Real World Event Discussions

Canada panics over overpopulation

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Monday, June 15, 2026 05:17
VIEWED: 5416
PAGE 2 of 9

NIKI2

Sunday, December 20, 2009 5:07 PM

DT, if you haven’t already figured out that the ideological gap between us is too big to bridge, I’m surprised. We represent two different ends of the spectrum on most subjects. I disagree wholeheartedly with your theories on earth’s carrying capacity.

To say that “I know that a squirrel knows that he is planting more nuts than he plans to dig up, and that this will result in trees” strikes me as a huge leap; I don’t believe for one minute that the squirrel “knows” his actions will result in trees, rather science shows that animals who act on instinct, such as storing up food for the Winter, do so with no other purpose than survival. Nature is balanced in such a way that their over-storage results in refurbishing the ecosystem, but that in no way means the squirrel realizes this and acts accordingly.

I find your estimate that “My house sits on 2 acres of land, which means that local to here, my yard supports over 10,000 mice” highly questionable, but that’s neither here nor there. I agree with Citizen in the concept that

Quote:
There's many times more insects than anything else: but they're insects, not people. I don't think the number of mice that the planet can support proves how many humans it can support.

In fact, for once I tend to agree with almost everything Citizen wrote on the matter.

As to your concepts of carrying capacity, I think they are utopian and have no possibility of happening. You keep saying “should”, but what mankind “should” do hasn’t necessarily got any relationship to what he WILL do. I think a far more realistic view is that which I found below, and the conclusion the more accurate one:

Quote:
The human population is now so large and growing so rapidly that even popular magazines are referring to the possibility of a "demographic winter" (Time 1991). The current population of 5.5 billion, growing at an annual rate of 1.7%, will add approximately 93 million people this year, equivalent to more than the population of Mexico (unless otherwise noted, demographic statistics are from, or projected from, PRB 1991).

The slow progress in reducing fertility in recent years is reflected in the repeated upward revisions of United Nations projections (UNFPA 1991). The current estimate for the 2025 population is 8.5 billion, with growth eventually leveling off at approximately 11.6 billion around 2150. These projections are based on optimistic assumptions of continued declines in population growth rates.

Despite the tremendous uncertainty inherent in any population projections, it is clear that in the next century Earth will be faced with having to support at least twice its current human population. Whether the life support systems of the planet can sustain the impact of so many people is not at all certain.

Ecologists define carrying capacity as the maximal population size of a given species that an area can support without reducing its ability to support the same species in the future. Specifically, it is "a measure of the amount of renewable resources in the environment in units of the number of organisms these resources can support" (Roughgarden 1979, p. 305) and is specified as K in the biological literature.

Carrying capacity is a function of characteristics of both the area and the organism. A larger or richer area will, ceteris paribus, have a higher carrying capacity. Similarly, a given area will be able to support a larger population of a species with relatively low energetic requirements (e.g., lizards) than one at the same trophic level with high energetic requirements (e.g., birds of the same individual body mass as the lizards). The carrying capacity of an area with constant size and richness would be expected to change only as fast as organisms evolve different resource requirements. Though the concept is clear, carrying capacity is usually difficult to estimate.

For human beings, the matter is complicated by two factors: substantial individual differences in types and quantities of resources consumed and r

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, December 20, 2009 9:57 PM

Gino ?

Problem with that is both that it is heavily overhyped, and that the very same folk who want those crackdowns and cutoffs are the same shitheels blocking anything like decent education or access to birth control - so once again you have the nimrods who are bitchin about the problem being the greater part of it.

They make sure these uneducated young people know almost nothing, and what they do know is mostly lies formented by the scare-em-straight abstinence crowd, combined with a concerted and determined effort to block any access to birth control, and then they have the fucking nerve to whine when those people they backed into a corner like that take either of the options they have left.

Seriously, those gauntlets of assholes blocking planned parenthood clinics also discourage and run off people looking for options to not get pregnant, and they know it, and it's deliberate, but no one wants to talk about that, now do they ?

Just like the whole abortion issue, most folk are coming at it from the wrong end, trying to solve it from the bottom up and hacking at the branches instead of the root of the problem.

As for sustainability, I don't argue the bloody details cause it's pointless minutae and there's so much distortion and bullshit on both sides the truth of it isn't gonna get found in there, I just nail it down to TWO simple concepts which anyone with half a brain can get on board with.

Waste not, want not.
Don't crap where you live.

That's what it really comes down to, and you can express that to someone, connect with em about it, a helluva lot easier than a long lecture about stuff so far outta their competence that they just start tuning you out.

Again, if you're gonna argue with people, you need to understand people - which is a flaw in the arguments of scientists who seem unaware they're talking to people without the background to even place their concepts in reality.

-F

NIKI2

Sunday, December 20, 2009 10:05 PM

Frem: Absofuckinglootely! Every word. Which is why I highlighted "Planning a world for highly cooperative, antimaterialistic, ecologically sensitive vegetarians would be of little value in correcting today's situation. In short, it seems prudent to evaluate the problem of sustainability for selfish, myopic people who are poorly organized politically, socially, and economically".

And I agree on the other points too...I've always said any pro-choice screamer has nothing to say to me unless they've adopted a kid who needs a home. Of course they don't, they think helping an unwed mother is great, but after the kid is BORN, "right-to-life" doesn't come into it much to them.

I'll refrain from saying more about "pro-lifers" and their attitudes, and just let what Frem said stand for me...

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, December 20, 2009 10:31 PM

An interesting article, Niki. It doesn't seem likely that most people would choose to lower their standard of living voluntarily. There's not a lot in history to support such action and Copenhagen confirms

Probably the most likely course for the next few decades is increased violent conflict over resources, which frankly what Iraq and Afghanistan are really being fought over. The 'Haves' will continue to try and monopolise increasingly precious resources nad the'Have Nots' will use increasingly vicious and catastrophic means to topple them.

Add a few pandemics and the affects of climate change and I think you'll see a dramatic reduction in population eventually. It just wont be pretty.

CITIZEN

Sunday, December 20, 2009 10:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Again, if you're gonna argue with people, you need to understand people - which is a flaw in the arguments of scientists who seem unaware they're talking to people without the background to even place their concepts in reality.

That's the thing. Scientists are making scientific arguments in science, can't blame them that fuckwits are trying to jump into science because it's saying shit they don't want to hear.

Ergo, it's not a flaw in the scientists arguments, its a flaw in the rest of us for letting fuckwits think they have a valuable contribution to proceedings, rather than saying, you know: hey, Limbaugh you're a dick, shut the fuck up.

NIKI2

Sunday, December 20, 2009 11:35 PM

Magons, I'm afraid you're right and have been for a long time; that's what many are predicting; and sadly, it seems the obvious answer, given humans.

And sadly, I agree with you too, Citizen.

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, December 20, 2009 11:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Gino ?

Problem with that is both that it is heavily overhyped, and that the very same folk who want those crackdowns and cutoffs are the same shitheels blocking anything like decent education or access to birth control - so once again you have the nimrods who are bitchin about the problem being the greater part of it.

They make sure these uneducated young people know almost nothing, and what they do know is mostly lies formented by the scare-em-straight abstinence crowd, combined with a concerted and determined effort to block any access to birth control, and then they have the fucking nerve to whine when those people they backed into a corner like that take either of the options they have left.

Seriously, those gauntlets of assholes blocking planned parenthood clinics also discourage and run off people looking for options to not get pregnant, and they know it, and it's deliberate, but no one wants to talk about that, now do they ?

Just like the whole abortion issue, most folk are coming at it from the wrong end, trying to solve it from the bottom up and hacking at the branches instead of the root of the problem.

As for sustainability, I don't argue the bloody details cause it's pointless minutae and there's so much distortion and bullshit on both sides the truth of it isn't gonna get found in there, I just nail it down to TWO simple concepts which anyone with half a brain can get on board with.

Waste not, want not.
Don't crap where you live.

That's what it really comes down to, and you can express that to someone, connect with em about it, a helluva lot easier than a long lecture about stuff so far outta their competence that they just start tuning you out.

Again, if you're gonna argue with people, you need to understand people - which is a flaw in the arguments of scientists who seem unaware they're talking to people without the background to even place their concepts in reality.

-F

I see what your saying Frem, from your viewpoint it makes nothing but sense...

It Canada many of those factors change quite a bit, I don't see any real restrictions to birth control methods, sex education information, or the like... Hell in High School if you needed Condoms I remember you didn't buy them, you went to the guidance office and helped yourself out of a box in the lobby.

I have read that is quite different down south, I guess I take some of what we have for granted a little...

The abortion issue up here hasn't been as confrontational for the most part as your in the US has been, government funded procedures are done in most places, some facilities do not do them... but as I understand it, there is the caveat that a counseling session is provided and options explained, etc ( without pressure either way is the ideal, but there have been case where that has been questioned )

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, December 20, 2009 11:59 PM

Gino,

I agree about not subsidizing population growth.

There's just too much here that doesn't come from planet earth, I'm just going to take a couple potshots:

MAGONSDAUGHTER, sorry, I think you have a misapprehension about the american standard of living. Either that or I do, but I've seen an awful lot of America.

Now, as to mice and men: A mouse has the mass of about 1-2 thousandths of a human, and about ten times the metabolic rate. There the difference end. A man is a mouse the world over. Check evolution. Vole>Prosimian>Monkey>Ape>Man. Not a lot of difference. Close to none actually.

GMO would bring us foods many times the size of current ones, correcting the mouse/human imbalance in carrying capacity. But much more than that, we've already figured out how to hijack insect metabolism which is much more efficient.

Niki,

How many squirrels do you see every day? I've watched squirrels plant trees all my life, and I know that they're clever little buggers. I know they know exactly what they're doing. There's probably not a huge gap between man and squirrel in intelligence. Squirrels and mice both can figure out fairly complex machinery. I'm sure they can figure out where trees come from. It's not rocket science.

But okay, you want proof? Here's just a small inkling of it: If a squirrel didn't know jack about trees, then why would it wander all over the yard and plant trees 10 to 20 feet apart? Why wouldn't he just bury them all in the same place? Also, why bury them at a seed-depth. Why not just stockpile them in a warren. Oh, I'm sure he does the latter. Those are the ones he intends to eat. The squirrel who digs up nuts is the one who miscalculated, and ran out of food. But that's his backup plan.

Actually, Squirrel Nutkin is rather better at it than I am, an I've been doing it for a while. He seems to have a knack for picking ideal locations to grow a tree in. Just like he knows exactly how to upset the bird feeder, just like he knows that he can get anywhere in town froma telephone pole without becoming a splat in the road.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, December 21, 2009 12:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
It Canada many of those factors change quite a bit, I don't see any real restrictions to birth control methods, sex education information, or the like... Hell in High School if you needed Condoms I remember you didn't buy them, you went to the guidance office and helped yourself out of a box in the lobby.

Hooray for Canada!

Back in my days you *couldn't* get them, period - no one would sell em to you, and much of the class didn't even know what one was...

Of course, while nowhere near as bad as rumor had it, I wasn't celibate in high school, hell no, and I used em despite the fact that I had to *steal* the damned things, and further my education in contrast to the bullshit and lies by means both nefarious and illegal since the only thing you could laughably call sex ed in that school was a forty minute video essentially saying "this is sex, it's bad, don't do it."

Mind you, this was also the entirety of my nieces education on the matter as well since the dimwits sent her to that same school, resulting in me having to have "the talk" with her even though I hadda drive a couple hundred miles to go do so.

I suppose in retrospect however, my actions did promote a little bit of good sense, since it was "uncool" back then to suit up before takin the plunge, and my inclination to do so earned me the derogatory monniker of "Lord Latex" from a couple of them jerks - which came back to haunt them in a major fashion when they learned the hard way that pregnancy isn't the ONLY thing condoms prevent.

*hums the trojan man theme*

-F

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, December 21, 2009 2:12 AM

Bump for legit post

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com