Given the current paradigm in which we operate, we might say that the only nataural ecosystems (if there are any) are those which are untouched by human hands. Such systems would exist under the pure influence of natural law.

However, I find this conceptualization to be severely limited. It lies close to the heart of all our environmental woes. Such a way of looking at the world creates an artificial division in nature. In principle, division or separation is the basis of all conflicts. The human race is not separate and distinct from nature. We are a part of nature, and are every bit as much affected by the laws of nature as any other species. When we mistakenly see ourselves as seeparate from nature, we fall into the trap of feeling that we are at odds with nature, and that we have to tame it and subdue it. This paradigm invariably leads to ecological disasters.

Since, in reality, we are not separate from nature and natural law, it is inconceivable that there could be any ecosystem which is not natural. Ultimately, we cannot violate natural law. Natural law is invincible and
all encompassing: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." "As ye sew, so shall ye reap!"

Just as any other species may be obliterated in the natural course of the universe unfolding, as a result of its inability to adapt to the changing conditions of the environment, so also, we humans may also be obliterated
if we do not evolve and adapt.

Although we cannot, in an absolute sense, violate natural law, we can an do evoke natural reactions to our actions which are unfavorable to our continued existence. And, in that sense we violate natural law. In reality,
we are not violating natural law, only its purpose -- to guide the process of evolution.  It is natural law which is responsible for the creation of each new order, the maintenance of the existing order, and the destruction
of the previous order.

With this in mind, I suggest that it would be more useful to think of "natural ecosystems" as those ecosystems in which human activities are in concert with the purpose of natural law, that is, they support the process of evolution, the growth in stability, richness, and vitality of the ecosystem.

For years humans have been bombarding the environment with more stresses than the environment can handle.  To return an ecosystem to its original state, human intervention is needed.  It is impossible for many ecosystems to return to normal without human intervention--restoration ecology.  When an ecosystem is degraded so much that it cannot return to its normal state naturally, we, the destroyers of such ecosystems, must guide it.  It can be said that by intervening, the habitat would not be considered "natural."  However, there's nothing natural about human degradation of ecosystems as well.  I believe that it is necessary to use the word "natural" in a different context, one in which it means back to its original state.

The idea of the balance of nature has been a long standing element of Western tradition.  This concept usually implies that undisturbed nature is ordered and harmonious.  The fallacy of our understanding of natural ecosytems lies in our belief that a disturbed ecosystem will return to a previous equilibrium after distrubances.  Though ecological research shows that  equilibrium are rare in nature, moreover ecosystems are dynamically evolving at various scales from the soil microbiota to the landscape levels.  Moreover ecosystems evolve through time and space as they respond to stresses such as fire periodicity, climatic change, biotic evolution and geological forces.  I think our failure to conceptualize ecosystems dynamically stems from our past inability to incorporate heterogeneity and scale multiplicity in our quantitative expressions for stability.

In the Orient, slightly different ideas of unity, interplay, and harmony are central to the ancient Chinese philosophy of Yin (Earth) and Yang (Heaven), which in turn has influenced Chinese medicine, agriculture, art, ethics and natural sciences.  This philosophy resembles the balance of nature concept by asserting that the universe is in harmony due to the balance between opposing but INTERDEPENDENT forces.

Hence a natural ecosystem could be defined as a set of dynamic relationships imparted on a community of biotic and abiotic components where humankind has had very little influence.  In today's world it will become arduous to monitor, delineate such ecosytems as stresses of global scales are imparted on our blue planet (such as global climate change, atmospheric deposition of anthropogenic pollutants, urbanization and economic exploitation of ecoystems).

First of all, humans are continuously attempting to manage the ecosystems in many differnt ways.  I believe that in order for a "natural" ecosystem to exist, the repair of that specific ecosystem has to be done naturally. Although human can help the ecosystem by differnt techonogies, but a more a natural aprroach can be made.  This approach can be for one, bioremediation.  Although humans contribute to this type of management, nature itself will continue to repair itself through the course of time until it has reached an optimal level of purity. I think that a natural ecosystem is an ecosystem that can repair itself closest to the original status after the disruption of society.

First of all, I do not think that technology can save the planet, let alone talking about changing its natural carrying capacities. I say that because I feel that technology has maybe extended a lot of nature's carrying capacity, but I feel that it's like burning the candle from both sides, we are forcing the earth to die out faster.

Well, I'd like to say that this is all my own opinions piled until today so I hope I am not offending anyone with this message even though I may be disagreeing with people with my statements.

I'd like to start with an anecdote (a true one) about a gentleman who recently passed away by the name Julian Simon (please excuse me if I have not spelt his name correctly) and his relationship to Paul Erlick (the author of "Population Boom"). Well, they had a bet about the prices on 5 specific metals about 20 years ago and what happened was that Mr. Simon said that he will take out a thousand dollars and bet on 5 specific metals' prices in 15 years and whoever loses will pay the differences from the a thousand dollars. As an environmentalist, Paul Erlick accepted the bet and was thinking that as the population booms and people start dying, all the resources will become scarce and he would definitely win the bet! However, 15 years later, Paul Erlick had to write Mr. Simon a check for about US$535.00 because he lost the bet.

After reading this story, it may sound like I seem to be contradicting myself because I said that I didn't believe that technology can save the world and Mr. Simon walked away with the check as Paul Erlick lost. It may also feel like because something is getting cheaper so there's actually more of it. The way that I see it, I think it' s because Mr. Simon was a very good economist who had tremendous foresight views on the markets of the world. He knew that these metals won't be that expensive because new materials will be substituting the original metals and he knew that distribution of resources (that made certain countries with more abundant resources) was going to take a huge part (why didn't they go to a third world country and betted there?)

At the same time, let's look at the world from the other side of the sphere. Looking at Africa or Asia, what was the population while they had the bet? What was the population when Paul Erlick made the bet (well, we all know that Paul Erlick's theory of millions of people dying didn't turn out right anyway). However, even though technology may seem to find its way up and over the sustainability limit, or carrying capacity, I'd say that we should look at the world at a broader view. We should look at what we have done to the other countries of the world. It looks to me that as long as we can afford better living and be rich and resources will never be scarce!!!! Again, so what if technology has improved with better materials and better irrigation methods, etc. What do we really know about carrying capacities? How do you define carrying capacity where everything technology talks about is IF, IF, and IF?

I have to agree with Ludwig et al.'s theory where we can't decide whether technology can save the planet because our future is in our hands. We may be support a million or a billion more people with the new crops that are squeezed out of the ground every year, but we may be starving another million or billion of people in countries where they may not be able to afford the technology nor resources. The "Precautionary Principle" sets a nice basis where even though we may be seeing improvements in what we can get out of this mother earth, we are not really seeing improvements in our lives (it's a serious ecological fallacy!). Look at the rise in prices in foods, goods and services, does technology really mean better chances to live? Or better chances for US to laugh and come to economic agreements better (a political tactic) when negotiating with other "poor" countries?

On the other hand, we know that there are countries who buy land on other countries and turn them into landfills or basically trash sites just because these countries have nothing and needs everything from richer countries. These wastes are from where? Industrial toxic wastes and pollutants are all around us, and yet we are happy as long as the wastes don't go into our own systems? Or is it the fact that people now take it for granted because we have never had a serious problem with pollution in our backyards so now people can kick back and forget about the real problems?

My idea of real problems is the distribution of world's resources and the basic educational values of human survival. There is not only a distribution problem where the ones who need the most resources never get them (like the farmers in Imperial Valley where they can waste as much water as they can and Jakartans never get fresh water supply), but also how modern technology has distorted our basic definition of survival. I think survival on earth doesn't only take into account that we live happily but we also should hold similar respect for others who co-exist on this planet and hoping that they will be able to eat, drink, and use similar products that we enjoy. We don't really know what the earth's carrying capacity is, right? Ausubel said "as long as farmers increase their cropping by" well, does that mean he is gambling with our future food sources? Wow, what's on the stake? Our lives or many others in third world countries?

Technology up until today has been quite great, or else I won't be able to type comfortably at home and see almost every angle from just my 14 inch monitor surfing through the internet. Technology also made many, many things possible and they all seem to be for the better of ourselves. I personally think technology is great, but can't save the planet because we all know about the irreversible damages by having taken away biodiversity around the world, we also all know how bad those pollutants can do to our vulnerable physiological systems and yet we can't figure out how to lessen these pollutants with our "advanced technology", and we don't even know how to eliminate a simple flu with our "advanced medical discoveries"etc!!!! And we are talking about saving our planet? I think distribution is one thing, but mentality is what we really should work on. We should focus on the basics of the world instead of how better I can improve my computer system. We also should constantly put ourselves in others' shoes, just when we dump our toxic wastes and pollutants into someone else's backyards don't mean the problem is over. As these countries lose more and more land due to this, they may be needing more and more help and as a consequence we may be using up more resources just because we will need more to produce more to meet larger demands. It's all quite a positive feedback system where it doesn't come down after the trend is favoring us (unfortunately, only a minor portion of the entire population on earth).

The topic of this discussion by Prof. Is very good, "what is our nature if we can't define it", I see it as quite ironic where my can track down our last gene with great microscopes and sophisticated theories but we can't define our own nature! It's also almost sarcastic that we are always talking about going to Mars and spending millions and billions of money into space programs and yet we have people killed or dying because of simple bacterial diseases (and everyone now is blaming on El Nino effects everything, we can't even destroy unfriendly storms!)! It's also sickening to know that there are people starving themselves to death everyday and nothing more is being done except grabbing more advantages from them as their basic demands can't even be made then!

I like this earth, I also can place everyone in the world in my prayer everyday that just as long as everyone can live healthily and prosperous (mentally and physically), I can live with a slower computer, I can live with a slower transportation system, and I can live without knowing more about Mars. However, I would like to know when we can live in peace with everyone else and I would also like to know when would people start respecting and appreciating our basic existence on earth. We are GAMBLING with our nature, we are GAMBLING with our own lives. What IF the scientists can't come up with newer ways to get through with technology and new cropping methods fail? What IF the world really ends before we can come up with new ways to squeeze more efficiency from a single drop of water? What IF God doesn't exist and save all of us in time before we destroy the ozone completely and skin cancer consumes more people and less forests are there to protect us. We can't rely on taking less on everything and hoping that we'll still have things left, like taking only 2% of a fixed amount, it can't work because we can't afford to lose the bet!!!

Can we REALLY go and tell the people in Jakarta, in Africa, or any other countries that NEED our help that we need to dump more wastes in your backyards just so that we can HELP you more????? Can any of us? I know I can't, I ain't no their God!  MAY GOD SPARE US ALL!

 I consider a natural  ecosystem to be any ecosystem that has not been disturbed by humans, whether  directly or indirectly.  Therefore, I do not believe that there is  such a thing as a natural environment any more.  By polluting our air and  water nothing can go untouched.  No matter how remote a place is, there is  nothing that can block out the acid rain that falls from the sky.  Any  pollution can change the structure of that environment forever.  The  footprint left behind by each person is to great to leave any "natural  ecosystems" untouched.

I believe that there are only ecosystems which survive the alterations caused by man's activities and those which become warped and degraded. Natural would imply the original functions held intrinsically by nature.  There is a need for focus on the elements of ecosystems that support the vast interconnectedness linking all sectors of nature.  To preserve the key links in the system having the most importance to the system's success on the whole should be the first priority.

Technology is thus far a misguided and destructive force.  The ecological footprint of most modern technology seems out of proportion to the amount of positive inventions applied to the environment.  There is no reason
for this neglectful behavior to continue with the advanced knowledge accessible in our current phase of technology. I believe that science needs a new motivation that is not driven by self-interest, but rather a common goal striving for improvement of human conditions including a cleaner environment.

Fresh, pure water is a vital basic necessity of life. As population continues to grow, there will be less and less fresh water available per capita for domestic, agricultural, and other uses. The ideal would be for everyone to have all the fresh water that they desire at no cost. However, this is not possible given the limited supply. The law of supply and demand dictates that since the supply is limited and the demand is increasing, the cost will also increase.

At present, the chief supplier of water in the U.S. and in most countries throughout the world is local and regional governments. Since this, in effect, is a near monopoly, the public may always be suspicious as to whether government is charging monopolistic prices for water.

The cost to consumers could be kept low through government subsidies, however this just shifts the costs to those who pay the taxes. Another way to keep costs low is to introduce competition between suppliers by privatizing water service and deregulatintg it so that there are many suppliers. Unfortunately, this can lead to infrastructural inefficiencies, since duplicate piping systems are expensive and redundant. Nor does this approach necessarily lead to conservation. Intense competition might help to keep costs lower than having just one supplier, but the lower the cost, the more will be the waste and overextraction of water supplies.

To achieve sustainability in the use of water resources and keep the public happy, the most important element of a political campaign will be to involve the public and provide clear and comprehensive knowledge of the water situation. The government should take advantage of the press and other media to keep the public abreast of water issues and projected requirements to maintain sustainability of the supply.

Local and regional governments should also set up public water commissions, open to public participation, to focus on maintaining quality and affordability of water supplies and creating sustainability in their local water supplies.

Water awareness should also be cultured in elementary, secondary, and higher educational arenas, as well as through educational programming on television and through other media, including the internet.

The government could also publicize and provide subsidies to help fund research and development of better, more affordable conservation, recycling, and purification technologies.

Another step governments could take would be to provide financial incentives that would make it attractive for consumers to install systems to catch, conserve, recycle, and purify water.

 It is generally understood that we all need  water to survive.  However, many people continue to go on polluting as if  there is no harm in what  they are doing, when in reality, whatever is  dumped into our water runs right back through our tap one way or another.    In order to run a successful campaign, I believe  it would be necessary for a candidate to address the issue of pollution; how bad  our drinking water really is and how little is done to stop it.  The public  must understand that the water that comes from our tap has been cleaned and  purified through numerous processes just to get it to levels that are safe for  consumption, and that is where the cost comes in.  The increase in cost  could then be turned into an issue of public safety, and not one of raising  taxes just to get more money from the American public.  Attention should be  paid to cost and benefits to recycling our drinking water and cleaning up the  water in the natural environment before it can make it to the tap.  The  public would then be much more apt to pay the higher prices, knowing that they  are getting clean water from their tap and not just paying more for the same  service.
 

Well, Keith is certainly correct about the fact that the laws of economics  will always be true given almost any type of situation. And I agree too, if we don't work on the problem from its root, we can never solve the problem completely.

Firstly, the population is too large to be considered about fairness and evenness of pure water distribution. We can't even see an improvement on that yet! I mean, as the world population gets larger and larger, the demand for pure, fresh water is simply impossible no matter what government policies any genious can come up with because we are working with a finite resource.

Of course, water is a renewable resources (that's the good news), but then again it's only a fraction of the total that we can utilize. I don't mean that we should suck up all the ground waters and melt all the glaciers up North, but we should reallocate our water resources by prioritizing our needs. Looking  at the current agriculture around the globe, it's taking up so much water that we can literally just start eating alfalfa instead of rice......

Therefore, I am suggesting that we shouldn't just focus on the problem of human population, but also a reallocation and a smarter distribution of water usage around the globe. I can't imagine living with water while farmers are growing alfalfa (which takes more than 3 times as much water to grow carrots) just because we have more cows than human beings here in CA!

So, let's try to get something to wrok here before we all die of thirst (well....the Sprite commercial can really kick in: "Image is NOTHING, Obey your THIRST!"

The problem with water supply is basically of how to assure that everyone has some form of access.  It is cruel to deny anyone the right to survival and water is essential.  There are several aspects to the deficiency which have been already addressed, like pollution and allocation.  These are key determinants to how expensive water can get,
the more processing it requires the higher the prices will rise.

To create a system where by water is treated with respect and valued for it's true sustainable wealth is the goal for a successful program designed to provide water at accurate costs.  Global action is a must in order to reduce pollution which could decrease the shortage of drinkable water.  The idea of personal water filters seems like a near future considering the wide spread pollution and conditions of water sources. This could be a temporary fix for the short term until the reductions in global water pollution allow for the regenerative cleansing capabilities of the oceans to work through the damage already done.