THE (NECESSARY?) ILLUSION OF EQUILIBRIUM
Overwhelming evidence exists that single stable equilbria, or other balance-of-nature notions are not a normative state for Earth surface systems (ESS), and not more common or significant than nonequilbrium. Despite this evidence, management, policy, and even scientific models and theories are often grounded in notions of a single stable, normative state. Why? I suggest six interrelated explanations.
1. Steady-state is a useful simplifying assumption
Nature is vast and complex. Comprehension requires some simplifying framework(s). Equilibrium is means of simplification appealing to a basic human preference for order and predictability. Models based on equilibrium assumptions that are unproven or even known to be false can nevertheless produce useful results (as is also the case in social sciences). This modeling success can contribute to an illusion of equilibrium as an accurate characterization of nature.
Steady-state regolith or soil thickness, whereby weathering at the bedrock interface roughly balances surface removal, does not accurately describe actual weathering and pedogenesis. However, it is a useful and convenient fiction for many modeling purposes. (Madison County, Kentucky)

