It’s not nice to change Mother Nature
It seems that a well-intentioned attempt to protect a certain kind of African acacia tree from the large beasts who would munch on it has had the opposite effect. In a complex interaction of insect, plant, and animal, the trees ended up losing nectar and the ants that ordinarily feed on it and by their presence scare off wood-boring beetles, which then invade and weaken the plant terribly.
This sort of finding is one of the reasons intervening to change nature in a particular direction (such as, for example, to stop global warming) is often a dicey proposition. Systems are way too complex for us to understand either the causes or the effects of what we do well enough to be able to correctly predict the consequences of our actions.
In nature, be careful what you wish for, and be careful how you intervene.
[And I’ll wager this was actually Bush’s fault.]
Sort of reminds one of the “do-gooders” who brought kudzu to America in order to stop soil erosion!
Number of examples when intervention in natural ecosystems gave totally unexpected and harmful results is almost infinite. As mathematical ecologist I do not expect anything else. We still have not adequate methods of prediction of behavior for systems of this degree of complexity.
The most common argument against AGW holds that the sum of all our human activities is too insignificant to affect the climate (nature) and so global warming (if real) must have other causes and regardless is beyond our ability to change. Here you offer the very different view that nature is subtle and far more complex than we can know and so even small, well meaning, changes can have massive unintended consequences, thus it behooves us to be prudent when intervening in nature.
We extract billions of gallons of fossil fuels from the earth, pave millions of square miles of the earth’s surface, cut down millions of acres of forests, and dump billions of tons of chemicals into the air, earth and water. Is this not an incredibly extreme version of “intervening in nature”? The consensus among experts regarding global climate change is now that it is one of the unfortunate side effects of the Industrial Age practice of burning fossil fuels for energy. Wouldn’t the logical conclusion, based on the idea you express that we need to be prudent and aware of how even minor human tinkering with nature in ways thought to be benign can have massive negative consequences, be that we should cease to intervene in nature in those ways now understood to be destructive?
One may logically argue that the scale of the planet’s climate is beyond our capacity to affect change and thus we need not alter our activities except to adapt to the changes nature thrusts upon us. If one accepts that even minor human interventions can have surprisingly large, often unanticipated, consequences on natural systems and thus holds that we should be cautious and avoid falling victim to the negative side effects from our activities, isn’t it more logical to say this is consistent with the view of those who believe climate change is the defining example of our age of the law of unintended consequences when it comes to human intervention in nature?
Yep… those systems are quite complex.
Plant the wrong thing in a garden and it might attract a new pest that will kill off everything else you have… et cetera…
I think there is a pattern, however. Now, a serious study by as politically, more ideologically, unaligned a group of researchers as is possible reviewing all of man’s attempts to change his natural environment (by adding a frog to eat this, lady bugs to eat that, change the flow of a river, etc). I am pretty sure man is extremely good at doing exactly what he meant not to do. So, if lessons are learned, then perhaps if we wish to cool the planet, or warm it, or… stabilize the weather (they really need to make up their minds on this one, first though), then we try to figure out what we think is the root cause of what we consider the problem and then replicate that ad nauseum. Just a thought.
I know, never that easy. Even with a fair and deep study, I am sure there isn’t an exact correlation. Humans are right something like 3% of the time, I suppose. Well, I tried.
“If one accepts that even minor human interventions can have surprisingly large, often unanticipated, consequences on natural systems and thus holds that we should be cautious and avoid falling victim to the negative side effects from our activities”
Yes, very much. There are many things I generally oppose because we do not really know it’s affects, for the most part I want that stuff limited to “needs” when it comes to either large changes or intentionally fighting nature. Things like going from no tidal generators to large farms of them scare me due to even smaller ones having issues with things like long shore currents – there is no testing being done and “naturalist” are jumping on it to save things. More than likely the larger effect you are looking to achieve the larger the mistakes tend to be – and stopping the earths climate from warming is one heck of a large mission. We can do fairly well building rodes, housing, and other things now and remain “green” and we have lots of data showing that.
“isn’t it more logical to say this is consistent with the view of those who believe climate change is the defining example of our age of the law of unintended consequences when it comes to human intervention in nature?”
Why does that even remotely follow from the first? It may or may not be and just because other things affect it greatly doesn’t mean this does. There are also many VERY large things that have no discernible affect, yet that doesn’t imply that man-made global warming is not in effect any more than you “logical conclusion”. Further, given if it *is* what nature intends (that is, we have little impact) then trying to fight nature on that extent is probably going to be *worse* than just holding our course. That is WAY more likely to kill us.
There are all sorts of reasons to reduce a lot of the pollution – dependence on oil, general health, not really knowing what the outcome is, and many many other things that people would generally get behind. But as of right now you can’t really talk about these things because the religion of Global Warming has to *everything* come back to it and then turn it into an all or nothing proposition (and then they get nothing). Dependence on oil (and the countries that produce it) is finally pushing people to go elsewhere, but we are at least a decade behind what we would be if the Global Warming nuts hadn’t co-opted reasonable moves and made sure you had unreasonable or nothing.
One thing is certain about climate…it changes. 🙂
CW: The most common argument against AGW holds that the sum of all our human activities is too insignificant to affect the climate (nature) and so global warming (if real) must have other causes and regardless is beyond our ability to change.
No, it doesn’t.
First of all, the arguments are not primarily directed at so-called “AGW” (“anthopogenic global warming”), but rather at the ideologically-inspired, quasi-religious campaign to throw a monkey wrench into national and global economies, out of a vague, rarely openly stated, but always implicit, hostility to globalization, capitalism, and industrial civilization.
Second, these arguments are in fact an entire cascade:
1. Despite the fact that most of the current evidence indicates that the climate is going through a warming trend, real scientists, as opposed to ideological crusaders, will admit that there remain lingering and niggling uncertainties over even that — uncertainties of the sort that have overturned settled scientific consensus in the past.
2. Those uncertainties are multiplied by further uncertainties surrounding the causes of any climate warming that may be occurring, all but one of which are natural and outside of even the possibility of our control — along these lines, real scientists, or just anyone guided by reason and evidence, as opposed to political credulity, will note that vaunted models that constitute the chief evidence the warming is indeed anthropogenic have had to be “adjusted” repeatedly to stay in conformance with actual data while still predicted AGW.
3. Even if we grant the likelihood of GW being anthropogenic, however, there is considerably greater uncertainty over its costs versus its benefits — indeed, there’s been an obvious hushing of even the suggestion that there might be benefits — raising the real possibility that adapting to climate change rather than attempting to halt it would not only be less costly but might actually be a net good.
4. And, in any case, in light of the extreme sensitivity of the AGW models to slight variations in data, there are also much higher levels of uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of any proposed cure — raising the very real possibility that we could trash the global economy, with all the devastating consequences to human life everywhere, including especially the developing world, that that would entail, and still have little effect on a changing climate.
5. Finally, there are the truly massive uncertainties surrounding just the time scales involved here. Nothing being proposed will have an effect, even under the most hopeful models, in less than 50 to a hundred years, over which period technological change and economic growth (assuming that’s allowed to continue) will simply render all efforts to extrapolate from our current situation vain — like “scientists” in the middle of the 19th century proposing that we start slaughtering horses immediately on the basis of a prediction that cities will otherwise be neck deep in horse manure by the middle of the 20th century.
Uncertainties of any kind, of course, are anathema to True Believers, and merely confusing to those who like to parrot whatever currently passes for Conventional Wisdom. But there are much more than enough of them surrounding this whole topic to make thoughtful people want to pause before committing ourselves to a crusade in planetary engineering, whatever the cost.
like “scientists” in the middle of the 19th century proposing that we start slaughtering horses immediately on the basis of a prediction that cities will otherwise be neck deep in horse manure by the middle of the 20th century.
I’d be interested in seeing a citation to these mid 19th C. scientists (with or without scare quotes) and some further evidence that they were part of a large consensus or were more like those rogue researchers who’ve exponded the notion that the earth is in large part hollow and that the interior civilization is the source of flying saucers.
CW: I’d be interested in seeing a citation….
Would you, Chris? Now that’s … well, amusing to say the least. You see, once again you’ve missed, or misunderstood, the point. “like” was short for “it would be like”, but I’ll try to spell it out for you: attempting to specify conditions 50 to 100 years from now on the basis of simply extrapolating current trends is as misguided, shortsighted, and stupid as it would have been HAD scientists of the 19th century proposed that we start slaughtering horses immediately on the basis of a prediction that cities will otherwise be neck deep in horse manure by the middle of the 20th century.
Get it? Do you begin to see why “a citation” might not be quite relevant here?
So, you’re using an invented and somewhat absurd example of a prediction that misguided scientists 150 years ago might have made to make the point that the actual opinions of today’s scientific community could be shown to be in error in 150 years, and so they should be ignored. Talk about missing the point.
I think you do get it, Chris, don’t you, since even you could see the point of the absurdity of any “community”, scientific, pseudo-scientific, ideolological, or otherwise, then or now, believing that they can accurately predict technological and economic conditions over such long stretches of time? But that is the point, however much you may not like it.
Chris, please….
pave millions of square miles of the earth’s surface, Hyperbole alert:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Alerts/Alert12_data2.htm
Total paved area of the US is 50,225 sq miles.
Counting the whole rest of the planet might give you another 100k sp miles. Very, very little of the planet is paved.
You don’t really know how big a square mile is, do you?
The total surface area of the earth is surface area: 196,935,000 sq miles http://www.planetpals.com/planet2.html
That means only 0.076% of the earth is paved.
Tar has been seeping out under the sea for millenia–far more than man has, or will ever extract: http://www.mms.gov/omm/pacific/enviro/submarine-oil-seep-study/submarine-seeps.htm
“cut down millions of acres of forests”
Cutting down those pesky trees may actually cool the planet. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061117130944.htm
The only true statement you can make about “the planet” and warming, or cooling is: “No one really knows….”
Your proclamations about “the planet” aren’t based on science. You have a personal problem you project onto The World.
Furthermore, Chris, you don’t understand the difference between a linear and a non-linear process.
Don’t feel bad, many otherwise smart people don’t understand the difference either. Particularly Global Warmists it seems.
Non-linear process: At the rate my toddler is growing he’s going to be 13 feet tall when he is 10!
Linear Process: Increased voltage as resistance is increased.
A billion of this or a million of that seems like a lot to a human, but on the scale of the earth, it’s a literal drop in the ocean.
Capitalism was bad for “the proletariat” now it’s bad for “the planet”. Same people, same specious argument….
To provide real example of how stupid is even try to make long-term predictions, let take so-called Roman Club analysis of future “Limits of Growth”. In 1960 there was a wide consensus of futurologists, economists and hordes of other specialists that 30 years after the date there will be inevitable economic crisis due to shortage of treasures of the soil, first of all, metals ores and oil. Rather soon all these predictions turned to be bogus, new oilfields were discovered on the shelf, and prices for raw materials did not soar, but plummed instead.
To provide real example of how stupid is even try to make long-term predictions, let take so-called Roman Club analysis of future “Limits of Growth”.
That’s a great point Sergey. Since our models of highly complex systems like The Climate are so accurate, we can predict the stock market. Right? Right?
We extract billions of gallons of fossil fuels from the earth, pave millions of square miles of the earth’s surface, cut down millions of acres of forests, and dump billions of tons of chemicals into the air, earth and water. Is this not an incredibly extreme version of “intervening in nature”? The consensus among experts regarding global climate change is now that it is one of the unfortunate side effects of the Industrial Age practice of burning fossil fuels for energy.
Chris believes that it is not only possible that he can know the objective state of things but that he does know them. Contrast this with the disbelief described by Chris over objective standards for ethical ramifications. I suppose once you get past the need to hold oneself accountable for actions and beliefs proposed, you can believe any prediction of any effect on the world.
In nature, be careful what you wish for, and be careful how you intervene.
After all, care is for lazy farmers and school drop outs that have to go to Iraq. Care is not a requirement for those born to rule on the Left.
When there are no ethical standards that applies to me as well as to everyone, you are free to care about nothing and anything. Actions no longer have a moral responsibility attached to it. It is simply intellectual whimsy. Requiring about as much accuracy and accountability as choosing post cards.
The earth could go up in smoke, ash, and fire. Who can say that Chris helped bring that about without objective ethical standards?
Sergey – Were the predictions of the Roman Club regarding “inevitable economic crisis due to shortage of treasures of the soil, first of all, metals ores and oil” totally ‘bogus’, or merely off in terms of the thirty year time frame they thought it would take for the crisis to hit? Oil prices currently threaten to stay in the $90 – $100 per barrel range for the foreseeable future while new oilfields are more than counterbalanced by growing demand. [The question of whether the growth of that demand is linear, non-linear, or exponential we can leave for antoher day.] Some (admittedly not all) economic forecasters are suggesting that we’re now entering a major recession/depression. A few of them are fearful that it may be a protracted world wide, rather than short, relatively localized, one.
Gray — I freely admit that, in the heat of the moment, I plugged in arbitrary and hyperbolic numbers rather than researching the exact figures for gallons of oil extracted, acres paved, and so on. Rather than taking the real point – which was to note that we humans are, and have been for our entire existence as a species, engaged in “intervening to change nature”, often in massive ways — you want to pick nits about the number of acres paved.
Ymasakar – What is “objective standards for ethical ramifications” supposed to mean? Can you cite the data that objectively shows, for example, that punishing adultery by flogging is an overall ethical evil due to these “objective standards for ethical ramifications”? You can make the case that flogging is a greater evil, and if you do, I can agree with you, but our positions would be equally subjective. We would have little in the way of objective proofs to offer if confronted by a religious fundamentalist arguing that adultery requires the punishment of flogging. On the other hand, as Gray points out, it is entirely possible to have objective facts regarding how many tons of CO2 are released by coal burning power plants each year within a modest and known margin of error.
Neo’s post offers a wonderful example of the way in which even small interventions can have large effects on natural systems, a point I strongly agree with. She then uses this as a cautionary tale to suggest that the complexity of nature makes it foolish and even impossible to predict outcomes. She then continues further to use this idea to argue against efforts to roll back our contribution to global warming. What I have difficulty with is the idea that our limited ability to fully understand every possible consequence of an action we might make that affects nature means we shouldn’t bother to attempt to understand what those effects are, nor should we attempt to moderate them if we begin to suspect they are negative.
When, for example, we began to understand the implications of heavy metal poisoning on living beings we began to ban lead from paints and toys, despite any negative impacts this may have had or, in light of recent recalls of Chinese made toys, continues to have on national and global economies. Why shouldn’t we take the position that the market will self correct for this situation, if enough kids begin to suffer from heavy metal poisoning it will drive those companies who use lead out of business and the problem will go away, right? Or maybe we just need to adapt ourselves to the ways in which lead poisons us.
Gray — I freely admit that, in the heat of the moment, I plugged in arbitrary and hyperbolic numbers rather than researching the exact figures for gallons of oil extracted, acres paved, and so on. Rather than taking the real point – which was to note that we humans are, and have been for our entire existence as a species, engaged in “intervening to change nature”, often in massive ways — you want to pick nits about the number of acres paved.
Calling .076% ‘massive’ is not a nit-pick. It’s a lie.
Global Warmism is promoted by lies, supported by lies, introduced by a vanguard of lies, protected by a bulwark of lies and spread by lying.
At least you admitted it, but then your tried to go back and claim your ficticious figures are ‘massive’, so no credit, liar.
CW: What I have difficulty with is the idea that our limited ability to fully understand every possible consequence of an action we might make that affects nature means we shouldn’t bother to attempt to understand what those effects are, nor should we attempt to moderate them if we begin to suspect they are negative.
You’ll notice, however, that CW is unable to take issue with a single one of the five successive sources of uncertainty regarding the issue of global warming I mentioned above, which makes this quote simply disingenuous. Like any troll, when confronted with something he can’t answer, he just waits for awhile and then says the same nonsense again, as if hoping to win the point by repetition. But the answer can be repeated too: in summary, it’s that the significant remaining uncertainties surrounding the phenomenon itself, the much greater uncertainties regarding its costs and benefits, the uncertainties re: the costs and effectiveness of the proposed cure, and particularly the huge uncertainty engendered by the very long time frame involved, all make that proposed “cure” so speculative and dubious as to be politically and ideologically suspect, with the single most likely result being a ruined global economy. People like CW can repeat themselves forever, of course, but all they’re doing is repeatedly missing the point.
What I have difficulty with is the idea that our limited ability to fully understand every possible consequence of an action we might make that affects nature means we shouldn’t bother to attempt to understand what those effects are, nor should we attempt to moderate them if we begin to suspect they are negative.
Unfortunately, the true-believers are presenting global warming to the public, government and industry as if we do fully understand every possible consequence, and as if, far from merely suspecting that human activities are negative, we are absolutely certain that they are. I don’t believe any responsible scientist would go that route.
I agree we should protect the environment, take measures to reduce pollution, etc. But the desperate, certain-doom millennialism that characterizes today’s environmentalists raises questions in my mind about their sanity.
I live in Florida. We get hurricanes here, and the 5 day forecast of a storm that we can see on a satellite, have weather planes flying into 2x a day, is never right.
When they can accurately predict where a hurricane is going 7 days out, I will be happy.
They think they can predict the weather 100 years from now? Right.
“Wouldn’t the logical conclusion… …be that we should cease to intervene in nature…?”
Chris, I hate to break it to you, but we ARE nature. Part of it anyway. All flora and fauna affect their sphere of influence in the natural world. As top dog, we have a larger influence. Go figure. If we do something which ‘imbalances’ things a bit, mother nature will do what she does (smack us) and we’ll do what we’ve always done (adapt).
It’s funny how, if man brings a plant into a new habitat, we’re screwing up nature. If a plant is brought into a new habitat by way of bird droppings, it’s nature. More successful plants will dominate, and less successful ones will lose ground. That is how it always has been, and always will be, perhaps excepting our peculiar desire to preserve specimens of weaker species for our diversion. Why is saving the California Condor, or the Panda bear not interfering in Nature? Hasn’t anyone considered what might happen if we sustain species that should go extinct? Where did this notion of a static nature come from?
Parallel to the story that inspired this post, a couple of decades ago, there was a big move to shut down trawling near the sea lion rookeries around the Bering sea, “because there was a fear that fishing was behind the sea lion decline. But there was never any data and still isn’t any evidence that links the two. We therefore need to go the next step and re-open fishing in a few areas, but not in others, and then compare what happens. We need to think about this as a carefully controlled experiment and an opportunity to learn once and for all whether fishing has an effect on Steller’s sea lions. Just because sea lions and fisheries target the same species, doesn’t necessarily mean that they compete with each other. It is like two people who breathe the same air in a room. They do not compete with each other unless the room is sealed and their supply of oxygen is limited. “
We stopped fishing of pollock in many areas, they thrived, pushing numbers of herring and other species down, and it turns out that pollock may not be very good food for sea lions, particularly young sea lions. Had we continued fishing pollock, perhaps that wouldn’t have happened. Who knows. I’ll not be one so arrogant as to claim I understand nature so well.
Hmmm, I’ll try the link again.
A few rabbits were introduced into Australia long ago, presumably to provide a little diversion for British hunters. Most of us know what happened next.
The point is, most of the time we have no idea what will happen after we do X. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Australians, up to their didgeridoos in rabbits, had seriously considered introducing larger predators – maybe the Tasmanian Devil – to control the rabbits.