Donald Worster - The Ecology of Order and Chaos

[T]his science [of ecology] has come to be a major influence on our perception of nature in modern times. 'Ecology' should never be taken as an all-wise, always trustworthy guide. We must be willing to challenge this authority, and indeed challenge the authority of science in general; not be quick to scorn or vilify or behead, but simply, now and then, to question (Ecology 158).

The point of this article is not necessarily to bring new ideas to bear, but instead to bring current ones into question, not letting them rule unchallenged.

This article is mainly a critique of the new 'science of chaos' as applied to ecology. He consistently voices his suspicions, especially of those who throw aside or ignore the previously all consuming topic of ecology: the restoration of harmony between man and nature. When he reviews the arguments of those ecological writers who insist on turning away from the work and concept of conservation, he senses an ulterior ideological motive perhaps rooted in Social Darwinism or with opponents to the environmental movement.

Worster does not necessarily wholly disapprove; he recognizes there is validity in this new 'science'. 'It is no less than the discovery of chaos. Nature, many have begun to believe, is fundamentally erratic, discontinuous, and unpredictable. As a result, the unexpected keeps hitting us in the face' (Ecology 413). Worster sees this as a great revolution against the Scientific Revolution of the 1600s. Whether we like it or not, we are quickly discovering that the 'world is more complex than we ever imagined, and not so easily put into theories and laws and boxes' (Ecology 414).

In the end, is appears that Worster is tentatively suggesting that we not let this new chaotic revolution go to our heads. He suggests that our new grasp of Nature's 'baffling complexity, its inherent unpredictability, its daily turbulence' should give us all the more reason to respect the world around us (Ecology 416). It also should make us more careful of creating our own disturbances, since we are growing more and more aware that small alterations can lead to very big and very unpredictable results.

Worster's article fits along the course theme of 'constantly shifting views of nature'. As the history of the Western world progressed (for that is what this class addresses), the relationship between man and Nature changed and the Western man's views of the natural world changed as well. However, despite the technological innovation and huge alterations in the way the human race interacted with the natural world, for millennia the assumption remained that the cosmos was orderly, more or less. Worster serves as an introduction to a whole new paradigm: the chaotic cosmos. While order may not be completely dethroned, chaos now has a permanent and inherent part in the way the world works. Although chaos has been casually monkeywrenching science's attempts at prediction for ages, it is only now that science came to the full realization that unpredictability is not something that can be brushed aside or someday phased out of existence.

Worster brings a tentative new argument and another voice to the general call for more respect and protection of the natural world. He refuses to allow a new paradigm to mean less responsibility on the part of human beings. Instead, he works to ideologically shift the 'science of chaos' away from being an enemy of reform ecologists into being an ally. This said, I believe Worster should have made a stronger stand and written a longer and more in depth article on the topic than he did. While I was able to tease out where he was going, I don't think everyone would have been able to glean the meaning of his critique from this piece.