What a lovely piece relevant not only for educators but for everyone because everyone is in relationships involving love and power. The more we give, the more we get. These are the kinds of non-transactional interactions that happen in ecosystems.
exactly... ecosystems are not about that everyone has the exact same power, ability, competence, knowledge etc - but that there is space for everyone to be themselves and thrive. In ecosystems that is not always easy and things get out of balance... but there always seems to be something in nature that strives to create balance. Although humans seem to be doing a nice job of interfering with this balance making.
The thing that is most amazing about these relationships is that they are non-transactional. There is no quid pro quo in the rhizosphere! Materials and energy are passively and actively transferred across the fuzzy edges between species from areas of higher concentration to areas of lower concentration. That, in and of itself, seems unremarkable. What is remarkable is that the result of this bi-directional flow is the kind of relationship that Karl Marx recommended in 1875 when he said, “from each according to his (sic.) ability, to each according to his need.” The other amazing thing about this bi-directional flow of resources is that giving leads to getting, and giving more, leads to getting more (up to a point, of course). Wouldn’t it be wonderful if people related to each other and the rest of the natural world in a way that resulted in the relatively equal distribution of resources and increasing abundance?
although it is important to remember that the natural world is also violent, competitive and sometimes cruel - what is the point of zombie fungi for instance - if we are going to use fungi as a way of the world being good and in symbiosis... or how some bacteria and viruses kills their hosts in their need to proliferate...
of course some viruses are so aggressive that they run out of bodies before being able to find another - and this is what I mean there is always something that creates balance - too many buffalo and there is no grass left, but there become plenty of lions to eat them... who thrive on all the buffalo and the grass grows back as numbers thin down... and as numbers dwindle so does the food source for a large lion population (competing with other predators) so many die of starvation...
add weather and climate change to this (which is now happening faster than what the ecosystem can adapt to) then finding this balance is far from a pretty beautiful thing.
Suzanne, We mostly agree. And, as usual, our disagreement is, I think, an example
of what I call, bumping into each other with style. Here's a piece I wrote:
=======================================
Called Antagonistic Cooperation
The image of a harmonious natural world is a little misleading, I think. Much of what appears to be harmonious in nature is in fact a dynamic dance between antagonistic forces. The very act of standing up requires different muscle groups pushing in the opposite direction to achieve dynamic equilibrium. Balanced populations of different species in ecosystems are similarly achieved. Even the sharing of nutrients between fungi and plants involved in mycorrhizal relationships and between nitrogen-fixing bacteria and their hosts is worked out by balancing osmotic pressures from the organisms on each side of the exchanges. This kind of harmony may be better thought of as antagonistic cooperation, or, as I like to say, bumping into each other with style.
Peaceful human communities work similarly. Working well together is a dynamic dance between participants with diverse experiences, special gifts, and special needs. The goal is not the absence of conflict but the peaceful resolution of conflict. Again, bumping into each other with style.
=======================================
Our small area of disagreement is that I don't see any cruelty in nature: violence, yes, cruelty, no. I see cruelty as uniquely human. For me, cruelty implies an intention to harm and I see the intention to do harm and the intention to resolve conflict peacefully as uniquely human.
What a lovely piece relevant not only for educators but for everyone because everyone is in relationships involving love and power. The more we give, the more we get. These are the kinds of non-transactional interactions that happen in ecosystems.
exactly... ecosystems are not about that everyone has the exact same power, ability, competence, knowledge etc - but that there is space for everyone to be themselves and thrive. In ecosystems that is not always easy and things get out of balance... but there always seems to be something in nature that strives to create balance. Although humans seem to be doing a nice job of interfering with this balance making.
Here's the end of a piece on the topic of ecological relationships in the rhizosphere that I wrote as part of this post: https://peterkindfieldphd.substack.com/p/fungi-mushrooms-and-the-mycelial
The thing that is most amazing about these relationships is that they are non-transactional. There is no quid pro quo in the rhizosphere! Materials and energy are passively and actively transferred across the fuzzy edges between species from areas of higher concentration to areas of lower concentration. That, in and of itself, seems unremarkable. What is remarkable is that the result of this bi-directional flow is the kind of relationship that Karl Marx recommended in 1875 when he said, “from each according to his (sic.) ability, to each according to his need.” The other amazing thing about this bi-directional flow of resources is that giving leads to getting, and giving more, leads to getting more (up to a point, of course). Wouldn’t it be wonderful if people related to each other and the rest of the natural world in a way that resulted in the relatively equal distribution of resources and increasing abundance?
although it is important to remember that the natural world is also violent, competitive and sometimes cruel - what is the point of zombie fungi for instance - if we are going to use fungi as a way of the world being good and in symbiosis... or how some bacteria and viruses kills their hosts in their need to proliferate...
of course some viruses are so aggressive that they run out of bodies before being able to find another - and this is what I mean there is always something that creates balance - too many buffalo and there is no grass left, but there become plenty of lions to eat them... who thrive on all the buffalo and the grass grows back as numbers thin down... and as numbers dwindle so does the food source for a large lion population (competing with other predators) so many die of starvation...
add weather and climate change to this (which is now happening faster than what the ecosystem can adapt to) then finding this balance is far from a pretty beautiful thing.
Suzanne, We mostly agree. And, as usual, our disagreement is, I think, an example
of what I call, bumping into each other with style. Here's a piece I wrote:
=======================================
Called Antagonistic Cooperation
The image of a harmonious natural world is a little misleading, I think. Much of what appears to be harmonious in nature is in fact a dynamic dance between antagonistic forces. The very act of standing up requires different muscle groups pushing in the opposite direction to achieve dynamic equilibrium. Balanced populations of different species in ecosystems are similarly achieved. Even the sharing of nutrients between fungi and plants involved in mycorrhizal relationships and between nitrogen-fixing bacteria and their hosts is worked out by balancing osmotic pressures from the organisms on each side of the exchanges. This kind of harmony may be better thought of as antagonistic cooperation, or, as I like to say, bumping into each other with style.
Peaceful human communities work similarly. Working well together is a dynamic dance between participants with diverse experiences, special gifts, and special needs. The goal is not the absence of conflict but the peaceful resolution of conflict. Again, bumping into each other with style.
=======================================
Our small area of disagreement is that I don't see any cruelty in nature: violence, yes, cruelty, no. I see cruelty as uniquely human. For me, cruelty implies an intention to harm and I see the intention to do harm and the intention to resolve conflict peacefully as uniquely human.