
The ‘balance of nature’ is an enduring concept. But it’s wrong - pseudolus
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/balance-of-nature-explained/
======
whatshisface
This article is pure fluff, nature is in plenty of dynamic equilibria. Saying
the balance of nature doesn't exist is like saying red bowling balls don't
exist.

~~~
fastball
If two things are balanced, they should remain balanced until acted upon by an
outside force. That is the implication when someone says "the balance of
nature".

But as pointed out in the article, it is not true. Ecologies change and fall
out of equilibrium with or without human intervention. That is not balance.

------
hprotagonist
If we believe that balance implies stasis, then sure. Nothing like that
exists, and never has.

"Homeostasis means dynamical systems have fixed points in state space" is
something that's been taught in american highschool biology since at least the
mid-90s. (though they usually take more words to say the "fixed points ..."
bit)

~~~
fastball
Would you not argue that balance implies stasis?

Do you not think things which are balanced should remain so unless acted upon
by an outside force?

Since "nature" as a concept tends to include everything except human activity,
the implication of "balance of nature" is that it will remain in stasis unless
acted upon by humans, which, as the article has pointed out, is not accurate.

~~~
wavepruner
One of the most paradigm shifting mental adjustments I've made is considering
humans and our actions as nature.

Which, of course, is true.

So strange we don't think of ourselves as being part of what created us and
would die without.

Humans behavior is not an external force. When we destroy nature that is
nature destroying nature, as it always has.

~~~
dondawest
What is this war in the heart of nature?

Why does the land contend with the sea?

Is there an avenging power in nature?

Not one force, but two?

------
_bxg1
As of 2015, NatGeo is majority-controlled by Fox News' parent company. Just
something to think about.

[https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150909-21st-
cent...](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150909-21st-century-fox-
media-partnership/)

~~~
fastball
And that is relevant how...?

~~~
_bxg1
The whole thing is a vague, fluffy argument against the value of conservation.
It tries to argue that nature isn't static and that we therefore shouldn't
worry about screwing it up. What's left out is the fact that nature's time
scale of change is so slow compared to our own time scales, that it may as
well be static from our perspective. We change things exponentially faster
than natural systems have time to adapt to.

~~~
fastball
That’s not what the article is arguing at all.

It came across to me as arguing for _stronger_ conservation efforts, because
even if we manage to stop human-led global warming, that doesn’t mean
ecologies will just stick around.

------
Merrill
18,000 years ago Manhattan was under 2000 feet of ice. An ice-covered Canada
has been the usual state of nature for the last couple million years.

The current warm period is highly unusual and probably unstable, although AGW
may prolong it. Things change.

------
meuk
I'm not sure what exactly the defining quality of 'balance' is that nature
does not have. In other words, I miss the point of the article.

~~~
zwieback
Yeah, poorly written. As far as I can tell the only point is that nature
doesn't balance itself out on its own but there's no metric for "balance".

------
msiyer
Ridiculous. What next? The 'balance of an atom' is a totally wrong concept and
the universe is about to crumble?

~~~
fastball
No, because an atom _is_ in balance.

An atom has a set number of protons, neutrons, and electrons, which will not
change unless acted upon by an outside force.

~~~
msiyer
And the motion of electrons is totally predictable?

And what exactly are the 'outside forces' when it comes to the closed system
which we refer to as 'nature'?

~~~
fastball
Generally human activity is considered to be outside the closed system.

~~~
msiyer
You and I are thinking about this totally differently. Humans and their
activities can create new variables, but nature will adjust to that. We are an
inseparable part of nature. So are our activities.

------
AlbertoGP
Adam Curtis explored this in more detail in the second part of his 3-part
documentary “All watched over by machines of loving grace“, titled “The use
and abuse of vegetational concepts”:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of_Loving_Grace_%28TV_series%29#Part_2._'The_Use_and_Abuse_of_Vegetational_Concepts')

The concept of “balance of nature” is generally associated with the
environmental movement, and I too thought so until I watched Curtis’
documentary. Here is a quote from the summary in the Wikipedia article:

> However, this was opposed by many people within the environmental movement,
> since the model did not allow for people to change their values to stabilise
> the world, and they argued that the model tried to maintain and enforce the
> current political hierarchy. Arthur Tansley who had invented the term
> ecosystem, had once accused Field Marshal Jan Smuts of the "abuse of
> vegetational concepts". Smuts had invented a philosophy called holism, where
> everyone had a 'rightful place', which was to be managed by the white race.
> The 70s protestors claimed that the same conceptual abuse of the supposed
> natural order was occurring, that it was really being used for political
> control.

The article subject of this discussion, from National Geographic, has much
less substance to it but this is the part I think reflects the point that a
blind adherence to that concept will actually _damage the enviroment_ :

> But the most obvious, and pressing, manifestation is the looming climate
> crisis, says Corinne Zimmerman, a psychologist at Illinois State University.
> While the vast majority of scientists agree that efforts to address climate
> change must involve human action, a public misconception about nature being
> in balance could inhibit progress. “If nature is all robust and fine, she'll
> take care of herself, we don't have to do anything about our carbon
> footprint,” she said. “It's a very naive understanding of nature.”

This article in NatGeo is not detailed enough but it’s quick to read, so I
would recommend anyone interested in protecting the environment to take a
quick look at it, and in any case watch Adam Curtis’ documentary where he
gives this idea a better grounding and shows how things end up not as
intendend. We can not base the fight against the destruction of our natural
environment on misconceptions.

In the words of (fictional) astronaut Mark Watney[1], we are going to have to
“science the shit out of this”.

[1]
[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+watney+science+the+shit+out+o...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mark+watney+science+the+shit+out+of+this&t=canonical)

------
ourmandave
Didn't read the article, but the title sounds like a piece you'd put out to
sway public opinion if you wanted to say, I dunno, nuke Mars or something.

