Table 1. Open in new tab Description of...

Table 1.

Description of the responses relating to ecological management adapted after Holling and Timmerman [23–25].

Response type	Description
A. Cosmos capricious, response fatalist	This is a random world the cosmos is not managed nor is learning about it possible, all that can be achieved is to manage random events. Note that type A has two kinds of person, leaders and followers (see Fig. 1a) whose responses can be different.
B. Cosmos benign, response individualist	The cosmos is wonderfully forgiving* and returns to a stable equilibrium** no matter how hard it is knocked. Little care is needed and ‘everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds’.
C. Cosmos perverse/tolerant, response hierarchical	The cosmos is forgiving to some extent and equilibrium states are somewhat robust but occasionally needs care and action to remain so.
D. Cosmos ephemeral, response egalitarian	The cosmos is very unforgiving. Even the slightest perturbation leads to an unstable state. Great care is needed to avert disaster.

Response type	Description
A. Cosmos capricious, response fatalist	This is a random world the cosmos is not managed nor is learning about it possible, all that can be achieved is to manage random events. Note that type A has two kinds of person, leaders and followers (see Fig. 1a) whose responses can be different.
B. Cosmos benign, response individualist	The cosmos is wonderfully forgiving* and returns to a stable equilibrium** no matter how hard it is knocked. Little care is needed and ‘everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds’.
C. Cosmos perverse/tolerant, response hierarchical	The cosmos is forgiving to some extent and equilibrium states are somewhat robust but occasionally needs care and action to remain so.
D. Cosmos ephemeral, response egalitarian	The cosmos is very unforgiving. Even the slightest perturbation leads to an unstable state. Great care is needed to avert disaster.

I follow Schwarz and Thompson in using the language of forgiveness, which feels apt in the context of this paper [26].

By equilibrium I mean specifically dynamic, rather than static equilibrium. Like a person successfully riding a bicycle rather than a flat stone on the ground.

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only