Talk:Ecoregion

Attribution

Rather than attributing the 867 smaller regions generally to the science of ecology, tell us the name of a scientist or organization which specified that number.

The 8 major regions, however, might be a generally accepted division. User:Ed Poor, 22 March 2002

Thus the main organization is under ecozone now. But the 867 are not challenged, so it's time to consider a standard way of indicating which ecoregion a plant or animal species is found in, since exact borders shift but ecoregion in which each is found is stable. See meta:Ecoregion_DTD. -- 7 February 2003, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.75.53 (talk • contribs).

I think they're both the product of very wide consultation on the issue. National Geographic Society, World Wildlife Fund, published the map... and I think they are the recognized top dog authority on this.

Really? I'd question they were even players. I think Ecoregion is a buzzword. I find the definitions given here real weak. Is there any literature on this topic? - Marshman 05:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought I had a link there to the map... -- 22 March 2002, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.150.61.63 (talk • contribs).

Glad to see attribution of views, 24. User:Ed Poor, 22 March 2002

Yes. He or she is definitely working their way towards NPOV. Progress! The Anome, 22 March 2002

Greens

Greens hate progress.  ;-)

And maybe everyone hates Greens because we shove all this complexity in their face...?

You know, some of this stuff is fiendishly interconnected, like ecology itself.

For instance it's not obvious that a watershed commons like the Great Lakes Commission is ecoregional unless you read the WWF definition quite carefully. And it's not obvious it's a democracy but not a state unless you think about it... since the term "democracy" refers to principle and process not any political structure in particular.

So, I am starting to understand why these things ran into resistance at first, although they seem obvious to me, guess I've been doing it too long... -- 22 March 2002, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.150.61.63 (talk • contribs).

Problem

New problem:

Someone is editing "Nearctic" back to the old definition obsoleted by the new map. Some zones drastically expanded, some drastically shrunk, so pepole who don't know the new map are going to be stomping all over the accurate new definitions... grrr... how do I request that someone look at a given entry? -- 22 March 2002, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.150.61.63 (talk • contribs).

Write on their talk page. Welcome to the minarchist information ecology. The Anome

Done. Minarchy is fine. Social means are best for governance while they are not too high overhead.

I despise the term "ecology" abused to refer to non-body stuff, though - that is one meme I would like to kill. It's a science that happens to also be the universal metaphor (if you're a Green) or sacred (if you're a Gaian) so it's quite easy to describe anything as an "ecology" - implying it's all just as valuable as real living natural ecology.

Which it ain't. -- 22 March 2002, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.150.61.63 (talk • contribs).