[APWG] Ecosystem Restoration: On Humans and Ecosystems

[Gena Fleming]

Wow, thank you so much for all the comments and new input!   I will try to
honor Wayne's examples of how to cut down on copied messages.

from Wayne Tyson:  *This doesn't "answer" your question, it is intended to
honor it.   *Thanks!  I appreciate your input.  I can't answer my question
either.

from Craig Dremman: * What I had to do about 20 years ago, was to invent a
method to be able to
visualize the goal line--what does a healthy-intact ecosystem look like, so
you could work towards that goal, and know when you have crossed the finish
line?  *I don't know.  I'm not sure I understand the concept of a finish
line.  In some instances (not necessarily your methods) this also may
relate to the types of risks we may be incurring with the types
of interventions or treatments we choose... needing to weight that in.

from Wayne Tyson: *What might be worthy of discussion is the value of
intuition in assessments, and the pitfalls of intuition.*
from Ty Harrison: *The life histories of the various bugs, grasshoppers,
spiders, etc gets one thinking about ecosystem function, food chain
diversity etc.  I suggest searching for holes in tree leaves to indicate
consumer insect activity which attracts neo-tropical migrant birds
especially during the breeding season*
**
I am so glad the topic of intuition has come up.  First of all, we are all
intuitive beings.  Hopefully, all scientists, the surgeon, your mechanic,
parents, are all taking their knowledge as far as they can go but remain
open to guidance from intuition.

That being, said, qualtitative assessment, although it is subjective, is
not to be confused with intuition.   If I were walking through the woods
wih Ty Harrison, he looked at some leaves and said he expected neo-tropical
migrant birds during the breeding season, he would not be able to prove it
but he would probably be right.  Although the same image of leaves may have
fallen on my retina, I wouldn't have *perceived* the connection, and may
have been inclined to dismiss him as some kind of eco-sorcerer.  He
might explain that he is basing his opinion on insects, but then I might
stupidly say "What insects? I don't see any insects."  Wow, this is eactly
what I was talking about with respect to perceiving functional
relationships in traditional medicine and Ty has immediately produced an
example of using it in ecology.

I think we can trust he would also be aware that this was a limited
observation, and he would want to check more trees, other plants, other
elements, look for additional signs and correlate it with many other
observations before he became too confident of his prognosis.   This
constitutes a *constellation of symptoms*, only in this case he is
focussing on system health, not system dysfunction.

Ty Harrison:  *When I lead children on field trips to urban natural areas,
we look for as my KINDS of birds, plants and insects as we can find.  I
suggest, not very originally, that diversity might the touch-stone
assessment of ecosystem health*  In fact,  this is an example of just such
a correlated observation.  His single observation about an insect sign must
be integrated into the whole complex of other observations regarding the
system's biodiversity and biocomplexity, an indicator of resilience.   Each
observation weighed for itself as well as integration in the whole context,
his analysis fluxing with each new revelation.

Thinking *qualitative* is not thinking *stupid;* it takes a lot of
knowledge, higher order synthesis skills, and heartfelt experience.

Back to the traditional medicine metaphor, when we feel the pulse, we are
not counting beats (quantitative).  We are expected to find 3 pulses on
each wrist where western medicine finds 1, feel them at 3 different levels
and assess them with respect to various *qualities* such as wiry, slippery,
choppy, etc.  The tongue color and fur are inspected as reflections of
organ function, we look at the quality of the nails and hair,  assess the
complexion, tone of voice, ask about urine color and frequency and a
minutiae of many other subclinical symptoms.  So the point is, in order to
make a qualitative analyis, one must be trained to discern more in terms of
qualitative observation than what is required in a more quantitative,
technological system.  Just like Ty's perception of a few holes in tree
leaves,  ridges on a fingernail may tell us *something*, but we are not
jumping to big conclusions based on one sign alone.   We just keep looking
. . . and touching... and asking ....

But even In western medicine, hospital nurses are required to be able to
perceive more than physicians, as they are responsible for noticing subtle
signs and symptoms in order to know when to contact a physician or order
new tests.  *They spend more time with the patient. *

Back to Wayne's question about the pitfalls of intuition, if we substitute
that with the pitfalls of qualitative, sensorial assessment, I do not see
any pitfalls.  I do see limitations, just as I see limitations to
"objective" assessment.  As I walked along a local wetland last year, I
began to observe more and more fish disease.  Eventually, my heart was
broken by a  turtle covered with an orange slime who swam up to where I was
standing and repeatedly looked up at me.   I sent a photo to a retired
professor who researches turtles and he had never seen such a pathologic
growth.  Had we been able to capture the turtle, we could have gotten a lab
analysis, which would certainly have been useful.  Since that wasn't
possible, I did a freedom of information request to get information on the
pesticide and fertilizer use of the university's golf course that drains
into the area.  A water analysis would be nice.  There's no need to exclude
objective assessment.  But that does not require discrediting the value of
subjective assessment.

In David Abram's book *The Spell of the Sensuous:  Perception and Language
in a More-than-Human World  *(note this is why I put "more than human
world" in quotes in my previous message), he speaks of how we have been
systematically trained to turn off and discredit our sensory experience,
our only connection to truly experiencing the natural world.

Subjective sensorial experience is our only way of knowing the world.
Pretending we are outside and disconnected from this living, pulsing Gaia
organism of a world, constrained by the pretense and *false premise* of
objectivity, analyzing isolated variables we have wrenched from their vital
connections to their life-giving whole,  how can we expect to arrive at any
type of insight truly useful or even relevant to perpetuating the dynamic
connections of life-connected-to-life?

best regards,

Gena Fleming
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20120306/5d45bc68/attachment.html>