Thread by @SteB777

I want to try and define what I mean by "ecological ignorance".

It appears all arguments that we can carry on with business as usual, adapt to climate breakdown and merely use technology to overcome the climate crisis, are based on "ecological ignorance".

https://twitter.com/SteB777/status/1437133458061631488

All arguments that the climate and ecological crisis, is not an actual crisis, and that we can carry on with business as usual, appear to have one thing in common - "profound ecological ignorance". Both the arguments, and those using them, appear to be ecologically ignorant.

What I mean by this is that those using these arguments, appear to have no knowledge at all of how ecosystems function and how they sustain us. They seem to be unaware that this knowledge even exists. It is in fact, the classic Dunning-Kruger Effect.

What I mean by ecological knowledge is understanding how all natural systems and biological organisms exist in a complex interconnected and interrelated system, where each component supports and sustains other components - including human society and our economy.

This does not mean understanding how it all works, because no one understands this and scientific ecology only knows a fraction of what could be known. It means understanding that this interconnected and interrelated system actually exists.

It appears that most people in our modern culture, do not really have any understanding of how natural systems entirely sustain them. The term nature actually means that apart from humans. We talk about natural and human actions as if they are separate and different.

There are no humans apart from nature. Every time we breath, we're breathing in oxygen produced by the photosynthesis of plants and algae. However, for quite some considerable time, we've mistakenly believed we were apart from nature, no longer reliant on it and we control it.

This idea we're separate from nature and no longer reliant on it is illusory. The illusion is because we buy our food from a supermarket, that this food no longer comes from and relies on nature, it is created by humans.

Let me briefly illustrate the thinking error. Soil is a complex living ecosystem. Yet to most people soil is just inert dirt. However, soil science proves differently.
soils.org/files/sssa/iys…

The illusion that humans create food, is based on the misconception that soil is just dirt, and so when you are growing things in this dirt, nature plays no part in it. Which if you check out the link above, is a major misconception i.e. based on ignorance.

There are not many farming or food production methods, that don't rely on soil. Yes, it is possible to grow crops hydroponically, without soil. Even to culture meat. But actually, the things being grown originated in the natural world.

It might by hypothesized that we could produce wholly artificial life. But it doesn't yet exist, and it might never be possible. Therefore the whole perception that we are apart from nature is not merely an illusion, but a delusion, a false belief.

So called ecosystem services support every bit of our lives, our societies, our economies. There is nothing independent of them. Yet most people, most governments, most companies take them for granted, they simply don't think about them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem…

The environmental factor most species populations, most ecosystems are reliant on and adapted to, is climate. The climate determines what species can exist where, how plants will grow etc.

This adaptation to climate of species and ecosystem is very fine. Even on a relative small island like Britain, or just part of it, England, there are northern species not found in the south, and southern species, not found or rare in the north.

We would struggle to detect that difference in climate, but it finely defines what species or ecosystems can exist in a certain location. The whole idea we could profoundly change the climate and everything would still remain roughly the same, just warmer is naive in the extreme.

If we change the climate globally, in a major way, every ecosystem in the world and much of it's component species, will be un-adapted to the climate regime at the location it now exists.

If you understand the basics of ecology, and the myriad ways ecosystems sustain us, the idea that we could totally disrupt the present climate regime, and be unaffected, is just absurd. This ecosystem disruption, would have massive impacts on our society and our economy.

Ecosystems and biodiversity are the most complex phenomena known to humankind. They are many orders of magnitude more complex than anything else we are aware of. Much, much more complex than the human brain.

This ecosystem and biodiversity complexity, all the chains of interconnection and interrelationship, means it is physically impossible to model ecosystem reactions to climate regime breakdown, relative to the much simpler physical components.

This means ecosystem impacts of climate change, tend to get left out of evaluations etc, purely because of complexity. Yet we also know ecosystems are the things most likely to be effected by significant shifts in the climate regime, and we are incredibly reliant on ecosystems.

We can also be certain that this ecosystem disruption is going to be very bad for us. This is because ecosystems and their components evolve and adapt over long periods of time. Therefore disrupted ecosystems are much less efficient and support less life and biomass.

Let me give an example. Rainforest ecosystems seem to be incredibly productive and fertile, supporting huge biodiversity. So people would assume rainforests are on fertile soils. In fact, tropical rainforests are typically on old exhausted soils.

The reason tropical rainforests seem to be very productive is because of their efficiency at recycling nutrients, and the species associations which facilitate this have evolved over millions of years. They are highly complex ecosystems.

During the series of glaciations, the ice ages, ecosystems at high latitudes have been seriously disrupted by glaciations. So they haven't had the time to evolve the complex species interrelationships of tropical rainforests.

Whereas tropical areas were neither glaciated or impacted by these glaciations like ecosystems at higher latitudes. Therefore these species relationships and ecosystem complexity could evolve over millions of years, and that is why they're far more efficient.

In other words, the longer an ecosystem exists, the more efficient it is, and the greater biodiversity and biomass it can support. Whereas ecosystems more effected by climate change and disrupted, tend to support less biodiversity and be more inefficient.

This is why if you understand ecology, you know that ecological impacts caused by big and adverse changes in the climate are going to have very adverse impacts on the species reliant on the current climate system.

Human societies and economies, are aside from faulty public perception, highly reliant on ecosystem services from ecosystems adapted to the current climate regime. Therefore our societies and economies will be severely impacted.

The only thing you need, not to understand how the climate crisis will severely impact our societies and economies (reliant on ecosystem services from ecosystems adapted to a climate regime which no longer exists) is PROFOUND ECOLOGICAL IGNORANCE. Out of sight, out of mind.

In other words, all those who don't see the climate crisis as a crisis, who think we an adapt, or manage climate impacts - are all simply, ecologically ignorant. They only don't see the problem, because of their ecological ignorance.

The less someone understands ecological relationships, the less likely they are to see the climate crisis as a major threat to us. Out of sight, out of mind.

@ClimateHuman @GeorgeMonbiot @GretaThunberg @JKSteinberger @KateRaworth @ProfSteveKeen

@threadreaderapp Please unroll?