This is interesting.

[Doc]

You are correct - I intended the pluaral.
As to "balance" pehaps its the wrong word perhaps it isnt.
All sustainable systems are orrectly said to be "balanced". 
But from a more subjective stand point some lack in degree balance with respect to diversity.

A field of grass and bacteria could be said have balance.  But I would say its poorly balanced.
[right][snapback]86502[/snapback][/right]

A better choice of words perhaps would be that while it was balanced, it lacks diversity. Which is important.

[--Pete]

Hi,

As to "balance" pehaps its the wrong word perhaps it isnt.
All sustainable systems are orrectly said to be "balanced". 
But from a more subjective stand point some lack in degree balance with respect to diversity.

A field of grass and bacteria could be said have balance.  But I would say its poorly balanced.
[right][snapback]86502[/snapback][/right]

I would say that 'balanced' should be used in a more objective manner. If the ". . . field of grass and bacteria . . ." displays only seasonal changes over the period of many years, then it is 'balanced' (perhaps more rigorously, 'in dynamic equilibrium'). The fact that you (and I) find it distasteful is not a question of 'balance' but of 'aesthetics'. And I don't know if, but do doubt that, human aesthetics are a valid basis for the restructuring of Earth. Not that we haven't done so since the combination of fire and agriculture made it possible for farmers to stay by their hard earned fields through the winter.

Dunno, but just because we've been making a mistake for twenty thousand years or so, doesn't seem to justify compounding it. Just MHO.

--Pete

[Guest]

I would call prefering a diverse and complex system over a simple system more than "human aesthetics".

It apears that through evolution all systems work away from a simple system toward a complex one. I would suppose that the "human aesthetics" are a response to the nature of the systems we evolved in.

I think evolution finds a "balance" at at a fairly high level of complexity.
I have never seen research on it but I suppose that while systems would be always changing with evolution, left with out "intelligent" intervention there is probably a nautural limit of complexity that systems would converge too. It would probably be limited mostly by the initial energy and a sink.

[Guest]

That likely is better, but it wasnt my train of thought.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I would call prefering a diverse and complex system over a simple system more than "human aesthetics".

Possibly. But nature harbors systems as sparse as the Sahara and as complex as the rain forests of Brazil. I think preferring one to the other is precisely a matter of aesthetics.

It apears that through evolution all systems work away from a simple system toward a complex one. I would suppose that the "human aesthetics" are a response to the nature of the systems we evolved in.

I think evolution finds a "balance" at at a fairly high level of complexity.
I have never seen research on it but I suppose that while systems would be always changing with evolution, left with out "intelligent" intervention there is probably a nautural limit of complexity that systems would converge too. It would probably be limited mostly by the initial energy and a sink.
[right][snapback]86515[/snapback][/right]

A lot of truth there, but mostly off topic, I think. In spite of some indicators that some evolution can take place in a short time (a few tens of generations of the critter evolving), most evolutions do not change the balance substantially. Over a period of time that an ecosystem could be said to exist, evolution is probably not a (major) factor. In the long term, climatic drift, evolution, and plate tectonics are probably the main drivers of change.

--Pete

[Guest]

I was getting a at balance of complexity with respect to the energy cline.
Its possible there is a natural ratio and we humans have moved it off balance.
Of course if we took our hands off, the balance would re-emerge - but it would take millions of years(how many millions is debatable.)

Of course there is a question of how the complexity is weighted and what effect the largest fauna should have on it. But big animals do seem to always occur naturally.

[whyBish]

I was getting a at balance of complexity with respect to the energy cline.
Its possible there is a natural ratio and we humans have moved it off balance.
Of course if we took our hands off, the balance would re-emerge - but it would take millions of years(how many millions is debatable.)

Of course there is a question of how the complexity is weighted and what effect the largest fauna should have on it. But big animals do seem to always occur naturally.
[right][snapback]86551[/snapback][/right]

Sounds a lot like the work that Kauffman was doing... "The origins of Order" etc. However last time I looked this field was still in its infancy.

[Occhidiangela]

I just read your sig, about Mulligans and Golf.

La vera.

Occhi