From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Sep 03 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!search01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: jlboone@aol.com (JLBoone) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: What's the doubling rate? Date: 4 Sep 1994 11:05:03 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 5 Sender: news@search01.news.aol.com Message-ID: <34cnmv$5bo@search01.news.aol.com> References: <32nohd$g38@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: search01.news.aol.com A rough estimate of the "doubling time" is 72/(growth rate). For example, if the growth rate is 2% per year, then it takes about 72/2 = 36 years for the population to double in size. This works for your bank account too. Hope it helps, Jim From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Sep 03 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!cobra.uni.edu!campbell From: campbell@cobra.uni.edu Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: What's the doubling rate? Message-ID: <1994Sep4.120029.31532@cobra.uni.edu> Date: 4 Sep 94 12:00:29 -0500 References: <32nohd$g38@netnews.upenn.edu> <34cnmv$5bo@search01.news.aol.com> Organization: University of Northern Iowa Lines: 14 In article <34cnmv$5bo@search01.news.aol.com>, jlboone@aol.com (JLBoone) writes: > A rough estimate of the "doubling time" is 72/(growth rate). For example, > if the growth rate is 2% per year, then it takes about 72/2 = 36 years for > the population to double in size. This works for your bank account too. > > Hope it helps, Jim The general rule of thumb is to divide the interest rate into 69 (the natural logarithm of 2 is .693147...). Since one has annual growth rates instead of continuous compounding, the time will be somewhat greater, but I would be interested in knowing where the number 72 comes from. R. Campbell From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Sep 05 23:00:00 1994 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio From: AGADJANIAN@arout.demon.co.uk (AGADJANIAN AROUTIOUN) Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!news.sprintlink.net!demon!arout.demon.co.uk!AGADJANIAN Subject: Possibility of regulation of Drosophila population growth Organization: COMMERCIAL INTRODUCTIONS Ltd Reply-To: AGADJANIAN@arout.demon.co.uk X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29 Lines: 31 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 21:10:35 +0000 Message-ID: <778885835snz@arout.demon.co.uk> Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk Who might be interested in such investigations? I am a medical doctor recently moved in UK from the former USSR where simultaneously with my job as a physician I have been engaged in scientific research in the field of population biology. Our group of scientists was carring out investigations on mechanisms of surviving of biological species when unfavourable factor leading to destruction of individuals of the species occurs. One of the fields of our investigations was Drosophila population ecology. Series of experiments have been carried out by specialists in one of research institutions of scientific centre in Novosibirsk, Russia aimed to investigate possibility of regulation of reproduction rate. The preliminary results of the experiments were very interesting. We could obtain predicted increase of reproduction rate in experimental groups of insects in comparison with control groups without an application of any physical or chemical stimulators. The conditions in the experimental and control groups ( structure, food, space, temperature, etc.) were completely equal. Unfortunately, these investigations like many others in the former Soviet Union have not been completed. We are looking for scientists or scientific institutions that might be interested in such investigations. Dr Aroutioun Agadjanian 20 Onslow Gardens Muswell Hill London N10 3JU UK Tel/Fax 081 883 1183 Email: agadjanian@arout.demon.co.uk -- From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Sep 06 23:00:00 1994 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Path: biosci!galaxy.ucr.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!mcassidy From: mcassidy@netcom.com (Michael Cassidy) Subject: where's the UN document cairo Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 21:42:35 GMT Lines: 5 I'm new. Can anyone tell me how to find the document everyone is talking about in Cairo? thanks very much From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Sep 08 23:00:00 1994 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!mcassidy From: mcassidy@netcom.com (Michael Cassidy) Subject: Info on population conf Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 18:05:22 GMT Lines: 8 For info about the Population conference in Cairo, including documents, news releases, and government statements: gopher gopher.igc.apc.org Thanks to a fellow WELLbeing, who heard this mentioned on the radio. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Sep 09 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!CC.UManitoba.CA!gordonr From: gordonr@CC.UManitoba.CA (Richard Gordon) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: A "Modest" Proposal to control human population with viruses Date: 9 Sep 1994 23:36:08 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 37 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <199409100133.SAA01975@jobe.shell.portal.com> Reply-To: Richard Gordon NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Dear nobody, We've had enough of clandestine groups, be they military, secret service, inernational corporations, drug cartels, oil cartels, etc., trying to rule the world for their benefit. People are not mere scalars in a population biologist's formula for population growth. We all bear responsibility for our numbers, and those who understand the finiteness of the earth know that we will have to consider difficult solutions, or react to the thrust of events. These solutions might even include yours, which has been around in one form or another for decades. But, in the growing democratization of the world, people who hide as they play megalomania games, like you, are slowly being brought under control. Now, if you want to participate in a sensible discussion of your option, do your homework and produce the scientific literature on the attempts, successes, and failures, of the control of rabbits in Australia, especially by viruses. Do you know about RNA virus quasispecies, and their ability to mutate at a maximal rate, just below a threshold that would lead them to extinction? What are the consequences of unleashing such a virus (HIV is in this class)? Could it mutate to a harmful form? Could it mutate to infect other species? You see, your very proposal, presented in its secretive manner as if it were a trivial matter, if only someone would have the guts to do it, may bear the "seeds of its own destruction". So come forth, produce a realistic model for your proposal, and let's see if there is anything to it. Then we can make the moral decision, if you're not just full of hot air. Best regards, -Dick Gordon[Sep10,94] Dr. Richard Gordon Professor, Department Of Radiology, University of Manitoba Room ON104, Health Sciences Centre, 820 Sherbrook Street Winnipeg, MB R3A 1R9 Canada Phone: (204) 787-1076, Fax: (204) 783-8565, E-mail: GordonR@cc.UManitoba.ca From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Sep 09 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!sundog.tiac.net!news.sprintlink.net!demon!shell.portal.com!nobody Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,alt.privacy.anon-server From: nobody@shell.portal.com (nobody) Comments: This message is NOT from the person listed in the From line. It is from an automated software remailing service operating at that address. Please report problem mail to . Subject: A Modest Proposal Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 11:33:25 +0000 Message-ID: <199409100133.SAA01975@jobe.shell.portal.com> Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk Lines: 57 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:710 alt.privacy.anon-server:756 The biggest problem facing the world today is the population explosion. The events at the Cairo summit prove (if any proof was needed) that voluntary means will never suffice to reduce the population growth to a sustainable level. Unless something radical is done, the quality of life will be drastically reduced for everyone alove on Earth within twenty years (it is already bad for a most people alive today). Neither world-wide war nor any epedimic like those of the past will suffice to reduce the population sufficiently. These phenomena are likey to happen, but they can only be viewed as symptoms of the problem, not as the cure. But here is a proposal. The idea is based on an article in the news about a year ago -- that researchers in Australia were trying to develop a genetically engineered virus that would be rapidly spread among rabbits, and which would sterilize the females, but would not kill them. Mathematical models show that this would lead to enormous reductions in the rabbit population within a few generations, and would not be as quickly evaded by genetic adaptation as the type of virus that kills or disables its host. My proposal is to apply this technology to the human species. It could be viewed as a form of involuntary birth control. No one would be injured, and the advantages would begin to accrue within less than a generation, as resources were freed up that would have gone into raising children. It would have great advantages over all other realistic scenarios for the reduction of population. The development of this technology would require the coordinated efforts of a small number of people well equipped and trained in the relevant disciplines. It would probably have to be carried put in secret. I propose that we try to assemble a group of people able and willing to do this sort of thing by establishing a trusted network via encrypted and anonymized email and newsgroup discussions. The first important discussion is how to organize such a group in such a way that everyone's personal safety is maintained, but still allowing the necessary exchange of technical results. This topic is relevant as a theoretical application of cypherpunk technology, so I am crossposting to some of the cypherpunk groups, such alt.privacy.anon-server. Please respond publicly in the newsgroups; you may want to do so anonymously. You can respond privately to the sender by posting a PGP encrypted reply in alt.anonymous.messages. Here is the public key: -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6ui mQBPAi5wj5cAAAECANqM1s+FTT8YDZ8AELAnDzwUN5ycdyQD5yAs1MOPs4cU8EqL LIxzhg2HXW+R5c44uwUN8IiEHiFqcbcUaUJVZLUAEQEAAbQSQmlvbG9naWNhbCBD b250cm9s =xmRY -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Sep 09 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!sundog.tiac.net!usenet.elf.com!rpi!ghost.dsi.unimi.it!univ-lyon1.fr!jussieu.fr!nef.ens.fr!oko!borcic From: borcic@ens.fr (Drazen BORCIC) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal Date: 10 Sep 1994 22:36:34 GMT Organization: Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris, France Lines: 27 Distribution: world Message-ID: <34tcdi$ktj@nef.ens.fr> References: <199409100133.SAA01975@jobe.shell.portal.com> Reply-To: borcic@ens.fr NNTP-Posting-Host: oko.ens.fr Keywords: none This proposal seemed to me anything but modest. It looks much like many ideas I can here these days from people apparently living in another (often scientists) world. First, who are you or anybody else who is going to impose such a thing to the rest of the planet? Are you going to infect yourself or ask your wife to let herself be infected. You don't want to have children? Second, the australian rabbit case is just the worst one you could choose. There are still many rabbits out there doing quite well. Third, and how you imagine controlling the virus? People belived they knew how to deal with rabbits when introducing them in Australia. Now we know that we are unable to deal with much easier-to-handle stuff so a virus seems to be really the best thing for either reducing the population to 0 or to do nothing but much harm at short term. Fourth and last remark; we don't wont the global population to in- crease any further, some may feel it would be better to decline (I do), but, we still do need to reproduce. Bye Drazen Borcic Laboratoire d'Ecologie Ecole Normale Superieure Paris-France From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Sep 09 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!CHUMA.CAS.USF.EDU!karl From: karl@CHUMA.CAS.USF.EDU ("Stephen A. Karl") Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: A modest responce Date: 10 Sep 1994 12:51:35 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 34 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: Reply-To: "Stephen A. Karl" NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net The proposal to counter world population growth by employing technology initially proposed for rabbits (Fri, 9 Sep 1994 11:33:25 +0000 - To: population-biology@net.bio.net) is truly a "modest proposal" (and NO the literary allusion was not lost!). The current population summit is providing indication that the goal of a world consensus on population control is difficult if not absurd. However, this current "modest proposal" is characteristic of the misogynistic attitudes that are the root cause of the continued population increase. Fortunately, the WHO committee has correctly identified the empowerment of women as a more effective and lasting means to controlling unrestricted (read - male forced and controlled) reproduction. Equally insipid is the undoubtedly, white, western imperialistic nature of such an action. Given the above, we can dispense with the more mundane practical aspects such as the effectiveness of such a proposal. Anyone remember what the outcome of the Australian "control" plan actually was?! Not willing to be anonymous, Stephen Karl Dr. Stephen Karl Department of Biology University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Ave, LIF 169 Tampa, Florida 33620-5150 EMail Karl@.chuma.cas.usf.edu From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Sep 09 23:00:00 1994 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,alt.privacy.anon-server Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!festival!leeds.ac.uk!news From: malcolm@geog.leeds.ac.uk (Malcolm McMahon) Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal Message-ID: <1994Sep10.165919.9984@leeds.ac.uk> Sender: news@leeds.ac.uk Organization: University of Leeds, England Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 17:59:18 +0100 (BST) References: <199409100133.SAA01975@jobe.shell.portal.com> Lines: 19 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:713 alt.privacy.anon-server:758 In article <199409100133.SAA01975@jobe.shell.portal.com>, nobody wrote: > >But here is a proposal. The idea is based on an article in the news about >a year ago -- that researchers in Australia were trying to develop a >genetically engineered virus that would be rapidly spread among rabbits, >and which would sterilize the females, but would not kill them. Nature seems to be ahead of you. Male fertility has been steadilly declining, possibly due to eastrogen mimicing polutants. The only snag is that not just haumans are affected. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Malcolm McMahon - views expressed do not necessarilly represent the unanimous view of all parts of my mind. I love the smell of rats - | See the happy moron! / He doesn't give a damn (Feynman) | I wish I were a moron / My God! Perhaps I am From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Sep 10 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!eunet.no!nuug!EU.net!uunet!nmmc!demon!jpunix.com!nobody Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio From: nobody@jpunix.com (nobody) Remailed-By: remailer@jpunix.com Complaints-To: postmaster@jpunix.com Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 21:44:16 +0000 Message-ID: <199409110817.DAA03424@jpunix.com> Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk Lines: 163 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I'm responding to several responses in bulk because it is a chore to create the necessary chains of anonymous encryption. On the subject of encryption techology, I am using PGP to digitally sign this message and all future ones so that you can be confident that I am the same anonymous person who posted the first message on Sept. 9. The signature will be found at the end of the message and can be verified by using PGP2.6, widely available on the net. By the way, I neglected in my previous post to mention that private PGP encrypted replies via alt.anonymous.messages should include in their subject line the word "biocon" so that I can easily recognize the messages intended for me. Here's the public key again: - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6ui mQBPAi5wj5cAAAECANqM1s+FTT8YDZ8AELAnDzwUN5ycdyQD5yAs1MOPs4cU8EqL LIxzhg2HXW+R5c44uwUN8IiEHiFqcbcUaUJVZLUAEQEAAbQSQmlvbG9naWNhbCBD b250cm9s =xmRY - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- >But, in the growing democratization of the world, people who hide as they >play megalomania games, like you, are slowly being brought under control. Not at all. I of course am not aiming at controlling the world, merely at making it a better place. As for democracy, it's a sham behind which hide the most inhumane manipulations of people ever imagined, via the inculcation of desire for consumer goods by use of the media and of deprival of access to natural resources. Of course, excess population both enables and, in a strange paradox, requires such measures. You might ask what I would propose to put in the place of democracy, and I have an answer for that (not the only possible answer, but mine, for what it is worth) which I will go into detail about elsewhere, but I will summarize by saying that the hunting-gathering form of existence is the Eden which in the Bible it is said that humanity was cast out of, as a result of trying to abuse knowledge. As for "being brought under control" the question is complicated. It is true that the trend toward the world-hive is accelerating ("The New World Order" is a typical jingoist phrase of this tendency). In 1994, Orwell does not seem as far-fetched as he once did. But on the other hand, there is a VERY SIGNIFICANT underground anti-control movement, typified by the cypherpunks (for example), and by the clandestine program I am trying to inaugurate. Interestingly, the enabling technology for this is largely the same consumer and military technology that is also being used to enable the world-hive. An example: it is probable that the untraceable electronic exchange of information, primarily video recorders and fax machines, greatly accelerated the destruction of the soviet "evil empire." >Now, if you want to participate in a sensible discussion of your option, >do your homework and produce the scientific literature on the attempts, >successes, and failures, of the control of rabbits in Australia, >especially by viruses. I'm not an expert, but I'll try (my expertise is in computer and communication technology, but I do read most of the biotech articles in Science magazine each week). It is true that rabbits were an introduced species in Australia that got out of control. Whether this category applies to Homo "Sapiens" is an interesting philosophical question. Be that as it may, The first attempt to control rabbits by viruses was with a natural virus, myxomatosis. At first it was an astonishing success, decimating the rabbit population overnight. Within a few generation, the rabbit and myxomatosis worked out one of those inevitable evolutionary compromises and found a way to coexist, and the rabbits rebounded, becoming a pest again. The program to genetically engineer a new virus to renew the attack is as far as I am aware still in the research phase. If the Earth were relieved of the large part of its human burden for only a few generations, I would regard that as an enormous boon for mankind; when the population expanded again, there would be time to come up with another solution. But I do still believe in not causing suffering unnecessarily. That is why a sterilizing virus is a much better idea than a killing virus. The attack could plausibly be immunological, by integrating a gene for a simulated antigen that would cause the host to attack some component of its own reproductive system. >Do you know about RNA virus quasispecies, and their >ability to mutate at a maximal rate, just below a threshold that would >lead them to extinction? What are the consequences of unleashing such a >virus (HIV is in this class)? >Could it mutate to a harmful form? Could it >mutate to infect other species? Yes I know. I'm proposing a virus, derived probably from something like influenza or a common rhinovirus rather than something like HIV. Much safer, though careful consideration to various scenarios is an important part of the discussion I would like to see take place. But there can never be a guarantee of absolute safety. What there is now is a guarantee of absolute disaster if something like this is not done. It's a question perhaps of radical therapy for advanced terminal cancer. However, species are enormously adaptive. The black plague only killed about a third of the people in Europe; and even at that, social and economic conditions improved significantly in its aftermath, temporarily interrupting an era that had features reminiscent of our own, with widespread ecological destuction, an energy crisis, an explosion of overt corruption in government, decay of social institutions, etc. Even the multiple epedemiological assault of European populations upon the New World only destroyed about 90 percent of the population, and it is estimated that indigenous races in the Americas now are perhaps nearly as populous as they were in pre-columbian times (though much unhappier). A certain percentage of people always prove resistant to any disease. This is why there is almost no danger that the proposed intervention would wipe out the human race. >Nature seems to be ahead of you. Male fertility has been steadilly >declining, possibly due to eastrogen mimicing polutants. The only snag >is that not just haumans are affected. This also is a deleterious effect of overpopulation, but a minor one as far as human population growth is concerned -- even taking it into account, the population bomb is already exploding. > First, who are you or anybody else who is going to impose such a >thing to the rest of the planet? Are you going to infect yourself or ask >your wife to let herself be infected. You don't want to have children? The ethical question is one of necessity, not choice. > Second, the australian rabbit case is just the worst one you could >choose. There are still many rabbits out there doing quite well. > Third, and how you imagine controlling the virus? People belived >they knew how to deal with rabbits when introducing them in Australia. Now >we know that we are unable to deal with much easier-to-handle stuff so a >virus seems to be really the best thing for either reducing the population >to 0 or to do nothing but much harm at short term. > Fourth and last remark; we don't wont the global population to in- >crease any further, some may feel it would be better to decline (I do), but, >we still do need to reproduce. Humans would do just fine also. Nature would control the virus, as it did with the rabbits. Of course, medical science would not stand by idle, and might well find a way to reduce the effect of the virus -- but hopefully not before it had achieved significant reduction in fertility. The population growth would be temporarily slowed, not permanently stopped. >misogyny No. It's simple biology. If only males were affected, those few males that resisted the virus could still and probably would fertilize all the fertile females in the world. But I am not prejudiced, it would be OK if the virus sterilized males as well as females. However, it's probably easier to engineer it to affect just one gender. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6ui iQBVAgUBLnK9UnG3FGlCVWS1AQGEjQH/T0CViATybJNRtWHolbmU2XbTiPoeWmwO xRWXGO9a0ijklCslW/Jq4B9rSTH3vQuJbpbR2N5JFHm5t9zKCpSOWg== =q+D4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Sep 10 23:00:00 1994 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,alt.privacy.anon-server Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gumby!yale!news2.near.net!wellesley.edu!marcie.wellesley.edu!jbeckert From: jbeckert@marcie.wellesley.edu Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal Message-ID: <10SEP94.23471995@marcie.wellesley.edu> Sender: news@olaf.wellesley.edu (USENET News System) Nntp-Posting-Host: marcie.wellesley.edu Organization: WELLESLEY COLLEGE References: <199409100133.SAA01975@jobe.shell.portal.com> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 23:47:19 GMT Lines: 4 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:716 alt.privacy.anon-server:761 Dear Nobody; How about you guys just keep your zippers up. Or maybe you can come up with something to sterilize the males of the population. //Janine. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Sep 10 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!HUGO.FSUFAY.EDU!dhaas From: dhaas@HUGO.FSUFAY.EDU Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: A Modest Proposal ?? Date: 11 Sep 1994 12:50:22 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 57 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <94091115494051@hugo.fsufay.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Five point five billion and rising. Anyone who can predict what will happen if you kill off a certain percent of the human population is an all knowing God. Some may say that if we do it now it will be better than if it happens later. So if you cause a population crash from 5.5 billion to 1.8 billion will this be better than what may happen "naturally"? I'm not smart enuf to make any predictions. The one prediction I believe is accurate is that when something happens it probably wasn't predicted but upon hindsight it should have been. If or when we have a world catastrophe it may be caused by a man made virus, a natural agent, mass starvation, a comet fragment, climatic change, pollution, a super nova, or e. none of the above. One thing for sure the human population will NOT increase to infinity. I have heard that the earth theoretically could support something like 60 billion humans if all arable land was utilized (Asimov I think). This would of course be at the expense of many higher plant and animal species. The question is: Is it really possible and if it is - is this what WE want? But then who is WE? or is WE them or us? |-) The 60 billion scenario may be supported by those that point out that every time shortages are predicted humans come up with some technological solution. The problem is that despite infinite optimism the earth and human intellect is finite. In fact by solving problems and allowing greater population and complexity to develop - when the insoluble problem occurs the crash will be worse than if we had done nothing. Is it already too late? The complexity of the modern world is rather extensive. If one third or more of the population were killed off would all countries be affected equally? How would 3rd world countries fare compared to the more technologically advanced countries? What would happen to world trade? Would oil still flow? Would some countries take advantage of the situation? Where would we bury all the bodies in a large city? Were talking 3,000,000 or more in some cities. What about .... Does anyone wish to comment? Dave =========================================================================== Dave Haas dhaas@hugo.fsufay.edu () Department of Natural Sciences (()) Fayetteville State University ((())) Fayetteville NC, 28301 USA (((()))) ===========================================||============================== From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Sep 10 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!umn.edu!newsdist.tc.umn.edu!urvile.msus.edu!TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU!DEGROOTE From: degroote@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU (David DeGroote) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: sloppy evolution terminology Date: 10 Sep 1994 23:59:24 GMT Organization: ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY, ST. CLOUD, MN Lines: 6 Message-ID: <34th8s$rj3@urvile.MSUS.EDU> Reply-To: degroote@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU NNTP-Posting-Host: tigger.stcloud.msus.edu Thank you Dr. Laird--I have been trying to get this point across. It would appear that high schools use sloppy terminology and student frequently have difficulty with this concept. It causes great difficulty with respect to understanding the forces which drive the evolutionary process. David DeGrotoe David DeGroote (I can' type either) From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Sep 10 23:00:00 1994 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!leeds.ac.uk!news From: malcolm@geog.leeds.ac.uk (Malcolm McMahon) Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal Message-ID: <1994Sep11.084444.4039@leeds.ac.uk> Sender: news@leeds.ac.uk Organization: University of Leeds, England Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 09:44:44 +0100 (BST) References: <199409100133.SAA01975@jobe.shell.portal.com> <10SEP94.23471995@marcie.wellesley.edu> Lines: 22 In article <10SEP94.23471995@marcie.wellesley.edu>, wrote: >Dear Nobody; >How about you guys just keep your zippers up. Or maybe you can come up >with something to sterilize the males of the population. >//Janine. Us males are not of much reproductive importance when you get down to it. One fertile male will do for an almost unlimited number of females. Why do you think society is set up so that men do all the risky things like war, hunting, politics (appart, of course, from the risks of childbirth)? Malcolm From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Sep 10 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!ACC.WUACC.EDU!zzdecell From: zzdecell@ACC.WUACC.EDU (decelles paul) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal Date: 11 Sep 1994 13:06:02 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 30 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <199409110817.DAA03424@jpunix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net aside from the obvious ethical and moral considerations in your arguements, what you propose sounds like the flip side of the anti-environmentalist stance of george bush and company who argue that the market-place will by blind forces deal with environmental problems. you're replacing these economic forces with evolution. george bush and company are willing to gamble that our technology driven by the engine of capitism will solve our problems before they become excessive. you likewise want to rely on a quick technological fix coupled with the action of natural selection to a) lower our population and yet b) stop the process or at least allow us and a virus to coadapt thus leading us into somekind of hunter gatherer paradise. i hate to tell you this, in the same way that pure capitalism won't solve environmental problems, i don't think we should gamble on the even more iffy mix of technological and evolutionary fixes you seem to propose. our technological history is replete with quick fixes gone awry as an ecologist will tell you. at the same time please be aware i worry but where we are at to. i happen not to be as pessimistic as you seem to be and think that the cairo conference has gone much better than it seems in the press. i can't by the way imagine cyberpunks buying into your scheme. the point of the cyberpunk movement is or at least seems to be in part to work toward a decentralisation of computer technology of which this web's apretty good example. please continue this discussion and i hope you come out in the open; cryptic communication certainly isn't appropriate for discussing these ideas. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Sep 11 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!CROOM.SYD.DAH.CSIRO.AU!dobson From: dobson@CROOM.SYD.DAH.CSIRO.AU ("Robert Dobson") Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: nobody's Modest Proposal Date: 11 Sep 1994 17:49:21 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 10 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <2764.dobson@croom.syd.dah.csiro.au_POPMail.PC_3.2.3_Beta_2> Reply-To: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net The place for anonymous mail is in the trash. CSIRO Div. of Animal Health Dr. Robert DOBSON Pvt. Bag No 1, P O Glebe 2037, Australia Phone : 61 2 6604411 Fax : 61 2 6928561 Email : dobson@syd.dah.csiro.au DISCLAIMER: CSIRO is a LINE managed organisation & as such anything in the above found to be libellous, in bad taste or a breach of copyright is the responsibility of management & redress can be obtained through the Project Leader, the Program Manager, the Chief, the Institute Director, the Chief Executive, the Prime Minister ... just DONT BOTHER ME, OK? From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Sep 11 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!ddsw1!redstone.interpath.net!news.sprintlink.net!indirect.com!slip237.indirect.com!raphael From: raphael@indirect.com (Raphael Carter) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 22:23:21 Organization: Excluded Middle Incorporate Lines: 27 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <199409100133.SAA01975@jobe.shell.portal.com> <34tcdi$ktj@nef.ens.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: slip237.indirect.com Keywords: none X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] In article <34tcdi$ktj@nef.ens.fr> borcic@ens.fr (Drazen BORCIC) writes: > This proposal seemed to me anything but modest. It looks much like >many ideas I can here these days from people apparently living in another >(often scientists) world. I notice that many respondents in this thread are from elsewhere than the English-speaking world, and I daresay their knowledge of British writing may be as sketchy as mine of their various national literatures. So: "A Modest Proposal," from which this article took its title, is a darkly satirical essay by Jonathan Swift suggesting that the poor solve their problems by selling their children to be eaten by the upper classes. Obviously Swift did not think they should do any such thing; he was making a point about indifference to poverty, as well as dramatizing the situation. I suspect that the intentions of the author of this particular "Modest Proposal" were along roughly similar lines -- unless, of course, this was some peculiar backhanded attempt to smear cypherpunks. -- ===== Raphael Carter | raphael@indirect.com | pre-operative Minnesotan ===== ===== For Darmok Dictionary, Sonnets on Science, and PGP key, use URL: ===== home ================== Reading: Anne Somerset, ELIZABETH I ===================== From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Sep 11 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!ACC.WUACC.EDU!zzdecell From: zzdecell@ACC.WUACC.EDU (decelles paul) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal ?? Date: 11 Sep 1994 20:08:29 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 11 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <94091115494051@hugo.fsufay.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net your probably right about the crash being worse because we have solved quote unquote or problems as they come up. we react to problems rather than try to anticipate them. i don't think its too late to avoid the big crash but i think we'll end up doing quite a bit more damage to both terrestrial and aqutic ecosystems before we are done. we need a long term (50 year) change over to sustainable economies and we may find ourselves having to make some very uncomfortable economic decisions about our standard of living. i think it's doable but given human nature and the tendency of people to want quick simple answers i don't know if we can adapt culturally in time. we all and that includes you and i as well as mr. nobody have to remember the empirical law of unintended consequenses. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Sep 11 23:00:00 1994 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,alt.privacy.anon-server Path: biosci!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!tcmay From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal Message-ID: Followup-To: bionet.population-bio,alt.privacy.anon-server Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] References: <199409100133.SAA01975@jobe.shell.portal.com> <10SEP94.23471995@marcie.wellesley.edu> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 01:27:53 GMT Lines: 18 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:723 alt.privacy.anon-server:766 jbeckert@marcie.wellesley.edu wrote: : Dear Nobody; : How about you guys just keep your zippers up. Or maybe you can come up : with something to sterilize the males of the population. : //Janine. Turns out not to have too much effect. With cats, for example, spaying females is much more effecive than neutering males. People are not cats, granted, but it's important to remember where the rate-limiting step is. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway." From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Sep 11 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!daresbury!not-for-mail From: mlpenna@cr-df.rnp.br (CENEPI - Maria Lucia Fernandes Penna) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: subscription Date: 12 Sep 1994 16:14:33 +0100 Lines: 2 Sender: lpddist@mserv1.dl.ac.uk Distribution: bionet Message-ID: <351r8p$gne@mserv1.dl.ac.uk> Original-To: pop-bio@dl.ac.uk Subscribe me POP_BIO Lucia Penna From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Sep 11 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!daresbury!trane.uninett.no!sunic!pipex!demon!jpunix.com!nobody Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio From: nobody@jpunix.com (Anonymous) Comments: This message did not originate from the above address. It was automatically remailed by an anonymous mail service. Please report inappropriate use to postmaster@jpunix.com Subject: A Modest Proposal Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 11:28:24 +0000 Message-ID: <199409122128.QAA20208@jpunix.com> Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk Lines: 25 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I notice in the Sept. 2 issue of Science, p. 1358, that the all-powerful USDA has just approved the first category III live virus vaccine, for use in chickens. Category III is for live vaccines modified by the addition of foreign genes. The development started with the fowlpox virus, from which they deleted genes that enable it to cause disease. Then they inserted genes that produce antigens of the newcastle disease organism, resulting in stimulation of host immunity. This is a direct model of the technique I proposed, to create a human virus that would immunologically inhibit human reproduction. The only difference is that my virus would be engineered to spread naturally, probably as a minor respiratory infection. It also shows that after due consideration, it is possible to be confident about the safety of live viruses. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6ui iQBVAgUBLnQ2SXG3FGlCVWS1AQEQdAH+LulyrwzGuNsBxdRtg/WFRme7iYpmQu9J Ouq2IRK4yYVqEDSWTEyVnZxL4h0CVkkDr3/C72uYO8uwECmlAnZvgQ== =9K8s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Sep 12 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!daresbury!trane.uninett.no!eunet.no!nuug!EU.net!uunet!george.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!compuserve.com!news From: Glenn P. <74127.1457@CompuServe.COM> Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,alt.privacy.anon-server Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal Date: 13 Sep 1994 08:17:51 GMT Organization: via CompuServe Information Service Lines: 9 Message-ID: <353n7f$at2$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com> References: <199409100133.SAA01975@jobe.shell.portal.com> Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:728 alt.privacy.anon-server:774 Mr. Chairman, I rise to a Point of Order! I raise the Point of Order that the prvious speaker has not confined himself to the topic under discussion; namely, anonymous remailers... I ask the Chair for a Ruling! ----- -- Glenn P. CompuServe User I.D.: 74127,01457 INTERNET: 74127.01457@CompuServe.COM From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Sep 12 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!CARINS.CARIBOO.BC.CA!MASMITH From: MASMITH@CARINS.CARIBOO.BC.CA ("DNA:THE SPLICE OF LIFE") Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: a Modest proposal Date: 13 Sep 1994 12:05:12 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 119 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <940913120939.20401826@carins.cariboo.bc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Assuming for the moment that Mr. nobody presented his proposal as a serious solution to the problem of a burgeoning human population (not withstanding the obvious reference to Johnathon Swift), his "solution" has two components that should be discussed (see below for an abbreviated version of his proposal). These two components are 1) the causes of the population explosion and 2) the solutions. These two components are not independent. Understanding the causes should suggest workable solutions. Humans are the product of evolutionary forces just like any other living organism and as such engage in behaviors that have been evolutionarily successful in the past. One of the most obvious and relevant to this discussion is reproduction. Humans are very sexual beings and reproduce, it seems, at every opportunity. In the past, a high reproductive rate was beneficial because of high mortality rates and other balancing forces such as predation by other organisms and limited resources. These forces kept populations in check. Over time, humans discovered/invented agriculture and weapons/tools that lessened the danger of predation and starvation allowing human populations to increase. Modern medicine is another example of technological advances that further reduced infant mortality and increased our average lifespan. These advances, that are now part of the cultural fabric of the western world, circumvent the need for high birth rates and in fact are part of the cause for the rapidly expanding population. However, these advances are relatively recent and it is naive to believe that mere awareness will motivate individuals to do something for the good of the human species, let alone the good of other species. In this respect I tend to agree with Mr. nobody. Proposals to voluntarily limit family sizes will probably not work. However, the Western world does provide an important example and perhaps a potential solution to excessive birth rates in the third world. The Western world has had over a century to adjust to the benefits and consequences of modern medicine. The knowledge that a child will probably grow to adulthood decreases the need for families to hedge their bets and have many offspring in the hopes that one or two will survive to pass on the family name. The Western world was there (so to speak) as these advances were made and the birth rate gradually decreased to a rate that is slightly less that the rate needed for simple replacement (If I'm remembering correctly, approx 1.8 children/ family). The third world, where the birth rates are the highest, have received the final product of our advances. That is, they received the benefits of modern medicine without the gradual education of the population. +As such many families in the third world still have many children, a behavior that in the past produce one or two adult offspring, but none of the infant mortality. These cultures are basically operating under outdated assumptions. Another, important factor is that in developing nations large families are often the only way adults had to ensure they are cared for when they are old and could no longer contribute to the hard labor of subsistence farming etc. Large families ensured that they had someone to support them when they are older. They don't have RRSP's and stock options to ensure they have the necessary resources after they can no longer work in the fields or perform other laborious tasks. The solution to over population depends on educating the families in these developing nations to let them know that their children will not die and provide them with the financial tools (such as higher paying jobs and surplus monetary resources that can be sequestered away for later life) to make the need for large families unnecessary. It depends on teaching them the values of K-selection over r-selection :). The solution to over population depends upon understanding human psychology and the motivations people have for reproducing not on the introduction of some indiscriminate virus that sterilizes one sex or the other. Techniques such as developing selective virii (sp?) will not work for any number of sound evolutionary reasons. I think we are all aware of the dangers of depleting the heterozygosity of a gene pool. A virus that sterilizes all but a few members of one sex sharply decreases the amount of possible variations and increases the chances of deleterious homozygous genes becoming fixed in the population. Also, it will probably produce very serious sexual conflicts as the larger population (of either sex) competes for the limited numbers of members from of opposite sex. Given the tenuous balance between the reproductive goals of the sexes, this could be catastrophic. Assuming Mr. nobody's goals are honorable (a point to which I can not attest) and he truly wishes to develop a virus that affected only the reproductive machinery of humans, there are several pragmatic problems. The length of time to develop such a virus would be immense. A case in point is the HIV virus. The scientific community was been handed vast sums of money over the last ten years or so and their understanding of the HIV functions is still minimal. Sure they can detect it but they have no idea how to stop it. We still only have a rudimentary understanding of how this virus functions. To suggest we develop an designer virus requires that we have a complete understanding of various foreseeable consequences. Something that would take decades, if you are being responsible. Using that time frame it would be far simpler and much less expensive to to use our current knowledge of human psychology and adapt it in such a way to achieve the same end. It is a classic case of evolutionary reasoning- use what you have to solve a new demanding challenge- combined with an ethical responsibility that allows individuals to make their own decisions and may provide a solution more rapidly than the solution you propose (if the goal is is truly humanitarian). There are other issues that bear on the points I've raised but perhaps I should save them for later discussions and save bandwidth, not that I've done that here:). mike +From: SMTP%"nobody@shell.portal.com" 9-SEP-1994 20:22:43.57 +Subj: A Modest Proposal +The biggest problem facing the world today is the population explosion. +The events at the Cairo summit prove (if any proof was needed) that +voluntary means will never suffice to reduce the population growth to a +sustainable level. Unless something radical is done, the quality of life +will be drastically reduced for everyone alove on Earth within twenty years +(it is already bad for a most people alive today). + < Bits deleted > +My proposal is to apply this technology to the human species. It could be +viewed as a form of involuntary birth control. No one would be injured, +and the advantages would begin to accrue within less than a generation, as +resources were freed up that would have gone into raising children. It +would have great advantages over all other realistic scenarios for the +reduction of population. + ___________________________________________________________________ | Michael Smith: masmith@mickey.cariboo.bc.ca | Ph: (604) 371-5518 | | University College of the Cariboo | | | Psychology Dept | Fax:(604) 371-5697 | |_____________________________________________|____________________| From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Sep 12 23:00:00 1994 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,alt.privacy.anon-server Path: biosci!agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!mvb.saic.com!eskimo!quester From: quester@eskimo.com (Charles Bell) Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal Message-ID: Followup-To: bionet.population-bio,alt.privacy.anon-server Sender: news@eskimo.com (News User Id) Nntp-Posting-Host: eskimo.com Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] References: <199409100133.SAA01975@jobe.shell.portal.com> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 08:18:16 GMT Lines: 58 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:729 alt.privacy.anon-server:776 nobody (nobody@shell.portal.com) wrote: : The biggest problem facing the world today is the population explosion. : The events at the Cairo summit prove (if any proof was needed) that : voluntary means will never suffice to reduce the population growth to a : sustainable level. Unless something radical is done, the quality of life : will be drastically reduced for everyone alove on Earth within twenty years : (it is already bad for a most people alive today). : Neither world-wide war nor any epedimic like those of the past will : suffice to reduce the population sufficiently. These phenomena are likey : to happen, but they can only be viewed as symptoms of the problem, not as : the cure. : But here is a proposal. The idea is based on an article in the news about : a year ago -- that researchers in Australia were trying to develop a : genetically engineered virus that would be rapidly spread among rabbits, : and which would sterilize the females, but would not kill them. : Mathematical models show that this would lead to enormous reductions in : the rabbit population within a few generations, and would not be as : quickly evaded by genetic adaptation as the type of virus that kills or : disables its host. : My proposal is to apply this technology to the human species. It could be : viewed as a form of involuntary birth control. No one would be injured, : and the advantages would begin to accrue within less than a generation, as : resources were freed up that would have gone into raising children. It : would have great advantages over all other realistic scenarios for the : reduction of population. : The development of this technology would require the coordinated efforts of : a small number of people well equipped and trained in the relevant : disciplines. It would probably have to be carried put in secret. I : propose that we try to assemble a group of people able and willing to do : this sort of thing by establishing a trusted network via encrypted and : anonymized email and newsgroup discussions. : The first important discussion is how to organize such a group in such a : way that everyone's personal safety is maintained, but still allowing the : necessary exchange of technical results. This topic is relevant as a : theoretical application of cypherpunk technology, so I am crossposting to : some of the cypherpunk groups, such alt.privacy.anon-server. : Please respond publicly in the newsgroups; you may want to do so : anonymously. : You can respond privately to the sender by posting a PGP encrypted reply in : alt.anonymous.messages. Here is the public key: : -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- : Version: 2.6ui : mQBPAi5wj5cAAAECANqM1s+FTT8YDZ8AELAnDzwUN5ycdyQD5yAs1MOPs4cU8EqL : LIxzhg2HXW+R5c44uwUN8IiEHiFqcbcUaUJVZLUAEQEAAbQSQmlvbG9naWNhbCBD : b250cm9s : =xmRY : -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Sep 12 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!bcm!news.msfc.nasa.gov!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!sun.bdc.ubc.ca!nguyen From: nguyen@sun.bdc.ubc.ca (Thuan Nguyen) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: The Australian rabbit-control virus Date: 13 Sep 94 18:15:58 GMT Organization: Zoology, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 77 Message-ID: <354sln$c4q@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: sun.bcu.ubc.ca One of the researchers working on the Australian project to develop a rabbit "birth-control" virus visited the University of British Columbia last year and gave a seminar on the details of the project. His name is Hugh Tyndale-Biscoe and he works for an agency called CSIRO. (This is all from memory so it may not be 100% accurate). My immediate impression of Dr. Tyndale-Biscoe is that he was a concerned and responsible scientist. However, it seemed pretty obvious to me that the technology being applied to rabbits could quite easily be applied to humans. May be Michael Crichton will write a new "Andromeda" strain article using this idea. :-) At the time of the talk, Dr. Tyndale-Biscoe indicated that CSIRO didn't yet have permission from the Australian government to apply the virus. In fact, they hadn't completed the project yet. There were several facets to the problem of rabbit control. I'll describe them as best as I can from memory. Please bear in mind that I am not a molecular biologist. First, what exactly would this virus do? The idea that CSIRO was working on was to use the female rabbits' own immune system to attack rabbit sperm, so that all sperm would be killed before they can fertilize any eggs. They looked at several antigens on the surface of rabbit sperm cells and made antibodies against them. In vitro, the antibodies successfully bonded to the antigens on the sperm cells. The challenge, which is actually not all that difficult according to the researchers, is to genetically engineer a virus that would have these rabbit-sperm antigens on it's outer coat. If a rabbit survives the infection, it would develop its own antibodies against these antigens. Thus, any female rabbit that has this immunity would probably not conceive any young. Given that people can make such a virus, would this really keep the rabbits in check? The big question is how lethal to make the virus, and whether sterilizing female rabbits would really control the population. To address the latter question, they did some "field" experiments. They had experimental colonies of rabbits in which some of the females had been sterilized surgically and others were left alone. Only the dominant animals in a rabbit warren gets to mate, apparently, so the question is whether the sterile animal would eventually get to the top and stay there. The answer was yes. The sterilized female rabbits grew larger than the controls, because they were able to invest in their own growth while the control females expended energy on pregnancy. Once the sterile females were on top, they inhibited breeding in the colony. So now they know that this viral approach would have some inhibitory effect on the rabbit population. The next step is to figure out the best way to spread the virus, and how lethal to make the virus. There are several options, e.g. sexually transmitted viruses, insect-borne viruses, airborne, etc. Equally important is what to do about the foxes which have been introduced into Australia! Foxes are the major predator on rabbits, and they also eat a lot of small marsupials. If the rabbit population would suddenly decline, would the foxes increase their predation on the endangered native marsupials? It became clear to CSIRO that they would have to deal with the foxes too. Whether they will use the same viral technique is unclear. ---- The application of this technology to human reproduction isn't farfetched at all in my opinion. Perhaps it's not a question of "if" someone will do it, but more a matter of "when". What is particularly insidious about this particular approach is its racist implication. You see, the "sterilized" individuals aren't actually sterile. The eggs can be fertilized by sperm _in vitro_, away from the immune system. The fertilized embryo can be implanted in the mother again. If this type of virus were let loose today, many people in the richer countries would still be able to have children, but the poor peoples of most parts of the world will be de facto sterile. In a single generation, most of Africa, Latin America & Asia could be depopulated. The surprising thing about this is how little press it's gotten, and that no one had mentioned it in this newsgroup until now. Thuan From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Sep 13 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!mozz.unh.edu!christa.unh.edu!pcj From: pcj@christa.unh.edu (Paul C Johnson) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal Date: 14 Sep 1994 13:26:32 GMT Organization: University of New Hampshire - Durham, NH Lines: 9 Message-ID: <356tm8$7vp@mozz.unh.edu> References: <199409100133.SAA01975@jobe.shell.portal.com> <34tcdi$ktj@nef.ens.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: christa.unh.edu Keywords: none Suggested reading for those interested in "A Modest Proposal": Frank Herbert's The White Plague...it is a sci-fi novel that addresses this suggested solution to world population growth. -- Paul C. Johnson | "Be sure you're right, UNH Entomology | then look again!" Durham, NH 03824 | Phone: 603-862-1717 | John Henry Comstock From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Sep 13 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!selway.umt.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!Msu.oscs.montana.edu!uvsmr From: uvsmr@Msu.oscs.montana.edu (Matt Rognlie) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Confused about population data Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 10:33:41 Organization: Montana State University Lines: 14 Message-ID: <00984744.8D5F4900@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> Reply-To: uvsmr@Msu.oscs.montana.edu (Matt Rognlie) NNTP-Posting-Host: trex.oscs.montana.edu I think I must have missed something along the way. Could someone please send me (or post) a list of references describing the harmful effects of our current population or our current rate of population growth? I agree that the numbers themselves are startling, but am unsure of any documented data indicating harmful effects of such. I am not interested in merely politically- or distance-caused problems, but of actual numbers-caused problems. Thanks for your help! Matthew Rognlie | Veterinary Molecular Biology | uvsmr@trex.oscs.montana.edu Marsh Laboratories | phone: 406-994-6379 Montana State University | FAX: 406-994-4303 Bozeman, MT 59717-0360 | From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Sep 14 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!galaxy.ucr.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!uop!KBENNETT@vms1.cc.uop.edu From: kbennett@vms1.cc.uop.edu Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,alt.privacy.anon-server Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal Date: 15 Sep 1994 01:49:07 GMT Organization: University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA Lines: 10 Message-ID: <35896j$2f6@unix1.cc.uop.edu> References: <199409100133.SAA01975@jobe.shell.portal.com> Reply-To: kbennett@vms1.cc.uop.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: vms1.cc.uop.edu Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:735 alt.privacy.anon-server:787 I am shocked by this proposal of a genitically engineered virus to make women infertile. Have you ever read "The White Plague" by Frank Herbert. In the book, a madman creates a virus that only kills women. The result is utter chaos: governments try to quarantine areas of the world to fight the plague, millions of women die, no one trusts anyone else, it is a catastrophe. The result of this plague is the end of life as we know it, and the women who survive the plague have ultimate procreative power. Anyone who seriously considers creating a virus should read this book. Kendra Bennett From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Sep 14 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!ucsbuxb.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu!not-for-mail From: 6500mll@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Michael Lightstone) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Confused about population data Date: 14 Sep 1994 18:11:57 -0700 Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara Lines: 26 Message-ID: <35870t$a1j@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> References: <00984744.8D5F4900@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu In article <00984744.8D5F4900@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> uvsmr@Msu.oscs.montana.edu (Matt Rognlie) writes: >I think I must have missed something along the way. Could someone please send >me (or post) a list of references describing the harmful effects of our current >population or our current rate of population growth? I agree that the numbers >themselves are startling, but am unsure of any documented data indicating >harmful effects of such. I am not interested in merely politically- or >distance-caused problems, but of actual numbers-caused problems. Thanks for >your help! I have to agree with the doubts espoused by the author of the previous post. Very big numbers do not necessarily imply a very big problem, as the earth's population has been growing exponentially for some time. The shrieks of Armageddon from those who worshiped the recent population conference are very loud and echoed by many, despite the dearth of compelling evidence. It is trivial to acknowledge that there exists a finite limit to the worlds population. However, it is naive to think that this limit is today's exact population. Careful observation of the world's growing population is no doubt advisable. However, it is likely to be revealed as a symptom--not the intrinsic problem. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Sep 14 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!phoebe.jpl.nasa.gov!tycho!jdg From: jdg@tycho.jpl.nasa.gov (Jon Giorgini) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,alt.privacy.anon-server Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal Date: 15 Sep 1994 19:30:21 GMT Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA Lines: 14 Sender: jdg@tycho (Jon Giorgini) Distribution: world Message-ID: <35a7ce$2tn@phoebe.jpl.nasa.gov> References: <199409100133.SAA01975@jobe.shell.portal.com> <35896j$2f6@unix1.cc.uop.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: tycho.jpl.nasa.gov Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:737 alt.privacy.anon-server:789 >Have you ever read "The White Plague" by Frank Herbert. >In the book, a madman creates a virus that only kills women. That would seem like an odd thing to do. It would seem more likely that the first such device would be targeted to do something like wipe out all blacks, or something similar (or maybe all people except the chosen few environmentally correct who want to rebuild Eden). I think it is more correct to call it a "device" than a "virus". The way computer technology, electronics, nanotechnology, software are all simultaneously converging, thinking of such a "bug" as a biological-engineering project is probably incorrect. It will likely be assembled by someone who knows nothing about biology beyond what's necessary to specify the target group. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Sep 15 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!vox.xs4all.nl!nobody From: nobody@vox.xs4all.nl (An0nYm0Us UsEr) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal Date: 15 Sep 1994 23:13:21 -0700 Organization: Global Anonymous Remail Services Ltd. Lines: 24 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199409160613.AA29699@xs1.xs4all.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Robert Dobson, dobson@CROOM.SYD.DAH.CSIRO.AU writes: > The place for anonymous mail is in the trash. > CSIRO Div. of Animal Health > Dr. Robert DOBSON Pvt. Bag No 1, P O Glebe 2037, Australia > Phone : 61 2 6604411 Fax : 61 2 6928561 > Email : dobson@syd.dah.csiro.au > DISCLAIMER: CSIRO is a LINE managed organisation & as such anything in the > above found to be libellous, in bad taste or a breach of copyright is the > responsibility of management & redress can be obtained through the Project > Leader, the Program Manager, the Chief, the Institute Director, the Chief > Executive, the Prime Minister ... just DONT BOTHER ME, OK? Given the (purported) provenance of the above posting (it's the same organization where they are doing the rabbit control research), and the attitude demonstrated in the sig, it is obvious why they might prefer to censor people who want to discuss this subject (i.e. using engineered viruses to inhibit human reproduction). Perhaps they would rather no one think about it at all ... It's also obvious why people might prefer to post anonymously. Otherwise, it might be difficult to get a VISA to visit Australia. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Sep 15 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!daresbury!bioftp.unibas.ch!citi2.fr!jussieu.fr!univ-lille1.fr!zaphod.crihan.fr!usenet From: DIAZ@cgmvax.cgm.cnrs-gif.fr (DIAZ) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: phylogeny Date: 16 Sep 1994 16:17:07 GMT Organization: CENTRE DE GENETIQUE MOLECULAIRE Lines: 6 Distribution: world Message-ID: <35cge3$a3f@zaphod.crihan.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: cgmvax.cgm.cnrs-gif.fr X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24 I am interested in the phylogeny of the tRNAs... I am working on three organisms, Escherichia coli, Bacillus subtilis and Saccharomyces cerevisiae Does someone could send me trees of evolution, or tell me the relation of the tRNAs. I thank anyone who will help me. Yolande From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Sep 15 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!omega.c2.org!ogun From: ogun@omega.c2.org (The God Ogun) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal Date: 16 Sep 1994 16:21:31 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 43 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199409162318.QAA15287@infinity.c2.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net nobody, nobody@shell.portal.com writes: > researchers in Australia [are] trying to develop a > genetically engineered virus that would spread among rabbits, > and which would sterilize the females, but would not kill them. > > My proposal is to apply this technology to the human species. I like this Nobody's idea! If something so simple can be done about things, why shouldn't it just be done? That's my motto. Things have gotten really bad down there! I was going to send a big war to your Earth, or talk to my colleague Omolu about a major plague, but it looks like all we have to do is to support this Nobody. dhaas@HUGO.FSUFAY.EDU writes: > Five point five billion and rising. Anyone who can predict > what will happen if you kill off a certain percent of the > human population is an all knowing God. I AM an omniscient God, and I can't even predict what the effect of a butterfly flapping its wings in China will be two weeks later, much less what you ask. It's frustrating, but the laws of chaos apply just as much to us Gods as to you humans, and limit what we can know. Maybe even more so, because sometimes human beings know things that aren't actually true. Man proposes, God disposes, as they say! We'll see. <><> His Incorruptibility <><> The God Ogun Who lives in Metal, Fire, and dangerous things, In sharp edges and keen tempers, Who cuts through what blocks the path, Patron of technology, Dealer in war and retribution of evil Send me some offerings. I can be reached by the usual animal sacrifices, or at From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Sep 15 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!lhc!darwin.sura.net!news.sesqui.net!rice!owlnet.rice.edu!drichter From: drichter@owlnet.rice.edu (David Richter) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,alt.privacy.anon-server Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal Date: 16 Sep 1994 21:32:53 GMT Organization: Rice University Lines: 27 Distribution: world Message-ID: <35d2u5$t17@larry.rice.edu> References: <199409100133.SAA01975@jobe.shell.portal.com> <35896j$2f6@unix1.cc.uop.edu> <35a7ce$2tn@phoebe.jpl.nasa.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: moray.owlnet.rice.edu Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:740 alt.privacy.anon-server:802 In article <35a7ce$2tn@phoebe.jpl.nasa.gov>, jdg@tycho.jpl.nasa.gov (Jon Giorgini) writes: |> >Have you ever read "The White Plague" by Frank Herbert. |> >In the book, a madman creates a virus that only kills women. |> |> That would seem like an odd thing to do. It would seem more likely that the |> first such device would be targeted to do something like wipe out all blacks, |> or something similar (or maybe all people except the chosen few environmentally |> correct who want to rebuild Eden). Actually, the setup is reasonably realistic. A family is vacationing in Ireland, when an IRA bomb explodes, killing the wife and kids. The bereft father decides to take revenge and engineers the virus, designing it to be unharmed by the standard treatments for virus infections and to be easily transmitted. He coats some cash with the virus, puts it in plastic bags, and mails them to charity organizations in Ireland and a few places where the government supports the IRA. Meanwhile, he starts travelling cross-country. Since he didn't do the development with the proper safeguards, many of his earlier attempts travel with him, causing further damage. Also, the virus he sent to Ireland crosses over to other mammals and they start dying off as well. Just bloody rosy, eh? David From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Sep 17 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU!rannala From: rannala@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU (Bruce Rannala) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Confused about population data Date: 17 Sep 1994 18:46:06 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 49 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9409180119.AA11813@minerva.cis.yale.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net >In article <00984744.8D5F4900@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> uvsmr@Msu.oscs.montana.edu (Matt Rognlie) writes: > >>I think I must have missed something along the way. Could someone please send >>me (or post) a list of references describing the harmful effects of our current >>population or our current rate of population growth? I agree that the numbers >>themselves are startling, but am unsure of any documented data indicating >>harmful effects of such. I am not interested in merely politically- or >>distance-caused problems, but of actual numbers-caused problems. Thanks for >>your help! > > >I have to agree with the doubts espoused by the >author of the previous post. Very big numbers do not >necessarily imply a very big problem, as the earth's >population has been growing exponentially for some time. > >The shrieks of Armageddon from those who worshiped the >recent population conference are very loud and echoed >by many, despite the dearth of compelling evidence. >It is trivial to acknowledge that there exists a finite >limit to the worlds population. However, it is >naive to think that this limit is today's exact population. > >Careful observation of the world's growing population >is no doubt advisable. However, it is likely to be >revealed as a symptom--not the intrinsic problem. > > > An extensive (but hardly comprehensive) list of some of the effects of overpopulation that are of current concern is given in the Erlich's recent book "the population explosion," a well documented book that is quite accessible to non-specialists. In particular, population biologists stress that "carrying capacity" implies a long-term sustainable population size. It is entirely possible (both in theory and in practice) to exceed an environment's carrying capacity by a wide margin (for a finite period of time), only to be followed by a crash, the technical term for this effect is lagged logistic growth. Many population biologists, such as Paul Erlich, suggest that the human population has already exceeded carrying capacity because many resources (water, fossil fuel, etc) are being consumed in a non-renewable way. The "crash" may already be inevitable; the "evidence" may one day soon be rather too "compelling" and then it will be too late. A cautious approach is in order. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Sep 18 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!agate!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!mozo.cc.purdue.edu!macg203r.bio.purdue.edu!user From: cmossman@bilbo.bio.purdue.edu (Catherine Mossman) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Help for Peromyscus primers Followup-To: bionet.population-bio Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 23:12:08 -0600 Organization: Purdue University Lines: 12 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: macg203r.bio.purdue.edu I am first year Ph.D student at Purdue. I am thinking of starting a project looking at gene flow between local populations of Peromyscus leucopus. I would like to use PCR to amplify microsatellite nDNA and/or mtDNA and then use RFLP's to detect polymorphisms. However to be able to start this, I need an idea of what possible primers are available for Peromyscus that would help me to get started. If anyone has any info, I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks, Cathy Mossman -- Catherine Mossman Purdue University, Indiana cmossman@bilbo.bio.purdue.edu From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Sep 18 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!bcsystems!cspence From: cspence@vmsmail.gov.bc.ca Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal Message-ID: <1994Sep19.153204.5237@vmsmail.gov.bc.ca> Date: 19 Sep 94 15:32:04 PDT References: <199409100133.SAA01975@jobe.shell.portal.com> <35d2u5$t17@larry.rice.edu> Distribution: world Organization: BC Systems Corporation Lines: 29 In article <35d2u5$t17@larry.rice.edu>, drichter@owlnet.rice.edu (David Richter) writes: > In article <35a7ce$2tn@phoebe.jpl.nasa.gov>, jdg@tycho.jpl.nasa.gov (Jon Giorgini) writes: > |> >Have you ever read "The White Plague" by Frank Herbert. > |> >In the book, a madman creates a virus that only kills women. > |> > |> That would seem like an odd thing to do. It would seem more likely that the > |> first such device would be targeted to do something like wipe out all blacks, > |> or something similar (or maybe all people except the chosen few environmentally > |> correct who want to rebuild Eden). > > Actually, the setup is reasonably realistic. A family is vacationing > in Ireland, when an IRA bomb explodes, killing the wife and kids. The > bereft father decides to take revenge and engineers the virus, > designing it to be unharmed by the standard treatments for virus > infections and to be easily transmitted. He coats some cash with the > virus, puts it in plastic bags, and mails them to charity > organizations in Ireland and a few places where the government > supports the IRA. Meanwhile, he starts travelling cross-country. > > Since he didn't do the development with the proper safeguards, many of > his earlier attempts travel with him, causing further damage. Also, > the virus he sent to Ireland crosses over to other mammals and they > start dying off as well. > > Just bloody rosy, eh? > > David > This is just a test!!! From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Sep 19 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!hobbes.cc.uga.edu!phoenix.cs.uga.edu!shepard From: shepard@phoenix.cs.uga.edu (Elric) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Confused about population data Date: 20 Sep 1994 21:41:21 GMT Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Lines: 30 Message-ID: <35nku1$d8a@hobbes.cc.uga.edu> References: <9409180119.AA11813@minerva.cis.yale.edu> <35n8jj$914@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: phoenix.cs.uga.edu In article <35n8jj$914@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu>, Michael Lightstone <6500mll@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> wrote: [stuff about using nuclear power and desalination plants deleted] > >With unlimited power and water, it becomes easy to >irrigate almost any region of the earth. >As a result, even arid desert regions can be >effectively farmed. Examples of this are evident >in my state of California where southern desert >regions have been converted to some of the most >productive farm land on the planet. Although the points that you make are good, your example of farming the deserts is not quite accurate. One of the (major) side effects of desert farming is the high deposition of salts (especially fertilizers) in the water table due to the sand's inability to hold these cations. This in turn diminishes the productivity of the land over time and often reduces the ability of the ecosystem to produce at even the pre-farming levels. It seems like the same problem as in the rainforests - farming has a high initial yield but is detrimental over the long term. Erik -- ~ William Erik Shepard ~ The highest function of ecology is ~ ~ Mathematics, Univ of Georgia ~ the understanding of consequences. ~ ~ Athens, Georgia 30602 ~ ~ ~ shepard@phoenix.cs.uga.edu ~ Paul Sears - Where There is Life ~ From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Sep 19 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!ucsbuxb.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu!not-for-mail From: 6500mll@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Michael Lightstone) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Confused about population data Date: 20 Sep 1994 11:10:59 -0700 Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara Lines: 59 Distribution: world Message-ID: <35n8jj$914@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> References: <9409180119.AA11813@minerva.cis.yale.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu In article <9409180119.AA11813@minerva.cis.yale.edu> rannala@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU (Bruce Rannala) writes: >An extensive (but hardly comprehensive) list of some of the effects of >overpopulation that are of current concern is given in the Erlich's recent >book "the population explosion," a well documented book that is quite >accessible to non-specialists. In particular, population biologists stress >that "carrying capacity" implies a long-term sustainable population size. It >is entirely possible (both in theory and in practice) to exceed an >environment's carrying capacity by a wide margin (for a finite period of >time), only to be followed by a crash, the technical term for this effect is >lagged logistic growth. Many population biologists, such as Paul Erlich, >suggest that the human population has already exceeded carrying capacity >because many resources (water, fossil fuel, etc) are being consumed in a >non-renewable way. The "crash" may already be inevitable; the "evidence" may >one day soon be rather too "compelling" and then it will be too late. A >cautious approach is in order. > Thanks for your reply. I understand your points, but I have a few comments to make: First, it is my understanding that the supply of fossil fuels on this earth will last much longer than you indicate. But even if that is not the case, I am willing to concede that they can not last forever. However, we currently have several alternatives such as nuclear fission, solar power, and ethanol. In addition, the inevitable rise of nuclear fusion (most estimates predict less than 5 decades for viable reactors) will for the most part eliminate the need to search for alternate energy sources. Cheap electric power will additionally promote electric cars and diminish the need for fossil fuels. The other resource source you mentioned, water, can be readily generated by desalination plants, which can in turn be operated by nuclear power. (As evidence, almost all new ships and submarines in the U.S. Navy are completely powered by nuclear generators.) Today, regions in Saudi Arabia are without water shortage because of desalination. With unlimited power and water, it becomes easy to irrigate almost any region of the earth. As a result, even arid desert regions can be effectively farmed. Examples of this are evident in my state of California where southern desert regions have been converted to some of the most productive farm land on the planet. In summary, I do not believe we have reached "carrying capacity". Mike From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Sep 19 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!ucsbuxb.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu!not-for-mail From: 6500mll@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Michael Lightstone) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Confused about population data Date: 20 Sep 1994 15:26:49 -0700 Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara Lines: 38 Message-ID: <35nnj9$jrm@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> References: <9409180119.AA11813@minerva.cis.yale.edu> <35n8jj$914@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> <35nku1$d8a@hobbes.cc.uga.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu In article <35nku1$d8a@hobbes.cc.uga.edu> shepard@phoenix.cs.uga.edu (Elric) writes: >In article <35n8jj$914@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu>, >Michael Lightstone <6500mll@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> wrote: >[stuff about using nuclear power and desalination plants deleted] >> >>With unlimited power and water, it becomes easy to >>irrigate almost any region of the earth. >>As a result, even arid desert regions can be >>effectively farmed. Examples of this are evident >>in my state of California where southern desert >>regions have been converted to some of the most >>productive farm land on the planet. >Although the points that you make are good, your example of farming the >deserts is not quite accurate. One of the (major) side effects of desert >farming is the high deposition of salts (especially fertilizers) in the >water table due to the sand's inability to hold these cations. This in >turn diminishes the productivity of the land over time and often reduces the >ability of the ecosystem to produce at even the pre-farming levels. It seems >like the same problem as in the rainforests - farming has a high initial >yield but is detrimental over the long term. >Erik Your point seems valid, but I can think of some desert farming regions that have remained productive for more than 40 years. For example, just outside (or including) the Calfornia city of Calexico there is a region called the "Imperial Valley" which was created in the 1930's on top of a desert using irrigation. To this day it is considered one of the most productive farming regions of the world. Out of curiosity, how would you explain this? Mike From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Sep 20 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!ACC.WUACC.EDU!zzdecell From: zzdecell@ACC.WUACC.EDU (decelles paul) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Confused about population data Date: 21 Sep 1994 09:45:20 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 97 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <35n8jj$914@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net On 20 Sep 1994, Michael Lightstone wrote: (in response to a previous article) > > First, it is my understanding that the supply of fossil > fuels on this earth will last much longer than you > indicate. But even if that is not the case, I am willing to > concede that they can not last forever. However, we currently > have several alternatives such as nuclear fission, > solar power, and ethanol. In addition, the inevitable > rise of nuclear fusion (most estimates predict less than > 5 decades for viable reactors) will for the most part eliminate > the need to search for alternate energy sources. Cheap electric > power will additionally promote electric cars and > diminish the need for fossil fuels. Comments: First while I grant that we do not have a firm handle on the available reserves of fossil fuels, it is clear that except for coaland to some extent natural gas, the easily obtained fossil fuels have been gotten. Extracting more of fossil fuels will require a greater expenditure of energy and resources thereby reducing the net energy yield from the fossil fuels. Second, nuclear fusion is not practical now and there are serious questions at least in my mind whether or not it is going to be the non polluting source of unlimited energy that it is sometimes portrayed as. One problen that I see arises from the fact the fusion produces lots of neutrons. Therefore, the containment and coolent structures needed for fusion would probably become lighly radioactive. Plus the technology is appearently a lot more complicated than fission and may prove difficult to make practical. If there are physicist types out there who are familiar with these issues, could you tell us what you think??? As for fission, we've been relatively lucky so far, Russia aside but we do not have waste disosal mecahnisms in place and no coherent plans that I see to phase in new technology even if such is advisable. > With unlimited power and water, it becomes easy to > irrigate almost any region of the earth. > As a result, even arid desert regions can be > effectively farmed. Examples of this are evident > in my state of California where southern desert > regions have been converted to some of the most > productive farm land on the planet. Yes, some of the desert regions in California are right now highly productive in the short run because of huge inputs of water and fossil fuel energy and fertilizer. My impression is that many of these regions are beginning to see problems with salt deposition, so the question remains can these regions really sustain productivity for the long haul?? > In summary, I do not believe we have reached "carrying capacity". > As to whether or not we have reached carrying capacity, that depends on what you want our planet and our civilization to be like. From a biological perspective carrying capacity is that population size that can be sustained indefinately in a habitat. This implies that the habitat is not being degraded in the long run by the population. Its clear that we are degrading the biological components of our environment and this should not need any comment. Now, maybe we'll reach an equilibrium where our ecosystems(or what's left of them) reach a new level and degradation ceases. I doubt that very much. Our population has grown so huge because we are relying on mega inputs of mainly fossil energy that is not being replaced. So given current and immediately forseeable technology we have exceeded our carrying capacity. The environmental degradation and our rapid draw down of fossil fuel resources should make this clear. You might argue that we have new technologies coming on line; if you want to argue that way, fine just make it clear that you're gambling on technological fixes that might not materialize in the time that you expect and even if they do they will have unintended consequences. Another point about carrying capacity: perhaps we can crowd billions more people on this planet but the issue is not just carrying capacity in a strict biological sense but what Garret Hardin calls "cultural carrying capacity" This idea basically says that what size human populations should grow to depends in part on the level and type of culture that we want to have. Do we want electric lights, opera, computers, cars or do we want to rely on muscle power, human physical labor etc.. These are just some of the issues that make determining carrying capacity of our population so dicey. Its not just people over population its what is sometimes called consumption overpopulation. One more thing let's get beyond pointing to Singapore or Japan as proof that we can get many more people on this planet. Just the merest trifle of thought should lead one to the insight that these societies can only support their dense populations by relying on foreign inputs. Dr. Paul Decelles, Washburn University Topeka, KS. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Sep 20 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!u53.n90.queensu.ca!BOAGP From: Peter T. Boag Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Confused about population data Date: 21 Sep 1994 15:27:16 GMT Organization: Queen's University Lines: 39 Distribution: world Message-ID: <35pjck$hc7@knot.queensu.ca> References: <9409180119.AA11813@minerva.cis.yale.edu> <35nnj9$jrm@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: u53.n90.queensu.ca X-Newsreader: Nuntius Version 1.2 X-XXMessage-ID: X-XXDate: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 15:27:15 GMT In article <35n8jj$914@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> Michael Lightstone, 6500mll@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu writes: >With unlimited power and water, it becomes easy to >irrigate almost any region of the earth. >As a result, even arid desert regions can be >effectively farmed. Examples of this are evident >in my state of California where southern desert >regions have been converted to some of the most >productive farm land on the planet. > >In summary, I do not believe we have reached "carrying capacity". > >Mike I suspect the author is playing Devil's advocate here, but since this type of argument is similar to those recently voiced by Vatican representatives commenting on the Cairo summit, it warrants response. The Vatican claims there is no population problem, because rates on average are declining, and countries such as the USA are clearly able to produce more food if they want to. The logical flaw in this reprehensible attitude is that 90% of the population growth is taking place outside the Western world. It is not by chance that the only practical implementation of de-salinization has been in wealthy, oil-rich middle East countries. Fusion reactors will not help developing countries develop the ability to cope with huge populations in the next couple of centuries. The heart of the problem is the non-random and non-coincident distributions of high growth rates and the ability to implement high tech fixes to over-population. The crashes (multiple and non-randomly distributed) will come. *************************************************************** Peter T. Boag TEL: (613) 545-6160 Department of Biology FAX: (613) 545-6617 Queen's University EMAIL: BOAGP@QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA Kingston, Ontario Canada K7L3N6 *************************************************************** From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Sep 20 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!cs.umd.edu!newsfeed.gsfc.nasa.gov!ltpsun.gsfc.nasa.gov!robinson From: robinson@ltpsun.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jon Robinson) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Confused about population data Date: 21 Sep 1994 17:53:14 GMT Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA Lines: 7 Distribution: world Message-ID: <35prua$rul@paperboy.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: <35n8jj$914@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: ltpsun.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Albert Bartlett at the University of Colorado, Boulder has an excellent video on growth and energy. His presentation is much better in person, but the video will suffice. It should be clear from that and other sources, that our population growth and the corresponding growth in consumption can not be sustained. - Jon From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Sep 20 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!CARINS.CARIBOO.BC.CA!MASMITH From: MASMITH@CARINS.CARIBOO.BC.CA ("DNA:THE SPLICE OF LIFE") Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: RE: Confused about population data Date: 21 Sep 1994 11:20:39 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 29 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <940921112342.20400486@carins.cariboo.bc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net +From: SMTP%"rannala@minerva.cis.yale.edu" 21-SEP-1994 10:58:17.82 +Subj: Re: Confused about population data +Education, on the other hand, may be quite +effective in both reducing fertility rate, improving the standard of living, +and advancing technologies in the developing nations (more emphasis on +higher education for women, in particular, seems to be very beneficial +approach, at least according to the recent Science report). I would have to agree with this point. Education in the broad sense has been effective. It is also important to discuss exactly what we mean by education. Educating the populations of developing countries in the Western tradition will probably be ineffective. These countries have their own culture and unique social histories. Education has happen on at least two fronts. One, the education of reproduction. People have to learn that their children will not die at a young age. Two, education in science. One major contribution of science has been to show us how to be more productive with technology, relying less on human labor to achieve the same output. mike ___________________________________________________________________ | Michael Smith: masmith@mickey.cariboo.bc.ca | Ph: (604) 371-5518 | | University College of the Cariboo | | | Psychology Dept | Fax:(604) 371-5697 | |_____________________________________________|____________________| From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Sep 20 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU!rannala From: rannala@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU (Bruce Rannala) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Confused about population data Date: 21 Sep 1994 10:41:40 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 25 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9409211741.AA28178@minerva.cis.yale.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Peter T. Boag writes: >The heart of the >problem is the non-random and non-coincident distributions of high >growth rates and the ability to implement high tech fixes to >over-population. The crashes (multiple and non-randomly distributed) >will come. This is a good point; clearly any population "crash" will affect resource-poor, high-fertility, and technology-poor countries first. Since less than one-quarter of the world's population resides in the so-called "industrial" nations (21% according to a recent Science article, and that fraction is shrinking(12% by 2050)), the "nonindustrialized" countries should be the ones we consider first in seeking any solutions to the overpopulation problem; clearly "technological" fixes will have a limited role for most of these countries. Education, on the other hand, may be quite effective in both reducing fertility rate, improving the standard of living, and advancing technologies in the developing nations (more emphasis on higher education for women, in particular, seems to be very beneficial approach, at least according to the recent Science report). Bruce Rannala, Department of Biology, Yale University rannala@minerva.cis.yale.edu From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Sep 20 23:00:00 1994 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Path: biosci!rutgers!concert!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch!darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU!mgk From: mgk@darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU (Mahlon G. Kelly) Subject: Re: Confused about population data Message-ID: Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU Organization: uva References: Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 18:38:46 GMT Lines: 14 Seems to me as if a major point is being missed here. While GLOBAL resources may not be limiting, local ones certainly are. Water in Ethiopia and Somalia should be obvious. Granted, this gets all tied up with politics, economics, sociology, etc., but the fact remains that in Ethiopia and Somalia (and plenty of other places during human history) major mortality was due to population outstripping the capacity of the environmental system to support it. I like to tell my classes that during overpopulation it is impossible to distinguish between the 3 horsemen of the apocalypse: starvation, warfare, and disease. Mahlon Kelly From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Sep 21 23:00:00 1994 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!trib.apple.com!amd!netcomsv!netcom.com!elvira From: elvira@netcom.com (Elvira ) Subject: re: a modest proposal Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 18:12:38 GMT Lines: 2 Guess what Mr. Nobody? It's not going to happen. You have been reading too much science fiction. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Sep 21 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!hobbes.cc.uga.edu!phoenix.cs.uga.edu!shepard From: shepard@phoenix.cs.uga.edu (Elric) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Confused about population data Date: 22 Sep 1994 23:06:20 GMT Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Lines: 49 Message-ID: <35t2lc$p12@hobbes.cc.uga.edu> References: <9409180119.AA11813@minerva.cis.yale.edu> <35n8jj$914@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> <35nku1$d8a@hobbes.cc.uga.edu> <35nnj9$jrm@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: phoenix.cs.uga.edu Mike>With unlimited power and water, it becomes easy to Mike>irrigate almost any region of the earth. Mike>As a result, even arid desert regions can be Mike>effectively farmed. Examples of this are evident Mike>in my state of California where southern desert Mike>regions have been converted to some of the most Mike>productive farm land on the planet. Erik>Although the points that you make are good, your example of farming the Erik>deserts is not quite accurate. One of the (major) side effects of desert Erik>farming is the high deposition of salts (especially fertilizers) in the Erik>water table due to the sand's inability to hold these cations. This in Erik>turn diminishes the productivity of the land over time and often reduces Erik>the ability of the ecosystem to produce at even the pre-farming levels. Erik>It seems like the same problem as in the rainforests - farming has a high Erik>initial Erik>yield but is detrimental over the long term. Mike>Your point seems valid, but I can think of some desert farming Mike>regions that have remained productive for more than 40 years. Mike>For example, just outside (or including) the Calfornia city of Mike>Calexico there is a region called the "Imperial Valley" which Mike>was created in the 1930's on top of a desert using irrigation. Mike>To this day it is considered one of the most productive Mike>farming regions of the world. Out of curiosity, how would you Mike>explain this? To be honest, I am not familiar with 'Calexico' but one immediate question that I have is whether it was really a desert or was actually a chaparral ecosystem. But, either way - just because an area is productive now (now in terms of the life cycles of ecosystems) doesn't mean that 1) we aren't harming it and 2) that it will continue (in a stable way) to be productive into the future. A good example on an immediate scale is the rainforest. The first year that it is clearcut, it is *tremendously* productive. In three years it decreases to about 3-10% productivity. Now obviously your Calexico is operating at a much slower rate (indeed if at all - again I don't know the details) than the rainforest, but in the case of many deserts that are converted to farmland, productivity *is* lost. Moreover, the ecosystem (at least locally) is often reduced to being completely uninhabitable by even native species who cannot adapt to the high concentration of salts. Even if it is incredibly productive today. Erik -- ~ William Erik Shepard ~ The highest function of ecology is ~ ~ Mathematics, Univ of Georgia ~ the understanding of consequences. ~ ~ Athens, Georgia 30602 ~ ~ ~ shepard@phoenix.cs.uga.edu ~ Paul Sears - Where There is Life ~ From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Sep 21 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!cs.umd.edu!newsfeed.gsfc.nasa.gov!usenet From: robinson@ltpsun.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jon Robinson) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Confused about population data Date: 22 Sep 1994 21:32:37 GMT Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA Lines: 8 Distribution: world Message-ID: <35st5l$jlb@paperboy.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: Reply-To: robinson@ltpsun.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Host: ltpsun.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Global resources are limiting. Look at the colapse of fisheries and the decrease in top soil. Even with equitable distribution, these limits would come to bear. With the curent inequitable distribution people can pretend it is a distribution problem. - Jon From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Sep 21 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!cs.umd.edu!newsfeed.gsfc.nasa.gov!usenet From: robinson@ltpsun.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jon Robinson) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Confused about population data Date: 22 Sep 1994 21:27:52 GMT Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA Lines: 7 Distribution: world Message-ID: <35ssso$jlb@paperboy.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: <9409211741.AA28178@minerva.cis.yale.edu> Reply-To: robinson@ltpsun.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Host: ltpsun.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit One needs to remember that individuals in the developed countries have a much greater impact per person on the environment, than those in the less developed countries. So it is clear that the developed countries are over populated if they intend to maintain a high material standard of living. - Jon From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Sep 22 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!internet!biosci!not-for-mail From: biohelp (BIOSCI Administrator) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: UNSUBSCRIBING, BIOSCI ARCHIVES, ADDRESS DATABASE & BIOSCI FAQ Date: 23 Sep 1994 02:00:14 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 322 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199409230900.CAA24686@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Four important items follow: How to cancel e-mail subscriptions to BIOSCI newsgroups, BIOSCI archive searching, the BIOSCI FAQ, and the BIOSCI User Address Directory form. If you have not yet listed yourself in our BIOSCI user directory, please take a few minutes to complete and return the form below. If your personal information has changed since you listed yourself, please send us a complete new updated form. We can not make manual revisions to existing entries. Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson BIOSCI/bionet Manager biosci-help@net.bio.net **** How to cancel a BIOSCI e-mail subscription **** If you want to cancel your e-mail subscription to this group, PLEASE DO NOT POST YOUR UNSUBSCRIBE REQUEST TO THE NEWSGROUP ADDRESS (NOR REPLY TO A MESSAGE POSTED TO THE NEWSGROUP)!!! This would send your request to all of the readers of the newsgroup, but it might still not be seen by the BIOSCI staff - thus you would annoy many people and possibly not accomplish your goal anyway. IF YOU ARE LOCATED IN THE AMERICAS OR PACIFIC RIM COUNTRIES, please send a message to biosci@net.bio.net Instructions will be returned automatically, so the contents of your message do not matter. IF YOU ARE LOCATED IN EUROPE, AFRICA OR CENTRAL ASIA, please send a message to MXT@dl.ac.uk containing the word help in the body of the message to retrieve e-mail server instructions. Any text placed on the Subject: line of your message will be ignored, so be sure to put the "help" command in the body of the message. If you need personal assistance, a BIOSCI staff member can be contacted at either of the following addresses. Please contact the address designated for your location. Support Address Location --------------- -------- biosci@daresbury.ac.uk Europe, Africa, and Central Asia biosci-help@net.bio.net Americas and the Pacific Rim **** SEARCHING BIOSCI ARCHIVES **** The easiest way to search the BIOSCI archives is to use gopher software and connect over the Internet to net.bio.net, the U.S. BIOSCI computer. We maintain three indexes which are searchable from the main gopher menu on net.bio.net: (1) an index of all BIOSCI postings; (2) an index of individual journal article references from the Table of Contents postings on the BIO-JOURNALS newsgroup; and (3) an index of BIOSCI users including regular mail and e-mail addresses, phone/FAX numbers, research interests, and newsgroup participation. E-mail users can search the BIOSCI archives by using our waismail e-mail server. For instructions send the message help to waismail@net.bio.net. Leave the Subject: line blank (anything entered on the Subject: line is ignored). WAIS software can also be used to search the archives as described in the BIOSCI FAQ (see below). Finally, the BIOSCI archive files are accessible by anonymous FTP to net.bio.net [134.172.2.69] in the directory pub/BIOSCI. **** BIOSCI FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) SHEET **** New users of BIOSCI/bionet may want to read the "Frequently Asked Questions" or "FAQ" sheet for BIOSCI. The FAQ provides details on how to participate in these forums and is available for anonymous FTP from net.bio.net [134.172.2.69] in pub/BIOSCI/doc/biosci.FAQ or for retrieval by gopher to net.bio.net, port 70. It may also be requested by sending the command info faq in the body of an e-mail message to the Internet address biosci-server@net.bio.net. Please do not enter the info faq command on the Subject: line of your message since the e-mail server ignores text on the Subject: line. The FAQ is also posted on the first of each month to the newsgroup BIONEWS/bionet.announce immediately following the posting of the BIOSCI information sheet. **** BIOSCI USER ADDRESS DIRECTORY **** Please take this opportunity to add your name and address information to the BIOSCI User Address Database if you have not already done so. Below is the address form that we would like each reader of the BIOSCI/bionet newsgroups to complete and return if you would like to be listed in our database. The database serves as a directory that enables biologists, who are currently using (or even just reading) the BIOSCI newsgroups, to look up e-mail addresses and other information about our users. The address database is reindexed nightly for WAIS, waismail, and gopher access. If you have access to gopher, connect to net.bio.net to search the database. If you have access to WAIS, please use our WAIS source biologists-addresses.src. If you are not on the Internet, please use our waismail server (send the word "help" to waismail@net.bio.net to get instructions; any text on the Subject: line of your message will be ignored, so put the help command in the body of the mail message.). Please carefully follow the instructions for completing the form below and return it to either of the following two addresses (whichever is more convenient for you). Thanks in advance for taking the time to complete and return the form. Addresses for returning forms Location Network ----------------------------- -------- ------- biovote@net.bio.net U.S.A. Internet/BITNET biovote@daresbury.ac.uk U.K. JANET MAKING SURE THAT YOUR INFORMATION IS CURRENT This notice will be mailed bimonthly to each newsgroup. You should check your database entry from time-to-time to see if your address information is still up-to-date. Using Gopher to complete the form --------------------------------- If you don't want to use a text editor, you can also use Dan Jacobson's gopher site to fill out the address database form as follows. Otherwise skip this section on gopher and proceed to the instructions for filling out the form below. > To add yourself to the database just point your > gopher client at merlot.gdb.org and select the following: > > --> 15. Searching For Biologists/ > > --> 9. E-mail Addresses of Biosci-Bionet Users/ > > --> 1. Add (or Correct) Your Address to the BIOSCI User Address > Data.. > > > And fill out the form. or Rob Harper's gopher site in Europe as follows: > Europeans can point their gopher client at gopher.csc.fi and add their > information to the database. All entries will be mailed directly to > Dave for incorporation in a wais source. > > The path to the questionare is as follows. > > ---> 10. Finnish EMBnet BioBox/ > > ---> 8. FAQ Files/ > > FAQ Files > > 1. EMBnet: Information. > 2. EMBnet: Internet resources guide. > 3. A Biologist's Guide to Internet Resources/ > 4. All FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) Searches and Archives/ > --->5. Bionauts Address Database (questionaire) IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ CAREFULLY Please enter all responses after the : on each line, leaving one (1) blank space after the : (i.e., before the start of your text). Please do NOT extend your responses past the end of each line (80 characters). PLEASE DO NOT alter any of the field identifiers such as "first name: ". If you have nothing to enter after a field identifier, PLEASE LEAVE IT - do not delete it even if there is no data on the line in question. Several lines are provided at the end of the form for comments, but, please adhere to the line length restriction. On the date: line, please enter the date in the DD-MM-YY format, e.g., 15-05-93 for 15 May 1993. This line will tell others when the information was last updated. Please be sure to include the 0's for single digit days or months, e.g., 15-05-93, not 15-5-93. Note that the "e-mail network: " line below is for specifying, e.g., "Internet," "BITNET," "EARN," "JANET," or whatever other network that your computer may be on. If you are uncertain about any field, please feel free to leave it blank, but please DO NOT DELETE the field identifier from the form! In the first field below, "New information or Update ...", please enter "N" if this is the first time that you have registered in the directory or "U" if you are correcting a listing that you sent to us previously. The comment: lines may be used for anything that you like but PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THEM FROM THE FORM OR ALTER THEM. One suggested use is to list the names of the newsgroups in which you participate. Please use the MAILING LIST name (see below - the latest version of the list can be requested from biosci@net.bio.net) instead of the USENET name even if you don't participate by e-mail. WAIS might get confused by the periods in the USENET names. This allows one to retrieve via WAIS or waismail the list of participants in a particular group. For example: comment: ARABIDOPSIS PLANT-BIOLOGY BIONEWS On the comment: lines use these names below ---- NOT the USENET names below MAILING LIST NAME USENET Newsgroup Name ----------------- --------------------- ACEDB-SOFT bionet.software.acedb AGEING bionet.molbio.ageing AGROFORESTRY bionet.agroforestry ARABIDOPSIS bionet.genome.arabidopsis BIOFORUM bionet.general BIO-INFORMATION-THEORY bionet.info-theory BIONAUTS bionet.users.addresses BIONEWS bionet.announce BIO-JOURNALS bionet.journals.contents BIO-MATRIX bionet.molbio.bio-matrix BIOPHYSICAL-SOCIETY bionet.prof-society.biophysics BIOPHYSICS bionet.biophysics BIO-SOFTWARE bionet.software BIOTHERMOKINETICS bionet.metabolic-reg CELL-BIOLOGY bionet.cellbiol CHLAMYDOMONAS bionet.chlamydomonas CHROMOSOMES bionet.genome.chromosomes COMPUTATIONAL-BIOLOGY bionet.biology.computational CYTONET bionet.cellbiol.cytonet DROSOPHILA bionet.drosophila EMBL-DATABANK bionet.molbio.embldatabank EMPLOYMENT bionet.jobs GDB bionet.molbio.gdb GENBANK-BB bionet.molbio.genbank GENETIC-LINKAGE bionet.molbio.gene-linkage GRASSES-SCIENCE bionet.biology.grasses HIV-MOLECULAR-BIOLOGY bionet.molbio.hiv HUMAN-GENOME-PROGRAM bionet.molbio.genome-program IMMUNOLOGY bionet.immunology INFO-GCG bionet.software.gcg JOURNAL-NOTES bionet.journals.note METHODS-AND-REAGENTS bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts MOLECULAR-EVOLUTION bionet.molbio.evolution MYCOLOGY bionet.mycology NEUROSCIENCE bionet.neuroscience N2-FIXATION bionet.biology.n2-fixation PARASITOLOGY bionet.parasitology PHOTOSYNTHESIS bionet.photosynthesis PLANT-BIOLOGY bionet.plants POPULATION-BIOLOGY bionet.population-bio PROTEIN-ANALYSIS bionet.molbio.proteins PROTEIN-CRYSTALLOGRAPHY bionet.xtallography PROTISTA bionet.protista RAPD bionet.molbio.rapd SCIENCE-RESOURCES bionet.sci-resources STRUCTURAL-NMR bionet.structural-nmr TROPICAL-BIOLOGY bionet.biology.tropical VIROLOGY bionet.virology WOMEN-IN-BIOLOGY bionet.women-in-bio YEAST bionet.molbio.yeast Listing newsgroups on the comment: line is optional, of course. Thanks again for your cooperation! --------------- please cut here and return portion below --------------- New information or Update to old record (enter N or U): date (DD-MM-YY): first name: middle initial: family name: job title: e-mail address: e-mail network: phone number: FAX number: institution: address1: address2: address3: city: state/province: country: postal code: research interest: research interest: comment: comment: comment: comment: comment: From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Sep 22 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!syd.dah.csiro.au!dobson From: dobson@syd.dah.csiro.au ("Robert Dobson") Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: NetEtiquette Date: 22 Sep 1994 17:11:32 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 114 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <3018.dobson@croom.syd.dah.csiro.au_POPMail.PC_3.2.3_Beta_2> Reply-To: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net The following guidelines for email were posted by: Pierre Philippe, Ph.D. philippp@ere.umontreal.ca Listowner EPIDEMIO-L (LISTPROC@CC.UMONTREAL.CA) for an epidemiology mailing list, I think they are worth addopting for this list. Robert Dobson -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOME GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNICATING OVER THIS MAILING LIST (NetEtiquette) ################################################################## Thanks to Omaima Mansi who reviewed the style of this text ################################################################## Here are some guidelines for communicating over this mailing list. Following the guidelines will help attain the objectives of the group as well as insure the efficiency of the discussion. Taking account of these simple rules will also make the process pleasant for everyone. Please, keep this information for future reference. 1. Make sure your messages are succinct ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Avoid useless words as well as long sentences. Get to the core of your argument promptly. This list is also subscribed to by French-speaking people who will make the best of your intervention if they are written clearly and concisely. Do not copy back the whole message when you respond to someone's message. Copy only the parts that you wish to comment on. Also, be sure your signature (including any eventual citation) is concise and does not involve any "unpacking" of large sketches. 2. Use accurate subject headers ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This helps the reader to make a quick decision as to the importance of reading just by glancing at the index. 3 Pay attention to the accuracy and the relevancy of the content ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ of your message ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Be sure the information embedded in your message is reliable, complete, and useful to readers. Is the message relevant? Does it get to the point? Remember that well-written messages add to your credibility as a resource person and helps avoid potential misunderstanding and confusion. 4. Avoid cross-posting identical messages ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Even though cross-posting is not always unavoidable because of the need to get a complete overview of viewpoints, do it with parsimony if you happen to resort to this alternative. It is hardly pleasant to read the same message several times. Mention it at the top of your message when you cross-post so that people can be alerted to the need to delete repetitious messages quickly. 5. Please, no personal message over the list ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Use the InterNet (IP) address and the Mail command to send personal messages. Otherwise, you contribute to clog the list and divert attention from effective achievement of the objectives of the discussion. 6. Always post your IP address and status along with your message ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This favors the transparency of the communication process. People over the Net are immediately aware whom they get in touch with. Further, your IP address would be available were a personal response needed. 7. Post to the list all information of common interest to the group ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Do not answer personally when the information you transmit is of public interest. A public answer allows Netters to know if someone has responded to a query and avoids useless searches by others. Also, if you receive personal responses that are of common interest, please post a summary for the sake of others. 8. If you answer in French avoid using accentuated characters ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Accentuated characters are not interpreted correctly by the communication protocols used by the vast majority of people and are read with great difficulty. Do not use them at all; in particular, do not put an accent after a letter that ought to be accentuated (e.g., e'crire; e^tre). 9. All written messages are protected by copyright ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Whenever you use someone else's sayings, you must put quotation marks as well as the appropriate reference. 10. Flames are prohibited ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If it ever happens that someone is impolite or uses insults, the best strategy is to ignore. A strong response only contributes to escalate the process, detracting from the list objectives. 11. In case of crisis, do not blame it on ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the List Administrator or the List Owner ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If unusual things happen (e.g., repeated bouncing of messages, delivery errors, inimical postings, etc.), appropriate steps will be taken soon to limit their extent. If unfortunate events ever occur, please be patient. 12. Commercial advertising is prohibited ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Sep 22 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!rutgers!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.world.net!news.teleport.com!ip-da.teleport.com!user From: bfether@teleport.com (Ben C. Fetherston, Jr) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Confused about population data Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 11:40:49 -0800 Organization: Clark, Lindauer, McClinton Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <9409180119.AA11813@minerva.cis.yale.edu> <35n8jj$914@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> <35nku1$d8a@hobbes.cc.uga.edu> <35nnj9$jrm@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> <35t2lc$p12@hobbes.cc.uga.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: ip-d01.teleport.com I have been reading this thread for a while. Forgive me for wanting to inject my perspective into the discussion. I have thought that the appropriate starting point for an analysis of this problem of carrying capacity in relation to density/standard of living/education/industrialization/technology/etc is to start, not where we are now and think about where we can go/grow from here, but rather to start with the future. I think about whether or not we want to have human beings on the planet, not just 100 years from now, but 10,000 years or 100,000 years from now. We can sureley eke by for another 100 years or so (famine, disease, notwithstanding) without understanding anything more about carrying capacity. However, if we consider what level of population can be sustained for 10,000 or 100,000 years, I think some answers are possible. It is not possible to sustain a population for very long which requires energy input in excess of solar output. If all solar output were funneled into the human population needs, that would set a maximum upper limit to the human population. Obviously the actual carrying capacity would be less than this, but in my mind it gives us a better place to start an analysis of carrying capacity and lifestyles. I think that as a species, we ought to start considering our fate and the planet's carrying capacity with a long term vision, rather than leave our fate up to chance and future generations to muddle out. After all, extinction is a natural outcome of biological systems left to chance. -- bfether@teleport.com From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Sep 22 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!ACC.WUACC.EDU!zzdecell From: zzdecell@ACC.WUACC.EDU (decelles paul) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Real cost of resources. Date: 23 Sep 1994 09:19:35 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 37 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Periodically those who argue that population growth is not a problem cite the fact that the cost of resources has either held constant or perhaps declined in dollars when inflation is controlled for. What I'm interested in are relevant articles concerning this particular debate. I'm not an economist, but I'm suspicious that the argument that resource costs have largely held steady, is based on a faulty analysis. First, as I understand what is done in these analyses, the costs are expressed in constant dollars, say 1980 dollars to control for inflation. The problem with this is that increasing resource costs contribute to inflation at least to some degree. So how do you control for this??? Am I missing something here??? Second, these analyses tend to overlook resource substitution. This seems to driven at least in part by increasing resource cost in the first place and once the substituted resource becomes established in a series of manufacturing costs then the cost of the original resource might be expected to hold constant because demand has shifted to the new resource. This would seem to be particularly true if, as sometimes happens, the new resource has more desirable properities for the consumer(e.g. graphite composite fishing rods versus metal or bamboo). Maybe the cost of resources has to be expressed in more general terms: perhaps indirect economic costs or in terms of energy requirements to harvest a unit of a particular resource or fabricate say a composite substitute. Any comments or useful references on either side of the resource issue would be most appreciated! Thank You, Dr. Paul Decelles Department of Biology Washburn University Topeka, KS. (913)-231-1010 ext. 1164 From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Sep 22 23:00:00 1994 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!netnews From: Jerry1@ix.netcom.com (Gerald Grow) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Confused about population data Date: 23 Sep 1994 06:00:27 GMT Organization: Netcom Lines: 48 Distribution: world Message-ID: <35tqtr$6ec@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-pl4-01.ix.netcom.com In <35prua$rul@paperboy.gsfc.nasa.gov> robinson@ltpsun.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jon Robinson) writes: > >Albert Bartlett at the University of Colorado, Boulder has an excellent video >on growth and energy. His presentation is much better in person, but the >video will suffice. It should be clear from that and other sources, >that our population growth and the corresponding growth in consumption >can not be sustained. > > - Jon > Albert Bartlett has also published an excellent article on the power of exponential growth in relation to energy sources--and population growth. It's entitled, "Forgotten fundamentals of the energy crisis," and was published in the American Journal of Physics, Sept. 1978, pp. 876-888. He brings out the awesome power of seemingly insignificant percentages of growth. One example: He calculates the absolute upper limit to the amount of oil the earth can contain--the volume of earth itself. If the entire earth were filled only with oil (no rock, etc.), and if the consumption of petroleum continued at the long-term growth rte of 7.04% per year, the earth full of oil would last only 342 years! Of course, most of the volume of earth is filled with iron, minerals, and rock, not oil, so we can expect oil (and coal and gas) to be exhausted relatively soon. Maybe fusion energy can replace fossil fuels, but, as som