ARCHIVE - Visualizing Ecology - Week 4: Clements and Succession http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/taxonomy/term/13/0 en ARCHIVE - shaun libman http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/shaun-libman-0 <p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">“According to Warming, the process of succession has in every habitat a discernible direction: It progresses toward a “climax” formation, or “final community.” The ultimate goal of nature, in other words, is nothing less than the most diverse, stable, well-balanced, self-perpetuating society that can be devised to meet the requirements of each habitat. Geographers like Grisebach and Merriam were describing with their “formations” and “life zones” the end products of millions of years of trial-and-error experimentation. And it was this idea of successional development toward a climax equilibrium that Warming made central to the new science of ecology. It was the major legacy of the aberrant geographers to the emerging profession.” </font><font face="Calibri" size="3">-Donald Worster, Nature&#39;s Economy, </font></p><p><a href="http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/shaun-libman-0">read more</a></p> http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/shaun-libman-0#comment Week 4: Clements and Succession Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:09:10 -0800 libsha19 220 at http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter ARCHIVE - Mitch Gines http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/mitch-gines-2 <p>&quot;But various theories on the fundamental nature, definition, and classification on associations extend largely beyond the bounds of experiment and observation, and represent merely the abstract extrapolations of the ecologist&#39;s mind.  They are not based on pure and rigid logic, and suffer from the vagaries and errors of human reason.&quot; -H.A. Gleason, The Individualistic Concepts of the Plant Assocation; pg. 9</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It is usually assumed and perceived that science is a world of facts and &quot;physical laws&quot;.  When people are explained that something is &quot;science&quot;, the usual reaction is to assume it as something feasible, and so it must be true.  However, looking deep into the history of science itself, we find it has about as much &quot;social&quot; aspect influencing it nearly as much as the typical &quot;political agenda&quot; that consists of status and scandal among other things. What was once perceived as &quot;common truth&quot; among the populace has been proven false, making statements like &quot;everything revolve around the Earth&quot; a lot of rubbish.  Unfortunately, as Gleason reasoned, some theories can&#39;t be deemed &quot;logic&quot; due to faulted human perception.  This same reasoning had known names of the scientific community like &quot;Thoreau&quot; and &quot;Freud&quot; perceived as &quot;crackpots&quot;. Those guys got off relatively lucky compared to the &quot;unnamed&quot; rejects who may have contributed greatly to the scientific community if their research was only accepted.  When further considering the social aspect, scientific rivals may be bickering over their theories for more than just who&#39;s got right: they just might be arguing more so over who gets their name on that big shiny scientific textbook for their discovery.  </p><p><a href="http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/mitch-gines-2">read more</a></p> http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/mitch-gines-2#comment Week 4: Clements and Succession Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:23:30 -0800 ginmel01 209 at http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter ARCHIVE - Cody Cohan http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/cody-cohan-1 <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt">“In a savage society…the loss of a few individual parts means nothing. But in a more advanced organism like a civilized community, ‘you cannot remove or injure any considerable organ without producing great disturbance or death of the rest’” (Herbert Spencer; 213).<br /> <br /> <br /> <span>                </span>This quote raises quite a few questions in my mind. Worster is trying to compare the human body to a civilized community when in fact humans are the only species that we deem capable of civilized society. Humans have become quite dependent on one another. No longer does man scavenge the countryside for food and water. Instead, we jump in the car and drive to the nearest grocery store. If every grocery store, market, and vending machine closed one day, how many of your friends do you think could survive? We have become dependent on each other to provide what we have managed to forget from the past. There is no greater trait then the ability to become independent and we as a species have all become much too dependent on one another. Animals dictate their course of action by what is available. Do you think the hawk scanning the horizon for food is really worried about if the marmot is a bit discolored or not the average size? Is man even capable of surviving without a global economy? Our race has become one of technological advancements and relies a lot less on what the human body is actually capable of. Humans have evolved too intellectually, but physical traits seem to only be skin deep. Does humanity deft what everyone now sees as evolution or has humanity just adapted noticeably more then other animals? Perhaps the only reason humanity is on top of the food chain is chance. I am sure that we wont always be the dominant species on this planet. </span></p><p><a href="http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/cody-cohan-1">read more</a></p> http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter/cody-cohan-1#comment Week 4: Clements and Succession Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:24:21 -0800 cohcod02 199 at http://www2.evergreen.edu/visecowinter