Thanks Wiz for letting me know about this post.

Whether humans are a keystone species within the ecosystem is debatable - what is absolute is that we are interdependent on so many other species to ensure our survival. Though often we tend to act as if we're self contained.

An interesting example of human intervention was in Yellowstone Park, USA where the locals decided to remove the wolves to improve tourism. The removal of wolves led to a rise in elk population, elk ate all the saplings, leaving a lack fo food and resources for the beavers. The beavers stopped building the "beaver dams" which completely altered the hydrological cycles and led to a drying out of the floodplains.

Nobody foresaw the effect wolf removal would have on local hydrology or wider ecosystem ... interesting for the most intelligent of species.

As an aside, I thought the first species in space were fruit flies (1940's) then later a monkey (c. 1949). Based on the initial posts I find it a pleasant irony that flies and space have concluded my thread.

Corri,
Were there previously native people living in Yellowstone Park, USA before the removal of the wolves?

Corri,
Obviously you are placing blame on human tourists for the imbalance of the Yellowstone ecosystem. You are accusing humans of irresponsible behaviour - which is just my point. Only humans are moraly responsible and as you would believe criminal for the imbalance caused. Is this care for all creatures or mere human greed that is responsible.

Philo, I'm not actually placing blame on the tourists, or anyone else for that matter - it wasn't the tourists but the rangers / government officials that made the decision. Though, I am pointing out that any micro change in an ecosystem will impact upon the macro system ... that the interdependence of all participants is what creates a sustainable and "successful" ecosystem.

Humans are only a small part in a much greater ecosystem, and regardless of our perceived intelligence, adaptability or our view as a successive species - the ecosystem would continue with or without our involvement.

Close, Corri. I think that the ecosystems don't necessarily continue with our involvement if our involvement is destructive enough, though they certainly do when we leave them alone.
This is why I have a hard time with the concept of man as 'steward' of the environment. The environment works just fine when we don't interfere.

Our place in that environment can exist, though in practice it tends to be destructive - though in the long term, that will only be destructive to ourselves.

TRTL ... ah, ecosystems will continue but maybe not in a sustainable way for continued human life.

I think humans have the intelligence to play a stewardship role - but giving a priority to the environment and social conditions over economic drivers isn't traditionally the way we've done things.