Subject: SCIENCE, NATURE, AND NEW FORESTRY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments:
Steve Egeline, from the Fremont NF, offers his perspectives on topics
ranging from "space and time" to "biological diversity and new
forestry."  There is much to ponder in the 8 pages that follow.
Spend some time with this one and I think you'll find, as I did, many
reasons to rethink our relationship with nature.  We humans have some
tough choices ahead.  Steve helps us better understand them.  Dve.
Note: an earlier version of this paper has circulated widely in some
DG circles.

                        -------========X========-------


                                                                      ECO-WATCH
                                                                         4/4/91


                  PERSPECTIVES IN NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
                                 Steve Egeline

    We go about our daily lives understanding
    almost nothing of the world.  We give little
    thought to the machinery that generates the
    sunlight that makes life possible, to the
    gravity that glues us to an Earth that would
    otherwise send us spinning off into space, or
    to the atoms of which we are made and on whose
    stability we fundamentally depend.

    In our society it is still customary for
    parents and teachers to answer most of these
    questions with a shrug, or with an appeal to
    vaguely recalled religious precepts.  Some are
    uncomfortable with issues like these, because
    they so vividly expose the limitations of human
    understanding.
                             Carl Sagan introducing
Steven W. Hawking's
                             A Brief History of
Time.  


    Natural resource management is really a problem in
space and time, but in a perspective different from what
we normally think of.  We humans have spent considerable
energy and thought for thousands of years in trying to
understand the world around us.  Beginning with the
ancient Greeks right up through today's particle physics
research, we humans have attempted to explain the
workings of nature in terms that we can understand.

    Edward O. Wilson's Sociobiology, Michael E. Soule
and Bruce Wilcox's edition of Conservation Biology,
Stephen W. Hawking's A Brief History of Time, Desmond
Morris' The Naked Ape, and The Human Zoo, and many
others, have begun to scientifically explore an
understanding of natural processes in ways new to us. 
On the other hand, philosophers such as Socrates, Plato
and Aristotle, and works such as the Bible, the Koran
and the Baghivadgita, have for centuries also explained
nature and natural processes from differing
perspectives.  All of these perspectives are related,
and all have their foundations in the same basic truths. 
However, the understanding of these truths require us to
make a "paradigm shift" in our perceptions.

Space and Time

    Let's begin by developing a concept of space and
time by asking "what is nothing".  Perhaps the best
answer was made by a group of particle physists who were
asked that question directly.  Their definition of
"nothing" is a state where time and space do not exist. 
Since time and space are relativistic concepts, that is,
they are defined only in relation to other things and
not to themselves, then if there were no other things,
there could be no time or space, and therefore the state
of "nothing" would exist.  Obviously the question isn't
as simple as it seems.

    Time/space is a measure of difference, or,
differences enable time/space to exist.  If things
(states) change, they do so at a finite rate. 
Conversely, if things (states) either didn't change, or
changed instantaneously in the absolute sense, it would
be impossible to measure time.

    States of being must also be defined in relation to
their locations.  A fundamental rule of physics is that
two things cannot occupy the same space at the same
time.  If two identical states exist at the same time,
they must do so in different places.  Likewise, if two
identical states exist in the same place, they must do
so at different times.  In the first case, it would be
possible to measure the space between the states, but
not time.  In the second instance, one could measure the
time interval between the states, but not space.  Time
and space are simply different measures of the same
thing, that is, difference.

    A state of being is defined within a few parameters. 
Particle physics holds that there are only four forces
in the universe; the strong force holding subatomic
particles together; the weak force holding atoms
together; electromagnetic force measured by attraction
or repulsion based on electron balance (ie. "charges");
and gravity.  Some theories have been put forth to
reconcile the interchangeability of the first three
forces (the so-called Grand Unification Theories), and
there is a major research area attempting to reconcile
gravity in relation to the other three forces.

    General Relativity holds that matter and energy are
simply different states of the same thing.  That is,
they are interchangeable, which is the basis of the
famous formula: E = m*(c squared), where E is energy, m
is mass and c is the speed of light.  It also holds that
rates of change are limited by the speed of light, and
that nothing is instantaneous in the absolute sense. 
However, Newtonian theory holds that gravitational
attraction is directly proportional to the masses of the
two bodies attracting each other, and inversely
proportional to the square of the space (distance)
between them... but that the attraction is instantaneous
(contrary to General Relativity and the subject of
considerable research today).

    Another theory of physics has to do with energy,
matter and order in the universe.  When a given state is
changed into a state of relatively greater order
(regularity of organization in space or time), energy is
required.  The law of the conservation of energy holds
that the net energy change in such a conversion is zero. 
However, some of the energy used in the change is
degraded to a form which is no longer able to influence
future state changes to the same degree.  Therefore,
while the change in the particular state being observed
is from relative disorder to relative order, the net
change in the universe is in the direction of increasing
disorder.  This net change toward disorder is termed
entropy, and the net progression in the universe is
toward a state of disorder, even though portions of the
universe may become more ordered at some time (see the
discussion on time/space).

    It could be said that there's only one state in the
universe, and that is the least organized form of
energy.  Remember that energy and matter are
interchangeable, as are time and space.  The present
universe is simply a particular organization of that
state, observed at a particular time, which is changing
in a particular manner, and its the description and
predictability of those "particulars" that concerns much
of science today.  (It could also be said that chaos is
simply a state of order that cannot presently be
described, and is therefore unpredictable.)

    If you've followed along so far, you might be able
to understand that there are two states: a relative
state, and an absolute state, and that they may be the
same, but most often are not.

Nature and Life

    Our understanding of nature is based on our
perspective, or relative understanding, of natural
processes.  For instance, consider the idea of
"umweldt".  This is a german word used in animal
behavior, which loosely translated means "the world as
perceived", which has to do with the idea that in order
to understand why an organism does whatever it does, we
have to understand how the organism sees (perceives) its
"world" (the things and processes in its surroundings). 
As an illustration, let's consider one aspect of bees
and flowers.  It was discovered that bees can perceive
(see) ultraviolet wavelengths of energy, which we
cannot.  It was also discovered, through the use of
ultraviolet-sensitive film, that patterns exist on many
flowers that aid the bee to find nectar and pollen and
helps the plant reproduce.  We didn't understand some
aspects of why bees and flowers get along the way they
do, until we understood a little more of the bee's
umweldt.  Its been said that perceptions are reality,
but it should be obvious that it means much more than
what we normally think of, since our perception of
reality is based in our biological limitations on our
ability to perceive.

    The next concept to consider is "what's the meaning
of life".  Now this isn't as complicated as you might
think.  If you have some idea of what DNA
(desoxyribonucleic acid) is, then you have a good chance
at understanding the meaning of life.  Simply put, this
is a molecule made up of a particular sequence of four
acidic compounds that has the unique property of being
able to replicate itself.  The replicating process is
accomplished through the use of highly ordered
(organized) chemicals commonly known as organisms.  From
this perspective, the purpose of life is to replicate
DNA.  In other words, the organism is DNA's mechanism of
making more DNA.

    The idea of evolutionary/genetic success is equally
as simple.  The particular combination of nucleic acids
that produces an organism that is more successful at
producing that particular DNA molecule is at an
evolutionary advantage.  This is true whether speaking
of bacteria, redwoods, viruses, whales or humans.

    Because of the constant, and high level of
competition in nature, which some might term chaos since
many changes in nature are unpredictable by humans,
species are continually evolving (changing) in order to
gain whatever evolutionary advantage might exist at that
point in time.  (This is a particularly important
concept to remember; it will be elaborated on shortly.) 

    The rate of change in an species' environment
dictates the needed evolutionary rate, but the actual
rate of evolution depends on two interrlated things. 
The rate of evolution (adaptive change) of physical
characters depends on the reproductive rate of the
species.  The rate of evolution of behavioral characters
is dependant on the relationship of fixation of those
characters in genetic material and the determination of
those behaviors by learning processes.  In other words,
a species can change (evolve) learned behaviors more
rapidly than genetically (biochemically determined)
characteristics.  (However, a species' capability to
learn is genetically influenced, and therefore subject
to evolutionary change.  Sort of a circular argument.)

    Every species, and every individual, modifies its
environment in some manner.  This is done to obtain the
things necessary to reproduce in the most advantageous
manner in order to gain an evolutionary advantage.  The
products of this process also alter environments.  These
environmental modifications are constantly changing as
the species changes, and the species changes in response
to the changes in its environment (both biological and
physical).  The complexity of systems, involving
biological and physical properties as well as dynamic
cycles such as moisture, temperature, chemical, etc., is
so great that it may exceed our human capability of
measuring or understanding beyond a very gross scale.

    Let me present one last concept before specifically
addressing natural resource management.  Shifting to
another "reality", philosophies and religions can be
seen as another way of explaining states that are
normally beyond our ability to understand.  In this way,
they can all be seen as simply different ways of
addressing the same problem.  However, they do it from
basically two different perspectives on the continuity
of life (the state of "being") and the role of man in
the universe.  "Western" religions usually consider man
as apart from nature... usually superior, sometimes
equal, but "apart", and that the soul goes "somewhere"
after death.... hades, valhallah, heaven, but somewhere
other than back to the earth.  "Eastern" religions
normally portray man as an integral part of nature...
sometimes equal, sometimes inferior, but always a
"part", and that the soul, upon death, comes back into
that nature.  The difference is in the perception of
man's place in nature and of death as either absolute or
transitory.

Natural Resource Management

    Now, let's take some of these perspectives and bring
them to the realities of natural resource management. 
As previously proposed, managing natural resources is
basically a problem of time and space.  Another way of
looking at it is as a problem of scale in time and
space, and our perceptions of scale.

    Biodiversity is the subject of a lot of research and
concern in our management these days.  However,
diversity as generally conceived, is meaningless in the
broadest sense.  Let me explain in terms of
perspectives.  We assume that diversity, in terms of
variety of species, plant communities, age classes and
other measures of natural ecosystems, is a desirable
goal to manage for.  In the perception of most people,
the more different things that occur in an area being
considered, the more diverse that area is.  We spend a
lot of time and money in measuring "diversity" with the
idea that if we can measure it, we can reproduce it by
manipulating our environment.  Lets look at diversity
from the perspective of measuring it.  Assume we have a
finite area (space), with 50 objects present in the
area.  If all 50 are identical, diversity is "low"
however measured.  If, of the 50 objects, 49 are of one
kind, and one is of another, then diversity is greater. 
If there are 25 of each of the two kinds, a higher state
of diversity occurs, and if each object is different
from each other object, a maximum state of diversity
exists... until we look at spatial arrangement. 
Likewise, if all 50 objects occur in only one area of
the space being looked at, this is a lower state of
diversity than if the objects are evenly distributed
across the space.  And if each object is different, and
the differences are greatest among those objects closest
to each other, and all objects are equidistant from all
the others within the space, then a state of maximum
diversity exists.

    Now consider what the objects are and the space
being considered.  If we assume the objects are quarks
(the most elemental particles so far know), there are
six flavors, three colors and four spins known,
resulting in 72 possible kinds of objects in the
universe.  If we try to measure diversity of quarks in
the universe, the result is meaningless to the
pragmatist since quarks are "too small", and the
universe "too large" to be of concern.  If you had the
perspective of a quark, 72 different ones of you are
your entire perspective, which compared to our human
perspective isn't particularly diverse... after all,
there are now over 5 billion of us, each one
biochemically unique.  Now, if you had the perspective
of some astrophysists (and some might say, of God),
there's only one universe, which isn't particularly
diverse... only one of anything is as uniform as can be.

    While this example might be considered a "reducto ad
absurdum" argument, I think you might be able to see the
point.  In general, we assume in natural ecosystems that
greater diversity is better than less, but if the above
concept applies, then maximum diversity is not a
desirable state.  For example, just looking at diversity
of age classes of trees, if we wish maximum diversity of
age classes, where each tree is surrounded by trees of
a different age class, then the stand (area of
consideration) of trees would probably not have the
number (density in a given area) of large old trees we
think is desirable for spotted owls or what we've termed
"old growth".  We need to understand that "diversity"
and "variety" are not the same thing, and that before we
can begin to manage for a given state of variety, we
must understand and define the scale that we're
managing.

    Let me illustrate with an argument that there is no
biological difference between evenaged management and
unevenaged management, only a perspective difference,
defined by our biological limitations as the species
Homo sapiens.  Logically, if a single tree, of a single
age, is cut, and a single tree of a single age grows to
replace it, then evenaged management exists, just as it
does if the entire forest is cut and a forest of a
single age grows to replace it.  Our human perspective
is limited by the area being considered, which has some
basis in our biology.  If we cut all the trees in areas
smaller than about 10 acres, we call it unevenaged
management, and evenaged management if the area is
larger than that.  Our perspective of area, or space if
you will, is based in our bilolgy as humans, our
"umweldt".

    Likewise, our perspective of time is based on the
human "umweldt".  When people speak of "ancient
forests", they are doing so from the human "umweldt". 
"Ancient" is a term of perspective.  A mayfly
(ephemeroptera) lives in the adult form for perhaps two
days.  To an Americium atom (having a half-life of
fractions of a second), that's "ancient".  A year-old
infant is, in comparison (remember the idea of
relativity?), "ancient" to Americium, but to a
40-year-old human, a 2,000 year old sequoia is
"ancient", and to the sequoia, the earth is ancient, and
to the earth, the universe is ancient, etc.

    The human "umweldt", despite our technological
ability to perceive such things as subatomic particles
and the "edges of the universe", is based on our
lifespan and our biological ability to perceive.  That's
the reason we, as individuals or as a species, don't
call individual tree selection evenaged management, and
we talk of 500 year old trees as ancient; not because of
the truth, but because of our perception of the truth,
which forms our reality.

Biology, Technology, and the Future

    Our reality is limited by our biology, just as it is
for any other organism, and biology is determined by
evolutionary history.  It is only within our lives that
we've begun to realize our intellectual perceptions, as
amplified by technology, are at some odds with our
biological perceptions, as determined by evolution.

    There is a real reason for this difference between
biology and technology and their conflicting affect on
perceptions, and I believe this is the root of conflict
in natural resource management today.  First, we have to
accept that change, as defined as differences in things
in the time/space continuum, is a normal (ie. expected)
part of nature.  That is, the processes of DNA
reproduction, matter/energy interactions, increases in
entropy, etc., manifest themselves as changed states,
which differ in time and space.  Next, we have to accept
the idea that there is a limit on human understanding of
these processes.  When we get to the point where we no
longer understand, we call it "chaos".  Our ability to
understand is manifested in our ability to predict the
future.  In other words, if we can predict a future
state based on our knowledge of a present state, we say
we understand that state.  Finally, we have to accept
that until relatively (!) recently, we humans have
existed at what may be termed endemic populations as
hunter-gatherers in extended (genetically related)
families travelling about the landscape on foot at two
to four miles per hour.  Our particular advantage as a
species, compared to other 100 to 200 pound land
mammals, is our ability to adapt to change rapidly
through modifying those behaviors which are not
genetically determined.  We can learn more rapidly than
we can reproduce.

    Given these conditions, here is the reason for
natural resource management conflict in our society.  We
do not have the ability to predict future states beyond
the near future.  We can't even predict the weather from
day to day, let alone the condition of the earth 120+
years from now (about the "rotation age" of ponderosa
pine in the west).  As a result of technology... speed
of mathematical computation primarily... we do, and
publish, predictions on that time span.  FORPLAN is
nothing more than a tool to "predict the future".  And
yet we "know" that we don't know precisely enough about
the parameters that affect the future to make any
meaningful predictions.  We evolved as a species to be
concerned with changes in the near future, not the far
future, which makes some sense because we can adapt
behavior to near future conditions (the sun rising next
morning, winter being cold), but not far future
conditions (global warming, acid rain, being hit by a
meteor, the recollapse of the universe into a
singularity).  If we cannot predict future conditions
(states) with any degree of certainty, which we as a
species have not been able to do in our evolutionary
history, there is no evolutionary/biochemical advantage
in changing our behaviors to address that time/space
condition.  But our technology is in fact giving us some
glimpses of the "far future" that extend beyond our
biological "near future".  Our big evolutionary
advantage, which is reflected in our perceptions and
behavior, is based on the near future, and our
management of natural resources is based on far future
predictions.

    Our biology is in conflict with our technology, and
the information necessary to address the "far future"
isn't sufficient at this time, and may be beyond our
ability to understand even if it was sufficient.  If
chaos, the inability to predict states, exists, then it
is of no evolutionary advantage to adapt beyond that
boundary between the "knowable" and "chaos".  Therefore
there is no overriding biological reason why we, as a
species, can be concerned about future states beyond
that time/space point.  That is why the predictive
arguments (FORPLAN, old growth conditions, "natural
processes", regulated forests, etc.) are ineffective in
addressing concerns about natural resources.  We are
managing based on "far future" predictions, but only
perceive and react to "near future" conditions.

    A second part of our biology is that our "near
future" perspective is based on our history.  That is,
our memories, both individually and as a society, are
the result of past experience and are the only "known"
knowledge on which we can base the prediction of the
"near future".  And even this past is a relatively
recent past.  Throughout the forests of the west,
management has drastically altered the appearance of the
landscape, and has in some cases caused serious resource
problems.... and I'm not talking about cutting trees for
lumber.  The management activity has been fire
suppression, and the change in the landscape has been
just as dramatic as that caused by timber cutting, over
a very much larger area.  The difference is in the
perspective of the human population.  The change due to
fire suppression has occurred gradually over more than
one human generation, about 50 to 100 years.  The
perception, accelerated by our physical mobility, is
that in fact it hasn't changed, since we haven't seen
the change in the timeframes which we perceive.

    We can behaviorally accept history as fact much
easier than accepting prediction as fact.  Because of
this, it will be much easier to discuss natural resource
management on a historical basis than on a predictive
basis, and the "past" timeframe is much longer than the
"future" timeframe for reasons already discussed. 
Perhaps the first step in our understanding is to
develop the perceptions that things (the landscape) have
changed significantly as a result of our manipulation,
though in some cases over an extended time.  If we can
understand that, we will be able to implement some of
the landscape ecology ideas contained in the "New
Perspectives" forestry.

Our Future: The Role of Landscape Ecology in Natural
Resource Management

    Where does this leave us?  The key word in the ideas
of the new forestry, is landscapes.  What appears to be
the thrust of the new forestry, or landscape ecology, is
to change the time/space configuration of plants and
animals as little as possible (or at a slow enough
rate), preferably so it isn't obvious to our perceptions
as a species, while at the same time providing the
products we perceive as necessary.  This being the case
we accept three fairly obvious things:  1. Accept change
at a higher rate (biologically very difficult as
manifested in the protests against what we're doing
now);  2. Reduce our demand for those products, and/or; 
3. reduce our population.  Of the last two, the question
is "who goes first"?  Whoever goes first, in terms of
limiting use of resources or reproduction, loses in the
near future (which is where we as a species operate),
and the entire species loses in the far future if this
isn't done.  It could seem that much of the conflict
we're seeing in resource management is an argument about
"who goes first".

    There is a fourth solution of sorts, not without a
very significant cost, but which may be worth pursuing. 
In order to maximize outputs, both material, biological
and esthetic, from natural ecosystems, while minimizing
the perception of change (particularly the rate of
change), we need to radically alter the way we (both as
a species and as an agency) understand nature and
extract those products on which we depend.  The ability
to apply management (change) to as complex a system as
nature requires a high degree of understanding. 
Understanding is different than the education which we
now value.  Understanding is the "umweldt" a person has
as a result of education, experience, and knowledge of
a particular part of the landscape. The ability to
synthesize these into behaviors is often termed "skill",
and if applied to non-mechanistic behavior, termed
"wisdom".

    Basically put, we need to put our "wisest", most
"skilled" people into the woods to do the work (the job
of deciding what to "take" and what to "leave"), and to
value the wise and skilled in our species.  Training and
education are a part of this valuing, but so is
knowledge of the land, which can only be gained by
staying in place, and only "looking" at a small enough
piece of it to be able to understand.

    The cost of this change is real, and it is monetary. 
We need to have more managers since the land area with
which any one can become familiar is small, and we need
to provide career fulfillment in place so they have the
time to develop that familiarity.  We also need to find
or develop people with the sense of what's been
discussed in this paper to have the "agency umweldt"
necessary.  The idea of apprenticeship in the old world
sense perhaps has some merit, and the idea of a
"liberal" education can also be advantageous.

    Obviously, this sort of thing cannot happen simply
because the Forest Service adopts a "New Forestry"
perspective.  It must happen because our employees
collectively understand that it's necessary, and society
must be willing to accept the consequences and costs of
that understanding.

    The "New Forestry/New Perspectives" should represent
a paradigm shift in our understanding of nature,
including our human nature.  The implementation of that
understanding should be done aggressively, with full
involvement of our employees and the interested publics,
and in full view of Congress.  In that way, we have the
best chance of changing the way we do business, the way
we're perceived by society, and the way we treat the
landscape we live on.

    I hope this paper hasn't presented ideas that are
totally unfamiliar, but only presented familiar ideas in
new relationships.... the result should be new
perspectives, which should have some influence on the
behaviors which form other's perspectives of us as
natural resource managers.

    "New perspectives" isn't a thing in the sense that
individual tree or group selection harvest is a
"thing"... New Perspectives is a paradigm shift in the
way we think about the world around us.


                   Steve Egeline is the
                   Fire/Range/Wildlife/Fish/Soil/Water
                   Staff Officer on the Fremont
                   National Forest.  This "perspective"
                   was written about a year ago when he
                   was District Ranger on the Heber
                   District, Apache-Sitgraves NF