Sustainable Development: Lessons from the Paradox of Enrichment
Sustainable Development: Lessons from the Paradox of Enrichment
复制标题
可持续发展：致富悖论的教训
DOI：
10.1046/j.1526-0992.2001.01024.x
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Bernard C. Pattent
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jae S. Choi;Bernard C. Pattent
在当前努力“可持续地”开发我们的生物圈的情况下，“浓缩悖论”在今天仍然是一个与1971年罗森茨韦格首次将其正式确定时一样重要的问题。这一悖论是相关的，因为它预测，试图通过使人口的食物供应更充足(例如，通过营养丰富)来维持人口的生活，实际上可能会产生破坏网络稳定的相反(矛盾的)效果。最初，这一悖论是基于对“合理”但相当简单的捕食者-猎物模型的研究。在这里，我们试图对悖论进行更“现实”的修订，明确地解释人类系统与生态圈其余部分的层级(空间、时间和组织)关系的复杂交织集合中的嵌入性质--这种关系的剥削性在强度和程度上继续增长。这一修正是借助于热力学和网络相结合的方法进行的。结果是，热力学第二定律的作用表现出一种依赖于尺度的不对称性--这种不对称性导致了两种对立倾向的产生：局域有序和局域无序。这两种倾向之间的平衡点是经验上可以测量的，代表了过程和对系统的内部(增长和发展)和外部(交互和扰动影响)限制之间的平衡-这种平衡可以被称为最“适应”的状态(在康拉德1983年之后)。这种平衡指数的使用得到了证明，并被用来澄清悖论与更复杂的组织系统的相关性。因此，我们得出结论，“可持续开发和增长”的概念是一个矛盾的修饰法。
With the current struggle to “sustainably” exploit our biosphere, the “paradox of enrichment” remains an issue that is just as relevant today as it was when it was first formalized by Rosenzweig in 1971. This paradox is relevant because it predicts that attempts to sustain a population by making its food supply more abundant (e.g., by nutrient enrichment) may actually have the reverse (paradoxical) effect of destabilizing the network. Originally, this paradox was based upon studies of “reasonable,” but quite simple, predator-prey models. Here, we attempt a more “realistic” revision of the paradox that explicitly accounts for the embedded nature of the human system in a complexly interwoven set of hierarchical (spatial, temporal, and organizational) relations with the rest of the ecosphere-a relationship whose exploitative nature continues to grow in intensity and extent. This revision is attempted with the aid of a combined thermodynamic and network approach. The result is that a scaledependent asymmetry in the action of the second law of thermodynamics is shown-an asymmetry that results in the creation of two antagonistic propensities: local order and local disorder. The point of balance between these two propensities is empirically measurable and represents a balance between processes and constraints internal (growth and development) and external (interactive and perturbing influences) to a system-a balance that may be called the most “adaptive” state (after Conrad 1983). The use of such an index of this balance is demonstrated and it is used to clarify the relevance of the paradox to more complexly organized systems. As a consequence, we conclude that the concept of “sustainable exploitation and growth” is an oxymoron.