ARCHIVE - Visualizing Ecology - Week 5: Ecosystem Ecology and Food Web http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/taxonomy/term/17/0 en ARCHIVE - shaun libman http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/shaun-libman-1 <font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal">“The chain thus becomes an ascending scale of larger and larger mouths and bellies…The only species that ignores these rules is civilized man, with his artificial techniques for more efficient food-gathering. He can kill the largest animals on earth, or he can gather the smallest grain and seeds, and so eat lower on the food chain. But for Elton, modern man is distinctly an outsider, not to be confused with the natural economic system and its working.”</p>  <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal">This thought, that humans are not part of the natural world has intrigued me. Is it some part of our vanity that thinks we qualify as something above nature? We have always classified our self’s as more important than other animals. Even though that way of thinking has proved necessary at times, we shouldn’t be so sure. It is very hard to seriously question this though because we seem to truly be more superior. So which of our features separates us? Is this question for philosophers and not for scientists? Is the job of the scientist to distinguish and discover at all costs? I believe that morals have been compromised in the name of science and very important things have been made and known directly because of that. </p></font></font><p><a href="http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/shaun-libman-1">read more</a></p> http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/shaun-libman-1#comment Week 5: Ecosystem Ecology and Food Web Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:04:18 -0800 libsha19 300 at http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter ARCHIVE - Mitch Gines http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/mitch-gines-3 <p>&quot;The principle of organization, claimed an obscurewriter in 1910, demonstrates that &quot;the economy of nature&quot; is no idle phrase, but contains a clue to the central animating drive in all beings: to produce, to manufacture, to consume. Nature is nothing more nor less than an economic system.&quot; -Worster, 291</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p> Interesting how the ways of nature can be so simplified into one or two sentences. While there are so many varieties of species on this planet, the rules of survival apply neatly to every one of them. While animals are seen more as the &quot;Consumers&quot; of this planet, it should be recognized that plants &quot;consume&quot; by the self-sustaining method of photosynthesis. It makes me wonder... should we be somewhat envious of this plant&#39;s abilities, or just outright thankful that we&#39;re not at the bottom ladder of the twisted food chain? Then again, that&#39;s more of an emotional-based question that genuine curiosity.</p><p><a href="http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/mitch-gines-3">read more</a></p> http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/mitch-gines-3#comment Week 5: Ecosystem Ecology and Food Web Sun, 04 Feb 2007 18:07:33 -0800 ginmel01 270 at http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter ARCHIVE - Cody Cohan http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/cody-cohan-2 <p class="MsoNormal">“The twentieth century saw nature through a different set of spectacle: the forms, processes, and values of modern economic order as shaped by technology.” (Page 293)<br /> <br /> <span>            </span>Our views on nature have always changed through the centuries. There are so many different views that people have on nature that it can be hard to truly understand what any of them mean. Does anyone really even know what is real? Our realities are completely dependent on what our beliefs are which makes knowing right from wrong quite really hard. Who is to say they someone who believes we are no longer part of the animal kingdom is wrong? Words are nothing without the meanings that we stick to them. However, in the last century, we have started to become more and more dependant on our values and morals to determine if what we do is just. Man in the twentieth century saw nature as another way to get power. Ecosystems everywhere where changing quite rapidly. Man did not truly care for the problems of the future, they wanted to expand today. Who can say if they were even aware of how such problems would be created. Technology is a key factor in our natural evolution. The ability to communicate and express ideas have always been the key factors in mans dominion. Since the time when the first forms of man started to develop opposable thumbs, humanity has been working collaboratively to make living easier and more comfortable. The twentieth century man was hardly different. Our ability to build on top of another generation’s knowledge should not be dismissed as anything more then our greatest ability. If other species could collaboratively rise and expand on future generations ideas, who know who the dominant species, would be? The twentieth century mans view on nature was simply that every plant formed a specific functions and is called Mechanism. This was very abstract compare to the current view we have on the natural world were everything is connected and feeds off of each other. </p><p><a href="http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/cody-cohan-2">read more</a></p> http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/cody-cohan-2#comment Week 5: Ecosystem Ecology and Food Web Sun, 04 Feb 2007 14:43:52 -0800 cohcod02 257 at http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter