It might, but the first time I heard it (put differently) it blew my mind. The way I heard it was: There is no such thing as equilibrium in nature. It's more about constant imbalances.
It made me re-think our whole approach to environmentalism. When we attempt to restore something, what are we restoring it to?
That's not true over short-to-medium timeframes though.
There absolutely are equilibria in nature, all over the place. The idea of that "constant imbalance" is always the rule is simply false.
Now, as a rule at some point in time either an external force will interrupt things, or an energy source that was maintaining the equilibrium will run out. So no equilibrium will last indefinitely.
But an equilibrium can be maintained for an awfully long time -- much, much, much longer than you or I will be alive. It's not like populations are always either growing or shrinking. Absent man, they're generally extremely constant (allowing for seasonal oscillations and similar).
And to answer your question: when we seek to restore something, it's generally to as close as we can to the state of equilibirum it would be at without the industrial effects of man -- a level of rich biodiversity. We're almost never completely successful, but we can still do our best.
Agreed - I was going to write more about how the imbalances within nature and the ebb and flow between the current state is always changing, just at scales larger than a single human life's observance.
Its amazing to me that so many ancient civiliaations had an understanding of cycles many thousands of years long, and understood that things change in cycles, as opposed to linear....
Take, for example the Pyramid of Ku at Chichenitza...
I went there in 2001 with a Mayan Elder named Hunbatz Men [0] -- He explained the nature of the Pyramid as the calendar:
The pyramid is broken into a number of architectural elements that define various aspects of the solar calendar: the indentations on the sides of the steps of the pyramid are divided to reflect the year, the levels represent divisional seasons, the steps inside the pyramid leading to the top is 72 and it represents the 72,000 year cycle of the plieades over head - the graduations in the face of the steps of the pyramid are the 28 days of their 13 month year. The top of the pyramid is the correct height that when you look down the groove on the top cube, they align perfectly to the horizon in all directions - and a bunch of of ther aspects of time tracking. Its an amazing celestial clock.
Nice philosophizing, but too simple. There definitely are constants in the universe, and dynamic things can stay pretty constant over looong time scales, think of stars, or something complicated as a solar system.. and then it is about rate of change at all levels.. what's nothing for me is the lifetime for a fruit fly, and I live merely a split seconds of our Earth's age.
And then there are humans, always against change ;) But some is reasonable, e.g. when life threatening conditions change. I step out of my house in freezing temperatures, if I don't do something I'll freeze.. I don't start philosophizing about where to restore it to, just wanna be safe and warm again.
I don't get all the clever insights. Environmentalism is already such a stupid term imo, this is not about saving the environment at all, or trying to keep the world the same. It is just human warranted egoism, about saving us.
Regarding stars and solar systems, over the lifespan of the universe those things are just blips.[2] In 110 trillion years the Milky Way will be down to about a hundred stars. That's a small fraction of the 10^10^120 years estimated to be the lifespan of the universe. So those aren't constants.
The only constant is decay (and C I guess). So I don't see what was too simple about what I said, or even how it was much different from what you said. There's no equilibrium to return to, and any environmental actions to try to restore that will have a problem.
In almost all Spiritual/Religious teachings - they say "The only constant in the universe is change" - so Its kind of banal to say "Scientists who studied the rivers simply allot it to Climate Change" as if its the profundity of Science here...
It might, but the first time I heard it (put differently) it blew my mind. The way I heard it was: There is no such thing as equilibrium in nature. It's more about constant imbalances.
It made me re-think our whole approach to environmentalism. When we attempt to restore something, what are we restoring it to?
That's not true over short-to-medium timeframes though.
There absolutely are equilibria in nature, all over the place. The idea of that "constant imbalance" is always the rule is simply false.
Now, as a rule at some point in time either an external force will interrupt things, or an energy source that was maintaining the equilibrium will run out. So no equilibrium will last indefinitely.
But an equilibrium can be maintained for an awfully long time -- much, much, much longer than you or I will be alive. It's not like populations are always either growing or shrinking. Absent man, they're generally extremely constant (allowing for seasonal oscillations and similar).
And to answer your question: when we seek to restore something, it's generally to as close as we can to the state of equilibirum it would be at without the industrial effects of man -- a level of rich biodiversity. We're almost never completely successful, but we can still do our best.
> The idea of that "constant imbalance" is always the rule is simply false.
Modern ecology would like a word: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4188511/
A natural balance is the actual myth.
1 reply →
I think we want to restore it to a random walk with less bias in the "warming" direction.
Agreed - I was going to write more about how the imbalances within nature and the ebb and flow between the current state is always changing, just at scales larger than a single human life's observance.
Its amazing to me that so many ancient civiliaations had an understanding of cycles many thousands of years long, and understood that things change in cycles, as opposed to linear....
Take, for example the Pyramid of Ku at Chichenitza...
I went there in 2001 with a Mayan Elder named Hunbatz Men [0] -- He explained the nature of the Pyramid as the calendar:
The pyramid is broken into a number of architectural elements that define various aspects of the solar calendar: the indentations on the sides of the steps of the pyramid are divided to reflect the year, the levels represent divisional seasons, the steps inside the pyramid leading to the top is 72 and it represents the 72,000 year cycle of the plieades over head - the graduations in the face of the steps of the pyramid are the 28 days of their 13 month year. The top of the pyramid is the correct height that when you look down the groove on the top cube, they align perfectly to the horizon in all directions - and a bunch of of ther aspects of time tracking. Its an amazing celestial clock.
https://www.council-of-world-elders.de/en/members/hunbatz-me...
https://en.everybodywiki.com/Hunbatz_Men
Nice philosophizing, but too simple. There definitely are constants in the universe, and dynamic things can stay pretty constant over looong time scales, think of stars, or something complicated as a solar system.. and then it is about rate of change at all levels.. what's nothing for me is the lifetime for a fruit fly, and I live merely a split seconds of our Earth's age.
And then there are humans, always against change ;) But some is reasonable, e.g. when life threatening conditions change. I step out of my house in freezing temperatures, if I don't do something I'll freeze.. I don't start philosophizing about where to restore it to, just wanna be safe and warm again.
I don't get all the clever insights. Environmentalism is already such a stupid term imo, this is not about saving the environment at all, or trying to keep the world the same. It is just human warranted egoism, about saving us.
It's not philosophizing, it's ecology.[1]
Regarding stars and solar systems, over the lifespan of the universe those things are just blips.[2] In 110 trillion years the Milky Way will be down to about a hundred stars. That's a small fraction of the 10^10^120 years estimated to be the lifespan of the universe. So those aren't constants.
The only constant is decay (and C I guess). So I don't see what was too simple about what I said, or even how it was much different from what you said. There's no equilibrium to return to, and any environmental actions to try to restore that will have a problem.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4188511/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
I don’t get it.
In almost all Spiritual/Religious teachings - they say "The only constant in the universe is change" - so Its kind of banal to say "Scientists who studied the rivers simply allot it to Climate Change" as if its the profundity of Science here...
If `cl` is the climate change function then Climate Change really specifically is referring to the derivative of `cl` right now.
Probably orders of magnitude less banal than your comments here on it.
2 replies →