[APWG] Ecosystem Restoration: On Humans and Ecosystems

[Wayne Tyson]

Gena and followers of her thread:

WOW! (The essence of the pot is the space within. And--I would add, the space without.) 

In China, for example, it seems that epidemiologists get more respect than they do in the so-called "West." I was in the ER four times last year; one of the physicians had a Chinese name. When I asked what he thought of my "numbers," he replied, "I don't treat numbers, I treat the patient." I wanted to kiss him. 

I am out standing in my field essentially alone when I assert that biology and ecology, as fields (made up of cultural beings) are wasting their time fiddling around with "perfect" data that is, in reality, largely irrelevant to ecosystem function (one top ecologist once told me that he didn't think he knew what ecosystem function was). My impertinence really pisses off the priests of those fields, and I have been stoned aplenty for my sinning. I suppose if they knew that was only the tip of the iceberg, they would be assembling outside with torches. 

This doesn't "answer" your question, it is intended to honor it. 

WT

PS: I have retained Fleming's entire post, as I can't decide what is not relevant to my comment. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gena Fleming 
  To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org 
  Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 2:29 PM
  Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration: On Humans and Ecosystems


  It has been very encouraging to read all the quality commenary on the topic of ecosystem restoration and the open mindedness to expand our current thinking.
  I appreciate the receptivity that has been expressed in advance to hearing from non-professional ecologists.  

  I think it can be agreed that there is no historical past that we can hope to restore either environmentally or culturally, at least in the sense of replication.  Ecosystems, whatever they are, are dynamic and as such must be free to respond to change in order to maintain their resilience.

  I would like to know your feelings about how we might assess the quality of health of an ecosystem.  I am not proposing a static quantitative checklist of characteristics.  I agree that I don't think that will work.

  I practice Chinese medicine.  Wait, wait, please don't click delete!  I have had to go through a lot of cognitive changes in order to apply the logic which is distinct from western medicine.  And the relevance is that the human body is assessed pretty much in metaphors of climate and weather, as an inner terrain.  It is also considered in a more contiguous and open relationship to the surrounding environment.  A cold, for example, is a "wind invasion".   This integration of the human organism in relation to her environment is why I have trouble distiniguishing between practicing medicine and practicing ecology.

  There is no killing in Chinese medicine.  We do not fight disease, beat depression or kill germs.  Our treatment verbs are tonify, nourish, resolve, move, clear, calm, release and harmonize.  We do not diagnose much in the western science sense; rather, we are called on to perceive constellations of symptoms, "patterns of disharmony".  This is a qualitative assessment.

  Essentially, we are looking at the relationship between organ systems and whether they are functioning in a way that allows health.  This makes visible what western medicine can not see.  By the same token, we can not see what western medicine's diagnostic technology can visualize so clearly.  It is possible to toggle one's vision between these two worlds, but not always possible or advised to try to see them simultaneously.  It's a different conceptual filter.
  This does not deny the reality of either world view.  Rather one needs to decide which view best serves one's purpose for any given situation.  Concepts are just conceptual tools and not necessarily true or false.

  So one of my points is meaningful qualitative assessment is possible.  Qualitative assessment is not just saying whatever you "feel" without having to justify it.  We know that art curators can be relied on most of the time to assess the value or origin of a work of art.  There are years of education and experience that go into being able to make this qualitative assessment.  It is not based on chemical analysis of paint pigments (o.k., some of it may be but not the whole thing).  Similarly, psychologists and many other professions rely on making qualitative assessments.

  1)  Can we recognize that there is validity to qualitative assessment?  If so, what are the qualities and functional relationships we are seeing when we perceive what we recognize as a functionally healthy ecosystem?  

  2)  Life transforms.  As living beings, we are an integral part of the environment and transforming our environment for better or worse no matter what we do.  We can not separate our lives from the ecosystem.  How can we find our place in this "more than human" world?   Instead of doing what we do and trying to figure out how to mitigate those effects, what are some of the transformations that we could be making that support our lives while allowing a healthy integrative function with the rest of the living world?

  I appreciate your thoughts.

  thanks,

  Gena Fleming

  [[extraneous material deleted. WT]]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20120306/48a3c2eb/attachment.html>