“Stroud admitted that, as a conservationist and member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Species Survival Commission group for the South Atlantic, he should perhaps be rooting out all those alien species. But if he did, there would be almost nothing left.”

Notice the conservationist assumption that man is “alien”.

“Is it … a biological abomination?”

Notice the assumption that man is bad?

* * *

The article muses whether an ecosystem of species introduced by man to a bare island is bad or good, but ends with the philosophical reflection that nature does not tend to a perfect end form, and perhaps there is no need to worry after all. But he has trouble taking his thoughts to their logical conclusion, that perhaps nature doesn’t need administrators after all.

Underlying the article, we see explicit or implicit assumptions of the environmental movement worldwide: that
• man is alien to nature
• man’s use of natural resources is immoral
• “proper” ecosystems are those without any human influence
• a proper role of government is to decide and implement which species belong where
• there was a Golden Age in which ecosystems were undisturbed by man
• nature is tending towards a perfect final form, making inexorable progress, tending ever upwards
• species extinctions are morally bad.

But these assumptions do not originate from biological science. They originate from man’s inheritance of myth and religion.

Man is part of nature in the fullest sense of the word. Nature is not tending to some perfect end form. Species extinction is normal and natural, and over 99% of species are extinct. We are not stewards of a garden. It is no more immoral for man to use natural resources than it is for other species. Biological science provides no value judgments in favour of governmental conservation.

Conservationist values are just human values and must be ethically and economically justified as with any other rivalrous use of scarce resources.

A very interesting well written essay.
Two references (and a website) which address the brutalism that mis-informs Jardines brutalistic ideology.
1. http://sacredcamelgardens.com/wordpress/wisdom/contemplative-state-exaltation
2. http://sacredcamelgardens.com/wordpress/wisdom/bridge-to-god

The Zoo was set up with the specific intention of re-educating the brutalistic mind-set that now rules the entire world.

Plus the the full version of the second reference.
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/bridge_to_god/index.html

Just goes to show how enlightened members of the British armed services got it right.

Great article Fred.

It is interesting to note that while the ecosystems on Ascension may be dominated by feral species, all of the natives bar a couple still live there as well…. and some of them have considerably benefitted from this invasion and massive ecological change.

If we look at the total biota – including all the insects, fungi, etc, the number of native species there probably far outweighs the number of ferals.

I am very familiar with feral ecosystems. In fact I have a great passion for weeds! There are many ecosystems in my part of the world – north Queensland - that are dominated by feral species – Rubbervine vine forest, chinee apple woodland, lantana shrubland, guineagrass grassland, hyacinth swampland, etc

There are also massively changed ecosystems which consist of ‘woody weeds’, which are native species that have proliferated to the point of becoming major pests.

We also have massive change where there are no species that can be defined as weeds. This has occurred throughout the Wet Tropics of north Queensland, with the elimination of Aboriginal fire regimes, which has allowed rainforest to spread into adjacent eucalypt forest and even into some quite dry woodlands.

We are in for a feral future! Or perhaps we should say; a massively changed ecological future, in which feral species are but one aspect.

It is all fascinating stuff.

Have to agree with Jardine K Jardine!
He sums it up with his usual inescapable science based logic.
At the end of the day, everything has to first come from somewhere, and then adapt to local conditions. Grass i.e., came from seaweed, via bamboo? Pine needles were once leaves.
Look the willow which now binds some of the loose surfaces on our mountainsides. An Australianised plant for which there is no better at controlling errant water flows, erosion and land slips?
I don't hear any environmental purist suggesting we root out the even more useful coconut palm, on the grounds it is also an introduced species? Or the Asian Wolf for the same purist reasons!?
Australian birds e.g., may by and large have a common single ancestor, just as primates may have.
As Australia traversed northward, it became available to migratory birds, which sometimes added to the gene pool/subspecies?
An emerging school of environmental thought is, almost everything belongs in every environment, even that which may have been introduced.
If it adapts, survives and prospers, it was always meant to be there? Migratory birds spread their pips and stones, horses spreed palatable grass seed and so on. Coral has no other choice than an annual migration!
Man started his journey from somewhere in central Africa, and now inhabits most of the planet.
Who know where this migration will end?
The stars, Galaxy, universe, parallel universe?
And will this early example of terraforming, assist that very migration?
I mean, our own planet was once nothing more than a barren rock?
Rhrosty.

Since my first heart attack I have been unable to maintain my property the way I had for years. I also don't ask it to do much, with just a couple of old horses on it.

I still control the Groundsel & fireweed, as demanded by the council, but no longer slash or spray other weed infestations. This has led to an interesting discovery.

I have worried when a new type of weed has appeared, & flourished for a year or two, only to be relieved when it disappeared the next. I have seen Scottish thistle, blue top, stink weed & a few others look like taking over entirely on the river flats, only to disappear as suddenly as they appeared.

A very cold winter can eradicate some, but it appears that when the first decent rain of spring arrives dictates what will germinate each year. Right now I am worried about cobblers peg which first appeared a couple of years back, & is getting heavy. It is such a horrible thing I may have to spray.

Now I no longer irrigate, the same goes for the exotics in the house paddock left to survive or die, depending on their hardiness. Mandarins & peaches could not handle it, but apples, mulberries & a Brazilian cherry have flourished.

Some things flower prolifically one year, & not at all another. Yes frosts play a part, but Bauhinia, African tulip tree, Poinciana & Jacaranda respond to when those first rains fall. In my observation just a week or so can be the difference between nothing & a great show.

Yes we have still more to learn than what we already know, but the foolish fixation with natives is detrimental to all learning.

When I began to have an interest in Fauna & Flora of Cape York I was totally stumped as to how much of the vegetation is not indigenous. Even the offshore islands have plenty of introduced species. I put that down to early seafarers both indigenous & non-indigenous who planted vegetation for all sorts of reason, all with foresight for the long term. It is called evolution.

< Underlying the article, we see explicit or implicit assumptions of the environmental movement worldwide: that
• man is alien to nature
• man’s use of natural resources is immoral
• “proper” ecosystems are those without any human influence
• a proper role of government is to decide and implement which species belong where
• there was a Golden Age in which ecosystems were undisturbed by man
• nature is tending towards a perfect final form, making inexorable progress, tending ever upwards
• species extinctions are morally bad. >

Crikey Jardine, where do you get this end-of-the-spectrum assertion from?

As you say;

<< The article muses whether an ecosystem of species introduced by man to a bare island is bad or good… >>

… and I don’t see any conclusion that it is bad.

Fred Pearce is somewhat enamoured with the feral ecosystems on Ascension. So am I with some of those that I have encountered in north Queensland, and indeed all around the country.

So um… just where did you get these seven points above? They might apply to some peoples’ views but certainly not to this article!

<< I put that down to early seafarers both indigenous & non-indigenous who planted vegetation for all sorts of reason, all with foresight for the long term. >>

Indi, the weeds in your part of the world are due largely to accidental introductions of seeds and to some ornamental and otherwise useful species that have escaped highly humanised environments.

Particularly the Poaceae and Asteraceae (grass and daisy families) have a large number of weed species with this sort of history.

Ludwig,
I agree with your assertion & what I meant by long-term foresight was that vegetation was introduced to make barren places somewhat liveable by the shipwrecked & other unfortunate people who might be cast ashore on such barren shores. Yes, a lot of weeds come from plants which were introduced here because they made some settlers feel more at home. Of course most species introduced are fruit bearing. Both man & animals are designed by nature to be carriers for spreading vegetation. It's all part of evolution.

A really interesting article, thanks Fred Pearce.

A marvellous insight into a unique bio-system, and, concurrently, into the complexities of environmental or 'conservation' science - which is an area of increasing interest to bio-scientists, and to what might perhaps be termed bio-ethicists, as human populations and associated resources demand (and consumption) continue to soar to extraordinary levels.
The competition for space and 'habitat' is veering towards (or is already at) a breaking point in many regions and many contexts, with resultant 'contests' between environmental and human interests approaching crisis level.

Some would assert that relevant concern for 'environmental' interests may principally be confined to affluent westerners and various academics, but there is also long-standing and increasing recognition of the economic and cultural values of environmental conservation in many developing nations, particularly as the impacts of environment 'loss' become increasingly evident.

Given that 'conservation' has been a major component of the human survival 'mechanism' for eons, and at least up until population and other pressures pushed human demand beyond mere subsistence capacities, 'environmentalism' remains a fundamental innate trait of the 'human condition' - though many 'moderns' would dispute this, just as they might dispute having any relationship with agriculture, mining or industry - because they are 'divorced' from these in their 'ivory castles'.

JKJ may consider that 'human values' must be ethically and economically justified to have merit, but I would assert that not everything in this world can or should be reduced to dollars and cents. For some things, ethical or moral justification is sufficient.

In the end result, the most potentially hazardous 'weed' is homo sapiens, warranting detailed and cautious monitoring.

The only interests that matter are human interests. The "environment" does not have a value, or "interest" in itself. Without the existence of ourselves, does it really matter what happens with the environment? If we inadvertently cause a species to become extinct, and this extinction does not have any direct or indirect effect on human life, then what was the value of that species? What if we never knew it existed? What if it never even existed? You could argue that all life itself has a value, but if you exclude humans from the environment, then who decides the importance of competing lifeforms? Or is all life equally valuable?

I believe what Saltpetre claims to be "environmental interests" and "human interests" are the same thing. For example, the rationale for caring about the loss of huge numbers of bee's around the world isn't because we are sad about the loss of life, it is due to their role in pollination of our crops, and the impact this could have on our own lives. The difference in what we call "weeds" and what we call "crops" is a value judgment we make due to our own self interests. Some on this forum seem to think that humans exist outside of the environment, and that our value judgments are detrimental to other lifeforms. From my experience we function in exactly the same way as the rest of the lifeforms in our environment, promoting that which is beneficial to our existence, destroying or avoiding that which is detrimental to our existence, and adapting to which we can't control. Not only are we part of the environment, I am sure the extinction of the human race would bring a mass extinction of species that would dwarf any detrimental effects of our current existence. Think about that misanthropists.

That said, there are environmental arguments that make a fair point regarding short term gain vs long term benefits, as well as issues of sustainability (however you wish to define it). However these arguments are all made within the "human interests" framework I describe above.

Stezza,
SPOT ON !

Stezza,

> I am sure the extinction of the human race would bring a mass extinction of species that would dwarf any detrimental effects of our current existence.<

Horse feathers - unless you mean human extinction by nuclear holocaust, and even then, 'nature' would bounce back, but without the encumbrance of human 'ingenuity' forever 'manipulating' the environment in pursuit of narrow self-interest.

Wow Stezza, you may view nature and environment as only existing to serve mankind's 'pleasure', at mankind's whim (and I'm sure you're far from alone in that view), but thankfully there are people who care about more than 'the bottom line'.
You need to get out a bit more, and immerse yourself in the intricate web that is the 'natural world' before rushing to rash judgements about what is really important about humankind's existence.

So, the loss of bees is important because it threatens our food supply, threatens 'us', but the loss of elephants, rhinos or the Orang, Koala or Tassie Devil would be 'nothing' - because our existence does not depend on theirs?
What a terribly 'sad' attitude.

Nature here to serve Man? How very biblical, how narrow, how self-serving, and how utterly loathsome.

I can only repeat: 'In the end result, the most potentially hazardous 'weed' is homo sapiens, warranting detailed and cautious monitoring.'

You know it is a funny thing Saltpetre, but in my experience those "who care about more than the bottom line", are all too often, those busy spending someone elses bottom line, rather than those who have to generate it themselves.

It is always easy to care, when someone else is paying the bills. Nimbin is a prime example of a place where people have time to care, because someone else is paying their way for them. The same goes for a whole host of publicly funded carers.

Saltpetre, I understand where you're coming from, but you are making emotional arguments based on your own personal values. I was simply stating how things are, not how I wish them to be. I'm not saying what is right and wrong, I am saying there is no such thing!

Your arguments are not only emotional, they are contradictory. How can you say humans have such a major detrimental impact on nature with our existence, but that nature will easily "bounce back" following the major environmental changes that would accompany our extinction. Think about it, if all humans were wiped out tomorrow, we would see an insect plague consuming the new found meat, followed by booms in the populations of insect consuming animals. Probably not sustainable right? Billions of farm animals harvested by humans would be consumed by wild animals, and those that have developed cooperative or parasitic relationships with humans may also become extinct. New opportunistic plants would re-take the cities, and crop plants adapted over millennia would become extinct. Species that could adapt would flourish, and those that can't will perish.

It is interesting that you chose to list elephants, rhinos, Orang, Koala or Tassie Devil, rather than Acacia veronica, Acizzia veski or Variola major/minor. Perhaps you value the former species greater than the latter? I'm not saying you're wrong, but again these judgements are still made within the "human interests" framework.

The thing that confuses me about misanthropes, is that they seem to talk about humanity as if they are personally separate from the species. I am really interested whether they believe they share the same flaws they hate about the rest of us, and if so, why they take the effort to criticise humanity without first dealing with their own personal flaws

Stezza, you have spiked my interest with your reference to Acacia veronica. Endemic to the Stirling Range, WA. At least three of the early collections of this species are mine, from 1980 - http://avh.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?taxa=Acacia+veronica#map

I knew at the time that it was an unnamed species, as I was very familiar with WA Acacias. It was officially named and described in 1989.

Hasbeen, I am interested in your magically disappearing weeds!

It has always seemed to me that once a weed appears in some quantity, it is there to stay, unless there is a big change in the environment.

Sure, some weeds can appear as odd plants and then not come back…. if you kill them before they set seed!

And many species can pull back a bit and established themselves at a much lower rate of prevalence than with their first colonisation of a new area.

But disappearing altogether?? ( :>/

Which all points to the probability the enviromentalists and conservationalists of the late 20th and early 21st centruies will in the future will be known as the denialists of evolution and temperary pests who flourished momentarilly, before nature destroyed their foundations.

Lol

And Frank.
Ascension Island is one of the landfalls I was intending on my circumnavigation. Your article reinforced my intent. The commonly accepted man made garden of Eden, Chagos is another. Have there been similar investivations of it's environment?

Stezza,

Yes, my responses have been on an emotional basis, a 'life view' basis, and with a limited understanding of the ecology of the bio-sphere.
But, perhaps I am not alone in my concern for the interaction between humans and the environment, and where this interplay may be heading.
I do not view Sir David Attenborough or Dr David Suzuki as 'misanthropes'; nor do I see Greenpeace as a collection of Japanophobes or bludging 'tree' (or whale) 'huggers'. (Pushing it uphill maybe, but not entirely delusional.)

We are blessed with an ability to evaluate motivations, both from an emotional and a pragmatic viewpoint. Perhaps only 'we' have ability to make conscious choices as to whether to consume or to conserve, in the longer term interest; but this confers responsibility, along with capacity, to avoid unintended consequences.

Is all life 'sacred', or only that which we perceive to be of value?
What impact the loss of this or that colourful or drab, even noxious, lifeform? Will it be aware of the niche it leaves, or of any downstream impacts? Will it feel anguish at its impending demise?
When 'Lonesome George' died, the end of his line, only humans noticed, and the sky did not fall; but the world was a little less.
So much may be of no consequence; one evolution or one extinction of small interest; but mass extinction, mass manipulation, leaves the question 'to what end'?

Only 'we' have the capacity to conserve or to manipulate on a grand scale, and though nature can and does adapt (and is ever changing), there are limits. Only 'we' may notice the impacts of our collective actions; the question is will 'we' make the world a better place - for us, for future generations - if we ride roughshod rather than work in harmony with 'nature'?

Emotion is a tenuous foothold, but, without it, music, art, love, and 'life' itself make little sense.
If we make the world a lesser place, we injure ourselves.
Humans may be great, but nature is our home, our inspiration.