Posted by pseudolus 10 hours ago
The concept of "natural equilibrium" is a 1950s cybernetic machine fantasy projected onto the natural world rather than an accurate reflection of ecological reality. We can model the world in the language of system theory, but the models we make there might not have much to say about the real world. We can claim that from system theory it follows that there must be an equilibrium (as somewhat of an expert, I can say that even that is not true) and that if we disrupt the system, things will eventually go back to that equilibrium. And if we don't see it, we just needed to wait longer.
The whole stack of logic is not really build on any proper reasoning. The parallel with economics based on the "homo economicus" is striking, also there you reason from an ideal model and try to make inductive statements about the real world, which in many places directly conflict with observation. The "eco-system" and "natural equilibrium" stem from this approach of applying system theory to ecology, and are ideas which are now _very_ ingrained in western thinking, but which are obviously off.
Here is the start of that second episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgoereMDUJ0
When you have the mind of "the models are wrong", you tend to be brought there by select counter examples, and in that space you only feed on counter examples. "The experts are wrong (and you can be right in 15 minutes if you consume this media!)" is abundant.
The actual reality is "the models work great until they don't". Not "the models don't work."
Ironically, the experts, the ones building the "wrong" models, tend to be the ones most aware of this.
This varies substantially by field, or by subfield. There is a vast decades-long intellectual wasteland of bad economics predicated on bad models that are only appealing on normative grounds. The entire field of behavioral psychology might be a scam. Etc etc. Science advances one funeral at a time hard part because people are unwilling to let go of their models, even when they have outlived their usefulness or have been simply proven too wrong to be useful even in their original purpose.
I studied cognition and came to the very same, sad conclusion. There’s a reason there was a reproduction crisis and it’s far from over. I remember vividly how one of my professors, during a paper debate, would end criticism with: “but it’s been published” as if that handwavy gesture could explain away serious research gaps that even graduate students saw through right away. Shoddy statistics in a system that rewards quantity can do a lot of damage.
So it's science inasmuch as anything with n=1 repeatability can be science
It may have to do with the overall complexity being easier to effectively model. Psychology has such big error terms that you either give up or get comfortable with a lot of hand-waving and dogma. A huge proportion of psychologists are just activists and have no real interest in being scientists (beyond the prestige).
Do they believe it's a science? Assume that Upton Sinclair's famous quote applies.
Eco: house, household, or dwelling place.
The -logy suffix is 'science'. So ecology is: the scientific study of how living organisms interact with one another and with their physical surroundings.
The -nomy suffix is a field or system of something.
Economy is the ecology of finance. Or, Economy is a field of science that predicts financial systems. Any scientific field helps you make predictions, once you know the material. But useful predictions require useful measurement.
Models are still great at helping us understand the world and are in many ways the best thing we have. The problem is that today we are overly relying on them to make real policy interventions on an ecology (e.g. what is a "healthy" amount of animals to cull or fish) based on an ecosystem, which is just a poor model.
If we could get rid of this idea of "stability" and "equilibrium" in economics and ecology, I would be a happy man.
> Ironically, the experts, the ones building the "wrong" models, tend to be the ones most aware of this
Exactly why I'm here :-)
One example is pandemics. The thing is pandemics are extremely fat tailed in terms of fatalities. You need a lot of data to fit any outbreak model and no one has time for that. But the reaction to diseases out breaks is very simple. Is it super deadly and contagious? If yes, shut everything down! This is essentially what Asian countries like Vietnam and Taiwan did during Covid and they handled it way better than the West. I remember arguing about outbreak models, which is a completely useless activity.
Weather models are ridiculously advanced running on super computers crunching a massive global network of real time data. But they still aren't anywhere close to perfect.
That being said, just because it rains on your birthday when it was said to be sunny, doesn't mean you delete your weather app, call meteorology pseudoscience, and start a substack of "the forecast was wrong again" blog posts.
People intuitively grasp this foolishness because they constantly interact with weather models. But for things they have almost no contact with, it's easy to write it off on a single "bad forecast"
(I'll also admit the caveat that not every model is as good (or bad) as weather models, another dimension at play to throw a wrench in peoples gears)
Of course, they never convinced ME! Silly, wannabe flat earthers.
Box's (possibly apocryphal) aphorism, "all models are wrong, but some are useful", is the better mindset.
Obviously we can never perfectly model nature, but we can often get close enough to form useful predictions. A minor predictive failure does not necessarily mean you throw the model, and all of its predictions, out entirely.
> "The experts are wrong (and you can be right in 15 minutes if you consume this media!)" is abundant.
Social media, sadly, preys on the feeble-minded or willingly-deceived :(
After observing the emergent behavior, we can often then incorporate it into the model by breaking up prior consolidations into more parts, but the fundamental problem still remains. This makes models for things that arent part of a relatively rapid feedback loop for model improvement (like climate change) to be very vulnerable unknowns. thats not to say they are completely useless, but it can very much take away the weight behind any specificity of the models results, and should open up a second conversation about the direction in which the model might be expected to fail.
Additionally, when creating models that involve human behavior you can appeal to game theory, psychology, sociology, statistics, etc but ultimately chaos will be in full force. now with AI it is going to become a factor amongst automation as well in a way it previously was not. there is no practical way to model how the weights of neural networks might act unexpectedly in various contexts.
all this to say models are not often that great at giving useful predictions as much as they are great at building foundations of understanding of relationships in complex/complicated and what "clean" situations might look like, which can then be taken into consideration of what reality is likely to look like and happen. this distinction is important because currently, automation tools and AI lack that final chaotic adjustment that astute humans are able to apply. Ai has gotten very good at making complicated models but it ultimately is, by design imo whether intentional or not, limited in the same way models themselves are.
that final adjustment to make real world decisions and have personal accountability is more rooted in beliefs/feelings than it is in model outputs, albeit the model outputs help to refine it.
https://web.williams.edu/Mathematics/sjmiller/public_html/23...
- a model is primarily judged by its predictive power
Most anti-science criticism I see is completely ignorant of what it really means to model a system or phenomenon: the challenges, the limitations, the end goal, the criteria for success, etc. It's sort of a statistical / scientific ignorance that's deeply cross-discipline. To perform science in a lot of ways is to engage with what it means to build a model, and in some ways, interrogate the universe.
If you're both an idiot and overconfident, it's tempting to throw your hands up and not engage with something as complex as "modeling", and just decide almost out of whimsy what the universe should truly be. But at least some people who find modeling too intellectually taxing at least admit that there are things that they'll never understand.
Even if we do make that claim, from practice in systems theory we should know that some systems have multiple potential equilibrium. If a system is perturbed, it may come to rest at a different equilibrium that is much less desirable.
I've worked with mechanical and computer systems where the ordering and timing of applied loads makes a significant difference to observed behavior. Sometimes you have to stop and restart the whole system when it ends up at an undesired equilibrium.
In the natural environment, stopping and restarting in a controlled manner is not something entirely in our control.
In fact, such a distinction might characterize the difference between pessimism and optimism.
That's exactly how we got humans rather than the objectively better rulers of the planet, the dinosaurs.
Indeed, even the trivial systems you learn about at school, like predator-prey relationships are dynamic equilibria rather than static ones. Experiments clearly demonstrate trophic cascades can shift ecological systems from one meta-stable state to another (e.g. remove crabs from a rockpool, and the herbivore population explodes until it runs out of seaweed, at which point it crashes).
Evolution is obviously a progression between many quasi-stable states.
I think a stronger claim is that _economics_ doesn't recognise this; local incentives and the price feedback structure aren't enough to avoid pushing natural systems out of their current quasi-equilibria state into degraded states that are long-term also poorer for humans (e.g. collapsing fish populations). This is also pretty broadly understood, and why market interventions like fishing quotas exist. But in the conflict between "extract more more now" and "long term health of the ecosystem", "extract more now" is the economic default and "long term health" requires special pleading, so unsurprisingly the former tends to win.
>The concept of "natural equilibrium" is a 1950s cybernetic machine fantasy
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature :
>The concept that nature maintains its condition is of ancient provenance. Herodotus asserted that predators never excessively consume prey populations and described this balance as "wonderful". Two of Plato's dialogues, the Timaeus and Protagoras myths, support the balance of nature concept...
Are we talking about whether nature is ever at equilibrium, or about how stable that equilibrium is?
A ball on the crest of a saddle is at equilibrium, but it isn't a very stable equilibrium.
Basically, are you saying the reality is that nature is always in flux, or that it doesn't take much to knock it toward a different stable state.
But this was a fantasy.
(Curtis's entire ouevre can be summarized in 18 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YSwCJIpSXQ )
I like the Curtis stuff because it hits like old internet-core. It is entertainment that makes you think, but entertainment. Otherwise it would have been written work. But damn the guy can weave a story with some old videos and a soundtrack. As a genre, it's extremely approachable to make your own.
Sometimes it seems like shorts and tiktoks are like a bad Adam Curtis film. 30s highlights stitched together with no relation, garing transitions, ads.
Maybe I can put together a greasemonkey script to make YT shorts Adam Curtis themed. Maybe I won't feel as guilty, maybe it will all make sense.
"Driven by the seductive post-war fantasy that human beings and nature are self-regulating machines -- a cybernetic delusion shared equally by California tech-utopians, holistic ecologists, and free-market economists -- we willingly surrendered political power and moral responsibility to automated, network-driven systems, only to find ourselves trapped in a static, dehumanizing loop that cannot envision an alternative future and leaves the existing, unaccountable hierarchies of power completely intact."
And again, this is exactly what I meant by "uncharitable nonsense to convince others that technocracy is unassailable." He regularly claims his job isn't to provide solutions or that solutions are increasingly unimaginable, yet that's the only thing that does matter.
If knowing more about how civilization got to this point suggests nothing to Curtis about how to escape from it and hasn't for three decades, despite his supposedly privileged epistemic position, why listen to him in the first place? The man obviously isn't interested in proposing or "raising awareness" of solutions, only problems.
I don't need another six hours explaining why I'm right to be dissatisfied. I already am. Tell me what you've learned that might make me less powerless, not more.
And there we have it: ideal state for one species? the most possible species? longevity for individuals or the species?
The myth of some "natural" (the word literally means without human influence) state that is desired/better is somewhat ironic, right?
Any ideal state brings with it subjective criteria.
No, it's an "equilibrium" state, i.e. "a state of balance where opposing forces ... are equal" (from the MW definition.)
The general concept is that a stable system has at least one equilibrium state, in which no processes go out of control and potentially destroy the system.
A simple(?) example would be global warming - if the atmosphere keeps accumulating carbon, temperatures keep going up, the planet becomes uninhabitable, everything dies. Of course, that's subjectively an undesirable outcome for us - not an "ideal state", as you say - but the point is that any state in which no equilibrium can be reached (or at least approximated) exists is subject to such risks.
You could say that equilibrium is a necessary condition for an ideal state, but it's not sufficient. There can also be equilibrium states that are decidedly non-ideal, like the "everything dies" one I mentioned.
Our bodies are in a sort of equilibrium when healthy, and cancer is an example of emergence of destabilizing phenomena in the system.
Consider the Carboniferous–Permian oxygen maximum; it probably took tens of millions of years for oxygen levels to reach troublesome concentrations for plants, then tens of millions of years to return to "equilibrium."
Our current atmospheric concerns have been produced much faster, right? And I think we hope to improve the situation somewhat faster than ten million years.
My main point is that equilibrium is inherently subjective, bringing along time scales and traits that the observer cares about.
I supposed you could develop a "equilibrium for the most species at once" approach...
Even if that's true, quite a bit rides on how long "longer" is. If "longer" is a million years, that's not exactly good news.
Even the "million years" is an overoptimistic view, and probably reflects the idea that the ecosystem was in some kind of messianic state of equilibrium before man arrived, which happened roughly in the last million years. But even that is broadly a fiction. Ecology is not a system, and it is not stable even without human intervention.
umm, that is not what the word equilibrium means. Obviously no system is stable to every and all disruption.
In the west of North America, like most places, almost all of the old growth forest was logged.
Some places where the soil and subsoil was particularly vulnerable to erosion and landsliding or just didn't have a lot of water capacity in the first place like on dry mountains, after these trees were removed and most of the soil washed away from rain, the forest simply has not come back a hundred years later. There are little trees gradaually getting started, and lots of mostly bare soil or rock still where erosion from rain is able to outpace the vegetation growth. It will likely take many thousand years for trees to get to the size they were before, and to build up the capacity for holding water like it had been.
In more abundant forests, trees regrow faster. But even there, a hundred years later, the total biomass per acre is often 10% of what it was as old growth forest, and the capacity for holding water on the land similarly much reduced. The old growth forests were the result of nature doing its thing often with help from humans for thousands of years and continually becoming richer. Eventually a major disturbance sets it back, but this might only happen ever 5 or 10 thousand years. This time humans did it.
Even if the Earth has emotions, who are we to assume it would prefer to be covered in throbbing life rather than to have a surface that was burnt to a cinder? Maybe we itch. What we're doing when we talk about a long-term forest recovery is projecting our fantasies about how we would feel if we were the Earth. If we destroy it for ourselves, we've simply destroyed it. We were the ones who assigned value to it.
This is us burning our own house down. The ground that the house is on does not care that we are obviously suicidal.
Is the point that people moving into the American west should have froze to death rather than chop down trees for fire and shelter? The trees had much more utility to humans as fuel than it did as a forest at that moment, and unless you think biomass is an intrinsic good regardless of whether it helps humans, i dont see anything wrong with what happened.
Old growth forest creates more wood per year per acre than second or third growth after the old growth is cut. It also produces more food for humans and habitat for wildlife. It literally stabilizes the weather and pumps moisture inland by storing water and then releasing it. It holds water in the ground so that streams don't go dry and can support fish. It is much more resilient to wildfire.
In the redwood forest for example, 95% of it was clear cut, for a short term benefit. 90% of this wood that had been accumulated by the forest over thousands of years has now burned or rotted away within 100 years, and is gone.
What we're doing now is rapidly consuming everything, and these resources are steadily declining, and will run out and the human population will crash.
But yes, I do think more abundance and diversity of life is an intrinsic good, both for its own sake and for the long term thriving of humans on earth. Like any population of animals, if we consume everything that we live on and undermine the capacity of earth to support us, we will collapse.
That said humans can figure out how to help ecosystems recover and be more abundant. So it's not all over. But clearing the old growth forest is one of the worst things we do - up there with reckless mining that contaminates water.
We tolerate extracting resources from the biosphere because it supports a higher human population. Barring actions that will lead to extinction events, I think we should continue to extract resources from the planet that support human flourishing.
Destroying millions of acres of old growth for cattle farming, which is essentially a luxury for human food, meh.. maybe we’re better off growing cattle in other places that are more suited to it, and eating less beef so that nature in those forests can continue nourishing those parts of the earth.
Some uses of the earth are good for both humans and their environment, and some are good for humans in the short term but at the cost of long-term sustainability.
And if we do things that aren’t sustainable then we use up valuable resources, when doing things in a more balanced way could support and benefit humans indefinitely.
Move on...
Instead, we're depleting resources faster and faster primarily because the people directing most of the world's economic resources want to accumulate even more money even faster. They just don't give a damn about what comes after.
Because the old growth was logged, the fires we have now are often able to kill 100% of the trees in an area because the trees are all small and young and vulnerable. And this is self perpetuating, because after such a fire the soil often erodes, and sun hits the ground directly keeping it dry - it takes a really long time to recover from in some places.
Each cycle of logging removes even more soil and makes the landscape drier, and resets the timer on how long it will be before the forest is able to survive a wildfire. It's a short term thing.
I'm not saying no one should ever cut a tree or use wood - and it can be done in better and worse ways, it's really complex. But in general, the repeated clearcutting of the pacific northwest is steadily degrading that landscape the same way repeated intensive till farming of the prairies is degrading that landscape - it's a relatively short term thing with diminishing returns.
All that said I still think we should just extinct disease carrying mosquitoes.
The article is more focused on oceanic and coastal diversity but I agree about the mosquitoes.
The modern version of Carthage should be destroyed.
I'm doing my part
The Sahara is teeming with life compared to Mars, but we also know it once hosted significantly more life before it was a desert. That old system collapsed.
It's an invasive pathogen to a mosquito population, but it benefits humans.
https://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c?si=HqyW8mys0uNBuFdW&t=147
Humorous, but not inaccurate about what climate change means to primates. =3
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248428489_Centuries...
Down the line there is a state nature will be in. More/less plants and animals. Who knows. It might not be a pleasant state for people.
The concern seems to be that it will change faster than we can change. What happens if the climate of an agricultural area changes in a lifetime? or a generation? or a decade?
Nature is in a state at every point of time. This not-especially-useful perspective means there’s nothing to bounce back from.
It reminds me of clever people tut-tutting when talking about an apocalypse. “Ah, but the planet will still be here!”
Prefacing this by saying that I am constantly saddened by the scale of human activities and impact. It hard to find places that are untouched by human. But I sometimes ask what conservationism is trying to conserve. The parts that we find pretty and meaningful. It's not saving the planet, it's saving the insta background. That last one felt really cynical to me.
Whether "nature recovers" is silly talk that makes you want to capitalize "nature" because you're anthropomorphizing so hard. The question is whether nature will recover for us, or on the other hand whether we will be able to adjust to the permanent changes we have imposed on nature.
I think we have made great strides at saving some near extinct species, the kakapo for example, but we can do better.
Reading the title, I was ready to come in with arguments about the Cambrian explosion and different timescales, the article it's self however is not really talking about things along those lines, it is talking about the short(or very short) term where we assume that once species will easily take up a niche that was occupied by another if one goes extinct. Which I believe is looking at things on the wrong timescale, even if we assume punctuated equilibrium rather than gradual evolution.
Often cited mosquito eradication (at least those transmitting malaria, dengue, yellow fever, zika and so on) would change few things even though most folks would not even notice... and I couldn't welcome it more intensively. These academic discussions in the west would quickly die off when people around you start dying frequently from these (especially small children, but also grandparents or just weaker / more unlucky folks).
Massive droughts this summer still continuing here where I live wreaked way more havoc not only in insect world than any such engineering would do, yet I see no violent mass protests all around the world about banning cars, huge transport ships or commercial & private jet flying for example, or some other big pollutants. Literal frog in boiling water situation.
However we do have measurable effects on the environment i.e. acid rain on the east coast due to the iron and steel foundries. We eliminated/reduced that heavily by implementing controls, same with the hole in the ozone.
I don't think that the path forward for repairing(if assuming all manmade)/changing what is going on is banning things as that is difficult to implement on the world wide scale that it would need to happen.
Case in point, China is one of the largest GHG emitters in terms of number but when it is brought up, the argument is they are smaller per capita and most of the emissions are due to them selling to the west anyway. If we said "Ok, let's stop manufacturing there", now you have the free trade people upset. Also the people who believe that you need trade in order to prevent war. Also everyone really likes cheap stuff, the man on the street may not care about who their senator is but they really like it when they can get very big TV for cheap. So it's politically untenable.
I think that we could do some Geo-engineering to reverse/fix the situation; carbon sequestration in the ocean, greening the Sahara. But then you have people worried about the second order effect, it costs money and who will pay and you may be doing it on someone else's land...Europe doing a big push to green the Sahara would be bad optics because of colonialism.
I think we will take action but unfortunately it will have to be after things get a lot worse because that is really the only way to get people aligned.
Isn't this accelerationism?
Fig. 2 [1] lists them. Fig. 3 I think indicates that 20 of them have positive effect size on biodiversity, which I think was the point. "Learning and inspiration" is an interesting category. Carbon sequestration ranks high, with Terrestrial (as opposed to the larger Oceanic) having quite a few studies behind it.
Shouldn't they simultaneously study the costs of biodiversity? For example, our species left highly biodiverse jungles for less diverse plains, and our bodies are designed to follow and prey on large herbivores that don't do jungle. Less biodiversity creates niches for new diversity. It isn't possible to understand the benefits without the costs.
Of course, for many reasons, we should try not to drive species to extinction. That's not really science; it's just basic moral intuition. People seem embarrassed to admit that their motivations are perfectly reasonable things like "I like living things and we shouldn't kill them off".
I disagree with your statement that "it's just basic moral intuition." You really think that we shouldn't be trying to extinct the Guinea worm? You might want to do some protesting as humanity is actively on a mission to drive the population of that species to 0.
The more interesting question is why are some species OK for humans to extinct and others are not? What makes humans such great arbiters of these things and why does "morality" only seem to apply when convenient? Who says a Guinea worm has less right to exist then your pet dog? Who decides what is good biodiversity and what is bad biodiversity?
It could be argued that some serious science starts with "just looking at correlations", guided by intangible drives like imagination and moral intuition. I wouldn't dismiss it as "not really science", and may even lean toward saying that it's important for the scientific process, or even the development of mathematics, to listen to your moral intuition and follow your nose. It's often driven by asking questions and posing theories.
Sure, but it can't end with "just looking at correlations". The rigorous experimental follow through has to be there otherwise its just data analytics not science. Sure analyzing data is a key part of science but its not even close to all of it.
Just feels like makework. And even if the data show that, e.g., killing off all hummingbirds would improve pollination rates, no one would be like "yee-haw let's do it", right?