Author Archives: michaelgrasberg

Posts by michaelgrasberg

New York City Water Supply From the Perspective of Government Agencies

Posted on November 30, 2012 by michaelgrasberg

New York City has one of the safest water supplies in the world. Most of New York City’s water supply comes from three watersheds located in upstate New York: the Catskill, Delaware, and Croton watersheds. Before the 1980s, the water supplied from these three watersheds was unfiltered, but with the passing of the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) in 1989, the city was required to either filter the water or keep the water unfiltered and demonstrate that it met a series of water quality and operational tests. In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD), which would keep the water unfiltered. Under this determination, New York City was required to regulate activities on watershed lands through restrictions and buffer zones. Also, the city was required to create a preliminary design for a filtration plant in case filtration was necessary in the future. This caused a tremendous amount of conflict between competing interests. Since 1995, the alternative to following the strict criteria of the EPA has been to construct a filtration system. However, the estimated cost of this project is $6-8 billion with operating costs of $500 million annually. While the EPA is concerned with the maintenance of water quality by any means necessary, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) is looking for the most cost-effective solution, which would be to keep the water supply unfiltered.

Looking at this scenario from the perspective of a government agency, the solution is clear: New York City’s water should be kept unfiltered. Not only does this save a tremendous amount of money, but it also is effective. The New York City 2011 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report proves this point. According to the report, New York City has one of the safest water supplies in the world and is only one of five cities in the United States not required to filter its surface water. First, the report outlines New York City’s plan under the extended FAD. This plan includes land acquisition, land management, partnership programs, and streams, farms, and forestry programs. New York City has spent over $1.5 billion on watershed protection programs. In fact, $241 million was allocated for acquiring undeveloped lands around the watersheds to protect water quality. Since 1997, the NYCDEP has secured more than 121,000 acres of land around the watersheds. Next, the report discusses the Croton Water Filtration Plant, which is expected to open in late 2012, as well as the Catskill/Delaware Ultraviolet Disinfection Facility. This facility, which is expected to begin operation in 2012, will disinfect water against harmful microorganisms using ultraviolet light. The report then goes on to discuss how New York City’s water is treated using chlorine, which disinfects it, fluoride, which helps prevent tooth decay, phosphoric acid, which reduces the release of metals (such as lead) from pipes, and sodium hydroxide, which raises the pH of the water and reduces corrosivity. Finally, the report ends with water quality testing results from 2011. The results show that every standard was met, except for the pH level, which was slightly high due to increased sodium hydroxide. In addition, there were extremely low levels of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in the water, which are intestinal illnesses. The levels were so low that they required no action by the NYCDEP.

Taking the information from this report into account, it is clear that a filtration system is not needed in New York City. New York City has one of the safest water supplies in the world. Although a filtration plant will ensure continued high water quality, instituting a filtration system will cost billions of dollars, which will put an enormous burden not only on the city, but also on taxpayers. Therefore, the best solution is to keep the water supply unfiltered and to expand on programs that protect watershed areas from pollution and hydrofracking. There is no need to fix something that is not broke.

 

Source:

New York City 2011 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report. Rep. New York City 2011 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report. NYC.gov. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.<http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wsstate.shtml>.

Questions for Emma Marris

Posted on October 26, 2012 by michaelgrasberg
  1. How do you think the field of ecology will evolve over the next century?
  2. What areas of study are you currently focusing on?
  3. What do you think is the best way to go about changing the ordinary person’s mindset about nature?
  4. Of the seven goals you specified in the last chapter, which is the most important to you?
  5. How do ecologists, the government, and private interest groups work together to achieve ecological goals?

Possible Poster Questions

Posted on October 6, 2012 by michaelgrasberg

Possible Poster Questions:

1. Which New York City subway station contains the highest rat population and how does New York City control the rat population?

2. What diseases are killing organisms in the New York City area and which of them can directly affect humans?

3. Which cities in the United States have the cleanest air and which have the most polluted? Why?

Rambunctious Garden – Chapter 10

Posted on October 3, 2012 by michaelgrasberg

In chapter 10 of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris discusses seven different ecological goals. These seven goals are protecting the rights of other species, protecting megafauna, slowing the rate of extinctions, protecting genetic diversity, defending biodiversity, maximizing ecosystem services, and protecting the beauty of nature.  Many of these goals conflict with each other and in order to get the best possible scenario for the environment, there must be a balance. In addition, there must be collaboration between landowners, governments, and other interest groups when deciding goals for a specific ecosystem. This can be extremely difficult and cost a tremendous amount of money.

I think the first goal, protecting the rights of other species, can be bias. This is because humans do not consider all species equal. Humans look at some species, such as exotic mammals and beautiful plants, as having more intrinsic value than species such as mosses and shrubs. Therefore, they are more likely to fight for the rights of the species they find more intrinsically valuable. This might mean intentionally killing one species in order to save another. Another problem with this goal is that it will limit the use of the land. This could hinder human growth and development tremendously.

The second goal, protecting charismatic megafauna, also has its problems. Although this goal will save megafauna, it might lead to the extinction of other species, such as smaller mammals and plants. Also, it might lead to an overpopulation of megafauna, which can destroy an ecosystem. This has been shown by elephants in certain parts of Africa.

The third goal, slowing the rate of extinctions, also has flaws. Like goal one, this goal revolves around human bias. It is financially impossible to protect every endangered species, so certain species will be protected, while others will not. Also, if ecologists weigh every species equally, some of the species that humans consider the most intrinsically valuable might not be able to be saved. Finally, if species are brought into captivity but go extinct in the wild, they will have no home to be released to. Therefore, although species can be saved, there is no way to save ecosystems.

I believe goal four, protecting genetic diversity, is one of the better goals. This is because genetic diversity is extremely important since it shows how different organisms have evolved. By protecting genetic diversity, ecologists are able to preserve unique organisms that are endemic to particular regions of the world. However, this goal also involves bias because humans must determine the organisms that are the most important to save. Nevertheless, I believe more money should be devoted to protecting genetic diversity.

Goal five, defending biodiversity, is another goal that is ideal. However, it has its flaws. Defending biodiversity on a global scale requires a tremendous amount of time and money. Since there is not enough money to help every ecosystem, some ecosystems will be chosen over others. Also, defending biodiversity might require killing some invasive species that humans consider intrinsically valuable, such as cats.

Goal six, maximizing ecosystem services, also has many flaws. Since the most diverse ecosystems often do not produce the most services, people who focus solely on this goal might decrease biodiversity in order to increase services. Another problem with ecosystem services is that people might exploit them in order to increase profits. For example, members of the timber industry might destroy an ecosystem so they can plant trees that will be used for wood.

Goal seven, protecting the beauty of nature, is definitely the most important goal to me. I think we need to have parks and islands that are complete wilderness. These areas can act as an escape from the stresses of urban life. However, I also believe we must change our perception of what nature is and not only focus on “pristine areas.” Every aspect of nature can be considered beautiful, as long as the person looks deep enough and understands nature’s true value.

I agree with Marris that different goals have to be utilized in different ecosystems. Ecologists must determine the best set of goals for a particular area and allocate funds depending on these goals. I also agree with Marris that humans must manage nature. If humans do not preserve nature, economic interests will prevail and biodiversity will continue to decrease.

Rambunctious Garden was a fascinating book that enlightened me on many key areas of ecological debate. The book definitely has made me look at nature in a new light and made me better appreciate my surroundings. After reading the book, I am more aware of the problems that ecosystems face and will do my best to address these problems any way I can.

Rambunctious Garden – Chapters 8 and 9

Posted on October 1, 2012 by michaelgrasberg

Chapters 8 and 9 of Rambunctious Garden by Emma Marris discuss designer ecosystems and conservation on lands that might not be viewed as ideal. In chapter 8, Marris discusses designer ecosystems. Designer ecosystems are ecosystems that are designed for a specific goal, such as nitrogen reduction or the preservation of an endangered species. Rewilding with proxy species and assisted migration create designer ecosystems. In chapter 9, Marris discusses conservation in areas that are not considered ideal, such as industrial centers and cities. She points out that nature and industry can coexist. This can be achieved by adding native plants to rooftops, planting species in unused corners of industrial sites, and recreating gardens. Marris ends chapter 9 by discussing reconciliation ecology, which is the science of inventing new habitats to conserve species diversity in areas that are heavily affected by humans. For example, Marris suggests turning a garden into a rambunctious space filled with native plants. She ends the chapter by pointing out that cities and urban areas can be some of the most diverse and beautiful places in the world.

I agree with Marris that designer ecosystems can be extremely effective. This is because creating a designer ecosystem is not nearly as expensive as trying to restore an ecosystem to a specific baseline. This is especially true when an ecosystem has experienced both biotic and abiotic changes. Once this has occurred, the ecosystem is at a point of no return and cannot be restored to the way it was. However, the problem with designer ecosystems is determining which goals are the most important for a particular habitat. Choosing one specific goal might cause harm in other areas. Since ecosystems are so unpredictable, adding or taking something away might have an adverse effect on another species in the ecosystem and might do more harm than good. Nevertheless, designer ecosystems can definitely help preserve endangered species.

I also agree with Marris that some lands must be unmanaged. This allows for evolution. If humans control everything in an ecosystem, they are acting as God. This will not allow for natural selection and evolution, and will ultimately decrease species diversity. Some species and ecosystems need to develop on their own. I also agree with Marris that parks should be surrounded by wild areas. This will create corridors and sustain animals with large ranges. Ultimately, this will increase species diversity.

The arguments that Marris makes in chapter 9 are particularly interesting. She talks about bringing “pavement, houses, and malls” as the foreground of nature in our minds. This is very difficult to do and requires a change in thought and philosophy. However, it is possible. Since the majority of the world’s population is urban, urban areas must be addressed. Increasing ecosystem services and species richness in these areas is crucial to maintaining a healthy Earth. However, I believe that incentives that reward people who help conservation might not be efficient. This costs a lot of taxpayer money; instead, it might be better to fine those who do not adhere to proper techniques.

In chapter 9, Marris suggests turning urban gardens into rambunctious spaces filled with native plants. Although this would be ideal to increase species diversity, I do not think that people would be willing to do it. Most people would not want to sacrifice the beauty of their garden for the greater good of the community. This will not only bring down the perceived beauty of the home, but it will also bring down the price of the home. Nevertheless, turning a garden into a wild space can definitely benefit the environment in a positive way and act as a model for ecologists everywhere.

Response to Chapters 6 and 7 of Rambunctious Garden

Posted on September 26, 2012 by michaelgrasberg

In chapters 6 and 7 of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris discusses the concepts of exotic species and novel ecosystems. Exotic species are species that are not native to a particular area and have been introduced by humans. Many ecologists and conservationists consider these species to be invasive, and believe them to be detrimental to the habitats where they reside. Novel ecosystems are defined as ecosystems that contain many exotic species but function as well, if not better, than native ecosystems. These novel ecosystems provide humans with many ecosystem services such as water filtration, carbon sequestration, and a habitat for rare species. They are altered by humans, but not actively managed.

Many ecologists today argue that exotic species are detrimental to ecosystems and lead to decreased species diversity and extinction. Although this is true for some exotic species, Marris argues that for the majority, it is not. In fact, she argues that exotic species can be beneficial to habitats. The benefits of exotic species include supporting rare native species, controlling undesirable species, removing toxins from soil, and regulating erosion. Marris also points out that exotic species may create more species diversity in the future because they will evolve by adapting to local habitats.

Marris uses novel ecosystems to support her view that exotic species are not detrimental. She points out that many novel ecosystems, made up of exotic species that did not evolve together, function better than native ecosystems. In fact, many novel ecosystems are more diverse than their native counterparts. However, many ecologists shun these ecosystems because they are not pristine. Nevertheless, these novel ecosystems have the most potential for evolution, since exotic species need to find ways to survive. This can lead to new species and increased species diversity. In fact, many hybrid species, or combinations of native and exotic species, are being created in novel ecosystems.

Marris brings up some interesting points in these two chapters. After digesting all the evidence, I believe that exotic species should not be removed from ecosystems; they should be embraced. This is because exotic species benefit habitats in many ways. There is no need for ecologists to waste a tremendous amount of time and money on eliminating exotic species when most of them are beneficial. Exotic species rarely cause extinctions. In fact, exotic species are taking over the roles of extinct species and can help native species flourish, as demonstrated by Rodrigues Island in the Indian Ocean. This Island saw three endangered species saved by the introduction of exotic species.

I believe ecologists should invest money in studying novel ecosystems, including urban environments. Very little is known about novel ecosystems and why many of them are able to function so well. In addition, more money should be devoted to studying which exotic species will benefit an ecosystem and which will harm it. I believe the only exotic species that should be removed are the ones that are sure to be detrimental to the survival of the ecosystem. All the other exotic species should be allowed to stay. This is because, as the reckless invader hypothesis states, the dominance of an exotic species will decrease over time.

This chapter has left me with one question: Will there be a point where native species no longer exist and all species are exotic? I believe this will happen, but only time will tell.

The High Line and Stalter

Posted on September 22, 2012 by michaelgrasberg

Me (center), at the High Line, with my friends

On Thursday, September 20th, 2012, I visited the High Line for the first time. I must admit that I was a bit surprised by the atmosphere. I could not believe how this one strip of land had developed in an urban neighborhood. The contrast between the High Line and its surrounding neighborhood was remarkable.

While visiting the High Line, I took many pictures of pollinators in the area. There were many different species of pollinators including bees, flies, and butterflies. One of the more common pollinators was the eastern bumble bee, which was found pollinating the compass plant near West 21st Street. Another common pollinator was the honey bee, which was found pollinating the broadleaf ironweed near West 16th Street. The long-horned bee was another common pollinator, which was found pollinating the compass plant near West 19th Street.  Another common pollinator was the leafcutter bee, which was found pollinating the aromatic aster near West 12th Street. In addition to bees, there were many flies that were pollinating plants in the area. For example, there were green flies and cluster flies. These flies were seen on many sections throughout the High Line but were too quick to capture on camera. Another pollinator that was seen but not captured on camera was a white butterfly and a butterfly that was orange and had black spots. One interesting note about the pollinators on the High Line was that many of the species coexisted and did not seem to dominate over one particular area.

The High Line definitely fits into Marris’s concept of Rambunctious Garden. This is because Marris preaches that no ecosystem is pristine. She takes a laissez-faire approach to ecosystem management and believes that humans should not interfere with ecosystems and attempt to restore them to a specific baseline. Marris finds beauty in the new ecosystems that are being created today. She would definitely think of the High Line in a positive way. This is because the ecosystem on the High Line developed naturally after the railroad that used to run there was abandoned in 1980. Primary succession is occurring on the High Line and there are many lichens, shrubs, and mosses that have developed in the area, as shown by Richard Stalter. In addition, humans have transported foreign species to the area and have altered the habitat. However, as Stalter points out, these human alterations might explain why the High Line has one of the most diverse species populations in New York City. Stalter’s study shows that the High Line contains at least 161 species in 122 genera and 48 families and that the High Line has greater species richness than four nearby New York City sites including Bayswater State Park and Ellis Island. These facts show that the High Line would definitely fit into Marris’s concept of Rambunctious Garden. This is because the High Line has been allowed to develop on its own with very little interference and is still a beautiful place. In addition, people have added invasive species to the High Line and have altered it, but it still functions beautifully. Although it is not pristine, it is still naturally beautiful and very high in species diversity. Marris would consider the High Line to be a beneficial novel ecosystem.

Stalter’s research definitely has changed my viewpoint on ecology. This is because it is very interesting to see that a habitat could develop in an urban area and still be very rich in species diversity. His article makes me realize that there is no need for constant maintenance of ecosystems because they can develop on their own. Therefore, after reading the Stalter article and visiting the High Line, I believe my view on ecosystems has drawn closer to Marris’s view.

I think what was done to the High Line was a great idea. Abandoning the railroad and turning it into a pedestrian walkway is great for the city. Not only does it attract tourists, but it also attracts new and exotic species to the area. The High Line allows ecologists to study primary succession in an urban environment. It also acts as an escape for New Yorkers who want to get away from the stresses of urban life. In addition, the High Line can act as a prototype for the development of similar areas in other cities. All in all, I believe the High Line is great for New York City.

An eastern bumble bee pollinates a plant near West 23rd Street

An eastern bumble bee pollinates a compass plant near West 21st Street

An eastern bumble bee pollinates a Gibraltar bushclover near West 13th Street

A mysterious red and black insect resting on a plant near West 18th Street

A honey bee pollinates a broadleaf ironweed near West 16th Street

A long-horned bee pollinates a compass plant near West 19th Street

A mysterious brown and black insect on a plant near West 12th Street

Assisted Migration and Urban Ecosystems

Posted on September 12, 2012 by michaelgrasberg

Assisted migration is a very controversial concept that has been hotly debated in ecological circles in recent years. As climates continue to increase in temperature as a result of global warming, species will naturally move toward the poles and uphill to cooler climates. This is an extremely slow natural process and some of the migrating species might not be able to migrate on their own. This can lead to extinction and the destruction of ecosystems. As a result, many ecologists and people with special interests have suggested assisted migration. Assisted migration involves physically moving species to cooler and more ideal climates so they are able to thrive and prosper. Opponents of assisted migration argue that the species might not be able to adapt to these new environments and that they may become invasive. Opponents also point out that only certain species that are aesthetically pleasing or economically valuable will be moved, which can destroy ecosystems. Although assisted migration is a relatively new concept, it was successfully applied for Florida torreya trees and is being utilized by foresters in British Columbia. While assisted migration has been used in rural forests, it has yet to be attempted in urban ecosystems.

I believe that assisted migration will be a very useful tool for urban ecosystems. First off, urban ecosystems are far from pristine and already have many invasive species, so opponents cannot argue that assisted migration will taint them. Secondly, assisted migration can increase species richness in urban ecosystems. As shown by Puth and Burns in their 2009 study, there have been major declines in species richness in the New York metropolitan area. Looking deeper, their article shows that species richness has declined in all urban habitats in the New York metropolitan area. Perhaps assisted migration can play a beneficial role and increase species richness in urban ecosystems, which will have a positive effect on the environment. Finally, assisted migration in urban areas can benefit endangered species. Endangered species that are native to climates that are similar in temperature to the urban environments where they are moved might be able to prosper. This can prolong the lifespans of these species.

One problem with utilizing assisted migration in urban ecosystems is that buildings cause urban areas to have elevated temperatures. Since the goal of assisted migration is to protect species against global warming, this is a variable that can have a negative effect on many species. Another problem with utilizing assisted migration in urban ecosystems is that there is limited space. As a result, there might not be many places to put new species. The final problem is that the results are unpredictable. Assisted migration might lead to harmful invasive species and pests being introduced to urban ecosystems. Therefore, assisted migration in urban ecosystems should only be used for species that are sure to thrive in their new environments and do not pose a threat to other species in the area.

Assisted migration can definitely restore some biological diversity to urban areas. However, it is unknown if all assisted migration will have a positive effect. In addition, assisted migration will cost a tremendous amount of money and require a lot of time and effort. Assisted migration needs to be attempted on a larger scale before it is carried out in urban ecosystems. More research needs to be conducted to determine its drawbacks and benefits.

Marris Chapters 3 and 4 – Rewilding

Posted on September 10, 2012 by michaelgrasberg

In chapters three and four of Rambunctious Garden by Emma Marris, the concept of rewilding is extensively discussed. Rewilding is the process of reintroducing species to a particular ecosystem that they inhabited once before. The idea includes reintroducing predators to an area so they can regulate the food chain and maintain a diverse gene pool. Rewilding also involves relocating endangered species to ideal habitats to prevent extinction. Some proponents of rewilding support adding proxy species to certain ecosystems. These proxy species are close substitutes to extinct organisms that once lived in these ecosystems. People who support this view believe the proxy species will have the same effect on the ecosystems as their ancestors did. Another type of rewilding is Pleistocene rewilding. This type of rewilding was first proposed by Paul Martin and involves returning wilderness to the state it was in before any humans arrived. Martin goes as far as proposing to introduce proxy species of elephants, lions, and cheetahs to the reserves in the Great Plains to restore the ecosystems that once existed there. Of course, these views have been heavily criticized.

In my opinion, rewilding has many benefits, but it also can cause many problems. The problem with rewilding is that it is based on ideals. These ideals are uncertain to come to fruition in reality. For example, it is not definite that proxy species will interact with a certain ecosystem in the same way that their ancestors did. In fact, the proxy species might have adverse effects on the ecosystem. Rewilding is a relatively new concept that has only been tested on a small-scale. Although it has been effective in places such as Oostvardersplassen in the Netherlands, I do not know if it will be effective at a large-scale level. In order for it to be effective at a larger scale, it will require a tremendous amount of time, money, and regulation.

Another problem with rewilding is that it poses some safety issues. For example, if predators such as lions and cheetahs are introduced to reserves in the Great Plains, they can escape and terrorize Americans in the area. The goal of rewilding is to restore ecosystems to the way they were thousands of years ago. Unlike the pristine wilderness concept, which unsuccessfully tries to find land that has been untouched, rewilding allows people to create ecosystems that resemble the distant past. However, since species that have dominated the land have evolved to cope with the ecosystems they are currently a part of, rewilding might have adverse and unexpected effects. Therefore, it is not a good idea. I believe the only time rewilding should be utilized is when dealing with endangered species. If rewilding can help an endangered species prosper, then it will be beneficial. For example, it might be beneficial to relocate a species of endangered birds to an ecosystem that the ancestors of that species once inhabited if this will benefit the species.

Although rewilding is scientifically feasible, it would require an incredible amount of time, money, and regulation. Even if it is feasible, it is not certain to have the desired effects. Regardless, I do not believe that rewilding is ethically sound in most circumstances. Relocating species such as African lions, cheetahs, and elephants to foreign lands such as the Great Plains can harm the species. This is because they have adapted to life in Africa and their adaptations might not be well suited for foreign lands. Relocating these species to lands such as the Great Plains is also unethical to Americans in the surrounding areas because these wild animals can pose a threat to their livelihood. The only instance where I believe that rewilding is ethical is if it will benefit an endangered species that does not pose a serious threat to humans. It is quite clear from these chapters that rewilding is an interesting yet controversial concept.

Rambunctious Garden – Chapters 1 and 2

Posted on September 3, 2012 by michaelgrasberg

Rambunctious Garden by Emma Marris seems to be a very thought-provoking book. Throughout the first two chapters, Marris explains her views on the current state of ecology. First, Marris makes it clear that in today’s day and age there is no such thing as “pristine wilderness.” She explains that no ecological habitats have been uninfluenced by humans since prehistoric times. Next, Marris attacks the attempts of many conservationists to return specific habitats to the way they were before humans arrived. Marris attacks the Yellowstone Model and elaborates on the difficulty and costliness of achieving this goal. Finally, Marris argues against the “balance of nature view,” which states that nature does not change on its own very much, but instead remains at a stable equilibrium. Marris retorts that chaos is more common than stability in most ecosystems and that natural events such as fires and climatic changes are constantly changing habitats all over the world.

It seems clear from these two chapters that Marris’s main point is that there is beauty in the new ecosystems that are being created today. Although some conservationists may argue that ecosystems in places such as New York City are impure, Marris believes that native ecosystems are not any better than these new “synthetic” ecosystems. Marris finds beauty in this new nature in which nonnative species interact with native ones. In fact, she believes that these new “synthetic” ecosystems are just as beautiful as natural ecosystems untouched by humans. Marris argues that “the changes, the disturbance, the outlying events, and the confounding factors are often the most important drivers of the system” (34). This quote exemplifies her belief that conservationists must stray away from trying to return ecosystems to the way they were before humans arrived. Marris is a realist and understands that in the highly advanced societies of today it is impossible to eliminate the effects of humans on natural ecosystems. She recognizes that it is inevitable that humans will affect nature. This is demonstrated when she states that “we must temper our romantic notion of untrammeled wilderness and find room next to it for the more nuanced notion of a global, half-wild rambunctious garden, tended by us” (2). Just like Kareiva et al in “Conservation in the Anthropocene,” Marris believes that coexistence should be achieved between humans and wilderness.

Marris has made a good case for her point throughout these two chapters. First, she points out the costliness and difficulty of maintaining preserved areas. For example, she writes that it took nearly six years to kill the nonnative species in The Australian Wildlife Conservancy. Also, she illuminates the fact that millions of people have been forced to resettle due to preservation. Finally, she argues that maintaining preservations is nearly impossible due to the extreme amount of money and manpower required.

I agree with Marris’s view on the current state of ecology. I think we need to establish some sort of coexistence between humans and wilderness. This is because the effects that humans have on every ecosystem are impossible to deny. As industrialization continues to increase, ecosystems will continue to be affected. However, humans cannot halt advancement for the benefit of nature. A balance needs to be established between nature and wilderness. We must accept these new “synthetic” ecosystems that are created by humans. If we do not, we will be focused on preserving the past instead of gearing toward the future.

Michael Grasberg’s Response to Vitousek and Kareiva

Posted on August 30, 2012 by michaelgrasberg

“Human Domination of the Earth’s Ecosystem” and “Conservation in the Anthropocene” are two very intriguing articles that offer differing viewpoints on the current state of the Earth and how human processes are transforming it. Whereas Vitousek et al in “Human Domination of the Earth’s Ecosystem” focus on the negative effects of human development on the Earth’s ecosystem, Kareiva et al in “Conservation in the Anthropocene” focus on the flaws of current conservation techniques. Vitousek et al argue that humans must reduce the rate at which they alter the Earth, while Kareiva et al argue that new conservation techniques must embrace development and human well-being while also protecting the Earth’s ecosystem. Although this is an interesting point, the article does not elaborate on how this can be accomplished. While Vitousek and his coauthors take a more panicked approach on the current state of the Earth’s ecosystem, Kareiva and his coauthors believe that nature is “resilient” and can “recover rapidly from even the most powerful human disturbances.” Vitousek believes in a more conventional approach to saving the planet, while Kareiva supports a more unorthodox model. Nevertheless, both articles help the reader grasp the concept of the Anthropocene.

According to these two articles, the Anthropocene is defined as the new geological era in which humans dominate the Earth’s ecosystem. More specifically, the Anthropocene focuses on the extent to which human activities affect the Earth’s habitat. Since the industrial revolution, nature has taken a back seat to economic progress. Humans have become more concerned with improving their lives at the expense of the Earth.  As stated by Vitousek et al, every ecosystem on Earth has either been directly or indirectly affected by humans since the industrial revolution. Since that time, humans have transformed the land to grow crops, increased carbon dioxide emissions tremendously, and introduced new species of plants and animals to foreign places. This, in turn, has led to climate change, restructuring of the food chain, and the extinction of certain species. Humans will continue to dominate the Earth’s landscape and as the population continues to grow, more and more of the Earth’s resources will have to be utilized. The alteration of the Earth’s ecosystem is a vicious cycle spurred by population growth.

The Anthropocene is an extremely useful concept because it is very relevant to today’s world. As the population continues to exponentially grow, and countries such as China continue to industrialize and release more harmful chemicals into the air, more of the Earth’s land and seas will be transformed. The effects of these human actions are already tangible. For example, global warming is posing a major threat by increasing worldwide temperatures and melting the polar ice caps. In addition, there have been changes in weather patterns, as shown by the overly active hurricane seasons in recent years. Although strides have been made to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they are not enough. Like Kareiva et al argue, a balance must be found between protecting nature while also sustaining human communities. How to achieve this balance remains a mystery. However, I believe more regulations should be passed by governments around the world and more money should be raised by nongovernmental organizations to decrease the rate of deterioration of this beautiful planet.

Comments by michaelgrasberg