3. Introduction

The Macmillan Dictionary of the History of Science defines ecology by saying it is:

The branch of biology dealing with interrelations between organisms and their environment. The term was coined in 1866 by Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919), but the idea of ecology is much older, having roots, for example, in the 18th century concept of the economy of nature. … After Darwin’s (1809-82) Origin of Species (1859), studies of plants and animals in Nature began to focus on how they are structurally and functionally adapted to the conditions of life (or habitat) and the struggle for existence [natural selection]. The key to understanding why certain organisms occur under particular conditions associated with other organisms was seen to lie in their physiological requirements (Bynum et al, 1983, p. 110).

Ecology therefore seems to be the scientific study of the interrelations amongst living organisms both with respect to each other and to their (natural) environment. It involves the abundance and distribution of organisms; the movement of materials and energy through their communities; the succession and development of the resulting ecosystems; and the more generalized abundance and distribution of biodiversity (Parker, 1998). Variables such as number, biomass, composition, and their rates of change would therefore seem a particular interest.

The above definition—rather longer than our own—unfortunately states the rather large methodological problem ecology has failed to resolve: a complete lack of rigour in handling the most basic scientific concepts. The McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia Of Science & Technology makes the essential problem clear by saying that ecology is “in more simple terms, environmental biology” (Parker, 1998, p. 663). So to know what ecology “really is” we must not only confront what the environment “really is”, but we must also confront what biology “really is”. This is not at all promising.

Biology and ecology as traditionally defined both face difficulties that are immediately apparent in the definition the 1971 Oxford English Dictionary gives to the former:

1. The science of human life and character.

2. The science of physical life; the division of physical science which deals with organized beings or animals and plants, their morphology, physiology, origin and distribution; … (Oxford, 1971).

The American Heritage Dictionary is little better:

the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, esp. with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behaviour. (Heritage, 2004).

Philosophers and theologians, for example, are equally interested in “life”, so any designs biology and ecology might have on scientific respectability are promptly lost through this singular lack of linguistic specificity. Since biological work is often interpreted as an attempt to “define” life, philosophers, theologians, meditators, alternative health practitioners and many others rightly speak up, so taking most working biologists into areas they would much rather not concern themselves with, or else they would never get anything done. This is particularly so once Darwin enters the picture.

If, as Darwin said, ‘Natural Selection’ is a ‘power incessantly ready for action’, then it should be possible to measure it—specifically—as an ever-active force or potential whose value over an entire generation of biological entities is never—and can never—be zero (Darwin, 1859, p. 76). Furthermore, that force or potential should be unequivocally linked to variations in population numbers … but always so that its influence upon population size can be isolated and studied. There can then be no questioning its conclusions.

A clear definition of subject matter is obviously lacking here. Any proposed definition should surely do what ours did, and avoid all references to contentious terms. What would surely be even better would be for biology to define itself as we have done, in avowedly scientific terms, avoiding all others. Our given definitions in Prolegomenon II are clear, concise, unambiguous, and are expressed in the strictest scientific and mathematical terms.

We now claim that with our proposed definitions, we can calculate the precise quantities of mass and energy any biological organism expends specifically upon natural selection, Darwinian competition and evolution … and that we can then prove that the said values cannot be zero for any organism or population.

We will now go on to justify our far more rigorous definitions for biology and ecology. We will also demonstrate their usefulness by unambiguously quantifying Darwin’s competition, his evolution, and his natural selection. We will further show that it is eminently possible to:

1. specify the attributes and properties an organism must possess if free from Darwin’s competition and evolution;
2. prove that an organism free from such competition and evolution is logically and practically impossible;
3. calculate the precise quantities of mass and energy any given biological organism expends specifically—and only—upon Darwinian competition and evolution.

Put clearly and simply, we will now create a rigorous mathematical model to accompany our definitions, and that will allow us to determine the joules of energy and kilogrammes of mass a chosen test species does in fact expend upon Darwinian competition and evolution; to calculate the values it would expend on survival and reproduction if free from these; and to produce the equations that prove that those values are not only not zero for our test organism, but that they can never be zero for any organism.