Hello Jen,
Is ‘Ecology’ simply ‘Geography’ under another Name?* As any ecology textbook will tell, the e-word dates back to the 1880s.
However, in recent decades it has captured the news-media, politics, and academe. But is it simply old wine in new bottles? Geography has long been concerned with the landscape effects of interactions between humans, vegetation, animals, and the non-living elements such as air, soil, and water. Some geography teachers complain that their discipline is being neglected, in favour of more trendy versions (IAG Newsletter No. 57, p.17).
A fast growing area of ecology is ‘landscape ecology’, which brings history into play to understand landscapes. Have we come full circle, back to geography (maps) and history (chaps)? Am I missing something? Is scale an essential difference, with geography broad, and ecology detailed? Is there, perhaps, a quasi-religious tendency in ecology, whereas geography looks at the plain facts? Do ecologists tend to dislike humans? Is one discipline a subset of the other? Are they both actually disciplines? I hope some incisive minds out there will sort this out.
Regards
Davey Gam Esq.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I forgot to add “Are ecologists very brainy and geographers less so?” Would Von Humboldt and Wallace agree?
‘Is scale an essential difference, with geography broad, and ecology detailed?’
Geography is concerned with all scales, from the highly local to the global.
From Wikipedia: Ecology (from Greek: οίκος, oikos, “household”; and λόγος, logos, “knowledge”) is the scientific study of the distribution and abundance of living organisms and how the distribution and abundance are affected by interactions between the organisms and their environment. The environment of an organism includes both physical properties, which can be described as the sum of local abiotic factors such as insolation (sunlight), climate, and geology, and biotic factors, which are other organisms that share its habitat.
Whereas:
Geography (from the Greek words Geo (γη) or Gaea (γαια), both meaning “Earth”, and graphein (γραφειν) meaning “to describe” or “to write”or “to map”) is the study of the earth and its features, inhabitants, and phenomena.
So yes, there is some overlap in the same way that there is between say physics and chemistry, but nevertheless they are separate disciplines.
But I presume you all know that. Davey seems to have some other agenda. Perhaps ecology challenges and questions the wisdom of growth and consumption at any cost paradigm?
Thanks Slim,
I have an agenda, but not perhaps the one you are thinking of. I still can’t see where geography and ecology differ, except in name. I was writing a screed on ‘landscape ecology’, but realised that I was simply talking about history and geography. I thought I would throw it open for discussion, and glean some crumbs. Your final remark suggests that ‘ecology’ does, perhaps, have a touch of politics (and/or religion?) about it. I may subscribe to those political or religious views. But shouldn’t a ‘discipline’ put them to one side in favour of objective facts? There has been discussion elsewhere on the current mixing of politics, journalism, science, and resurgent paganism. The latter is not, in my view, a term of abuse. I am listening with great enjoyment to Dr Noel Nannup’s Nyoongar tales of the origin of the earth and its life in the Nyetting (cold time). They are just as plausible (more so?) than tales from the bible, and more poetic. They are not geography, but might be ecology of the human variety.
P.S. I have a Master’s degree in ecology, and did a fair chunk of geography in my bachelor’s degree. I am still confused.
Dear Slim
Why would a “scientific study of the distribution and abundance of living organisms and how the distribution and abundance are affected by interactions between the organisms and their environment” lead to a questioning of the “wisdom of growth and consumption at any cost paradigm?” more so than a “study of the earth and its features, inhabitants, and phenomena”?
If ecology can somehow demonstrate the (unforseen) negative effects on human welfare from human interaction with the physical environment but other disciplines eg geography fail to do then I guess ecology earns its place as a separate discipline.
However I wouldn’t think that geography leads one to a belief in the “consumption at any cost paradigm” any more than economics does.
Slim, there tend to be two types of ecologists; those who attend university, study for the three, four, five or the umpteen years appropriate, spend further years, either sequentially or concurrently, counting the both number of fungus eating beetles and fungus patches within a given square area of land, and graphing the incidence and variation against time in an effort to add just that little bit more knowledge to humanities understanding of living organisms and their interaction with their environment. There are no religious aspect to this approach, other than a love of knowledge.
Then there are those like George Monbiot, who call themselves ecologists because they BELIEVE in ecology. They have faith in ecology. Of course, they have never crouched over a desk for hours, and days, and weeks counting measuring and analysing, they have never squatted out in the field carrying out the mind numbingly tedious activities of those who have actually studied the subject, but that doesn’t matter, because they really truly deeply BELIEVE in ecology. This is religion.
Same word, two completely unrelated concepts.
Ecology defines agriculture. Agriculture defines economics. Economics defines warfare. Warfare defines political boundaries. Therefore, ecology defines political boundaries.
The impact of geology on this dynamic is fundamental.
Good comment Counting Cats,
I too have sat in the rain, or the sun, or the prickle bushes, and counted or measured things. I have bled in the cause. I agree, this gives a very different perspective from that of some suburban ‘ecologists’, or those who venture once a year into the ‘wilderness’, to collect nice photos for their next PowerPoint show. That’s why I am tempted to start calling what I do ‘geography’. It seems more honest. But I am still listening.
Jen, this one seems to have dried up, so may be archived. Probably too little opportunity for voluminous cut-and-paste borrowed knowledge; followed by glib polarisation; then brainless abuse. I thank those who have made the effort to think for themselves on this topic, which seems important to me. I must conclude that ecology is a bumptious offshoot of geography and history (i.e. natural history), which has become conflated with politics, publicity, and religion. Its status as a scientific discipline is debatable. Sorry Dr. Haeckel (1869 AD) and Professor Krebs (1972 AD). The match goes to Eratosthenes (200 BC).
What do you mean “brainless” – it was to take the other side out completely and reduce them to a blubbering pulp. You could do the same with ecology but you guys don’t want it bad enough (yet).
One can use geographical or ecological information for political or religious purposes if you wish but not necessarily. You can be selective on what ecology or geography you describe for political or religious purposes.
One may use the tools of geographers – the GIS to describe and manipulate your ecological information.
But some ecology doesm’t even have a significant geographical scale. The life and times of some insect in a small patch or pond.
Ecology more than geography is about flows – flows of soil, nutrients, carbon, water – but also flows of genetic material. It’s about species interactions. It’s about how aspects of climate affect species.
Does geography have predator prey equations.
Ecology is demanding of the tools of geographers e.g. monitoring the extent of riparian vegetation with remote sensing and estimating stream overhang. The tools are nouveau geographical but the application ecological. Multispectral, ranging and imaging tools will help future ecologists map species and 3D form in space and time. But is this ecology – of course not – it’s in the methods section.
Geography and biophysical sciences are what we do when we’re too piss weak to take on ecology.
And ecology of what – a species, two species, a river, a sub-catchment, a regional ecosystem,a reef. But where does “fire ecology” fit in.
Are agro-ecosystems that ecological – probably not in the main – just biophysical.
If you have no systems model of your ecology you have no ecology. If you’re starting to think interactions and systems you’re getting there.
In short geography is a mere utility for ecologists.
Ecology is about the how, now and the future. Geography is just about what and where with a bit of descriptive prose. (Dons hard hat).
Does this blog have an ecology. Of course not. Does this blog care about ecology – of course not – it’s about business as usual.
Pull yourself together Davey – surely you’re not going soft on geographers are you ? P.S. Undersea volcanism impacts on climate are crap – it’s the CO2 I keep telling you !
Good one Luke,
I see no evidence of cut-and-paste in that effort. I think my main beef with ecology is the pretentious language and obscurity. Someone pointed out, long ago, that obscurity is needed when you have nothing to say. Sir Ernest Gowers took issue with eco-blather some decades ago. He mentioned a cartoon in which a small girl was pointing at her young brother and saying “Mummy! Johnny’s polluted his environment again”. I think Sir Ernest also suggested that ecologists might call a shovel an “ecotome”.
I regard Oikos as one of the better ecological journals, so was pleased to see an article in there called “How to write consistently boring scientific literature.” (Sand-Jensen 2007). It’s worth a read. Might it apply to climatologists?
Eratosthenes rules, OK?
I thought Eratosthenes’s maps weren’t bad for a bloke with no GPS or datum.
Some of us are spending too much time trying to gather enough autoecology to make a synecology.
🙂
{And I know you prefer the gentler art of the personal dialectic – but my tediously boring cut and pastes {if not baits for nong nong detection} are usually thoughtfully excavated and presented; Jen also tells me most people don’t click links – so what can you do}
Keep pasting there Luke – you are doing a great job. I have read David Jones’ recent post about TGGWS and I AM impressed, even if your friend Pandora did not convince me. I would enjoy a bit more personal dialectic (non-abusive) on this blog. Any’ow, I must get on with writing a few boring papers on ecology – er, geography.
So you’ll believe if David tells you eh but not Luke? I don’t know Pandora at all. Just emailed and received.
Those clever Scandinavians have done it again. Oikos has a sister journal called ‘Ecography’.