Talk:Balance of nature

Initial Comments

Isn't this phrase also used to describe the relationship between populations and their (plant) food sources, as well as predator/prey?

Also, don't predator/prey population sizes behave chaotically? Presently the article seems to cite true random events (death of a pack leader for example) rather than deterministic (albeit chaotic) processes.

Just a thought. TrulyBlue (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right.. I consider this article to be in its initial stages. If you have anything to add, then please do so :).Dark hyena (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added the above. Should it have a mention of the Gaia theory added as the personification of nature? TrulyBlue (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not overly familiar with the Gaia theory. Looking it up, it seems like an even greater anthropomorphisation of nature than the topic of this article. Personally, based on my limited knowledge, I'd add it as a "see also" option, however, if you think there is anything significant warranting mention here, then please share it.Dark hyena (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this categorized under intelligent design and creation science when the article doesn't mention them at all? I can imagine that some people might see the Hand of God behind the perceived balance of nature, but I don't think that is enough to add the category without any explanation. --Itub (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The balance of nature as pseuodoscience?

This article should include more information about people who use the concept of a balance of nature, such as Rachel Carson and John Muir. These writers do not automatically assume negative feedback or permanently in balance. Instead they understood the interaction and interdependency of the balance as dynamic and fragile.Quelist (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The discrediting of the balance of nature theory isn't particularly well put. It says that nature is a constant state of fluctuation and disturbance, yes, but that doesn't discredit the idea that ecosystems are balanced. Surely balance refers to the ability to rebound from fluctuation and disturbance. I agree.

Corinne Zimmerman (Department of Psychology, Campus Box 4620, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 61790-4620, USA, czimmer@ilstu.edu ) implies that there no is equilibrium in the natural landscape. No, there is. By denying that the natural landscape can be quick on its feet, so to speak, one is an apologist for resource extractors and forest groomers. The terms equilibrium and balance of nature are perfectly good grammatical terms in themselves. I think that university students know that when we say balance in a biological sense we really mean dynamic balance. That's a given. There is a natural landscape that when disturbed (usually by man) will return to a variant natural landscape, but the natural landscape nonetheless. I recommend that Corinne Zimmerman's citation be deleted. Rstafursky (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Burn a forest down and it will, eventually, grow back. Kill off most the prey and the predators will suffer until the prey returns. And surely the evolutionary arms-race dictates that if one species gets an advantage, something will evolve to oppose it?

I'm not saying the mystical connotations of nature's balance are right, but it seems pretty stupid to throw out the whole idea simply because 'an angry wolf will eat a lot of prey'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.68.234 (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the idea of balance is that predator/prey remain in harmony with each other. There is no evidence for this at all in any population.Mariomassone (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bit to expand this with Catastrophe theory and Chaos theory and the now more talked of Tipping point Mashzeroth (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I've broken the last sentence up in the hope of making it more comprehendable. Mashzeroth (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The term "permanently in balance" is used in the main article and it is said that that is discredited, but that is a straw man. "Permanently in balance" is semantically not the same as "balance of nature." No one is saying that the "balance of nature" means permanency nor does it mean chaos. It is more like the natural forces and processes linger for a long time and only change by biological and physical evolution. I'm not sure why some contributors are so keen on denying any natural return when it is obvious that it occurs. Rstafursky (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wolf example in the predator-prey section

I have replaced "dominant, aggressive wolf" with "a wolf with particularly good hunting skills", as dominance and aggression have nothing to do with hunting, ie securing food. I also removed "mass" from "mass pack starvation" as superfluous, as it would be in "mass family starvation". The tone of the previous phrasing also generally seemed in line with erroneous ideas about wolf packs, see What ever happened to the term alpha-wolf Mashzeroth (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Having come back and reinforced the Chaos Theory and Lotka–Volterra equation the wolf example seemed superfluous so I have removed it. Mashzeroth (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions re: history

This was mistakenly placed at the top of the article:

• your information on the history of the balance of nature is incorrect. For me to write a correct history, I need some guidance on how long you want it. Here are correct sources:

Frank N. Egerton, "Changing Concepts of the Balance of Nature," Quarterly Review of Biology 48 (June 1973) 322-350. F.N.Egerton, Roots of Ecology: Antiquity to Haeckel (Berkeley, Univ. of Calif. Pres, 2012). John Kricher, The Balance of Nature: Ecology's Enduring Myth (Princeton Univ. Press, 2009).

Sincerely, Frank N. Egerton 26 July 15