A fitting introduction to this controversial topic begins with Herodotus, the ancient Greek historian (c. 484 BC – c. 425 BC). He is known as the “Father of History”, because he was the first to (1) use systematic collection methods, (2) test premises for accuracy, and (3) construct historical expositions in an ordered, vivid, imminently readable format.
Herodotus was a prolific writer. He authored, among others, The Histories, in which he described a personal inquiry into the origins of the Greco-Persian Wars.
Besides writing of otherwise dry historical facts in an entertaining style, he was also subject to wide digressions into practically every subject under the sun. His focus was on warfare, and he constantly questioned why men fought one another with such apparent gusto. In his inquiries of this kind, he used metaphor and analogy whenever possible, seeking answers from his observations of the natural world of animals and plants.
As he sought answers to questions about human nature, he did not shrink from speculating afield about the natural world about him. It comes as no surprise that at one point he described the relationship between predator organisms and their prey.
Keep in mind that it fit neatly into his broader focus on human warfare to see animal warfare through an anthropological mirror. In speculations on the curious observation that predators and prey seemed to achieve a stasis within the environment they shared, he wrote that predators wisely avoided preying on their food sources to excess, as that would reduce the levels of the latter below those needed for the former to survive. Thus he envisioned a natural world in which predators and prey were present in a mutually beneficial balance.
Never mind that in the natural world such static balances almost never occur. The concept of a balanced natural state, one in fact that is best left alone and not “tinkered with” by man, carries with it an inherent appeal. In fact, most thinking persons find that appeal almost overwhelming, as did many of the best minds in science during the 20th century. The mantra “Don’t Mess With Mother Nature”, tied as it is to the threat that to do so is to court disaster, is based on this concept.
We know better, of course. Or, rather, we do if we understand the Red Queen Principle of Selective Adaptation. My views about this counter-intuitive principle are discussed on the page linked to in the foregoing sentence.
Unfortunately, however, the implications of the Red Queen Principle are not well understood, even by those who embrace it. As a result, much of what is classified as pseudoscience has knelt at the altar of the “natural” Balance of Nature. Simultaneously, at least since the mid-1970’s, many ecologists have found solace in the belief that chaos, not equilibrium, is the hallmark of the natural–even the unnatural–world.
Serious controversy revolves around the proper ways one can relate either of these polar opposites to legitimate scientific endeavors, without crossing the line into junk science. While we cannot blame Herodotus for the way his concept has been misused, we must make a strenuous effort not to fall into that pit.