Managing Earth's Ecosystems: An Interdisciplinary Challenge

摘要: In the beginning, there was universe; from Middle Ages on, have been academic disciplines to study it. When early inquiries and discoveries were being made universe appeared a neat, clockwork Newtonian place, Western scientific disciplines—primarily physics, chemistry, geology, botany, zoology—seemed fill bill. But problems weren’t long in appearing. The boundaries between chemistry physics botany zoology began break down and, by middle of last century, those biology (a descendent zoology) lost their sharpness. Considerable inertia may build up institutions, however; it be particularly strong sheltered competitive market forces, such as universities. Channels developed direct flows capital into university schools departments; infrastructure discipline-oriented reward systems established, positive feedbacks favoring established naturally developed, amplifying career value disciplinary focus deepening channels controlling resource flows. Thus conservative division world scholarship has fostered. This conservatism influences virtually every aspect scholarly inquiry, framing research problems, funding conducting investigations, publishing findings where they will reach targeted audience, communicating importance work more broadly undergraduate students, policy makers, public. Let’s consider first problems. Since Ages, process cultural evolution generated body nongenetic information sufficiently vast that no one person could hope grasp than tiny fraction If human beings are going learn about how works, better collective understanding long-term service humanity, knowledge must subdivided somehow. Disciplines therefore necessary. At same time, few significant lie within current disciplines. A question ‘‘what is consciousness does relate emotions?’’ might considered primarily arenas neurobiology philosophy, but important dimensions clearly also fields genetics, endocrinology, evolution, behavior. Similarly, problem ‘‘how can harmful environmental impacts activities greatly reduced?’’ seem squarely situated demography, ecology, economics (to readers Ecosystems, anyway), further consideration quickly takes engineering, sociology, psychology, anthropology, political science, law, ethics, name just few. Failure recognize footprint on what thought multidimensional, multidisciplinary surface lead at best silly, naive ‘‘answers’’ worst, bad policies with serious societal consequences. Ecologists wary this. Arguably most critical ecology today establish basis for making ecologically sustainable. Yet rarely issues this area approached systematically, because do so would obviously require forays far afield which ecologists typically get little or training. It much easier—and rewarding professionally many tangible ways—to limit one’s explorations mapping ‘‘terra cognita.’’ Received 4 February 1999; accepted 3 March 1999. *Corresponding author. e-mail: gdaily@leland.stanford.edu Ecosystems (1999) 2: 277–280 ECOSYSTEMS r 1999 Springer-Verlag