MCgunner
Member
And increasing population growth rate is on the steep slope of the J curve. IOW, human population growth is logarithmic. That is NOT a good thing.
Heard something terrible on the radio this morning.
- Thread starter MCgunner
- Start date
- Status
Jeff Timm
Member
MCgunner commented, "And increasing population growth rate is on the steep slope of the J curve. IOW, human population growth is logarithmic. That is NOT a good thing."
Fact remains, best way to control population is to make people wealthy.
Alternative method, currently practiced in poverty stricken Africa, massive disease.
I prefer the American/European plan myself.
Geoff
Who notes overpopulation destroyed the world as we know it back in the 1980s, cross reference Paul Erlichman.
Fact remains, best way to control population is to make people wealthy.
Alternative method, currently practiced in poverty stricken Africa, massive disease.
I prefer the American/European plan myself.
Geoff
Who notes overpopulation destroyed the world as we know it back in the 1980s, cross reference Paul Erlichman.
MCgunner
Member
So, um, what's wrong with the pill? That's one thing I'd GIVE to the poor if they'd just take it. We are already over-populated. We're not to the peak of the J curve yet, but we're over-populated. If human populations were deer, I'd open season year 'round and suspend limits, tags, license restrictions, just kill all ya want. Can't do that with humans, of course. But, if we don't find a way, nature will, and you can take that to the bank.
Art,
Sure, seems like the right thing to do. Feels good etc. Not many normal people want to see the demise of any otherwise harmless species. Most normal people appreciate the beauty of their wild fauna, and get attached to the sight of them.
But how much does this one example actually cost in total aggregate per year? Is it smart to spend so much time and money on a single species that was evidently doomed from the start? Is it the right of government to use public funds, to take public money in one form or another to do so?
--------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Sure, seems like the right thing to do. Feels good etc. Not many normal people want to see the demise of any otherwise harmless species. Most normal people appreciate the beauty of their wild fauna, and get attached to the sight of them.
But how much does this one example actually cost in total aggregate per year? Is it smart to spend so much time and money on a single species that was evidently doomed from the start? Is it the right of government to use public funds, to take public money in one form or another to do so?
--------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
MCgunner
Member
They weren't doomed from the start, market hunters after the plumage for hats doomed them. They'd been fine except for that.
I think what we pay in taxation to keep 'em around is somewhat offset by the amount of eco-tourism dollars they bring in to the area. Also, that refuge, Aransas, has draw hunts for deer/hog and open archery seasons, so the hunter gets a return on investment in a way. Maybe I'm just trying to justify it, but you have to weigh all the angles.
I think what we pay in taxation to keep 'em around is somewhat offset by the amount of eco-tourism dollars they bring in to the area. Also, that refuge, Aransas, has draw hunts for deer/hog and open archery seasons, so the hunter gets a return on investment in a way. Maybe I'm just trying to justify it, but you have to weigh all the angles.
javacodeman
Member
MCgunner,
Do you know what logarithmic means? Me thinks not. While logarithmic growth is unbounded, it is about the slowest moving unbounded function out there. That is, however, the least of the problems with your statement. If you've ever taken a course in differential equations (DE), you'd know that population growth is not unbounded (and therefore cannot be logarithmic or exponential--which is what I expect that you meant) and that for any environment, there is a max sustainable population. DE will also show you that some environments doom species to extinction. What is having to be done is a great alteration of that environment to promote the future success of that species.
Actual population plots resemble a stretched out "S" or two "J's" put together with an end appearing exponential and an end appearring logarithmic as constraints start to slow down growth. I say appearing because it does not/cannot continue to increase past a max.
java
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Take the math discussion to PM, okay?
LAK, given the overall amount of wasted tax money, I guess I sorta ignore any principles about the use of tax money on stuff like "saving" the Whooper. "It's only money"; it doesn't affect a landowner's rights as does "saving" some danged frog. And I'd rather see the by-product of eco-tourism here in the U.S., than for it to be piddled away as foreign aid to some thug-0-crat's Swiss bank account.
Art
LAK, given the overall amount of wasted tax money, I guess I sorta ignore any principles about the use of tax money on stuff like "saving" the Whooper. "It's only money"; it doesn't affect a landowner's rights as does "saving" some danged frog. And I'd rather see the by-product of eco-tourism here in the U.S., than for it to be piddled away as foreign aid to some thug-0-crat's Swiss bank account.
Art
MCgunner
Member
java, no need for insults. I've never claimed to be a math genius. I've not had differential equations, but I have taken population dynamics, a course taught through the Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences department at A&M and required of fisheries management majors. A good example of a J growth curve is the rabbit. The natality rate of the rabbit is such that its mortality can't keep up, either through predation or disease. The populations grows and grows to the point that it is well above carrying capacity, then it crashes through starvation or disease or both. This occurs in regular cycles with rabbits and the growth curve resembles a "J", thus the name. Since Human species has no natural predator, what is to keep our growth rate as an S or sigmoid rate? We are more like rabbits than deer in this regard.
My opinion remains that unrestricted human population growth is the root of most environmental problems. The more humans there are on the planet, the more they consume, and not just food, but energy resources, and the more impact they have on their environment. Limit human populations to reasonable numbers and the earth can handle the stress. It don't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out. It's really pretty simple. What is so onerous about limiting human natality rates? I could be done, it should be done, but no one has the will to do it. It's a political thing, I reckon. Do you want to be a rabbit in an overpopulated environment, searching for food, finding none, starving to death or dying of disease in a weakened state? There are only so much humans that can fit on this planet and if global warming is true, the carrying capacity could suddenly plummet.
None of that has a lot to do with the Whooping Crane, however, as it was man's fashion tastes that hurt their numbers a century ago. Were it not for lady's hats, they'd probably be a game species with all the benefits of game regulation today, just like their cousins the Sandhills.
My opinion remains that unrestricted human population growth is the root of most environmental problems. The more humans there are on the planet, the more they consume, and not just food, but energy resources, and the more impact they have on their environment. Limit human populations to reasonable numbers and the earth can handle the stress. It don't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out. It's really pretty simple. What is so onerous about limiting human natality rates? I could be done, it should be done, but no one has the will to do it. It's a political thing, I reckon. Do you want to be a rabbit in an overpopulated environment, searching for food, finding none, starving to death or dying of disease in a weakened state? There are only so much humans that can fit on this planet and if global warming is true, the carrying capacity could suddenly plummet.
None of that has a lot to do with the Whooping Crane, however, as it was man's fashion tastes that hurt their numbers a century ago. Were it not for lady's hats, they'd probably be a game species with all the benefits of game regulation today, just like their cousins the Sandhills.
javacodeman
Member
MCgunner,
No insult was intended. My apologies if any were taken. I know what you mean about the rabbit population. In DE we called it the absence of an equilibrium state.
Good luck with the whooper. Don't send any to my property either.
java
No insult was intended. My apologies if any were taken. I know what you mean about the rabbit population. In DE we called it the absence of an equilibrium state.
Good luck with the whooper. Don't send any to my property either.
java
MCgunner
Art
-----------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Right, all the angles have to be weighed. Which is why I asked the questions, and seek to hear everyones' justifications concerned. Don't be shy
Art
I'll buy that for a dollar. No disagreement there.
-----------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
- Status