Does Human-caused disturbance in ecosystems ever turn out well?

Question

Can mankind really 'manage' wildlife on nature reserves?

Wow some really amazing answers, thank you everybody.

Answer 1

Of course not. Every intervention leads to a greater, even more intractable problem. We can't engineer an entire planet or apply a "fix" to 4 billion years of evolution.

I know you know these things already, but heres some food for thought for you to use and the denialists to consider.

Fundamentalist thiests believe that a god will make everything right in the end regardless of what we do. Cornucopian economists believe human enginuity will find a solution to whatever problems we create, and be able to stay one step ahead of disaster. I won't bother to list all our failed interventions; it's common knowledge and the irrational don't comprehend / won't believe anyway.

We live in a closed system. From a purely logical standpoint if we allow uncontrolled population growth and development, eventually resources will be exhausted and the ability of the ecosystem to regenerate will be degraded to the point where it will no longer function. The idea that Jesus will return and wave his hand making everything right is beyond silly; it's dangerous. The idea that an improved technology can circumvent fundamental limits is a fallacy. We are many generations away (or perhaps an infinite distance away) from such a complete understanding of the natural world that we could substitute technology for natural systems.

Start with the premise that the world is finite. The earth is a bounded sphere. Furthermore, the biosphere is smaller than you might think. The crust, the ocean and the atmosphere are a small portion of the earth. 90% of life is in margins of the land where it’s not too dry, too hot or too cold, in the shallow and upper portions of the ocean, in the lower portions of the atmosphere. The atmosphere you can breathe is only a few miles thick; the entire troposphere no more than 10 miles. You can see farther than the atmosphere is thick on a clear day. The biosphere doesn’t reach up and down endlessly. In the words of the shuttle astronauts, when you see it from space, the biosphere is a thin gossamer veneer wrapped around the planet.

Taking this further, the web of life has been in a state of dynamic equilibrium since the beginning of life on earth. Every corner of the globe is populated by exactly the right number and types of species that keeps things in balance. It’s possible that everything here is related and interdependent; biological processes, weather, geology, solar and astronomical cycles, even the position of our solar system within our galaxy. Since the beginning of the earth all have influenced one another and we now have the exquisitely balanced system that allows for our existence. However you believe this came into being; it is the objective reality to us humans and is the current unalterable state of affairs on this planet. You cannot change the laws of physics. You cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics. No matter how much you or I wish it were not so, how much you believe we can somehow circumvent the limits, how much you believe someone will come and save us before its too late, every bit of objective science in existence today only reinforces the fact that we are bound to and by the environment we live in.

Taking this to the logical extreme, if you change anything at all, anywhere, you potentially disturb the balance and the outcome is not knowable with any certainty. When you disturb an ecosystem the first thing that happens is the number of species declines by an order of magnitude. A diminished system does not function in a regenerative capacity anywhere near as efficient as the original did, and becomes vulnerable to total collapse. Would you say that this gives humanity license to change things at will? Or would it be more prudent to wait and perhaps for example apply the great law of the Iroquois – “In our every deliberation we must consider the impact on the next seven generations”. With our current state of knowledge our attempts to engineer the planet amount to a giant uncontrolled global experiment. Right now we have several of these experiments running concurrently, and it's been suggested the solution is to add more! Every intervention tried so far has lead to greater, even more intractable problems, with unforeseen consequences only to be found later, after Pandora's Box has been opened. No magic technology will be found. Our excesses will always outstrip our attempts to mitigate them. As has been the case throughout human history, up to this very moment, our wisdom will always lag behind our knowledge. Our curiosity is at the same time our greatest strength and weakness; except now we have a lever so big we can move the whole world.

Answer 2

Sure. All the time. If humans hadn't disturbed ecosystems to build all of the homes, shops, office buildings,power plants, roads, and utilities infrastructure of the modern world, humans would be generating energy by less efficient, less environmentally friendly means (e.g., campfires vs. environmentally regulated power plants), dumping all of their sewage in raw form into the environment, and destroying one region of the environment after another as they nomadically moved from one place to the next. Moreover, they wouldn't have developed the means to intelligently discuss their interaction with the environment over a broad scale (e.g., over the internet), so any environmental stewardship lessons learned by one group of people would never be taught to any others.

As humans are a natural species among the earth's population, the existence of "human-caused disturbance in ecosystems" is inevitable, as are disturbances to ecosystems caused by every other species on earth. The continued existence and prosperity of the myriad species of life on earth testifies to the fact that human-caused disturbance in ecosystems can turn out well.

Mankind can obviously manage wildlife on nature reserves. Among other things, the various examples of endangered species being repopulated through man's efforts testify to that.

Answer 3

I can think of some instances where it has, and which have only fixed problems caused by earlier disturbances.

Two examples spring to mind.

1) The introduction of the myxomatosis disease which has culled rabbits introduced to Australia, which were devastating our ecosystem. (edit - note that it hasn't fixed the problem but it really did help for a long time)

2) The introduction of a moth which kills off the introduced Prickly Pear which devasted hundreds of thousands of acres.

Additionally, reforestation projects which include several permaculture ventures would certainly classify as human intervention, again restoring mistakes of the past.

So in summary - yes. it can turn out well.

Answer 4

No, they attempt to manage forests and ecosystems in the best interests of sustainability.

I say this because of the watershed work we have completed. Forestry consultants wanted to see river and riparian areas temperature interaction. The retained us to see if it was possible and I have to say I was shocked by the temperature issues.

Cutblocks are where they have "harvested" timber so they will literally mow everything down in one area. When we flew over the cutblocks in the winter, it was a 5 degree Celsius day and solar exposure had the whole cutblock area as high as 40 degrees Celsius. That means atmospheric loading in the winter.

We want to avoid generating heat because once you generate it, you can't destroy it. Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatgain.html and follow the imaging of temperature. Towards the end, I imaged a new development of high end housing in a forested area. Look at the trees and their function where man made development is grossly exceeing design temperature. All of these home use air conditioning(refrigeration & ozone depletion) to treat the symptoms of the heat they have generated.

One of the purposes of the work we did is to give forestry professionals the ability to see temperature associated with their area of expertise. I supplied tech support showing the temperature interaction, the forestry consultants are the required professionals to arrive at a successful conclusion.

Answer 5

There are at least two pernicious factors at interplay with regards to mass extinction: the first is human over-fishing in the worlds oceans where many species have been reduced with up to 90% in a few decades. The second is the increased acidity in the world's oceans that originates from the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Unfortunately the acidification is happening way too fast for species to be able to adapt to the changes.

Answer 6

Sure. Man can and must be the master of his domain.

Many forests that are managed by paper corporations are very healthy with a diverse population of wildlife.

Answer 7

No
Don`t know what else to say

You did say disturbance
disturbance is never good

Answer 8

only for humans