Defending Illusions

Rating:
Summary: A voice of reason
Review: If there is any cause we are willing to support without any reservation, it is the cause for environmental preservation. Who among us is against clean air, unpolluted streams, cute bears, and fluffy birds? It is self-evident that saving the Earth for future generations is our supreme duty. Along with democracy, nature is the closest substitute for God that we worship now. Given this sanctity of the environmental cause, "Defending Illusions" is an eye-opening book. It is shocking to learn how twisted, exploited, and perverted the cause of the environment is, of course with good intentions, by "green" enthusiasts and even professional ecologists. Dr. Fitzsimmons demonstrates how hollow buzzwords are such as ecosystem health or ecosystem integrity. Yet, the outcome of these illusions is quite tangible; it is embodied in thousands of government regulations epitomized by the term "ecosystem management." As a good writer, Dr. Fitzsimmons starts with tracing the spiritual history and emotional atmosphere that made possible those illusions. Then he turns to the simplest thing any ecosystem manager must know: where to manage. To restore ecosystem health or ecosystem integrity we need to know what an ecosystem is, where one ends and another starts. The problem is that nobody can answer this basic question. Unlike organisms, which always have specialized structures (bark, skin, etc.) that separate them abruptly from the environment, ecosystems do not have well-defined boundaries other than those produced by changes in the physical environment. Anyone is free to delineate an ecosystem at will. Surely, freedom in general is admirable, but the lack of identifiable boundaries turns ecosystem management into irreproducible science. In the section "Are Ecosystems Alive?" Dr. Fitzsimmons shows that even as a conceptual entity ecosystems do not fare well. After all, Tansley introduced this term to denote a combination of Clements's superorganism and the environment. It is curious that, although the concept of superorganism is largely discredited, the ecosystem, which is so to speak a superorganism on clay footing, is still around. The confusion between an ecosystem and an organism (or superorganism) is at the core of the heated struggle for ecosystem health and integrity. These notions are possible if we equate the ecosystem with the organism. But obviously these two things are quite different. In organisms, resources are distributed and members grow according to a genetically coded blueprint transmitted from generation to generation. No centralized control exists in ecosystems. Real systems, such as organisms, that constitute the ecosystem have different, often opposite agendas. The parts of an organism die or survive together. In contrast, many components of an ecosystem thrive at the expense of others. Each biotic part of an ecosystem, an organism, is much more complex than the ecosystem itself. The reverse is true for the organism. The theory of evolution, ecology, and much of biology are based on the fact that the organism is the unit of natural selection; ecosystems are not. If half of an ecosystem is converted into a parking lot, the remaining half may occasionally lose an animal species, but usually is able to continue its existence as before. In other words, ecosystems are divisible. Organisms are not. Organisms die predictably, but, barring a major volcanic eruption, it is all but impossible to kill an ecosystem. All of these reasons makes the discussion of ecosystem health and integrity meaningless. Dr. Fitzsimmons shows that the much publicized issue of ecosystem services is equally faulty. The chief flaw is the omission of the harmful side of these services. It seems obvious that, along with flows of materials and energy fueling our affluence, ecosystems "serve" us with diseases that kill or disable us, competitors that destroy the results of hard work by farmers and foresters, and calamities that devastate our homes and fields. It is true that biodiversity is the greatest treasure we possess; equally true, it is our greatest misfortune. Millions of people dying from dysentery, tuberculosis, pneumonia, and other infectious diseases pray to be saved from these ecosystem "services." All these issues are far from academic. They boil down to empowering the federal government to manage the land contrary not only to reason but to property rights as well. Dr. Fitzsimmons concludes his book by outlining a positive program of responsible environmental stewardship compatible with our liberty and freedom.

Rating:
Summary: A voice of reason
Review: If there is any cause we are willing to support without any reservation, it is the cause for environmental preservation. Who among us is against clean air, unpolluted streams, cute bears, and fluffy birds? It is self-evident that saving the Earth for future generations is our supreme duty. Along with democracy, nature is the closest substitute for God that we worship now. Given this sanctity of the environmental cause, "Defending Illusions" is an eye-opening book. It is shocking to learn how twisted, exploited, and perverted the cause of the environment is, of course with good intentions, by "green" enthusiasts and even professional ecologists. Dr. Fitzsimmons demonstrates how hollow buzzwords are such as ecosystem health or ecosystem integrity. Yet, the outcome of these illusions is quite tangible; it is embodied in thousands of government regulations epitomized by the term "ecosystem management." As a good writer, Dr. Fitzsimmons starts with tracing the spiritual history and emotional atmosphere that made possible those illusions. Then he turns to the simplest thing any ecosystem manager must know: where to manage. To restore ecosystem health or ecosystem integrity we need to know what an ecosystem is, where one ends and another starts. The problem is that nobody can answer this basic question. Unlike organisms, which always have specialized structures (bark, skin, etc.) that separate them abruptly from the environment, ecosystems do not have well-defined boundaries other than those produced by changes in the physical environment. Anyone is free to delineate an ecosystem at will. Surely, freedom in general is admirable, but the lack of identifiable boundaries turns ecosystem management into irreproducible science. In the section "Are Ecosystems Alive?" Dr. Fitzsimmons shows that even as a conceptual entity ecosystems do not fare well. After all, Tansley introduced this term to denote a combination of Clements's superorganism and the environment. It is curious that, although the concept of superorganism is largely discredited, the ecosystem, which is so to speak a superorganism on clay footing, is still around. The confusion between an ecosystem and an organism (or superorganism) is at the core of the heated struggle for ecosystem health and integrity. These notions are possible if we equate the ecosystem with the organism. But obviously these two things are quite different. In organisms, resources are distributed and members grow according to a genetically coded blueprint transmitted from generation to generation. No centralized control exists in ecosystems. Real systems, such as organisms, that constitute the ecosystem have different, often opposite agendas. The parts of an organism die or survive together. In contrast, many components of an ecosystem thrive at the expense of others. Each biotic part of an ecosystem, an organism, is much more complex than the ecosystem itself. The reverse is true for the organism. The theory of evolution, ecology, and much of biology are based on the fact that the organism is the unit of natural selection; ecosystems are not. If half of an ecosystem is converted into a parking lot, the remaining half may occasionally lose an animal species, but usually is able to continue its existence as before. In other words, ecosystems are divisible. Organisms are not. Organisms die predictably, but, barring a major volcanic eruption, it is all but impossible to kill an ecosystem. All of these reasons makes the discussion of ecosystem health and integrity meaningless. Dr. Fitzsimmons shows that the much publicized issue of ecosystem services is equally faulty. The chief flaw is the omission of the harmful side of these services. It seems obvious that, along with flows of materials and energy fueling our affluence, ecosystems "serve" us with diseases that kill or disable us, competitors that destroy the results of hard work by farmers and foresters, and calamities that devastate our homes and fields. It is true that biodiversity is the greatest treasure we possess; equally true, it is our greatest misfortune. Millions of people dying from dysentery, tuberculosis, pneumonia, and other infectious diseases pray to be saved from these ecosystem "services." All these issues are far from academic. They boil down to empowering the federal government to manage the land contrary not only to reason but to property rights as well. Dr. Fitzsimmons concludes his book by outlining a positive program of responsible environmental stewardship compatible with our liberty and freedom.