Evolution is Impossible Without Change
Posted in Things I Don't Understand on June 8th, 2007 by JennyWhy is there so much societal opposition to changes in our natural environment? Since change is an inevitable part of evolution, wouldn’t the species and/or societies quickest to adapt be the most likely to not only survive but also thrive? I don’t understand the desire to preserve the past, rather than focusing on the present and what the future may hold. I am also confused as to the seemingly random decisions as to what constitutes a native landscape.
Let’s take invasive species for example. Invasive species are plants and animals that are not native to a particular landscape. Typically they are introduced by humans through accident or intention. Some of them stay where they are introduced, for example a tomato plant, while others take over rapidly and are labeled invasive. In North America examples include Buckthorn, Garlic Mustard and Honeybees. Once an invasive species “escapes” they dominate landscapes to the point that other plants and animals often struggle to thrive.
Common thought argues that these invasive species need to be controlled and removed. While I understand the argument that invasive species are changing landscapes, I question whether they are harming natural environments.
Invasive species create monocultures. However, eventually other plants and animals learn to adapt and compete. This allows new species to be created and new balances to be established. By fighting this evolutionary shift humans are hindering the environment from finding equilibrium. This may in fact be opening the door for even more invasive species to move in. Change is a natural process.
One of the beautiful things about the environment is that it is always changing and never quite attains perfect balance. It self corrects continuously. By trying to hold nature in an artificial unmoving state is it possible that more harm is being done than good and humans will be fighting to maintain this arbitrary balance forever? Why is there such a focus on trying to contain natural process? The environment will rebalance and life will thrive, it always has. That’s an amazing thing. I guess the real question being asked is will humankind?
June 8th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Jenny,
Interesting, interesting. I’m not too sure how I feel about this. It’s a bit disheartening…
I think erosion also fits with your argument. People build houses on beaches and highways on cliffs - and then try to stop them from crumbling. Yes, human action speeds erosion in some areas, however this also is a natural process. In fact, erosion is how the beautiful beaches and jagged limestone cliffs were were made in the first place. It does seem sort of silly to try and stop this.
June 9th, 2007 at 4:22 am
The first thing that came to mind in response to this is that accelerated, altered natural processes are the greater concern. The introduction of a species which normally wouldn’t be able to get a foothold, but with our assistance does, and changes the ecosystem in a way that adversely affects everything inside, including us. Cane toads wiping out crops for instance.
Another concern is a loss of diversity due to the extinction of species.
But I think I understand what you’re saying and so such a catastrophic scenario isn’t quite the same as an invasive species simply forcing out a pre-established one, with no extensive repercussions. The difference between the two is a matter of scale, and I think some people lose sight of that difference when they push for extreme measures in preventing even minor change.
On the other hand how do we know for sure which scale is appropriate? Venus’ current atmosphere is the result of a run-away greenhouse effect. That’s probably the worst-case scenario for us, but it’s a scenario that small changes we introduce could gradually bring about, including the climate change which some people still think we’re not having a significant influence on. In that case yes, the environment still adapts, but not life.
No, life ends.
June 10th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I really don’t have any answers, nor am I actively trying to defend my position. I’ve been wondering about this for quite some time and when I ask people about it their answers don’t seem well thought out, instead they are mostly repeating what other people are saying or reacting from a worst case scenario basis.
I probably would of let it lie for a good long time except I just happened to read a really interesting National Geographic article from the May 2007 edition titled America, Lost and Found. In addition to other things one of the points of the article was how invasive species (both plants and animals) and land management practices brought to North America by colonists dramatically changed the landscape, crops and ability of Native Americans to thrive. It was very interesting to read.
Again, I don’t know what is right or wrong I just don’t think the answers I’ve heard are all that good.
June 10th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Sorry, one more thing. Here is a rather long quote from the above noted article but one I find interesting as it ties to humans introducing species to areas they’ve never been seen before:
“Two hundred and fifty million years ago the world contained a single landmass known to scientists as Pangaea. Geologic forces broke this vast expanse into pieces, sundering Eurasia and the Americas. Over time the two halves of the world developed wildly different suites of plants and animals. Columbus’s signal accomplishment was, in the phrase of historian Alfred Crosby, to reknit the torn seams of Pangaea. After 1492, the world’s ecosystems collided and mixed as European vessels carried thousands of species to new homes across the oceans. The Columbian exchange, as Crosby calls it, is why there are tomatoes in Italy, oranges in Florida, chocolates in Switzerland, and hot peppers in Thailand. It is arguably the most important event in the history of life since the death of the dinosaurs.”
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Okay, this whole post is just plain wrong!!! Time to write my own rebuttal…