Quandaries and complexities of ecological risk assessment: Viable options to reduce humanistic arrogance

Abstract

Ecological risk assessment has been used to support decisions regarding human‐generated actions which affect natural “resources”; and indigenous ecosystems. Often, the logical and scientific input serve as rationalization to legitimize the process. Though widely accepted as the realistic and sole paradigm, Ecological Risk Assessments do not address the complexities of the natural world, are humanistically arrogant, and disregard or do not consider alternatives which offer imagination and realistic attempts to reduce human impact to the land.

Ecological Alternatives Assessment practices would place the highest priority on: (a) continued temporal and spatial evolution of existing complex ecological relationships, (b) acknowledgment of the inherent rights of all species, and (c) examination of alternatives to reduce effects of anthropogenic actions. These steps, as discussed, are not impossible to accomplish and are necessary for favorable short‐term (50–500 years) anthropocentric alternatives and maintenance of long‐term (+1,000 years) biodiversity of species and ecosystems.

Key Words:

• ecological risk assessment
• ecological alternatives assessment
• ecosystem
• humanistic arrogance
• health risk assessment
• dioxin
• DDT

Notes

333 W. 8th St., P.O. Box 520, Medford, OR 97501