Hi,
So, if you meant '. . . more balanced ecosystems . . .", (plural) then in part I could agree with you. But if you are implying that the world is one big ecosystem, then I think you are oversimplifying.
However, even where I agree with you in part, in another sense I disagree with your terminology. Only for a period after an ecosystem is disrupted (by fire, flood, act of man, invasion of a new species, etc.) is any ecosystem 'unbalanced'. Fairly rapidly, that system will achieve a new balance. That 'balance' may not appeal to some -- it could be a dust bowl where grasslands were, or a river that could catch fire, or vacant lots covered in kudzu. Whatever the end state, it *will* be a state of dynamic balance until the next disruptive influence occurs.
The concept of introducing a disruption (and I agree, mega-fauna are much less disruptive than the microbes) to 'balance' an ecosystem appears to be an oxymoron. Perhaps, it would be better stated as an attempt to drive the ecosystem to a new balance. One more in line with somebody's concept of Utopia. Unfortunately, we don't know enough. Or, to paraphrase Burns, "The best laid plans of mice and men are often about the same".
--Pete
Ghostiger,Aug 18 2005, 07:48 AM Wrote:2 Part of theit goal is to have a more balanced ecosystem world wide.I'm not even sure of what this could mean. First, 'ecosystems' are primary local phenomena. As an extreme example of this point, consider where the ocean meets the land. You have three systems with very little overlap: the ocean, the tidewater region, and the dry land.
[right][snapback]86488[/snapback][/right]
So, if you meant '. . . more balanced ecosystems . . .", (plural) then in part I could agree with you. But if you are implying that the world is one big ecosystem, then I think you are oversimplifying.
However, even where I agree with you in part, in another sense I disagree with your terminology. Only for a period after an ecosystem is disrupted (by fire, flood, act of man, invasion of a new species, etc.) is any ecosystem 'unbalanced'. Fairly rapidly, that system will achieve a new balance. That 'balance' may not appeal to some -- it could be a dust bowl where grasslands were, or a river that could catch fire, or vacant lots covered in kudzu. Whatever the end state, it *will* be a state of dynamic balance until the next disruptive influence occurs.
The concept of introducing a disruption (and I agree, mega-fauna are much less disruptive than the microbes) to 'balance' an ecosystem appears to be an oxymoron. Perhaps, it would be better stated as an attempt to drive the ecosystem to a new balance. One more in line with somebody's concept of Utopia. Unfortunately, we don't know enough. Or, to paraphrase Burns, "The best laid plans of mice and men are often about the same".
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?