Weekly discussion topic #1 can we improve on nature??

[MombasaLionfish]

See my quote below

Sincerely Lasse

How do you make a quote below like that?

 

[Lasse]

Your personal page - signatures and a lot of fantasy

incerely Lasse

 

[Paul B]

Improving on Nature is a definite "Maybe in certain situations, but probably not".
One thing we can easily do is extend the lifespan of fish. Mother Nature designed fish purposely so that they would never own a credit card because you need thumbs to use one so they can't buy their own food and have to hunt for it. That is actually an advantage because fish can eat all day and night if they like and all the food they eat is what they are supposed to eat. No additives, colors, sterilization or a fancy box with a picture of an Angelfish on it.

We Humans feed our fish once or twice a day in the amounts we think are the best and the foods we feel are great. The fish, in almost all instances would disagree as fish were not designed with beer bellies like some of us have and don't normally have to store food in their gut where it rots until the next meal. Many fish, especially bleenies, pipefish, mandarins etc don't even have a gut and that's not because they work out on a Nautilus machine.
Their "gut" is a silly, short tube that was designed to have a small amount of food traveling through it constantly and any extra food will just push out everything else in there.

Mother Nature also short circuits the life of fish by having something else eat them before their intended lifespan as a fish is a creature that never dies of old age unless it is in a very good Aquarists tank. Usually an old, bald, stubborn aquarist who is set in his, or her ways.
So that is one way we can "improve" on Mother Nature. By allowing the fish to only die of old age and, like in the sea, "never" get sick.

Corals are another story. Corals grow in a position and depth (as was stated) to maximize their food and sunlight intake. We position them so that it looks nice to old Aunt Ester so she runs out and buys us another one with her measly social security check to make sure we are happy.

Then we place them next to a coral from the other side of the Earth and at night, when we are dreaming of a bigger tank, they have wars and try to throw slime at each other in order to kill them.
I will have to get back to this, I think Aunt Ester is ringing my bell.

 

[anthonywesty]

I think the goal is try to replicate the nature, we can’t improve something that’s already perfect.

 

[TexasReefer82]

I think of our reef tanks as bonsai trees. They don't replicate nature, but they try to imitate it... in miniature.

 

[sghera64]

To the OP's original question:

1.) I would say we have made some improvements. We can control the temperature, lighting, water movement, nutrients in response to coral health. While all that is an attempt to mimic nature, at least humans "can" apply closed-loop learning to make a positive response to a negative change. As the reefs warm and nutrients go up, I've not seen Mother Nature make any corrections (yet). However, I suspect in her very slow way of moving, she might be planning to reduce the human population to restore the reefs.

2.) Otherwise, I think things improve as we get closer and closer to matching the needs of our captive friends to approximate all the "positive" virtues found in nature.

3.) I think another improvement would be to make good on number 2 above, AND make the means to do so quieter, smaller, cheaper (buy/operate) and more reliable. Smaller, quieter, less visible means to water movement, filtration and lighting. Imagine solar power aquariums (I'm sure someone has already done this one-off).

Just some quick thoughts on the original question.

 

[MombasaLionfish]

Your personal page - signatures and a lot of fantasy

incerely Lasse

Yay it worked.

 

[Millopolis]

I think some hobbyists grow corals faster than in the wild! If you can make your tank more stable than in nature it should be more successful. Plus nowadays in the ocean you have all the pollution, changing climate, and clouds are sometimes blocking light. If you take out every variable that nature has like predators I think it makes it even easier for the life forms to thrive.

 

[BestMomEver]

Nope.

 

[MombasaLionfish]

Nope.

Explain please.

 

[BestMomEver]

Explain please.

Mother Nature is perfect in every way. All of life is beautifully connected, each thing playing its part. No matter how hard we try, we could never duplicate what nature has already achieved. It’s not possible. And that’s ok. We have fun trying and as long as our husbandry is ok (we don’t kill stuff through neglect or ignorance), we enjoy the fruits of that labor.

 

[Turtlesteve]

OK, I've seen this a couple of times now - but I really don't understand the "Nature is perfect" mindset at all. This sounds like something right out of a Disney movie.

The coral reef is a war zone. Species are actively competing with each other for space and resources. We may not see it on a human lifespan, but species go extinct all the time, and are replaced by others that can better compete. There are "brand new" species that muscle their way into the ecosystem. What looks like balance is one tiny snapshot in time of a system that is in a state of continuous change, both short term and long term. The entire ecosystem is regularly and repeatedly trashed by natural disasters and regrows from the destruction. What we portray as a harmony of species, is a consequence of endless war - species that can't compete gets killed off, and any that gets too far ahead makes itself a target for competition and predators. We can measure health of an ecosystem by relating it to biodiversity, but saying nature is "perfect" somehow ignores the brutality and transience of it all.

Steve

 

[sghera64]

OK, I've seen this a couple of times now - but I really don't understand the "Nature is perfect" mindset at all. This sounds like something right out of a Disney movie.

The coral reef is a war zone. Species are actively competing with each other for space and resources. We may not see it on a human lifespan, but species go extinct all the time, and are replaced by others that can better compete. There are "brand new" species that muscle their way into the ecosystem. What looks like balance is one tiny snapshot in time of a system that is in a state of continuous change, both short term and long term. The entire ecosystem is regularly and repeatedly trashed by natural disasters and regrows from the destruction. What we portray as a harmony of species, is a consequence of endless war - species that can't compete gets killed off, and any that gets too far ahead makes itself a target for competition and predators. We can measure health of an ecosystem by relating it to biodiversity, but saying nature is "perfect" somehow ignores the brutality and transience of it all.

Steve

I’m with you. But to the “defense” of those that really appreciate the perfect ‘nature’ of . . . well nature, I will summon a systems engineering axiom: “the system is perfectly designed to give the results that it is getting.”

I think those who believe nature, with all its mystery, glory, and woes is doing exactly what it should, how it should and the the extent it should. Simply, nature is the standard against which all else is compared.

Hmmmmm, having said that, I guess the OP’s question sort of changes meaning. We can’t improve on perfection, but we can define a new standard for what we want “perfect” to be.

 

[jda]

Once I saw this with my own eyes, I will forever believe that the best of us are merely hacks compared to nature. As far as the eye could see, there were acropora out of the water for much of the day that were still thriving because of the conditions that they receive. We cannot get anywhere near to this.

Not my photo, but I do like to post it a lot:

 

[Paul B]

That is perfect to be sure. But if you lose your nose ring in there you will be in trouble.