According to TheHun "65,000,000 years ago Nature was beautifully balanced on Earth; a gorgeous, vibrant variety of flora and fauna covered everything." Axeman goes on to ask if this were really true. Not exactly. The latest from the (not necessarily complete) fossil record indicates that biodiversity suffered during the latter half of the Cretaceous, and that a likely cause of this is the relative stasis of there being relatively few disconnected or otherwise well differentiated environments in which life could diversify. The meteor or comet hit that marked the end of the Mesozoic and the beginning of the Cenozoic wiped out an increasingly dull world ecologically speaking, clearing the slate for the mammalian and avian explosions that immediately followed.

As for the human impact now- in the short term we are obviously hurting biodiversity by eliminating species, and we have been doing so since the Pleistocene. On the other hand, in introducing species to non-contiguous regions they will in time diversify. The human race is the comet that is ending the Cenozoic. If we are lucky we may see an interesting new world after we've destroyed the old one; if not... whatever succeeds us will. But it will be both diverse and interesting.

Balance is not "dumb luck". Evolution is not "dumb luck".

Our concepts about everything in life, whether true or not,

are always a reflection of our own attitudes about life.

Hence only wise people are able to start to fathom the

tremendous wisdom in the world.

Those with self-imposed blindness, think most of what

happens in life, is due to "dumb luck".

There is no such thing as "dumb luck".

Everything in life is intended by its Designer --

including evolution.

What we find in life is an objective consequence of what

we ourselves are, individually. There is strict justice in life.

There are no accidents. If you think so -- open your eyes.

Look around you. Listen to your inner voice. ...

Sunny Guy

That's a ridiculous article. Evolution and theologically-inspired opposition to it is not the reason that "balance" is now disfavored in ecology. Populations simply are not in "balance," rather lemmings and other rapidly-reproducing organisms normally become overabundant, with a consequent crash. Volcanoes, hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires shift the entire communities of organisms across huge areas of the earth every year. The "balance" is thus always shifting, and therefore is not any kind of balance at all.

This doesn't mean that the environment and its ecosystems can't be relatively "in equilibrium" with all of these changes. The shifts can be in "dynamic equilibrium," with emigrating and immigrating organisms causing there to be a kind of "balance" over time and over a wide area. Perhaps for that reason it is kind of a loss for "balance" to be out of favor today in ecology, since "balance" might be correct enough for the public's hazy notion of the "balance of nature." Colloquially, then, I would not be particularly disturbed by someone writing about nature's "balance" in an article aimed at the public.

But to charge ecologists for giving up such an artificial word and notion as "balance" in our ever-changing ecosystems due to excessive worries over anti-evolution is a disservice to science and the public. We are ourselves a natural species which is managing even to put many systems out of "dynamic equilibrium," as other species have done in the past.

We are, unfortunately, doing so more rapidly than any other species has been known in the past to change the "dynamic equilibrium," yet there's nothing unusual about such changes occurring over longer periods of time.

Glen Davidson

http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Just some observations--The word "Nature" seems to lack a clear definition.

"Balance of Nature" seems to have a similar feel to "Invisible Hand of the Market."

Both science and religion put humans in a privileged position outside "Nature." Being privileged, humans are able to make statements about "Nature" that are "objective."

But if we are part of Nature, we are part of the system we are trying to describe. Our views will be only partial and heavily conditioned by our strivings within that system.

diana h.

Just because a system is balanced doesn't mean that outside, unnatural forces can't unbalance it. Since you seem to be fond of analogies, in lieu of actual science, how graceful do you think Michelle Quan would be if random fans came out on the ice and shoved her around?

Sure, some sort of balance will emerge, in the end, on the Earth. That doesn't mean humans are going to be a part of the picture. The balance we're headed for is nothing less than our own extinction, and frankly it's not much comfort that some other organism is going to come along and eat our corpses.

"The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that any system, including ecological systems, will always tend towards equilibrium. ... Entropy will not be denied."

Actually, the second law guarantees no such thing. The first line of this reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics gives a succinct and accurate statement of the second law. You will notice the crucial qualification that the second law applies to isolated systems. No ecological system is isolated. All ecological systems are maintained by an external energy source, ultimately the sun or, in a few cases, the internal heat of the earth.

Moreover, increasing entropy leading to equilibrium is the enemy of all life. Equilibrium is death. Were I to be in equilibrium with my surroundings, I'd be water, carbon dioxide, molecular nitrogen, and a handful of minerals flavored with salt. Life is a localized, low-entropy system far from equilibrium and if life can be said to have a purpose, then that purpose would be to deny entropy.

Funny how some are able to overlook the obvious "imbalance" in human populations. Humans give themselves credit for being rational and benefitting from a social order, but this is not borne out as an absolute.

One can argue that human society is in disrepair and failing. This is seen in our culture, our science, and our moral behavior. We have moved from a familiy-oriented culture to a consumer-oriented culture, and that is taking a huge toll on families and the environment.

Our political culture is becoming more divided. Science is derided by religionists where no amount of education, common sense, or powers of observation seem to be in play.

In the ecosystem, the human population is a cancer, destroying as it grows. If humans are, indeed, intelligent then proof so far is lacking.

Sorry for the bleak outlook but there it is ....