The Technosphere and Earth Stewardship - Earth Stewardship: Linking Ecology and Ethics in Theory and Practice - page 269

Although the logic of an ecosystems approach has many rules and principles,
we will focus on a limited number that appear to contrast with social scientifi c
thinking, as we have observed through our participation in SES investigations. In
an ecosystem, all members of the system are connected and contribute in some
manner to overall ecosystem functioning. If undisturbed, ecosystems tend toward
balance and stability. All members of a single population (species) react/behave in
a similar fashion, leading to the expectation of similar results for repeated fi eld
observations, and to the expectation that laboratory experiments may mimic fi eld
observations. Disturbance is a primary determinant of population, community,
and ecosystem characteristics. Population dynamics are self-limiting and time
constrained. For many analyses, structure and function are related closely and
may be viewed as the same (Smith and Stirling 2010 ).
A huge variety of concepts drive ecosystems thinking, many of which have been
modifi ed for use in relation to social systems or SES. Some involve patterns of
change over time, such as evolution with its associated concepts of adaptation and
selection. On an organismic or community level, the life cycle has widespread
application; the alternative models of community succession and the adaptive cycle,
also have widespread application. Geographic distributions also are important with
the niche concept, fragmentation of landscapes, and the edge effects of these pat-
terns. Resource related concepts are also central, such as the centrality of the food
web, the species/area relationship, and the guiding rule of carrying capacity.
Virtually all of these concepts have been borrowed, with or without modifi cation, by
social scientists. Often this has led to new insights, and sometimes forms the basis
of analyses of SES. However, we believe that this sharing has unintended conse-
quences since perceived similarities are fewer than fi rst thought.
Generalizing about the logic and rules of a social scientifi c approach is diffi cult,
because the number of disciplines is quite large, and because there are signifi cant
differences among them. Once again, attempting to keep this discussion manage-
able, we focus on elements of logic and basic concepts that are fundamental to the
perspective and that are sometimes borrowed by the other two perspectives, or
which contrast sharply with elements in those perspectives.
Members of a social system are seen as connected in the system, but interest-
ingly, different from ecosystems, being a member does not mean that one contrib-
utes to overall social system functioning; for many social scientists, human systems
are out of balance and their structure is fl awed. Compounding these differences is
the view that individuals within a population or community, are likely to behave/
react differently, that is, individuals have agency. Related to this is the fact that
power and access to resources are assumed to be unevenly distributed in social sys-
tems, and that these asymmetries are basic drivers of system operation and change.
Another key difference with ecosystems, is that humans are refl exive; they attempt
to anticipate the future and act to modify it to their perceived benefi t. How one per-
ceives the world around them, what beliefs one holds about how systems operate,
and what values one prioritizes, all affect one's knowledge about the world (obser-
vation is not a physical act alone). Hence, knowledge is contingent; contingent upon
the observer, upon the context within which the observation/decision is being made,