Homeostasis is the tendency towards equilibrium in a system, particularly in reference to biological or physiological systems.
Our bodies maintain the right levels of salt in our bloodstream through filtration via the nephrons in the kidneys, sweating, oral ingestion of more salts, and a number of other processes (that’s the simplified version), and this allows the body to function as expected.
On a far more microscopic level, turgor pressure in cells is regulated through osmosis via the cell’s semi-permeable membrane, with water flowing into or out of the cell depending on the surrounding ion concentration.
These are just random examples of homeostasis, but what I want to talk about today is the homeostasis to be found in ecosystems, and our understanding thereof. Or mis-understanding.
I certainly don’t profess to be anything like an expert on the subject, but I want to bandy around an idea that I came across recently, an idea that is slowly starting to make people rethink their approach to conservation. It’s all about ecological timeframes, and how the homeostasis of the wilderness is a far more cyclical system than we are aware.
I think I read the idea in a superb book by Mitch Reardon called Shaping Kruger. The book examines the natural history of a number of different animals species, from impalas to leopards, but the one that resonated with me the most was the chapter on elephants.
I don’t know how aware of the elephant history of the Kruger National Park everyone is, but I’ll give you the ultra-condensed version here. In 1967 a culling program was initiated in the Kruger Park, in an effort to control the population at around 7000-7500 animals (as far as I recall this was specifically worked out to be roughly one elephant per square mile). Culling operations continued until 1994, when, largely under pressure from animal rights activists, it was stopped. The elephant population has been rising ever since, and now stands at well over 20,000. The question on everyone’s mind is, “What next?”. With the numbers rising into what is now considered an overpopulation, this keystone species is starting to have a negative impact on much of the Park’s vegetation, and officials are considering what to do. Fast.
Let me stop right here and say emphatically that this is not a discussion about a solution to the elephant population. That was simply used as the most pertinent example in order to get to the point in Shaping Kruger, which is how natural cycles are so much longer than our human lives can appreciate.
Reardon states that while previously the homeostasis in managed ecosystems was attempted to be maintained on an annual basis, that may have been the wrong approach, as in natural terms, the ebb and flow of systems could be centuries between peaks and troughs. Homeostasis as far as the African wilderness understood it, didnt occur daily, but over centuries and aeons.
Conservation as we understand it today is barely a century old – less, in many parts of the globe – and our tendency as a species will almost always be to try and match things to our timeframes. Yet mankind has only been around for the tiniest fraction of geological time, and only in the tiniest fraction of this part of our – and the earth’s – history have been advanced enough as a species to try and control things the natural environment.
The new way of thinking revolves around an appreciation of the true insignificance of human timeframes.
The earth and its processes have been ticking over for millions of years, with by far the majority of that being without us. The tendency now is to be more hands-off. Fewer artificial water points. Less population control. The earth was fine without us before and it should be fine without us again. Of course the difficulty lies in the fact that no matter how big ecosystems are these days, eventually they run out of room and start butting up against humans. Certain measures of control are necessary, but just how much or how little is so hard to say, as we’ll only know in 100 years or so what the results will be of the changes and policies that are implemented today.
I’m starting to waffle a bit now, but I just wanted to get across this idea of time frames. I’ll go into it in more detail later this week as it pertains to Londolozi, especially in the context of the drought we recently experienced, but mull it over for a while. The earth is far wiser than we can appreciate, and it is only now that people are truly starting to fathom the intricacies of the relationships that exist in nature’s great web. More to come on this in a few days time…
James, I have been saying for years, we as humans, cannot control mother nature to our idea of how things should be! I appreciate your blog today! Thanks! Nature is what it is!
Hi Mary,
Thanks for the comments. Ultimately, I think Nature will win out. Maybe not in the way we anticipate, but a great quote I once herd was “When the earth’s done with us, it’ll just shake us off like a dog does to a flea.”
We’re entering into a very interesting time…
It makes a person think and it is true that we want to put nature in our human tome frame. We are just a speck in the millions of years that were before us and the millions that will still come. And yet we try to change everything and not always for the better. We are the ones that is destroying this one earth the we have including the animals. Looking forward to the next blog on this subject.
Hi Marinda,
Next one coming in a few days!
Best
I am sure if the Greater Limpopo Park ever comes into fruition this will open up new solutions without culling or hunting.
Hi Ian,
Absolutely agreed.
Best regards
This is a very interesting, and I feel, timely topic. Humans are such a small piece of the overall puzzle. It is hard to pull back and see the truly big and magnificent picture and all it’s interdependencies. Thanks for the introduction and this conversation.
Hi Ginger. Thanks for the comments. We’re really just scratching the surface here, so I look forward to some more discussions going forward.
Best regards
You’re correct James that the earth is wise, but sadly man is not. The desire to control, to pollute indiscriminately without considering the effects on others are ever present problems today. What to do-who knows?! I see what’s happened to the abalone in the waters near Capetown, almost gone in order to satiate the appetites of wealthy Asians and provide poachers with money to care for their families. The downside is double sided. Some money feeds the drug cartels and fuels drug abuse and the abalone is almost gone. Then what’s next? Rhinos are in danger everyday. It’s good to learn deaths have dropped slightly, but even one rhino killed for its horn is too many. Do we back off and see how nature deals with the evils of man?
You’ve brought up a subject that is complex and subject to highly charged debates. Perhaps out of some of those debates launched throughout the world we can find some solutions that will be advantageous to man and beast. Cheers!
Hi Denise,
You’ve made some valid points. I think what’s most important is that people keep talking, and come to the table with an open mind.
Best Regards
Looking forward to meeting you if you’re around in November…..
Fascinating question, there is not much that humans have caused a myriad of problems regarding co existence with the wild. But I tend to think that nature is smarter than we are. However I am open to discussion and look forward to more info and ideas. Victoria
Hi Victoria,
Thanks for the comments. I’m also quite looking forward to entering into a discussion..
Best
Interesting essay James, and you may be entirely right or entirely irrelevant. Unfortunately, I suspect the latter. With many scientists believing that we have entered a new epoch called the “Anthopocene,” whatever centuries-long “rules” might have existed, may be totally canceled by our massive interference.
Hi Michael,
Good point. Excited to discuss this further…
Hi, interesting stuff this. Only I think that it would be very difficult to go hands-off, especially with all these fences….. If you fence in, then you are taking responsability for those within the fences. And letting them die because of drought or hunger is not really it, I think.
Here in NL we had something like this, the Oostvaardersplassen, perhaps you heard about it. No food, no birth control and lots of animals dying of hunger horribly………….
You’ve opened up a question that, in the end, can’t be truly answered. Man, in his need to help, often destroys. Throughout your article I kept thinking of the poachers and how elephant and rhino populations are decreasing. I realize that the elephant population is thriving in certain parts of Africa, but not all. If we can’t stop this senseless and greedy killings from poachers to animals truly at risk and in strong decline, your question might become mute. If man is to do anything, man must stop their own cruelty to animals and nature. I have sat on many corporate Board of Directors for non-profits in America. Consistently we had ongoing round table discussions of the tougher issues with deeper dialogue. It always was fruitful and answers eventually arrived, but not until massive numbers of opinions were presented and thoughtfully viewed in every possible light. The insuring conversations around your question will be VERY interesting! I’m very glad you began this conversation, James. It can only help when we educate one another …. with a open mind.