Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
No. The seeming paradox appears merely by forgetting that the biological world
is hierarchically arranged into different levels of organization and that the beauty of
individual animals is not the threatened beauty that I am discussing. The introduced
animals themselves retain their individual beauty but by wrenching them out of
their evolutionary contexts and arbitrarily placing them in a strange land the beauty
of that recipient land, its native fauna, and the evolutionary history of the trans-
ported species become compromised. It is this beauty of higher organizational levels
- particularly that of unique species, communities, and ecosystems - that is threat-
ened or lost. This may sound odd to those accustomed to thinking of beauty as
inherent in sensory-accessible structures, such as particular plants, animals, or
human artifacts. In what does this more abstract form of beauty consist? How can
one speak of the beauty of species, communities, and ecosystems? They do not
have color, pleasing shapes, symmetry. If not, then what is threatened with loss by
the movement of non-native species?
That which is lost is the beauty inherent in the biological systems and relation-
ships evolved under unique historical regimes of migration, competition, and evo-
lutionary accommodation. These unique histories have led to the evolutionary
development of unique floras and faunas in different parts of the world. These
evolved biotas include species, each with a unique combination of adaptive features
allowing it to survive in its own particular slice of the world; communities of co-
evolved and co-accommodating species creating geographically unique assem-
blages of life forms; and the ecosystems whose mix of unique communities,
climatic regimes, and topography impart to landscapes their specific distinctiveness
and appeal. I suggest that the distinctive co-evolved, unique beauty of each of these
systems is besmirched by the introduction of alien species - much as a beautiful
beach or coastline may be impaired by an oil spill. Or perhaps more aptly, the facile
pollution of these self-generated biotas by human introductions is equivalent to
splattering the canvases in the Louvre with day-glo paint: the structural integrity of
the canvases may not be marred, the added colors may be beautiful, but the aes-
thetic integrity of the artworks is thoroughly violated. The difference, of course, is
that the impact of an oil spill lasts for mere years, vandalization of a painting may
be rectified by careful restoration, but alien invasions are most usually irreversible
and irreparable.
I recognize that arguing loss of beauty due to alien introductions may leave
many readers unimpressed. Beauty is frequently thought of as an interpretation or
response to a sensory perception, and we have gained some understanding of
human judgement of nature's beauty as measured by perceptive factors such as
vegetative color, shape, and structure (Lohr, 2007). But recognition of common
themes to sensory evocation of beauty is a far cry from arguing on behalf of the
beauty of ecological relationships, evolutionary consequences, and biological
uniqueness, all of which comprise a far more derivative, conceptual, and abstract
aesthetic. Yet, that this form of beauty should be abstract or invisible to many
people hardly serves as a compelling argument against its existence - any more
than the failure of most humans to perceive abstract mathematical beauty argues
against its existence. Lack of a broad appreciation for this ecological/evolutionary
