I was very pleased to be asked to comment on "Defending Reality" by Bob Lackey (2000a,b). Bob has posed a serious and important challenge, not only to fisheries biologists, but, I believe, to more fundamental practices and presumptions widely held, certainly within my own university. I agree with Bob’s assessment that the responses to his paper – at least the ones he cites – are deficient at best. I warn you that my own views involve even deeper challenges.

Within the context of continuing development within the Pacific Northwest (and the world in general) wild salmon (and natural ecosystems) will be diminished and eliminated over time. Thus, within this context, the hope of saving salmon is largely a delusion. I agree with Bob Lackey on these points. Indeed, my own statements may be stronger than his. Now, let me briefly describe my disagreements which will be far more difficult because I will depart from presumptions and practices widely held within modern society, including the practices of fisheries biologists.

Fisheries biologists do criticize reductionism in their studies of fish. They claim that whole ecosystems must be understood not as sums of parts (which would be so much easier) but as interacting wholes. When it comes to human systems, however, they (and many others) are reductionists! Outcomes are often seen as arising from the sums of individual values.

Neither Bob Lackey nor the critics he describes speak of emergent outcomes in human affairs. By "emergent" I mean outcomes that cannot be reduced to sums of individual values, intentions, or preferences. From a reductionist perspective, emergence makes no sense. From a relational and non-reductionist approach, however, emergent outcomes are fundamental; a paramount concern would be the emergent outcomes of whole systems of human interactions that were contrary to the values of the individuals within it. Destruction of wild salmon would be seen as an indicator of emergent phenomena in human affairs. A challenge would then be to better understand such human ecosystems. By exposing adverse outcomes, such as those highlighted by Bob Lackey, research should promote and sustain credible disturbance regimes so that human ecosystems adaptively shift toward emergent outcomes more consistent with sustained human welfare. I take this non-reductionist approach.

Notice how I'’ve borrowed terms from ecology and applied them to human systems. If we reduce human systems to mere sums of individual values, we commit a grave intellectual and moral mistake, a form of reductionism that ecologists would certainly reject if applied to natural ecosystems. The behavioral systems of humans provide the contexts within which individuals act. If we treat human contexts -– human systemswith emergent outcomes -– as the "real world," we imply that any significant change in the contexts is "unrealistic." Such a view allows adaptive systems to shift toward ever greater levels of self-reinforcement until the system itself crashes. The suppression of credible disorders – challenges to established contexts – in human systems is much like the suppression of fires in forest ecosystems; suppress a history of small ones and you get the big one.

I realize that all this sounds abstract. Let me sketch a simple example having to do with habitat destruction and ecosystem fragmentation caused by the ongoing sprawl of roads, highways, right-of-ways, and parking lots. My approach looks past the clutter of distracting details to uncover the background patterns of self-reinforcing behaviors (contexts) as sketched in Figure 1. To read this sketch, read any statement. Then move forward or backward along an arrow (your choice) to the next statement. Say "therefore" if you move forward, "because" if you move backward. Continue moving through the whole pattern along multiple paths until you get the whole picture.

Figure 1. A Partial Sketch of a Development Pattern; A Behavioral System (Context) Leading to Significant Habitat and Ecosystem Loss. As you read through the pattern, say "therefore" if moving forward along an arrow, "because" if moving backward.

The initial reaction to such sketches has been to avoid them or merely skim over them. Don’t do this! Read through the sketch. Then, if you get the pattern as a whole, you are likely to say "you’ve left a lot out." Yes, I have. As an example, I have not included the danger from traffic and wide streets to people on foot or bike. The loss of neighborhoods is also important. But, for now, there is an advantage to keeping the sketch simple.

This simple sketch begins to describe a system that leads to significant loss of habitat and natural ecosystems. Within the context of this system, however, nobody says, "let’s destroy habitat." Indeed, few even consider such concerns. If you ask a person, "why do you drive so much?" he or she might answer "because it’s too far to walk or ride a bike." If you ask an engineer, "why such extensive pavement?" the answer might be "to accommodate all the traffic." Within the context sketched in Figure 1, these answers make sense. Such behaviors and reasons interact in ways that form a self-reinforcing system. It is the self-reinforcement within the pattern as a whole – not the alues held by parts – that sustains the behaviors. Within the context of this system, all people find reasons for their own behaviors. But, because of the self-reinforcing pattern, habitat and ecosystems are cut apart, paved over, fenced off, and built up on at an alarming rate. But, there is no reason to think that this outcome follows from the values of the individuals caught up within the system.

To claim that development, partially sketched in Figure 1, is an expression of fundamental human values is to misunderstand the process that drives it. Development has been largely driven by the desire of people to escape development i tself. That is, "for many, the word development itself has become a dirty word" (Kunstler, 1993, p. 10). Indeed, many have moved to the Pacific Northwest to escape more developed regions. The thought that such development will become s o pervasive that there will be ever fewer places to escape it is a nightmare, not the fulfillment of pervasive values. To treat such a nightmare as reality is indeed depressing! The problem lies, not in the fundamental values that people hold, but in th e failure of development – an emergent outcome – to embody much of what is precious to human living. Such failure has become so great that escape in many forms ("moving out," gated communities, virtual reality, drugs, etc.) has become a motivat ing force of our age, a force that drives the very development that produces it. I leave it to you to judge, based upon your own experience, if such a model has some validity. I believe it does.

Yes, there is more than sketched in Figure 1. There are other patterns that need to be addressed. I’m particularly interested in the pattern, which includes "more research is needed," where nearly all "realistic&quo t; solutions come in the form of "technological fixes." But Figure 1 can, for now, illustrate some fundamental points. I see no reason for us to accept such patterns (systems, contexts) as "reality" and I find many reasons to challen ge them rather than defend them. Nor do I find any reason to assume that departures from such patterns, alternative patterns, would involve grave sacrifices. Indeed, the evidence suggests that, in addition to environmental losses, the pattern sketched i n Figure 1 contributes to social losses (loss of community, as an example) that contribute to the decline of much that humans hold dear.

To presume that "because a human context (pattern, system) persists, it must express the values of those in it" is a serious reductionist error! Likewise, to presume that a dominant context is "reality" – thus chalenge is "unrealistic" – is a dangerous misperception that discoura ges efforts to challenge established systems. Holding such views is not "defending reality." Rather, it is defending the power of dominant contexts. To accept contexts as "reality" is accommodation. To see them as expressions of hu man values is to grant them a moral authority they don’t deserve. Such views allow systems to continue while dismissing serious reformations as either "unrealistic" or "contrary to the values of the people."

On such matters, we must deal with responsibility, moral and professional (Bella, 2000). A key question is this: do we have responsibilities that transcend the contexts we live within? Further, does the failure to live out such r esponsibilities allow destructive outcomes to emerge? I answer, Yes! If you reduce my answer to "Bella’s personal values" you don’t understand what I’m saying! I claim that a study of history does show that human welfare has been served when people (nineteenth century abolitionists, as an example) accepted responsibilities that transcended the contexts of their day. They sustained credible disorders that shifted adaptive change in credible ways. History also shows, I claim, that when transc endent responsibilities were not acted upon, powerful and destructive systems emerged. This is an ancient lesson, expressed in the "prophetic tradition" of Biblical texts and demonstrated throughout history. Such lessons apply to our own age t he tobacco industry (Bella, 1997) provides a modern example – and they are conceptually consistent with the paradigms that we ourselves apply to natural ecosystems.

"Prophetic," "professional," and "democratic traditions" all call for responsibilities that transcend the demands of established contexts. All tell us that responsibility involves more than merely goin g along. Such responsibilities, in turn, sustain reflections and deliberations not constrained by the self-reinforcing reasons, demands, and rewards of established systems (contexts). Through such responsible reflections and deliberations, credible chal lenges to established systems can arise. These credible and out-of-context challenges constitute the disturbance regime from which more trustworthy and responsible systems tend to emerge. The former Soviet Union suppressed such disturbances allowing sys temic deficiencies and distortions to continue until the system itself collapsed.

In our own society, overt suppression is not so apparent. But, the effect may be similar because, within our consumer society, the prophetic tradition has been trivialized, the professional tradition has been reduced to the competence of specialists doing their jobs, and "the duties of responsible citizenship" (Eisenhower, 1961) have been replaced by the preferences of consumers and voters shaped by an all present media. In a world of unprecedented affluence, we find a perva sive inability to sustain serious deliberation on matters that transcend the demands of established contexts. We are losing the language to even speak of responsibilities that transcend these established contexts (Bella, 2000). Such loss of transcendent responsibility has become painfully apparent within universities, including my own.

Bob Lackey’s views are basically correct within our established contexts. But, by treating such contexts as the real world, defending them as reality, and reducing outcomes in human affairs to "values," a dangerous form of reductionism is being acted out. Unfortunately, it is a widespread form of reductionism that is easy (it makes the world so simple!) and well established within our language and institutions. Wild salmon, their decline and extinction, are symbo lic, in a prophetic sense, of our own reductionist practices and our inability to articulate responsibilities that transcend the dominant contexts of our world.

To give further example, consider the following statement by Lackey (2000a).

I, too, am left with this impression! But, I interpret the "spin" differently. I claimed elsewhere (Bella, 1996) that organizational systems "spin" information in self-propagating ways. Such "distortions,&quo t; I claim, are emergent outcomes of whole systems, not reducible to individual values, schemes, or designs. These systems have been sketched through the same methods used in Figure 1. By being "optimistic" as Lackey describes, the context its elf is not challenged. Within the context, each individual finds reasons for his or her own behaviors; nevertheless, distortions that serve to propagate established systems emerge allowing these systems to continue unchallenged. Again, I claim that resp onsibilities do transcend context (Bella, 2000). But, if context itself is treated as the "real world" – a "given" that we must accept and defend – then, to act on transcending responsibilities is "unrealistic" and futile. Then, those most concerned – people who might otherwise challenge the system – tend to give up – "what’s the point?" – making it easier for emergent outcomes to continue unchallenged.

The differences between Bob Lackey’s approach and mine can be seen by comparing our titles for this seminar. Bob’s title is "Defending Reality: Standing Against the Acolytes of Delusion." My title is "Challenging C ontexts: Standing Against Systems of Power and Distortion." These differences are not about "being realistic" versus "being optimistic." No! The differences arise from radically different understandings of human affairs. I cl aim that we must address complex systems in human affairs that display emergent outcomes not reducible to "values." These are self-organizing systems, outcomes of adaptive processes, not outcomes of deliberate design by "decision makers.&q uot; The character and behavior of such systems should be seen as appropriate topics of research, essential for a democratic society. Such research, which employed the method of sketching used in Figure 1, has been applied to the tobacco industry (Bella , 1997). I claim that the general model employed in this study can be applied to the organizational systems that biologists (and other professionals) work within. Hirt’s (1994) historical study of forestry practices on public lands is consistent with th is general model as are developing practices within universities (Press and Washburn, 2000) including my own. Under this general model, the behaviors of fisheries biologists, as described in Lackey’s quote above, are seen as normal (common, consistent) b ehaviors arising from general phenomena in human affairs. I intend this claim to be a serious challenge that hopefully contributes to credible disturbance regimes!

Finally, from the perspective I’ve outlined herein, the decline of wild salmon should be seen as an indicator (in the ecological sense) and a symbol (in the Biblical sense) that tells something about ourselves. It warns us that whole s ystems – contexts emerging through patterns of self-reinforcing behaviors – need to be exposed, challenged, and reformed. To understand this perspective, we must move beyond the pervasive reductionism that dominates our understanding of human affairs and our responsibilities within them. This is difficult. Reductionism – breaking things into parts – is so much easier and it is built into our institutions, including Oregon State University. But, if this challenge is not met, then, whether we like it or not, our own actions will serve the depressing outcomes that Bob Lackey honestly described.