put it to be conveyed to your blog readers.anyways very interesting and a little amusing.
foggy
July 1, 2009 at 6:03 pm
natural or nature’ s
Of course man is part of Nature from Eversince!he is a biological entity.his physical complex is made up of combination of elements,that have been always present on the earth.nothing new.his activities and his by products are also but natural.but they have to have a dependent status, just as the toxic and non-toxic products of living bacteria have and the colorful colonies they produce.if we enlist the by products(synthetic)of man’s creativity as natural, then there will be a confusion with the nomenclature of things which existed in nature before man came into existence, and still exist side by side with mankind.
of recent i have seen cityscapes(subcontinenta)drawn by artistes which feature motor rickshaws, jangle of wires and pylons.previously there were only beautiful buildings and people and animal drawn vehicles.before that, there were treescapes, the sky, water, few villas and beaten path.(now tell me which looks prettier.i know its besides the point).but acceptance of modernity is being incorporated jangles or not.part of human nature, but does not look like Dame nature’ s exclusive.
JEQP
July 1, 2009 at 6:08 pm
You’re missing the point.
Quagga, you're missing a point. And that's understandable, because people don't say what they mean. You're arguing against what they say, pointing out that it is human-centric and blinkered, but failing to take that into account to interpret their words.
I agree with all of what you say about humans being a part of nature, but it misses the point. When people say "we're destroying the world" or "killing ecosystems and destroying nature" what they actually mean is "we're changing the world so it will be unlivable for us". When they talk about pollution (and by the way, trees need oxygen too) what they mean is "if this keeps up it won't be a pleasant place to live, and in fact we might not be able to live here any more".
You say that "if food were to become scarce for long periods then the population will naturally decrease to the sustainable level". This is true. This is the point. We're increasing our food supply dramatically, but only in the short term — it's not sustainable. We're dragging more fish from the oceans, but one day the fish will just run out. Fisheries won't plug the gap, many of them get their foodstock by fishing for prey species. Once we've cleared all the trees the farmland will likely become dry and blow away. It doesn't matter how many fertilizers and pesticides we put on the crops, if an area is over-farmed the soil will become exhausted.
We're staving off the day when the food supply will drop, but that just means it will drop further and there'll be more people to fight over the remnants. It's entirely possible that they'll just keep fighting until all the remnants are gone, and then there'll be no more food and the human species will disappear. As you say, nature won't notice: In a few million years the worst of our pollution will have degraded, and in tens or hundreds of millions of years new species will dominate. But we won't be here. The argument is about self-preservation.
JEQP
July 1, 2009 at 6:34 pm
The complexity of zombie brains
This is a different topic so I've put it in a different post.
A major problem with your argument is your point about complexity — that the overall complexity is going up because of the complexity of human brains.
You've conflated the systemic complexity of the environment with the physical complexity of human brains. They're not the same thing, they're not interchangeable, they're barely the same concept.
I read a horror short story based on this "complexity" argument once…