Ecosystem as Network of Wires: The Circuit Board Fallacy

Ecology is often depicted as a network, a tangle of nodes and connectors, flows and circuits. Energy moves along pathways; species occupy positions in a web; interactions are treated like signals along wires. It’s a neat metaphor, especially for visual learners, but it carries serious conceptual baggage.

The problem is that the metaphor suggests rigid determinism. Networks imply fixed connectors, predictable flows, and stable architectures. In reality, ecosystems are dynamic, contingent, and relational. Relationships shift, potentials actualise differently across contexts, and alignments emerge rather than being pre-wired. Treating an ecosystem as a circuit board erases its living, improvisational character.

From a relational ontology perspective, an ecosystem is not a static wiring diagram, but a field of potentials continuously aligning with one another. Nodes are not fixed; connections are not deterministic; energy and matter do not flow along predetermined paths. The relational interplay of organisms, habitats, and events cannot be reduced to wires and switches.

Parody illuminates the absurdity. If ecosystems were wiring, squirrels would be electricians, plants would need surge protectors, and forests would short-circuit every thunderstorm. Evolutionary innovations would require firmware updates, and migratory birds would carry network cables instead of wings.

The takeaway is clear: metaphors can illuminate, but they can also constrain. By thinking of ecosystems as networks of wires, we risk misrepresenting relational dynamics as static architecture, turning vibrant ecological interplay into a schematic that only exists on paper.