Why ecology? What does Ophuls argue? (p. 29, 39-43)
The main task of the ecology is to return humans back to the bosom of nature. Our present day situation is the depiction of our misunderstanding of our place in this world and our world as a whole. The ecology is a way of finding the peace and balance with our environment. In our paradigm, the concept of ruling and governing natural resources and nature itself has been rooted so densely that we have only recently started to notice that something goes wrong. Our dream techno civilization with its developed industry and high-yield crops, in reality, is not sustainable and moreover, very damaging to other inhabitants of the Earth. Our dominance is an illusion because the long-term consequences of our activities will not only affect plants and animals but will hit hardest back on us. This is why the nature-friendly systematic, integrative approach is the only way of our sustainable life and survival on this planet.
Limits are not egregious? What case does the author make? (p. 30-33)
The limits that we recognize now are not the ultimate nature's word. In reality, the interconnections between biological systems are very complex, in them hundreds of plant and animal species interact to create a sophisticated system. Due to such complexity nature is not linear and can be very hard to impossible to predict its real limits. As a bright example of this concept, Ophuls presents and compares weed lawn to the rainforest. While they virtually get the same amount of sunlight on their surface, the rainforest system teems with life and has a long term stable balance while the lawn system grows fast and dies fast leaving no trace behind. The rainforest system is an example of an interconnected natural system which utilizes the resources smartly and efficiently while the lawn system is very inefficient but high-yielding.
What is nature? (p.34-35)
We often see nature as a place where predator and prey compete for life, we often regard it as a hostile place where the only law governs – "eat or be eaten." In reality, the essence of natural relationships lies not in the aggression and hunting but on the symbiosis and mutuality. It is not only the nature of the relationships that are falsely interpreted but also our focus on the importance of large animals. We mostly regard humans of utmost importance and mammals and other animals as also the important part of the nature requiring special attention. In spite of our views, the simpler species are, the wider they are represented on the planet. And not in terms of total mass only, but in terms of biological importance too. The bacteria which we do not even see are the basis of the life itself. All animals as much as ourselves heavily rely on them. Overall, all life is very interconnected, and the survival of all the species depends on others.
What view of the Earth does the Gaia hypothesis offer? Why did (for some, does) the word "alive" provoke controversy? (p. 35-39)
The Gaia hypothesis offered by Lynn Margulis and James Lovelock suggests that the biosphere is a one living cell. The biosphere interacts with the atmosphere, geosphere, and hydrosphere changing their chemical composition and involving them in the living process. The Earth that hosts the biosphere, thus, becomes not the sole rock in space but an organic being. It cannot be regarded as an organism in a classical sense because it neither eats nor excretes, but in some sense, its life process can be described in the terms of absorbing and emitting solar radiation and heat. It is also reasonable to suggest in this light that the Earth, to some degree, has its own conscience.
Works Cited
Ophuls, William. Plato's Revenge. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2011. Print.
