Saturday, September 26, 2009

Ecological Balance

I was having a discussion about this and that at Talk Polywell and one of my correspondents said:

...many of them both unnecessary and unsustainable. A truly civilized society would maintain an ecological balance and still be able to visit the planets.
And I said:
Humanity is unsustainable. We will go on for as long as we can.

In 1900 it was estimated that New York would be buried in horse crap by 1920 if things kept going the way they were going. Obviously they did not.

Ecological balance is pure fantasy. Because things (on all scales) are always fluctuating. Not to mention new organisms. (bird flu, swine flu)

Ecological balance before or after a large volcanic eruption? Ecological balance before or after a very large meteor strike? Ecological balance before or after the onset of an ice age?

So just exactly which ecological balance is the best? And how do you keep it?
These ecological balance folks have delusions of grandeur.

Cross Posted at Classical Values


Jeff said...

Never mind that ecological systems, like climate are inherently chaotic. There's no balance, just constant swings around attractors with the occasional shift to a new attractor.

Ecological balance is, like evolutionary design, a shorthand tightly grasped by small minds that cannot understand the true complexities of nature.

ZenDraken said...

A "truly civilized society" would be composed of angels, and the ecology would be balanced, miraculously.

Meanwhile, in this profane real world populated by mere mortals, we deal with dirty practicalities like survival and extinction. And nature rewards the survivors and doesn't give a damn about the extinct.

Spread the seeds of Earth far and wide across the Solar System and then the galaxy. That's the only path to long-term survival.