Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
In this chapter I will describe six fundamental conceptual elements of scientific ecology after a discussion of the ecosystem that they all relate to.
The point here is to think philosophically and theologically through the
material of scientific ecology. But the presentation of these ideas will not
simply be historical or scientific or philosophical, though they will also be
these things, but presented in the same style as Laruelles generic science
or unified theory. This means that though the integrity of the scientific
nature of the ideas is respected, meaning we dont treat them as absolute concepts, they are read with regard to philosophical theology rather
than terrestrial or aquatic ecosystem dynamics. Whereas Laruelle brought
together quantum mechanics and philosophy by way of idemmanence
or the immanence expressed in quantum physicss conception of idempotence, we bring together ecology and philosophical theology by way of an
ecology (of) thought.1 In this generic science thought itself is treated as
if it were operative within an ecosystem. The point of this thought experiment is not to create an ecosophia, as Naess aimed to do, but to show that
the normal philosophical and theological ways of thinking about nature
do so without engaging with scientific material. As I showed in part I, even
when scientific material is engaged with, it is never a deep engagement
with ecological scientific material. Again, rather than a simple naturalism
that ecology or other forms of science would undergird, here we begin
with the idea that nature is manifest in ecosystems, such that ecology does
think it in some relative way, but nature as such is not the object of ecology.
Nature, as perverse, is only the object of a unified theory of philosophical
theology and ecology. This doesnt exclude other unified theories, though
ecology is especially useful in this instance because it is a synthetic science
bringing together the sciences of biology, physics, biochemistry, geology,
A. P. Smith, A Non-Philosophical Theory of Nature
Anthony Paul Smith 2013
126
climatology, and many others in its study of the ecosystem. In its own
openness to disciplinary perversion it is able to express in its principles and
concepts natures perversion.
An obvious retort to this thought experiment is that this is simply a
metaphor and reveals nothing interesting in itself. Of course the Greek
metaphora literally means a transfer and comes from the verb metapherein meaning to transfer, carrying over. The charge is that this just
a metaphor suggests we are unduly transferring an idea from scientific
ecology to philosophy. In short that we are not respecting the proper borders that allow the standard division of thought to work. This is also an
economic division of thought, one relating in part to labor (so who does
what jobs) and in part to branding. Of course there is a reasonable warning
in here as well, suggesting that we should not disrespect the specificity of
practices within thought. This need not be a Sokalism, but can point to
the real difficulties present in both scientific thinking and philosophical/
theological thinking. Consider the outrage among theologians and scholars of religion when those trained in biology or cosmology publish their
largely unlearned thoughts on religion; surely then the converse would be
true as well.
So, just as Spinoza wore a signet ring with a red rose and the Latin
caute [caution] that he used to mark his texts with, we note that we are
proceeding cautiously into the scientific material. But we are still proceeding because even if it were just a matter of a simple transfer of material
from scientific ecology to philosophy it could still then be following the
principles of ecology at the level of fiction. Thus one cannot see it as a
metaphor if by that one means something outside but like an ecosystem, for the metaphor too depends on the ecosystem for its existence since
thought is tied to actuality and actuality is ecological. One may name this
the materialist element of immanental ecology, but only if what the material is remains open to revision. However, I want to suggest that while this
is certainly a work of philo-fiction, there is also a more substantial basis
for positing an ecology of thought. Consider again Mortons remark that
thinking is one of the things damaged by modern society in addition to
actual ecosystems.2 The environment inhabited by human beings, which
to say whatever particular ecosystem different human societies have codeveloped in, is part of development of ideas. This idea was already present
in the first attempt at universal history by Ibn Khaldn, and contemporary
environmental historians have shown that ideas are part of ecosystems.3
But this is obvious already in everyday popular environmental discourse
on the destructive nature of certain human ideas. If these ideas are allowed
to continue they will run up against ecological limits like any other species.
So, for instance, the idea of wilderness is currently on the decline because it
127
Ecosystem
The ecosystem concept is key to scientific ecology. Within the scientific
field there tends to be a loose division between those researchers who practice ecosystem ecology and those who practice population ecology. The
divide between these two postures can be explained in part by a sociological cause, namely, ecologists have a strong desire to be accepted by other
biologists (for ecology was and remains a biological science) as well as other
scientists in general, who often hold up physics as the paradigm of scientific work. However, due to the difficulties of studying actual, complex,
and changing systems, ecology is often not able to rise to certain epistemological norms common to more abstract sciences; for instance, falsifiability
is notoriously difficult in ecology.5 But population ecology, or the major
subfield of ecology that concerns itself with the way populations of species are distributed in time and space and their interactions among other
populations, allows the individual ecologists to do science in a way that
is more generally accepted by the social community of scientists because
it is easier to observe and conduct experiments on discrete populations.6
The disciplinary reality, according to Lvque, is that ecosystem ecology
and population ecology are developed in relatively autonomous manners.
Population ecology fits a generally reductionist program, while ecosystem
ecology attempts to understand the cycles of matter and energy that structure the ecosystems and can be said to be holistic in some sense.7 There
is, though, no real reason why a population ecologist and an ecosystem
128
129
his textbook Odum had laid out an agenda that anticipated the direction
taken by the ecological movement over the next twenty years.11
130
131
modifies for its purposes. People often ask how ecology is different from
general systems theory, how its theory of energy differs from thermodynamics, and if it is really distinct from biology in general. What is behind these
questions if not a certain kind of philosophy of science that aims to find the
science that will reveal all the required answers for a philosophy of reality.
A division of the sciences that creates a permanent war between the real sciences and those sciences that depend upon them. But there is no agreement
from the philosophers on which form of science is the science and so this
war is really an internal philosophical war. What is the non-philosophical
response? A relatively peaceful one, for the way non-philosophy conceives
of the division of ideational labor locates all scientific practice and all
philosophical thought relative before the Real. Ecology is thus only different from those scientific practices and theories it draws upon by virtue
of its object, which is the ecosystem. The object toward which a science is
directed is immanent to the identity and posture of that science such that
the autonomy of a science is always given not by some particular practice
but by the object that produces that project. In other words, the differences
in the practices between theoretical set theory and ecology are entirely
important with regards to what can be done with the science on different
occasions, but those practices cannot be truly separated from the occasion
itself. The object brings with it the problems and practices of the science.
The problem of scientism arises when one tries to make a single science
and its object (what Laruelle calls its research-world) the form of thought
above all others.17 Ecology already resists this kind of overcoding of everything by the very virtue of the complexity of its object. For quite simply the
ecosystem is not an abstraction that can be experimented in a laboratory,
but is a lived, immanent reality in time.
Biodiversity
Biodiversity is a relatively recent principle in scientific ecology and it isnt
without its controversies. Lvque, for instance, prefers the term biological
diversity, even while recognizing that biodiversity is simply a contraction
of this term, because of its all-too-easy appropriation by political ecology.
He points out that the term was popularized in the context of the alarm of
naturalists at the rabid decline and destruction of natural environments.18
And, as we will see in more detail later, even Edward O. Wilson, who
is one of these popularizers, raises issues regarding the fundamental unit
of biodiversity. Regardless of these issues the scientific investigation into
biodiversity is a response to the incredible diversity of life on planet Earth.
132
What scientists like Wilson have argued, supported by more recent work
in resilience ecology, is that this diversity is necessary for and constitutive
of the stable and resilient functioning of life on Earth. Moreover, it raises
questions of a philosophical and theological character about the concept of
nature itself. Namely, what is nature in relation to life? Is one term primary
over the other? Or are they reversible with one another? Beyond these questions the field of study around biodiversity gives us tools that can be used
to disempower philosophical and theological overdetermination of ecology and begin to treat thought as if it were ecological (which, of course, it
always already is).
If it is true that philosophy begins in wonder (one thinks of Plato) and
theology in the fear of God seen through Gods Creation (one thinks of
Paul), then it is worth noting the reported numbers of biodiversity as summarized in Wilsons The Diversity of Life (2001), which continues to be
a standard summary of debates and issues in the study of biodiversity.
According to estimates made by Wilson in 1986 and published in 1992
the number of living species was put at 1.4 million. He goes on to state
that 13,000 new species are discovered each year, meaning at the time
The Diversity of Life went into its second edition in 2001 the number had
gone up to 1.5 million. Of these we have catalogued 865,000 different species of insects and 69,000 species of fungi. These are the species we have
identified, the estimate of the true number of species on Earth ranges from
3,635,000 and 111,655,000. The vast majority of these unknown species
are ones that dont normally occur to the human being to care about. So,
while it is estimated that we know 98 percent of the living bird species,
we know only 1.5 percent of chromophyte algal species. And as fantastic
as these numbers are, literally suggesting a planet that is teeming with living creatures and where that very teeming provides the conditions for the
remarkable creation of more species, it is estimated that 98 percent of all
species that have existed on this planet in the more than 3.5 billion years of
biological history have disappeared into extinction forever.19
Note that these numbers refer only to species. This is the unit preferred
by those who study biodiversity because of the relative stability of species as
a concept (defined by Wilson as a population whose members are able to
interbreed freely under natural conditions) and the relative ease in recording them.20 For, the fact is, there are other organic units the biologist and
ecologist could use in their study of biodiversity, such as genes or, at the
other end of the quantitative spectrum, ecosystems. Wilson tells us,
Biologists still find it useful to divide living diversity into a hierarchy of
three levels: ecosystem, species, and gene. [ . . . ] Because ecosystems are so
often hard to delimit, and because genes are difficult to identify and count,
133
the unit of choice in biodiversity studies remains the species, which is relatively easy to diagnose and has moreover been the central object of research
for over two hundred years.21
Yet, even setting aside the difficulties of counting and identifying the
unit of species, there remain some enduring problems with the concept
of species.
The most obvious problem relating to the conceptual description of
species is simply that not all organisms are sexual and so the concept of
species doesnt fully account for them. However, since the overwhelming majority of organisms are sexual in relative terms and furthermore
the majority of nonsexual species have evolved from sexually reproducing
ancestors, this isnt a conceptual problem that has caused scientists to give
up on a concept that otherwise works.22 What is more problematic, and
interesting for a non-philosophical theory of nature, is the inconsistent
nature of species. As Wilson pithily states, For species are always evolving, which means that each one perpetually changes in relation to other
species.23 This causes a nuisance in terms of cataloguing some sibling
species, which are largely similar but nonetheless distinct, but more troubling conceptual is hybrid species that are created within a genus.24 This is
perceived by scientists like Wilson as a problem for the concept of species
and moreover as the fundamental unit because it partly opens the gene
pool leading to the question of the identity of species as such.
However, the problem present for the ecologist is an occasion for speculation for the non-philosopher. In both the standard definition of a species as a community where the population can freely breed and in the
problem where gene pools appear to open up there is still a generic, radical
identity. In the technical language of non-philosophy this radical identity
is in-One, meaning it is Being and its Alterity or difference from other
species is secondary to its own actuality or identity, and so what we have
here is a new notion of identity than the one that Wilson is presupposing.
In the non-philosophical conception of identity the issue is fundamentally
related to actuality.25 The hybrid species is radically actual, regardless of
the inadequacy of the thought attempting to think it. This is an example
of the fundamentally unilateral relationship between the One (which is
occasional and thus not a single substance, being prior to Being, but always
manifest-without-manifestation in multiple sites) where the actuality or
identity of the hybrid species requires that thought think it, but thought
itself does not have any absolute effect (even if it may have a relative effect)
on the actuality of the hybrid. Perhaps, then, a non-philosophical solution to these enduring ecological problems could be offered by way of the
unilateral duality of identity. Keeping in mind that there is always the
134
135
136
137
Niche
Biodiversity opens up to a corollary concept that ecologists refer to as the
niche. If biodiversity is the recognition that there is a principal drive to
diversification within the biosphere, niche theory is the attempt to give
shape to the functioning of biodiversity. For biodiversity is a principle
derived from the research into the proliferation (one might even say clamor)
of species that are identified by the ecologist as those populations that can
freely breed under natural conditions. Niche theory is able to locate the
ways that clamor comes into a stochastic harmony. This stochastic harmony is described by Paul S. Giller as population interaction with other
populations (this grouping of populations is called the community) and
the wider ecosystem.28 Giller clarifies the strict definition of a community
writing that a community is a combination of plant, animal, and bacterial
populations, interacting with one another within an environment, thus
forming a distinctive living system with its own composition, structure,
environmental relations, development and function.29
Niches are tied more closely to the community rather than the ecosystem as a whole, though again the confusion with regard to scale of ecosystems makes this a somewhat unclear point. Giller helps clarify the place
of the niche when he writes, The ecological niche is a reflection of the
organisms or species place in the community, incorporating not only tolerances to physical factors, but also interactions with other organisms.30
In a nontechnical sense, though nonetheless true, niche refers to what lines
of sustenance are open to the organism or species. That is, a niche is that
place, within a network or mesh of interactions (these are always approximate analogies for the mathematical model of the energy exchange), where
an organism can find enough energy to continue to live while passing on
its genetic information. Now the niche of one species may be wide enough
to allow that species to spread across the ecosystem, and even, as in the case
of human beings, to dominate the ecosystems they exist within. This idea
of domination refers to the intensity of the effects that this species has on
the particular ecosystem. So the human being has obviously had a high
magnitude of effects on the ecosystems they inhabit and has even shaped
them. This limits the niches of other animals, while opening up other
niches. If the human species were to disappear the ecosystems they had
inhabited would no doubt change fundamentally, which is not necessarily
true of species who have smaller niche widths.31
In practice most organisms and species are limited or checked by
other organisms and species. This should not suggest a rather medieval
138
139
140
141
common ontological basis, the same basis that Negri reads into Job (while
himself not going as far to the creatural generic as we are): the experience
of immense, immeasurable pain. Here the biblical text is not a parable of
human labor alone, but of generic creatural labor.
According to Negris reading of Job, this figure is not pitiful as he stands
in pain against a backdrop of tragedy, but is a figure of power as ability
or potentiality against Power as constituted and oppressive. In his power
Job calls the amoral omnipotence of the divine to account for itself. Such
a demand is rhetorically complex, for the protest of Job must not make
an appeal to God simply as judge, for God is both one of the parties and
the judge. The trial is therefore a fraud.37 For when Job opens his mouth
he will have already condemned himself before the one who judges, as he
himself says in the text:
Though I am innocent, I cannot answer him;
I must appeal for mercy to my accuser.
If I summoned him and he answered me,
I do not believe he would listen to my voice.
For he crushes me with a tempest,
And multiplies my wounds without cause;
He will not let me get my breath
But fills me with bitterness.
If it is a contest of strength, he is the strong one!
If it is a matter of justice, who can summon him?
Though I am innocent, my own mouth would condemn me;
Thought I am blameless, he would prove me perverse. (Job 9.1520
NRSV)
142
143
the human being that produces suffering. Job breaks this mismatched dialectic by seeing God. By his protest Job demands that God reveal himself
and in so doing Job tears away the absolute transcendence of God. By
seeing God, through the immeasurability of God revealed as a body open
to vision, Job is able to share in the divine. The immeasurable character of
pain and grace is no longer organized hierarchically, but through a simple
vision, a knowledge that is salvific. Such vision is creation according to
Negri and it is worth quoting his ecstatic hymn to creation at length:
Job speaks of grace, of the prophecy that anticipates the Messiah. To see
God is certainly not a moral experience, nor is it merely an intellectual
experience. Here the interpreters of the book of Job do what Jobs interlocutors, form Eliphaz to Bildad, from Zophar to Elihu, had done: they
confine to a given form and measure his experience within the dimensions
of the theologically known. And yes, what an incredible experience has
unfolded to this point! I have seen God, thus God is torn from the absolute transcendence that constitutes the idea of him. God justifies himself,
thus God is dead. He saw God, hence Job can speak of him, and heJob
himselfcan in turn participate in divinity, in the function of redemption
that man constructs within lifethe instrument of the death of God that
is human constitution and the creation of the world. [ . . . ] The antagonism
between life and death is resolved in favor of life. My life is the recognition
of youmy eyes have seen you. I am. Man is. The backdrop is not modified. It is dominated by the great forces of destruction and death. But man
reorganizes himself so as to resist this disease. Creation is the going beyond
death. Creation is the content of the vision of God . Creation is the meaning
of life.42
144
145
still required that God answer for it, so the niche is perverse in the face of
the unlimited Power of Nature.
What is common to creatural being is pain. One species causes pain to
another in the working out of niche boundaries. But corollary to this pain
is the necessity for biodiversity that niches witness to. There is then a certain creatural sociality as universality at work in the pain of living among
one another.45 This pain is primary and emotions such as fear or anger are
but secondary effects that are contingent upon the organization of that
pain in the creatural socius. Even violence is secondary to this pain, insofar
as that violence can be turned into a peaceable force by way of creation.
It isnt my intent to argue for an overturning of death in the ecosystem,
but simply to disempower death, just as Job disempowers God. The niche
shows that death, as well as life, is secondary to a more immanent creative
power at work as nature against Nature. Niches witness to the exile of
nature from hypostasized Nature. The refusal of the value of Nature as
hallucination of the immeasurable in the name of a grace of nature that is
witnessed to in the perverse creative power of new species producing ways
of living indifferently to death.
146
terms are simply reversible, but in the sense that the radical identity of the
ecosystem and energy are dual. For analysis of the ecosystem and energy
seeks to understand the factors that regulate the pools (quantities) and
fluxes (flows) of materials and energy through ecological systems.47 The
terms are not reversible because their identities can be located, even where
these identities are always in the midst of the others. Not in a relationship
of reciprocity, but simply and radically in-One as the biosphere. Take, for
example, the net ecosystem production, which is the name given to the
net accumulation of carbon by an ecosystem.48 It would be too simple,
and all too philosophical and theological, to reduce all the aspects of the
ecosystem to being in some sense carbon. As if all the living and dead
elements of an ecosystem could be simply thought of as flows of carbon
akin to a computer code. However, this would fail to make any sense of
the exchange of carbon, the study of which shows that individuals or actualities store and transfer carbon. Without an understanding of the radical
identity of these actualities ecologists would be silent in the face of the flux
and pools of carbons and yet, against such temptation, ecologists do speak
and can trace the carbon balance as it enters the ecosystem through gross
primary production (photosynthesis) and leaves through several other processes.49 In plain terms, plants are not merely carbon flows, because they
have processes that are radically separate from the identity of carbon.
We can make the claim, borrowed from Marxism and mutated in
Laruelles non-Marxism, that every exchange is the productive force [force
(de) production] of work in ecology and still remain scientifically inoffensive. Energy is defined rather pragmatically in ecology, drawing on thermodynamics, as the ability to do work.50 This definition of energy was
first adapted for scientific ecology by Howard Thomas Odum, brother of
Eugene Odum discussed earlier. Howard Thomas Odum used the cybernetic theories of the 1950s alongside of the general laws related to energy
derived from research in theoretical physics to develop theories about and
research projects concerning energy flow.51 This definition of energy is
given alongside the two laws of thermodynamics by Odum:
Energy is defined as the ability to do work. The behavior of energy is
described by the following laws. The first law of thermodynamics states that
energy may be transformed from one type into another but is never created
or destroyed . . . The second law of thermodynamics may be stated in several
ways, including the following: No process involving an energy transformation will spontaneously occur unless there is a degradation of the energy
from a concentrated form into a dispersed form.52
147
148
thought can be treated like a real ecosystem and as part of a real ecosystem. From an ecological perspective thought is also dependent upon this
single source of energy. For thought to do work it requires energy. A simple
and likely obvious statement, but one that is rarely considered when doing
philosophical or theological work. But do thoughts decompose? Do they
live and die, passing on their energy to something else? Let us hazard a yes
and let this yes be said without an appeal to crude scientism or reductive
materialism. But this yes must also be said without an appeal to pseudoscience or narcissistic notions that our thought creates reality. What then
would it mean? An enigmatic answer: thought transfers its energy in the
everyday. What this means is that thought is an ecological process just as
respiration or the carbon cycle is. The function of this just needs to be
clarified. For the point isnt that thought is just material as if we knew
that the value of material was low from the perspective of human freedom.
Rather, the point is that thought and the rest of the ecosystem has a certain
equivalency in terms of their relative autonomy in relation to the radical autonomy of the never-living. Thought isnt something to deride, but
neither is it something divine that can only secure its divinity by debasing
what is taken to be beneath it. Thought carries with it energy that can be
transferred to other forms of thought, can animate wider ecosystems (of)
thought, or can be used to direct action. But in this way thought remains
relative, it has no absolute autonomy, but is unilaterally determined, at
least on this refractory planet, by the sun and so any animation or action is
always as a custodian rather than a master.
So this is not a metaphor. I am claiming that within thought there is
energy that is transferred among living thought, dead thought, and the
never-living of thought. The definition of energy inherited from general
thermodynamics guides us here: energy for thought is the ability to do work.
Thus we dont need to make any appeals to an already existing materialist
philosophy or to a reductionist account of thinking that says thought just
is energy. Such claims are often incoherent for they are dependent upon a
circle of meaning that they claim to escape. For many such claims are often
pitched against the reenchantment of the World and in favor of a further
disenchantment. Consider the words of Ray Brassier who claims that
the disenchantment of the world understood as a consequence of the process whereby the Enlightenment shattered the great chain of being and
defaced the book of the world is a necessary consequence of the coruscating potency of reason, and hence an invigorating vector of intellectual
discovery, rather than a calamitous diminishment. [ . . . ] The disenchantment of the world deserves to be celebrated as an achievement of intellectual
maturity, not bewailed as debilitating impoverishment.59
149
150
climate, parent material (i.e., the rocks that give rise to soil), topography, potential biota (i.e., the organisms present in the region that could
potentially occupy a site), and time.60 Of these we have effectively covered
potential biota (biodiversity), parent material (material exchange), and to
some extent climate insofar as climate is closely linked with the energy
flow. Space and time are important elements of the ecosystem process, but
how they are important can be illuminating of the general structure of
ecosystems (of) thought generally as well as questioning the commonsense
views of time and space.
There is no real need for technical language in this section, for the
effects of space on ecosystems are relatively obvious. Ecosystems are partially determined by where they are on the planet in relation to where the
sun is. That climate may also be determined in part by landform effects.
For example, mountain ranges affect local climate through what are called
orographic effects, simply referring to the presence of the mountain. One
example of this is what is called a rain shadow, or zone of low precipitation downwind of the mountains caused by the cooling and condensation
of air moving up the windward side of the mountains. Deserts and steppes
often exist because of their downwind proximity to a mountain range.61
Time functions in a similar way and Chapin, Matson, and Mooney
summarize the importance of time in ecosystem processes this way: Time
influences the development of soil and the evolution of organism over long
time scales. Time also incorporates the influences on ecosystem processes
of past disturbances and environmental change over a wide range of time
scales.62 For organisms too there is a temporal element in their ecosystem
functioning that is important if one is to understand the overall ecological
processes at work: Many species may change their trophic level [i.e., where
they can be placed in terms of the exchange of matter and energy] during
their life cycle. A fish may be planktivorous in the larval stage, a consumer
of invertebrates in the juvenile stage, and piscivorous in the adult stage.63
Ecological processes take time and in time there is a certain heterogeneous
character to the ecosystem and its elements that can be witnessed.
What is common to both space and time in ecological theory is their
heterogeneity. Lvque goes so far as to claim that there is a consensus
in ecology that nature is heterogeneous.64 He goes on to define spatial
heterogeneity as existing from either a static or dynamic point of view.
An environment is heterogeneous if a qualitative or quantitative variable,
such as plant cover or air temperature, has different values in different
places. However, in functional terms, heterogeneity is also apparent when
there is a change in the intensity of functional processes in response to
variations in the structure of the environment.65 He goes on to define
temporal heterogeneity writing that [t]emporal heterogeneity, more often
151
Resilience
Resilience is a recent ecological concept that is important to ecological management, of which ecological restoration is a part. The notion of management is somewhat tainted, especially for radical thinkers, by the association
152
it has with techno-capitalist biopower. However, management in an ecological context, while it may refer to certain kinds of nefarious biopolitical
aspects of the human-social relationship with the wider biosphere, tends
to refer simply to a more intentional and scientifically grounded relationship with the natural world. Resilience thinking begins first by rejecting
any kind of dualism between humans and nature, because human beings
are a part of ecological processes: We are all part of linked systems of
humans and nature which are referred to as social-ecological systems. 72
This notion of a social-ecological system is important for dissolving false
problems common to environmental thought, specifically with regard to
the notion of sustainability. Radkaus history of social-ecological systems
shows that most environmental management decisions tend to be made
with a poor understanding of the system in general. Walker and Salt suggest that this poor decision comes from focusing on isolated components
of the system.73 Such an approach is common to the economic approach
to ecological management with its focus on efficiency and optimization. But in a dynamic system like the biosphere there is no simple optimal state as present in economic reasoning where one simply needs to be
more efficient with resources.74
What Walker and Salt show through five case studies is that most
attempts to optimize simple elements of a complex social-ecological system lead to a diminishing of that systems resilience.75 Walker and Salt
put this starkly writing, A drive for an efficient optimal state outcome
has the effect of making the total system more vulnerable to shocks and
disturbances.76 Against this economically modeled idea of optimization
resilience thinking begins from the simple idea that things change and
to ignore or resist this change is to increase our vulnerability and forego
emerging opportunities. In so doing, we limit our options.77 Change is in
and of itself value neutral because [t]here is no such thing as an optimal
state of a dynamic system. The systems in which we live are always shifting, always changing, and in so doing they maintain their resilience
their ability to withstand shocks and to keep delivering what we want.78
So resilience focuses on two central research themes: thresholds and
adaptive cycles. These two themes underpin resilience thinking and it
is worth quoting Walker and Salts definitions at length because of their
clarity:
Thresholds: Social-ecological systems can exist in more than one kind of
stable state. If a system changes too much it crosses a threshold and beings
behaving in a different way, with different feedbacks between its component parts and a different structure. It is said to have undergone a regime
shift. [ . . . ]
153
The rest of this section will focus on filling out these concepts.
Walker and Salt illustrate the thresholds theme with a simple analogy.
Imagine that the system is a ball and that ball is placed within a basin that
indexes the systems state variables. A simple system could be simply the
number of fish and the number of fishers, but it is important to keep in
mind that a system is of course fractal and is thus n-dimensional. Now
within this basin the ball will tend to roll toward the bottom, that is, in
systems terms, it tends toward equilibrium. But equilibrium is not static
and is rather always changing based on the changing external conditions
and so the shape of the basin is itself always changing as the conditions
themselves change. The shape of the basin can change so much, meaning
the conditions can change so much, that the ball can suddenly find itself
rolling into a new basin with a different fundamental organization. To put
some flesh on this example, say a particular linchpin species has a small
niche width due to some other external change. If that species continues
to be pushed out of the ecosystem functioning toward extinction, then the
system will fundamentally change. While prior to this change you could
adjust on the basis of that species, that possibility is no longer open to you
because the structure of the basin has fundamentally changed.80 Walker
and Salt summarize this thus: Once a threshold has been crossed it is
usually difficult (in some cases impossible) to cross back.81 Furthermore,
sustainability requires that we learn if and where thresholds exist and figure out how to manage the capacity of the system in relation to those
thresholds.82
Adaptive cycles give some organization to the changes that occur with
ecosystems. One important aspect about cycles is recognizing that things
happen in different ways according to the phase of the cycle the system
happens to be in.83 There are four phases to the adaptive cycle: the rapid
growth phase (or r phase), the conservation phase (or K phase), the release
phase (or phase), and the reorganization phase (or phase). The r phase
is the early period of the system where there is rapid growth as species or
people [ . . . ] exploit new opportunities and available resources.84 During
this phase species are exploiting every possible niche and the system is
154
155