[Coral-List] Coral Science and the Concept of Novel Ecosystems

[Steve Mussman]

   I'm having issues trying to reconcile the ideas expressed in Les Kaufman's
   sagacious commentary with the themes being explored in the neoteric concept
   of novel ecosystems.
   I have to say that I agree with Les when he says that "The battle for coral
   reefs is a battle for values. . . . Unless coral reefs are deemed sacred,
   they will be lost. Anything that is not sacred is being destroyed. Concepts
   like adaptability, ecological economics, and the larger infant science of
   coupled human and natural systems-are needed, but they are not the answer.
   The answer lies exclusively in the part of our mind that we paradoxically
   refer to as our heart. The destruction of the natural world is a heartless
   activity. It is also stupid, but that does not carry much weight. If enough
   people adopt the notion that coral reefs are sacred and their destruction
   deemed  a  sacrilege,  then those who remain will not wish to bear the
   embarrassment of being called out as defilers. Peer pressure is all".
   It seems to me that although it may be true that it is unrealistic to think
   that coral reefs can be returned to pristine conditions, it is
   disturbing to consider that the best alternative is to heartlessly embrace
   the change and resolve to explore how human societies can adapt and respond
   to the emergence of the inevitable, "novel" and diminished conditions that
   seemingly must characterize coral reef ecosystems of the future.
   Regards,
    Steve
   -----Original Message-----
   >From: "Kaufman, Leslie S"
   >Sent: Feb 10, 2014 2:46 PM
   >To: ""
   >Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Dennis' musings on Gene's wise rants...Coral-List
   Digest, Vol 66, Issue 8
   >
   >Hi all. Just back from Cambodia where, curiously, I co-lead ecosystem
   service modeling (the new dark side) for an inland project, on the Great
   Lake Tonle Sap. Sidebar: my personal joy in being in Cambodia was all about
   the  fishes- I've been totally geeking out on carps, who claim but two
   vaguely coral reef-ish cousins (and distant ones at that), the milkfish and
   beaked salmons. Professionally the joy of the Cambodia project lay in the
   respect my colleagues shared for natural history (we did a lot of just
   looking around this trip, with discoveries and epiphanies to show for it),
   and their very healthy attitude toward both modeling, and the role of human
   well-being as a guiding factor in our science.
   >
   >To that end, Dennis, and Gene, I may be more optimistic than you about
   coral reef science. Though we're all swaying in the funding breezes, I find
   coral reef colleagues to be on the whole very fine naturalists, with open
   eyes, open minds, and a good sense of humor. We do need to worry about the
   upcoming generations, though. Methodological overload and over-reliance on
   second-hand  knowledge  is  cutting  deeply into their skills as field
   scientists. Field work is in danger of becoming a chore, like going to the
   supermarket, merely to collect samples for the real work back at the bench.
   Gene's right about that.
   >
   >The work on climate adaptation not surprisingly reveals that living things
   can adapt up to a point. Sometimes a surprising point. We'll probably keep
   finding taxa or holobiont pairings here and there that have what it takes to
   deal physiologically with ocean acidification, warming, sea-level rise,
   psychotic weather, and cumulative local human impacts. However, given that
   their entire biophysical context definitely will be changing in any event,
   the  fact  that  they  can survive a few harsh physical insults may be
   irrelevant.  We  have  entered  the realm of no-analog communities. An
   amineralized scleractinian is not the same animal as a hard coral despite
   being genetically identical, and scattered sherbet-scoops of Porites lobata
   that we currently see around CO2 vents can not be expected to function or
   react  to  people's  activities  in the same way as the speciose coral
   assemblages that they may soon give way to adaptable poritids over vast
   areas.
   >
   >The conservation paradigms of population connectivity, large protected
   areas, and durable systems (however biologically depauperate) carry some
   wisdom, but they can not be the entire story. Hoping to achieve conservation
   by focusing first on human well-being, and relying upon ecosystem valuation,
   incentive structures and investment portfolios to motivate people to be more
   conservation-minded- this is all good, but it is not enough, and it is
   certainly not working as a one-for-one replacement for our original plan of
   just focusing on stopping anthropogenic mass extinction (which was also, in
   its own way, way too single-minded).
   >
   >The battle for coral reefs is a battle for values. These are deep values,
   not  about money, and they are not up for grabs or bickering over what
   they're really worth. Unless coral reefs are deemed sacred, they will be
   lost. Anything that is not sacred is being destroyed. A few things that have
   been  declared  sacred,  have actually survived. For example, short of
   venturing deep into the Cardamoms, the last place to see mature hardwood
   trees in all of Cambodia, is on the grounds of ancient Buddhist temples.
   Concepts like adaptability, ecological economics, and the larger infant
   science of coupled human and natural systems- these are all intellectual
   tools that can better enable science and society to mesh smoothly. They can
   especially help the poor and marginalized to survive in developing countries
   without eating down too far into what's left of the natural capital. They
   are needed, but they are not the answer. The answer lies exclusively in the
   part of our mind that we
   > paradoxically refer to as our heart. The destruction of the natural world
   is a heartless activity. It is also stupid, but that does not carry much
   weight. If enough people adopt the notion that coral reefs are sacred and
   their destruction deemed a sacrilege, then those who remain will not wish to
   bear the embarrassment of being called out as defilers. Peer pressure is
   all.
   >
   >Les
   >
   >Les Kaufman
   >Professor of Biology cousins
   >Boston University Marine Program
   >and
   >Marine Conservation Fellow
   >Betty and Gordon Moore Center for Ecosystem Science and Economics
   >Conservation International
   >lesk at bu.edu
   >
   >
   >
   >_______________________________________________
   >Coral-List mailing list
   >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
   >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list