Ali,
Thanks for the link to groovy music.
I think the lyrics are a bit more on the mysterious Eastern A-Model discussion of environment than of ecological system models. These study questions of system properties such as equilibrium of ecosystems, populations that make up the ecosystems etc. I think they can make an argument for some conceptual validity and have had something to say about the nature of complexity (in things like natural cycles) for some time. See http://www.tb.ethz.ch/education/model/stabilityandcomplexity/pimm.pdf for an example from the 80s.
You find such studies published in Nature and Science for example and ecosystem courses seem pretty well established.
Somewhere between this articles and the mystic ones are people who stretch the use if engineer to include an analog they call ecosystem engineers which are - organisms that directly or indirectly modulate the availability of
resources to other species, by causing physical state changes in biotic or abiotic materials. In so doing they modify, maintain and create habitats.
http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jspinill/documentos/ECOLOGIA/lecturas/OI_1994_69_373_386.pdf
Gary
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Gary,On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Gary Berg-Cross <gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It would be nice to have
such an ontology, but we don’t have to wait for one to have a discussion and
see what conceptualization makes sense. Science has been helping us undestand the world for quite a while.
You later used a caterpillar
example, which would involve an evolved object that is part of nature. I could pursue that example but since I think
of many aspects of nature as systemic I used Wetlands as an example. Here are some of the ways that I think that
it qualifies as an class or instance of system looking at the share common
characteristics I used: There are some criticisms of the systems perspective as applied to the environment because it suggests that humans are somehow separate or distinct from the environment. It's gained the most salience in asking how we respond to global crises of environmental degradation, resource depletion, etc.? I'll quote here from a discussion with a friend as his account is apt:
[AK] There's a classic environmentalist position, that humans are mistreating or perturbing some originally sound ecological system. We humans are out of the picture in this concept of 'nature.' Having lost our oneness with it, we must now take care to act as protectors of nature, not just miners and loggers, plunderers... This is the environmentalist story. It is echoed in many forms, from hippies to the EPA to greenwashing frauds.
Paths to global material & ecological sustainability have more to do with how we live as humans, than with how we live as beings-apart-from-nature or beings-one-with-nature.
We should take all possible approaches to that visionary goal (sustainability). Environmentalism has a role, but will continue to fail if it only puts the focus on 'nature.' [For example, we need to consider: whether to embed into our children consumerist/industrialist values; to continue externalizing ecological costs onto each other; to keep substituting political thought with entertainment, etc... ]
I read a book called "Dharma Gaia," a collection of essays linking together Buddhist non-dualism, sort of indigenous earth-holism, and 'deep ecology' (all of which can be described as "interconnectedness")... all more or less with the same message that "our conceptual separation from nature is the root of all ecological problems." And the root of our separation from nature is the very concept of self (of course, thank you Buddha). I found it mostly interesting, some of it inspiring, but ultimately did not believe it contributed very much to the solution space.
Not that I wholly agree with the above, but I think it successfully captures some of the critiques of systems thinking as applied to these 'systems'. It's also recapped quite nicely in this song - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK0XqBknTms
All this isn't to say that systems thinking isn't useful - there's obviously a lot it can contribute to our understanding of these topics - but there are also serious limitations that should also be explicated in terms of what it brings to the table. Especially in the context of these broader systems that many might describe as wicked problems. It sort of implies -- how to incorporate systems theory as one perspective amongst other perspectives in characterizing a problem space and suggesting potential solution approaches.
Best, Ali
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
--
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
NSF INTEROP Project SOCoP Executive Secretary
Knowledge Strategies Potomac, MD 240-426-0770
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (01)
|