Botkin,+Adjusting+Law+Piece

Jordan Mundell February 27th Annotation #3 “Adjusting Law to Nature’s Discordant Harmonies” Daniel Botkin

This article is an adaptation of a talk that Botkin gave in 1996. In it, he focuses on the change in environmental sciences that has been occurring over the last three decades or so. While we have started to transition to an ecological view of the environment and conservation, Botkin argues that our rationale is still rooted in old, and outdated concepts. He is acknowledging that the ‘what’ is important, but argues that the ‘how’ and ‘why’ are just as relevant, if not more important.

“This article focuses not only on the content of the laws and policy, but also on the process by which we arrive at [them].”

Botkin recognizes the “revolution in environmental sciences” that is underway, but cautiously examines that our process is driven by a belief in the //false// myth of the ‘balance of nature.’ This myth boils down to nature is best undisturbed by humans, and it is best in that state. What this myth does not account for, is that humans are a part of nature as well. The issue with adopting such a mentality is that it isolates humans from the environment around them. It acknowledges that our actions may affect nature, but does not consider the possibility of those interactions being beneficial. What the myth also assumes is that nature in its perfect state is constant, when Botkin comments that in reality is dynamic. He goes into detail on this concept using two main examples, the Kirtland warbler scenario, and the Hutchinson forest. Both center around two main points: fire was an agent of beneficial change, and human interactions are often necessary in nature.

Btokin then goes into a section that seems to bother him about environmental sciences: the lack of empirical evidence. He says that one of the problems following the balance of nature mentality is that decisions are based off assumptions and plausibility rather than fact and evidence. It is indeed a new way of thinking, and does comment on the transition to such a view:

“It is not clear if the people in management will actually use these new ideas, because they may still be locked in the old way of thinking. Policy-makers, and we as scientists, need to move away from the old beliefs about nature.”

I found the story about the logs in Oregon to be quite interesting. Essentially during WWII, during times of drought in Oregon, tree fell across streams often, which was //assumed// to disturb the salmon population. So they removed the logs and used them to help the war effort, a //plausible// solution. What was not known was that the logs played a crucial role in the breeding habitat of the salmon; such a study to determine this was never thought of or conducted. After which Oregon then spent thousands of dollars ($30,000 per mile) on replacing the logs, another //plausible// solution. Botkin questioned different departments involved if studies had been done if replacing the logs would indeed now be beneficial, but the answer was no. He summed up this example and this mentality in general with one sentence:

“So the action had changed, but the approach was the same: do what seems plausible.”

He related this to a similar situation that Thoreau faced in the 19th century when writing __Cape Cod__ where he called the sate “derelict in its duty to provide fundamental, useful information…” It seems that Botkin finds the lack of basic, fundamental, scientific data to be quite disturbing and embarrassing. In Botkin’s summary, he iterates his two major points: we have to transition from our old way of thinking to a more empirical way, and that we need to account for the fact the nature in its best state is dynamic, not constant. Botkin does make some suggestions at the end:

“…avoid hypotheses based on myths; instead, search for and examine available data. Let generalizations emerge from an examination of the data. Create an open process, involving the public.”

In general I did like the article, but I’m not entirely convinced how much of it still applies here in 2015. In this age, I think that we have already transitioned into the type of science that Botkin is calling for, one based off of examination of data, rather than speculation. What does still apply, in my opinion, is that we need to do a better job of seeing ourselves as part of nature, rather than isolate (and dominant over) it.