The Importance of Balance

The Tropic Pyramid Design of Ecosystem Dynamics

Symmetry is a very important part of nature.  Symmetry goes to the very basic nature of molecules. There are basically, from my understanding, five types of symmetry operation which leave the geometry of the molecule indistinguishable from the starting geometry.  Molecules, of course, by the atoms that form into bonds that are held together by strong forces that involve the electrons that orbit the nucleus of the atom. These electrons are located in energy levels that occur at certain distances from the nucleus, called shells.  These shells can each carry a certain number of electrons (for example, 2 in the first shell, 8 in the second, and so on.) Atoms want to have their shells full with as many electrons as they can carry, and when their outermost shell isn't full, atoms try to bond with other atoms by giving up or gaining electrons. Atoms with an almost-empty outer shell will want to give up electrons, while atoms with an almost-full outer shell will want to gain electrons in order to fill it up. Ionic bonds form when an atom donates (gives up) an electron to another so that they will both have a full shell.  In so doing,  the atoms bond and form a compound.  Sometimes covalent bonds are formed when atoms share their electrons in order to fill their electron shells. In the compound, molecules are held together by the attraction between the nucleus and the shared electrons.

So at the most basic level of nature all the stuff of nature comes from the elemental molecules that are formed by the electrons that bond into molecules. One drop of water contains billions of molecules that cohese together by the principle of hydrogen bonding. 

Exactly how planetary systems form as they do has been thrown into confusion by the discovery of other star systems that do not mimic our own.  But each star and its planets has to have a certain necessary system to create a balance to the system.  Planets have to form rather quickly (in astronomical terms) and so certain heavier  elements must bond together before the star, after spitting them out,  due to gravity,  of the center  pulls them back in, again, due to gravity.  And while we don’t know exactly why planetary systems vary, the planets must form in a way to create a necessary balance of the heavier elements that move away from the center of a rapidly spinning new star.  The formation seems to occur when the lighter elements by the force of gravity gather towards the center and the heavier elements then begin bonding and pulling away into planets.  But most theories, as to why they form where they do, has become a mystery that has unsettled what we thought.   But if you might also think that these disparate bodies are scattered across the solar system without rhyme or reason, if you move any piece of the solar system today, or try to add anything more, and the whole construction would be thrown fatally out of kilter. So how exactly did this delicate architecture come to be? But doesn’t that sound like it must have been set up in a delicate balance—a precisely orchestrated cosmic dance, if you will—from the very beginning? A French astrophysicist confirms the remarkable precision of our outer planets’ relationship to Earth:

Jacques Laskar discovered that the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn keep the earth’s orbit from becoming chaotic. Without the orbital stability produced by Jupiter and Saturn, the earth’s orbit would make extreme changes, causing instability in our climate and making the earth uninhabitable.

Kepler was the first to understand the symmetry of our solar system and Newton of course discovered the how. Empirical rules, such as the Bode formula revealed some regularity later on, but neither their theoretical background nor their practical application in associating the sequence number to the planets was completely convincing. With the advent of the discovery of the exoplanets, we are in the situation where the problem can be investigated in several systems. There have been some interesting calculations based on prior calculations that physicists had used to determine the Kepler problem and the symmetry of our own system and it appears that even though other systems do not mimic, they do follow the similar symmetry-inspired rules that describe, rather than explain, the regularity of the orbits (similarly to many other symmetry-based models and theories in different branches of physics.) 

Now whether you want to accept the “balance of nature” concept, that goes at least as far back as Herodotus, or the ecosystem dynamic more commonly accepted today, both derive from the same principle.  There must be grass for the grasshopper, the grasshopper for the frog, the frog for the snake, the snake for the hawk.  Or in  the trophic pyramid design of the ecosystem dynamic we ascend from the autotroph to the primary consumer, to the secondary consumer to the tertiary consumer and onwards to the quaternary consumer.  We still need to have a balance within the nature of our existence but the ecosystem dynamic examines particular effects.  

For example agriculture  can be seen as a significant example in which the adaptability of terrestrial ecosystems should be considered. The organic matter in the soil, which is supposed to be recharged by multiple shops, is the main source of nutrients for crop growth. At the same time, aggressive agriculture practices in response to global food demand and dearth involve the dumping of weeds and the use of fertilizers to increase food products. Still, as a result of the agricultural increase and the operation of weedicide to control weeds, fertilizers to accelerate and increase crop growth and fungicides to control insects. This leads to a reduction in soil fertility and productivity. Further sustainable agricultural practices would take into account and estimate the adaptability of the land and examine and balance the input and situation of organic matter.   

This was brought to light over sixty years ago by Rachel Carson.  The environmental movement today focuses on the atmospheric imbalance caused by CO2. But the problem is, we should have taken notice way before then.  Both the Chinese and Greeks noticed an imbalance to the environment circa 3000 B.C.E.  due to agriculture.  So it’s not like we haven’t noticed for over 5000 years.  By the mid eighteenth century we were noticing that the water energy being used to operate linen mills and other light industries was causing both shortages and pollutants in the rivers. Coal was seen as the cleaner solution to protect the waters.  Horses were causing a huge pollution problem both by the need to clean it up and the atmospheric stink that caused breathing difficulties and cars were considered cleaner.

Imbalance begins first on the land, pollutants run into the streams and rivers into the oceans and eventually the environmental alterations that occur on the land that eventually affect the atmosphere.  While of course limiting the pollutants  in the atmosphere are important, we have to address the environmental ecosystem on the land as the primary focus because it is at the bottom of the trophic pyramid.  It does little good to use battery operated vehicles and continue building superhighways as Greta Thuneberg has been trying to tell everyone.

It does little good to farm without chemical pesticides if we can continue to try to farm particular crops and restrain the natural manner of the weeds,worms,insects, birds and the intermixing  of crop varieties that commonly make crops plentiful.  

If we alter the earthly ecosphere, we alter the ocean ecosphere and that alters the atmospheric ecosystem. We cannot single out one or the other but must maintain a balance between all, because they all are related.  So the excessive greenhouse gasses trap more heat and warm the seas that warm the surface, to reduce the greenhouse gasses we need to cool the earth by living within the way nature designs life to exist on earth which will allow the oceans to begin to cool and the atmospheric gasses to be absorbed into the ocean.