Core Idea
Walk into any environmental meeting, flip through conservation literature, or listen to well-meaning activists, and you’ll encounter the same soothing narrative. It will sincerely infer that nature seeks balance, ecosystems yearn for stability, and our job is to protect these delicate harmonies from human disruption.
It’s an appealing story that positions nature as a wise, self-regulating entity that maintains perfect order.
This romanticised vision paints untouched wilderness as a cathedral of balance where every species has its designated pew and every process hums along in divine synchrony.
Conservationists invoke this balance as both scientific fact and moral imperative, suggesting that any human interference disturbs some sacred natural order.
Climate activists speak of “restoring balance” to atmospheric systems.
Park managers aim to “maintain ecological balance” in protected areas.
And we have been sold a comforting myth about nature’s pristine equilibrium for years.
Counterpoint
Here’s the uncomfortable truth.
Nature doesn’t do balance.
It does change, and it does disturbance, brilliantly and relentlessly. The “balance of nature” is the ecological equivalent of believing the Earth is flat.
A rainforest might appear stable because the trees are large and long-lived, but underneath that green facade lies constant upheaval. Trees die, fall, and create gaps. Storms rip through canopies. Droughts kill entire groves.
What looks like balance is actually rapid recycling, with energy and nutrients cycling through temporary storage in millions of organisms doing their best to defy entropy. The apparent stability is an artefact of our limited human timescales.
Even more telling is that the rainforest wasn’t always a forest. Climate shifts, and it might not be one again.
Cyclones disrupt any temporary arrangements.
Over geological time, tectonic plates shuffle around, ocean currents change direction, and the whole show gets reorganised.
Nature copes with this chaos not by maintaining some mystical equilibrium, but by accepting disturbance as the primary engine of evolutionary processes.
The balance myth becomes particularly dangerous when applied to conservation. It suggests that ecosystems have optimal states we should restore and maintain, leading to misguided interventions that freeze dynamic systems in artificial poses.
Worse, it implies that human activity is inherently unnatural because it disrupts this supposed balance. This ignores the reality that we’re part of nature’s disturbance regime, not separate from it.
Thought Challenges
Be a Disturbance Detective… Choose a “stable” natural(ish) area you know well, maybe a local park, forest, or even your garden. Spend time documenting evidence of recent changes from storm damage, seasonal variations, animal impacts, and plant succession. Make notes for a month. You’ll discover that what appears static is actually in constant flux. Then ask yourself… If this small area changes so much in mere weeks, what does “balance” actually mean?
Timescale Thinking… Research the ecological history of your region over three different timescales: the last 50 years, 500 years, and 5,000 years. Look for evidence of major disturbances from fires, floods, climate shifts, and species invasions. Notice how each timescale reveals different patterns of change. Consider which timescale captures the “real” nature? Why do we privilege certain temporal perspectives over others?
Closing Reflection
Nature’s genius lies not in maintaining balance but in its extraordinary capacity to adapt, evolve, and reorganise in response to endless disturbance.
Every forest fire creates opportunities for new growth.
Every drought selects for different survival strategies.
Every extinction opens niches for evolutionary experimentation.
Understanding this changes everything about how we approach conservation and environmental management. Instead of trying to preserve imaginary equilibria, we can work with nature’s fundamental dynamism.
Instead of fearing change, we can design for resilience and adaptation. Instead of positioning humans as external disruptors, we can acknowledge our role as one disturbance agent among many.
The balance myth offers false comfort in an uncertain world, but nature’s real story is far more interesting as it responds, adapts, and creates new patterns from old disruptions.
Evidence Support
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1–23.
TL;DR… distinguishes between stability and resilience in ecosystems, arguing that most natural systems persist not through static balance but through dynamic responses to disturbance, reorganisation, and change.
Relevance to insight… dismantles the myth of a stable ‘natural balance,’ advocating for a view of ecosystems as adaptive and change-driven rather than delicate and harmonious. This is foundational in ecological theory and directly supports the contrary insight
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J. A., Folke, C., & Walker, B. (2001). Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature, 413(6856), 591–596.
TL;DR… ecosystems frequently undergo abrupt, nonlinear shifts in state rather than gradual, predictable changes, undermining the notion of smooth balance. The paper explains how small external pressures can trigger regime shifts, leading to radically altered ecosystem functions.
Relevance to insight… ecological systems are prone to sudden change rather than equilibrium—nature’s tendency for critical transitions is a direct repudiation of the balance narrative. It provides empirical and theoretical grounding for scepticism about ecological stability.
Pickett, S. T., Parker, V. T., & Fiedler, P. L. (1992). The new paradigm in ecology: implications for conservation biology above the species level. In Conservation biology: the theory and practice of nature conservation preservation and management (pp. 65-88). Boston, MA: Springer US.
TL;DR… critiques the outdated ‘balance of nature’ paradigm, presenting modern ecological evidence that disturbance, disorder, and change are the rule rather than the exception. The authors synthesise decades of research showing that ecosystems are products of continual flux and evolving interactions.
Relevance to insight… a framework for managing landscapes that embrace change and accept instability. Their review supports a contrarian, reality-based approach to ecological management.
Lidicker, W. Z. (2010). The reality of ecological equilibria. BioScience, 60(8), 567–575.
TL;DR… tackles the ‘balance of nature’ myth directly, reviewing evidence showing that supposed ecological equilibria are rare, transient, and mostly human constructs. He argues that change, unpredictability, and disturbance—and not balance—are nature’s persistent realities.[
Relevance to insight… decouples scientific fact from cultural wishful thinking, exposing the flaws in equilibrium-based management. A vital resource for those seeking clarity over comforting myths.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5.
TL;DR… framework paper explores how social–ecological systems persist through cycles of adaptation, transformation, and renewal, rejecting static equilibrium for dynamic resilience. It documents how ecosystems and human systems must adjust, reorganise, and reinvent themselves in response to continual change.
Relevance to insight… powerful counter-narrative to the balance myth, demonstrating that adaptability—not stability—is crucial for long-term survival. Their work demands we jettison the fantasy of equilibrium in favour of embracing and preparing for change.