As we come to grasp the significance of ecosystems and our place in them, believe me, these notions are of the utmost importance. Indeed, I believe that many of our recent natural resource controversies and their social implications result in large part from a profound confusion and error concerning the ontological possibilities of ecosystems. In any event, since I thought that Maser's original impulse was a worthy one, I took the liberty of modifying and adding to these contrasts. I don't herein show his original set, nor itemize the specific reasons why I think each one of these phrasings might be better. The manifestations I mention follow Maser's lead in most cases.
Forests are complex landscapes whose patterns reflect crucial underlying structure and process.
We would design forests which largely ignore these structures and processes and their imperatives for pattern. Dynamic yet relatively stable. We would design forests requiring frequently destructive, ultimately impossible subsidies of energy, fertilizer, pesticides, even water. We would design forests that vainly ignore these laws for short-term, and increasingly trivial cravings. We would design forests imagining that they can give up huge portions of their matter and energy for only human ends, to be consumed elsewhere , largely ignoring the effects of waste on subsequent processes.