Myth: The balance of nature exists and dominates all life and all environments
Understanding "The Balance of Nature" Myth: A Comprehensive Study Guide with Key Quotes
What This Reading Is About
This reading, "Myth 4: The Balance of Nature Exists and Dominates All Life and All Environments," challenges one of the most deeply held beliefs about nature. The author, an ecological scientist who has worked with whale conservation and forest management, explains why the idea of nature being in perfect balance is false and harmful to real conservation efforts.
The Core Argument with Key Quotes
The Myth (What People Believe)
The reading begins with this critical quote from ecologist A. J. Nicholson (1933):
"Animal populations must exist in a state of balance, for they are otherwise inexplicable."
This represents the traditional view that nature must be balanced or it wouldn't make sense.
The Reality (What Science Shows)
Immediately after, the author presents the opposing view from ecologist Charles Elton (1930):
"The balance of nature does not exist, and perhaps has never existed. The numbers of wild animals are constantly varying to a greater or lesser extent, and the variations are usually irregular in period and always irregular in amplitude."
This quote is crucial - it directly states that balance doesn't exist and explains that animal populations constantly change in unpredictable ways.
Part 1: Understanding the Traditional Belief in Detail
George Perkins Marsh's Influential Statement
One of America's first important environmental thinkers wrote:
"In countries untrodden by man, the proportions and relative positions of land and water, the atmospheric precipitation and evaporation, the thermometric mean, and the distribution of vegetable and animal life, are subject to change only from geological influences so slow in their operation that the geographical conditions may be regarded as constant and immutable."
This quote shows how even early environmentalists believed nature without humans was essentially unchanging.
The Author's Direct Challenge
The reading presents two clear reality statements:
"Reality: Nothing in the environment is constant; everything is always changing at many scales of space and time."
"Reality: Most natural ecological systems require change, and of specific kinds."
Part 2: The Whale Conservation Story - A Detailed Case Study
Historical Context
The author provides specific data about whale hunting:
Peak bowhead whale harvest: 381 whales killed in 1852
By 1910: No bowheads caught for several years
1915: Only 10 caught, then commercial whaling stopped
The International Whaling Commission (IWC)
Founded through a treaty signed in Washington, DC, on December 2, 1946. The author notes:
"The preamble to the Convention states that its purpose is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry."
Important detail: The IWC has 89 member nations but no legal control over any of them.
The Japanese Delegation Controversy
The author describes a specific incident from the late 1970s where Japan claimed there were "excess" male sperm whales. They argued these males weren't needed for reproduction because of the harem mating system. The author was asked to develop a computer model to test this claim.
Sidney Holt - A Key Figure
The author mentions knowing Sidney Holt personally, describing him as:
One of three founding scientists of the IWC
"An excellent scientist and thinker"
"A charming person with a great sense of humor"
Someone whose "lifelong goal was to stop all whale harvesting"
Part 3: The Logistic Growth Curve - The Mathematical Problem
What the Logistic Assumes
The reading explains the mathematical thinking step by step:
Small populations grow rapidly - "like your interest rate on a bank savings account"
Medium populations slow down - individuals compete for resources
Large populations decline - death rate exceeds birth rate
Populations stabilize at "carrying capacity" - exactly enough resources for each individual
The Critical Failure
The author makes this crucial statement:
"No real population in a real habitat has ever been found to grow according to that curve."
The only exceptions are:
Paramecium caudatum (single-celled organism)
Green leafhoppers (Nephotettix) (agricultural pest)
And only in laboratories with perfectly controlled conditions
The Fundamental Flaw
The author points out an absurd problem:
"There is no environment in it except the size of the population itself... It's an environmental forecasting tool without any environment."
This means the equation doesn't include:
Weather changes
Storms or hurricanes
Volcanic eruptions
Diseases
Predators
Food availability
Part 4: How Real Populations Behave
The Canadian Lynx Example
The reading mentions this as having "the longest population history" determined from Hudson's Bay Fur Trading Company records. These records show populations constantly fluctuating, never staying at one level.
The Scientific Failure
A powerful comparison to physics:
"In physics, when an equation completely fails to make accurate forecasts of real events, it is abandoned."
But in ecology:
"Ecologists have done just the opposite of physicists: They have continued to use an equation that has never matched real-world observations."
Modern Justification
The reading quotes Harvard professor James Mallet explaining why scientists still use the logistic equation - for theoretical exploration, not real-world application. The author criticizes this as "a theory searching for the equivalent of how many angels can fit on the head of a pin."
Part 5: The History and Persistence of the Balance Myth
Ancient Origins
The reading traces the belief through history:
Ancient Greeks and Romans - believed in natural balance
Judeo-Christian traditions - "an all-powerful and perfect God could only make a perfect world"
Thomas Jefferson - believed it and used it to plan Lewis and Clark's route
Modern times - "passed into modern times as part of our folkways"
The Author's Personal Observation
"I have repeatedly run into an irony about a belief in the balance of nature. If I ask an ecologist if he believes in a balance of nature, he will almost always say 'Of course not,' but if asked to write down a law, policy, or an approach to solving an environmental problem, the ecologist has almost always cited a document that assumes and requires such a balance."
This quote reveals the deep contradiction in environmental science.
Part 6: Modern Terminology That Hides the Same Myth
New Words, Same Meaning
The author explains:
"Modern environmental scientists rarely use the term balance of nature. They have replaced it with other terms that mean the same thing: stability, homeostasis, resistance, and resilience."
Real Examples from Recent Science
2008 - Yale University Symposium
James Gustave Speth quoted Dr. George M. Woodwell:
"[T]he CO2 problem is one of the most important contemporary environmental problems... [that] threatens the stability of climates worldwide."
The author points out the irony - these scientists know climate has always changed but still call it "stable."
2014 - Washington Post
Charles Krauthammer wrote:
"We don't know nearly enough about the planet's homeostatic mechanisms for dealing with it."
2015 - Science Journal
A paper claimed:
"Human-driven environmental changes may simultaneously affect the biodiversity, productivity, and stability of Earth's ecosystem."
Part 7: Understanding Different Types of Stability
The Empire State Building Example (Mechanical Stability)
The building demonstrates true mechanical stability:
Standing since 1931
Survived a B-25 bomber crash in 1945
Always returns to vertical position
Has a true "equilibrium" and "tipping point"
The Children on the Beach Analogy
The author uses his own children as examples:
Son running upright = stable equilibrium (like the Empire State Building)
Daughter standing on her head = unstable equilibrium (easily tipped over)
Ponderosa Pine Forests (Nature's "Stability")
Professor Wallace Covington's research at Northern Arizona University showed:
Natural ponderosa pine forests:
Large pines, widely spaced
Grasses filling spaces between trees
Need fire every 3-5 years
Beautiful and healthy
Protected "no-touch" forests:
Very dense stands of small trees
Lots of fuel on the ground
Unhealthy and fire-prone
Will eventually catastrophically burn
The crucial insight:
"It is changes that allow ponderosa pine forests to persist."
The Author's New Term
The author coins "lathostasis" (from Greek "lathos" meaning mistake) to describe nature's way of persisting through change, as opposed to homeostasis.
The Vivid Comparison
"If the Empire State Building had a ponderosa-pine kind of stability, it would fall over completely and right itself unassisted. Furthermore, if it was prevented from doing this, it would disintegrate forever while standing upright."
Part 8: Who Really Needs Balance and Why
The Human Need for Stability
The reading provides this crucial insight:
"The beginning of civilization brought many changes: People wanted to construct buildings that would last a long time; they invested time and effort in agricultural fields; and they discovered specific sources of minerals and built mines to get them."
This led to:
Property rights
National boundaries
Need for environmental constancy
Turning balance into "a fundamental belief, a folkway, and a series of myths"
The Core Irony
"It is our species that most needs and desires environmental constancy, and has formed a worldview that requires it."
The Danger of Forcing Stability
"The harder we work to force environmental constancy onto our surroundings, the more fragile that constancy becomes, and the more work, effort, and energy it takes."
Example: Groundwater depletion for irrigation - aquifers that took thousands of years to fill are being drained in decades.
Part 9: Why This Myth Persists Despite Evidence
Twentieth Century Progress and Regression
The author observes:
"In the last decades of the twentieth century, scientists started to move away from the belief that ecological systems had the same kind of stability as a building or a machine. But since the beginning of the twenty-first century, environmental sciences have returned widely to the folkways about nature."
The Power of Folkways
"Environmental science, to the degree that the balance of nature is repeated, is not functioning in the way that science has been taught and has been practiced in physics and other major sciences. Instead, it is functioning as a folkway."
This leads to:
"Intense religious, ideological, and political fights, which are also not part of science."
Part 10: Consequences of Believing the Myth
Specific Problems Listed in "What Difference Does It Make?"
Wildlife Management Disasters
Example: Reindeer (caribou) management failure on Pribilof Islands
Assuming balance led to catastrophic management decisions
Wrong Conservation Priorities
"We will believe that old-growth forests and other iconic species, which are perceived to never change, are the species most worth saving."
Scientific Stagnation
"We will be embracing a folkway, a cultural artifact, instead of reality."
Inability to Solve Problems
"We won't be able to address important environmental problems because we will not be working from an understanding of a dynamic Earth."
Critical Vocabulary with Full Definitions
Balance of Nature: The false belief that nature, when undisturbed by humans, achieves and maintains a fixed, permanent, self-maintaining condition
Carrying Capacity: The theoretical population size where birth rate equals death rate; the population size an environment can supposedly support indefinitely (the author argues this doesn't really exist in nature)
Homeostasis: The ability of a system to maintain internal stability by adjusting to external changes; returning to the same state after disturbance
Logistic Growth Curve: An S-shaped mathematical curve first proposed in 1837 that supposedly describes population growth but has never accurately predicted real populations
Mechanical Stability: The type of stability shown by buildings and machines - having an equilibrium position and returning to it when disturbed
Persistence: The author's preferred term for how nature actually maintains itself - through constant change rather than balance
Lathostasis: The author's coined term (from Greek for "mistake") describing nature's paradoxical stability through constant change
Tipping Point: The critical threshold where a stable system suddenly shifts to a different state; only applies to systems with mechanical stability
Study Questions with Detailed Answers
What specific evidence does the author give that the logistic equation has failed? Answer: It has never worked for any real population in nature except for microscopic organisms and insects in controlled laboratory conditions with constant food supply.
How does the International Whaling Commission story illustrate the problem? Answer: The IWC uses the logistic equation to set whale harvests, assuming whale populations have a stable carrying capacity. This has led to ongoing disputes and management problems because real whale populations don't follow these patterns.
What is the fundamental difference between how buildings and forests maintain themselves? Answer: Buildings return to the same position (mechanical stability/homeostasis), while forests need regular disturbance cycles like fire to remain healthy. Preventing these changes would kill the forest.
Why does the author say humans need balance more than nature does? Answer: Civilization requires permanent buildings, stable agricultural fields, property boundaries, and predictable resource locations. We project our need for stability onto nature.
What modern terms hide the balance of nature myth? Answer: Stability, homeostasis, resistance, resilience, tipping points, and destabilization all assume nature has a balance that can be disrupted.
The Author's Final Message
The reading concludes with this crucial insight:
"If we could only realize that it is us who needs the balance, and accept it as desirable for us, but not widely for nature as nature functions, we could solve many environmental problems in a constructive way."
The solution requires:
Acknowledging nature requires change
Accepting our human desire for stability
Working with natural change patterns
Abandoning the balance myth in science and policy
Why This Reading Matters for Environmental Understanding
This reading fundamentally challenges how we think about conservation, climate change, and ecosystem management. By showing that the balance of nature is a human projection rather than a natural reality, it argues for completely different approaches to environmental problems. Instead of trying to preserve imaginary balanced states, we should understand and work with natural change processes.
The author's extensive experience with whale conservation and forest management provides real-world evidence that policies based on the balance myth fail, while those recognizing natural dynamism succeed. This has immediate practical implications for how we manage endangered species, design protected areas, respond to climate change, and make environmental policy.