Posted by
michael
on from the breaking-new-ground dept.
Egonis writes: "Revisiting Darwin's theories, and why, exactly he chose to research his theories. And the shocking truth is that Charles Darwin was really a gardener. ;)"
Ecosystem diversity
by
bihoy
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It is interesting to note that the point of this article is more directed towards understanding the early research of ecosystems. It is clear that this early research not only influenced Darwin's work but was some of the earliest work done in understanding the impact of diversity on how well an ecosystem functions.
One quote in the article ponders the impact this research could have had in preventing much of the damage that has been inflicted on the worlds ecosystems. Could we have prevented much of this damage if this reseach had been dissemenated more widely?
Perhaps it might have sped up our concerns on the matter. Though we are still faced with major conflicts between the interests of technolgy amd those of ecology. It's hard to imagine that the negative impact of human technolgy and civilization will ever cease to erode upon the ecology that supports it.
reference found in "Natural Selection"
by
a_d_white
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Origin of Species was an abstract, rushed into publication after Wallace sent Darwin his paper on speciation. Darwin never meant Origin to be a complete referenced work, which is why the study was used as evidence but never cited.
Darwin had been working on Natural Selection for a number of years before he stopped writing it in order to write his "abstract". I'm surprised no one had noticed this study before. Surely people have read Natural Selection (I'm not one of them).
But productivity = profit
by
Spamalamadingdong
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I think you underestimate the power of self-interest. If people knew, from controlled studies (or as well-controlled as the methodology was up to at the time; it appears from what little I've seen that the controls on this one were pretty good even by modern standards) that keeping a diverse species mix led to more fodder and crop production, we would have jump-started a whole bunch of movements which are just now getting their momentum in modern agriculture.
There is no better way to make someone take notice of an advance in knowledge than showing them how to make a buck off it. (Well, maybe. Show them how to use it to win against their enemies. But arguably that's the same result, different game.)
Slashdot Mirror
It is interesting to note that the point of this article is more directed towards understanding the early research of ecosystems. It is clear that this early research not only influenced Darwin's work but was some of the earliest work done in understanding the impact of diversity on how well an ecosystem functions.
One quote in the article ponders the impact this research could have had in preventing much of the damage that has been inflicted on the worlds ecosystems. Could we have prevented much of this damage if this reseach had been dissemenated more widely?
Perhaps it might have sped up our concerns on the matter. Though we are still faced with major conflicts between the interests of technolgy amd those of ecology. It's hard to imagine that the negative impact of human technolgy and civilization will ever cease to erode upon the ecology that supports it.
Darwin had been working on Natural Selection for a number of years before he stopped writing it in order to write his "abstract". I'm surprised no one had noticed this study before. Surely people have read Natural Selection (I'm not one of them).
There is no better way to make someone take notice of an advance in knowledge than showing them how to make a buck off it. (Well, maybe. Show them how to use it to win against their enemies. But arguably that's the same result, different game.)
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist