From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Apr 01 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!agate!newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!news-hk.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!cyclic.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsserver.jvnc.net!paperboy.uconn.edu!usenet From: kent@darwin.eeb.uconn.edu (Kent E. Holsinger) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Call for Symposia -- 1998 Annual Meetings SSB/SSE Date: 02 Apr 1997 07:40:24 -0500 Organization: Dept. of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut Lines: 90 Sender: kent@WALLACE Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: wallace.eeb.uconn.edu X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.33 Call for Symposia SSB/SSE 1998 Annual Meeting The 1998 annual meetings of the Society of Systematic Biologists and the Society for the Study of Evolution will be held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 20-24 June. The Councils of SSB and SSE invite proposals for symposia to be held in conjunction with those meetings. Detailed requirements for symposium proposals for each society follow. Please note that symposium proposals for SSB and SSE have different requirements and are to be sent to different addresses. Society of Systematic Biologists Symposium proposals for SSB should include: 1) a descriptive title; 2) one or two paragraphs explaining the purpose of the symposium and its relevance to systematics; 3) a list of the presentations, including proposed speakers, their affiliations/institutions, and titles; 4) an indication of whether the speakers have been invited and whether they have agreed to participate; 5) the length of each talk. The Society is particularly interested in symposia whose topics do not overlap those from previous meetings, that introduce new ideas or synthesize important concepts, or that are particularly good examples of the analysis of empirical data. Proposals that unite systematics with other fields are also desirable. We encourage participation from young investigators and others typically underrepresented in symposia. Symposia are restricted to half-day sessions. Limited partial funding is available. Two proposals will be selected at the 1997 Council meeting. The target date for receipt of proposals is 1 May 1997. E-mail or mail proposals to: Dr. Chris Simon, Program Director Society of Systematic Biologists Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, U-43 University of Connecticut Storrs, CT 06269-3043 USA e-mail: CSimon@UConnVM.UConn.Edu (Please send as non-coded ASCII text files.) Society for the Study of Evolution Symposium proposals for SSE should include: 1) a synopsis of the symposium theme; 2) a tentative list of speakers and topics; 3) a rationale for the symposium explaining why this topic and this set of speakers are particularly appropriate for a Society-sponsored symposium. In evaluating symposium proposals the Council will favor those proposals whose topics concern newly emerging fields, fields ripe for synthesis, and fields different from those that have been included in recent Society symposia. The Council particularly encourages proposals that include speakers from groups traditionally underrepresented in Society symposia, e.g., postdoctoral research associates and new assistant professors, investigators from outside North America, women, and members of racial or ethnic minorities. The Council expects to select only two proposals for half-day symposia at its meeting in June 1997. All proposers will be notified of the Council's decision in early July. The Society will provide partial travel support for organizers and participants in sponsored symposia. Details are available on request. To be assured of full consideration proposals must be received at the following address by 5 May 1997: Dr. Kent E. Holsinger, Executive Vice President Society for the Study of Evolution Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, U-43 University of Connecticut Storrs, CT 06269-3043 USA e-mail: Kent@Darwin.EEB.UConn.Edu (Please send as plain ASCII text. Wordprocessor files may be sent as MIME or UUencoded documents. Please do not send as BinHexed documents.) -- Kent Holsinger, Executive Vice President Society for the Study of Evolution -- Chris Simon, Program Director Society of Systematic Biologists From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Apr 08 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov!cpk-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.bc.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!news.mag-net.com!frodo.pgfn.bc.ca!pgfn.bc.ca!ae062 From: ae062@pgfn.bc.ca (Ron Hamilton) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: FINAL SOLUTIONS INC. Date: 9 Apr 1997 12:09:37 -0700 Organization: P.G. Free-Net Association Lines: 72 Sender: ae062@news.pgfn.bc.ca Message-ID: <5igphh$dq5@frodo.pgfn.bc.ca> Reply-To: ae062@pgfn.bc.ca (Ron Hamilton) NNTP-Posting-Host: frodo.pgfn.bc.ca Tired of those pesky human rights activists, missionary groups and Amnesty International digging up those mass graves? Of course you are. They're messy, smelly, and bad public relations. Your position is secure inspite of all that but what of the bad press and the reluctance of Western Democracies to finance your regime because of that? Well there is a solution or as we say, a final solution that will do the same job with positive results no matter how many political dissidents die in the process. How does it work? Simple. Build detention centres incorporating hospital facilities. At the same time put the political detainees on diets that include large amounts of milk. Your humanitarian efforts to re-educate and rehabilitate rather than eliminate your political enemies will be noticed world wide. Positive P.R. Why milk? Because for over 40 years an ongoing campaign to promote milk as "nature's most perfect food" has been very successful. Milk is almost totally accepted as such by physicians, nutritionists, dieticians, and much of the general public. Now here is the real secret. Milk contains IGF-1 which has been shown to accelerate and maintain cancer cell growth. 1 large glass of milk will more than double the naturally occuring IGF in the human body. But it gets even better. We have developed a geneticly engineered hormone that when injected into dairy cattle causes the IGF-1 levels in milk to increase by at least 75%. Think of the long term return. Your system detains political dissidents but feeds them abundantly, especially whole milk. Over time they mostly die off from cancer for which there is no known cure. You recieve accolades from the press for your humanitarian treatment of prisoners which just happen to be all dying from cancer rather than bullets. You may even be hailed in the United Nations for your efforts. Expensive? Well, compared to bullets, yes, but you can't get this kind of positive image before the world with bullets. How do you finance this? Easy. We at FINAL SOLUTIONS have contacts where it counts. If your nation is considered a sensitive listening post in troubled areas, a known drug source or pipeline for drugs, or as in most cases simply a country in which the majority live in poverty and filth, Western Democracies will give money for these purposes which can be used to build and finance your reformed penal system. Remember rBST milk is in use on the general populations of 14 countries including the United States of America. Don't delay. Call now and we will dispatch nutrionists, dieticians, and physicians to help set up a system designed for your needs. As an added bonus, for a limited time we offer enough rBST milk to feed 1000 prisoners for 10 years and enough ice cream for those same number of prisoners if you sign a contract before June 30 1997. Ice cream packs an IGF-1 cancer accelerator whollop superior to milk. Additionaly those who sign before June 30 will recieve a 10 year supply of Olestra for 1000 prisoners when Olestra becomes approved. Olestra is a fat replacer in foods which also just happens to block certain nutrients from absorption. (vitamin E and K) Also if you sign up and refer another regime to us who also sign, you will recieve an additional milk supply, an ice cream supply, and enough diet soft drinks sweetened with Aspartame for 1000 prisoners. Aspartame will work for you! We tested it under actual wartime conditions. You can't lose! Bullets are cheap but they just can't buy the same kind of image that the modern ruler needs. In time, to control those pesky dissidents your secret police will only have to whisper, "Want milk?" and all thoughts of political intrigues will melt. Bullets are quick, cancer is scary and slow and painful as is Aspartame poisoning. Call now. Let us solve your world image and your political problems at the same time. FINAL SOLUTIONS INC. Zyklon-B in war, IGF-1 in peace. 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. "Our Solutions are Final" St. Louis, Missouri 63167 -- -- ae062@freenet.unbc.edu (Ron Hamilton) From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Apr 09 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!daresbury!uninett.no!nntp.uio.no!newsfeeds.sol.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!duke.telepac.pt!news.telepac.pt!usenet From: "Carlos Romão" Newsgroups: bionet.general,bionet.population-bio Subject: Help on radio-tracking Pyrenean desman (Galemys pyrenaicus) Date: 10 Apr 1997 17:13:45 GMT Lines: 97 Message-ID: <01bc45ca$7206f460$3b0241c2@host.telepac.pt> NNTP-Posting-Host: lis12_p11.telepac.pt X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Xref: biosci bionet.general:26386 bionet.population-bio:2257 Radio-tracking Pyrenean desman (Galemys pyrenaicus) Pyrenean desman (Galemys pyrenaicus) is a small aquatic insectivore that inhabits the northern part of the Iberian Peninsula and the Pyrenean region (countries are Portugal, Spain and France). It rarely exceeds 70 grams. Only another species belongs to the same sub-family (Desmaninae): Desmana moschata inhabits Don, Volga and Ural basins and the upper Dnieper area (countries are Russia, Byelarus, Ukraine and Kasakstan). It can reach 625 grams, with an average of 450 grams. We are studying desmans in Portugal since the end of 80's. The species is considered Vulnerable by the IUCN and by our national Red Data Book. The main priority was distribution, habitats and the inventory of threats, but we already initiate population studies. This summer, we intend to start radio-tracking. Our general objective is species conservation. Data related with dispersion and species ability to cross physical and ecological barriers (for example dams or highly polluted sections of the watercourses) are missing. They are crucial to assess impacts of some river projects. For Pyrenean desman, Stone (1985) was the only researcher that studied movements and temporal patterns using radio-tracking. He attached the tag to the base of the tail. This study is pioneer and gave precious data for the current knowledge of the species. A disadvantage of this method is animals can be wounded by the cable-ties that support tags. The base of the tail is also a very important area on the emission of odours (sub-tail glands produce musk). Behaviour studies suggest that smell is very important in the sensorial world of this species, namely in communication. A specialised enterprise on animal radio monitoring proposed us an alternative to the use of tailmounts attached with a cable-ties: the transmitters can be glued on the rump. The weight of these tags is 2,5 grams but the adhesive also contributes to the mass of the transmitter package. How does the natural behaviour become influenced by the attached tag (with cable-ties or glued)? Pyrenean desman has long and dense fur and probably it may be clipped to have a successful attachment. Oiliness, that is very abundant is this species, may have also a negative influence. Behaviour studies show that grooming is a very important activity in this species: it contributes to maintain fur in a good condition; different postures ensure that all the body part was groomed. It seems perfectly predictable that the animals can use their hind feet to pull off the tag. Desmans spend most of their activity time in water, searching for food (freshwater invertebrates) in the bottom of the river bed. We might use a very powerful and non-water soluble glue. How long can the attachment be maintained? Another specialised enterprise on animal radio monitoring proposed us another alternative: transmitters designed for intraperitoneal implantation, equipped with a helical antenna. The weight of these transmitters is 1,8 grams. This kind of transmitters was used by Russian researchers (ONUFRIENJA & ONUFRIENJA, 1993) in the study of Desmana moschata. Despite our non-experience in surgery, handling and husbandry Galemys is much more complicated: the species is smaller and less tolerant to artificial captivity conditions (QUEIROZ, 1996). Mortality in the surgical and recuperation procedures might be avoided. Implanted transmitters give comparatively a poor range, which is even more complicated when the followed animal inhabits a very structured habitat, it walks, it swims, it dives and it rests in natural hollows. What is the best? Implanted or not implanted transmitters ? These are some of the question we discuss now. If someone have experience on: (1) radio-tracking with small mammals (e.g. shrews, moles, voles); (2) radio-tracking with aquatic animals (e.g. mammals, birds, amphibians or fishes); (3) know how on intraperitoneal implantation or other surgical procedures in sensitive animals (e.g. those that have very high metabolic rates); we would like to received your suggestions. Contact us: e-mail: carlos.romao.@mail.telepac.pt or Ana Isabel Queiroz Instituto da Conservação da Natureza Rua Filipe Folque, nº 46 - 1º P-1050 LISBOA - Portugal FAX: +351 - 1 - 3574771 ONUFRIENJA & ONUFRIENJA (1993) Desman in Oka State Reserve (Russia). Proceedings of the Meeting on the Pyrenean Desman. Sept.1992, Lisboa, Portugal. QUEIROZ, (1996) [ On the behavior of desmans, Galemys pyrenaicus Geoffroy and Desmana moschata L. ] Sobre o comportamento das toupeiras-de-água, Galemys pyrenaicus Geoffroy and Desmana moschata L.. Master thesis in Ethology. ISPA, Lisboa. 89 pp. Stone (1985) Home range movements of Pyrenean Desman (Galemys pyrenaicus) (Insectivora: Talpidae). Zeitschrift fur angewandte zoologie: 25-36 From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Apr 10 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!internet!biosci!not-for-mail From: biohelp (BIOSCI Administrator) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: BIOSCI/bionet miniFAQ & Fundraiser Date: 11 Apr 1997 02:00:11 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 239 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199704110900.CAA08645@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net (LAST REVISION: 30-JUL-95) This BIOSCI "miniFAQ" is designed to answer the questions that come up the *most frequently*. The main BIOSCI FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) is accessible on the World Wide Web at URL http://www.bio.net/. If you can not find an answer to your question in this or other documentation, the BIOSCI technical support staff answers e-mail queries sent to biosci-help@net.bio.net We can only answer questions about the use of the newsgroups and mailing lists. We unfortunately do not have the staff to do Internet information searches or answer scientific questions. Please post those to the appropriate BIOSCI/bionet newsgroups. Contents: -------- 0) BIOSCI NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!! 1) Using the WWW to access the BIOSCI/bionet newsgroups. 2) What to do about "spams," i.e., junk mail, ads, etc. 3) Examples of subscribing and unsubscribing to the mailing lists. 4) The BIOSCI user address and research interest directory. 0) BIOSCI NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!! ------------------------------ BIOSCI's government funding has been expended, and we are now operating solely from advertising revenue that we have raised from our Web site at http://www.bio.net/. We need just a few minutes of your time to help us serve you. You can do two important things which will take very little time for you individually and will immensely help us continue to help you. First, please use our WWW system at http://www.bio.net/ to access the archives. You can post or reply to messages via your Web browser as described in item #1 below. Your usage helps attract sponsors. If you contact any of our sponsors, please be sure to thank them for supporting BIOSCI. It is critical for them to get this feedback if they are to continue their sponsorship for the long term. Second, if you work for a company or organization that provides products or services of interest to the biology community, please pass this message on to your marketing or marketing communications department or other appropriate group. Please ask them to help support BIOSCI by sponsoring our Web site and explain the uses and benefits of the system to the biology community. If they are interested, they can then contact us for further information at our tech support address, biosci-help@net.bio.net. 1) Using the WWW to access the BIOSCI/bionet newsgroups. -------------------------------------------------------- As of 10 December 1995, all BIOSCI/bionet full newsgroups are accessible through the World Wide Web (WWW) at URL http://www.bio.net. One can read and reply publicly or privately to both recent postings and archived messages through one's Web browser if it is configured properly to send e-mail. Each newsgroup is equipped with its own WAIS index. The main BIOSCI home page also has access to the BIO-JOURNALS Table of Contents database WAIS index and the BIOSCI user address database described in another item further below. 2) What to do about "spams," i.e., junk mail, ads, etc. ------------------------------------------------------- BIOSCI is a set of parallel USENET newsgroups (the "bionet" groups), mailing lists, and a hypermail archive at URL http://www.bio.net/. The same postings are distributed on all media (except for a small number of mailing-list-only groups at net.bio.net). Unfortunately it is becoming a despicable practice on the Internet (by a few people out to make a fast buck) to do automated mass postings to thousands of newsgroups and mailing lists. These attempts to grab free advertising are refered to as "spams" in the usual, somewhat boneheaded, net terminology. USENET is more susceptible to this practice, and many spams originate on the USENET groups and then are passed on to the mailing lists. However, spammers also get lists of mailing addresses and hit these too, so neither medium is immune. What should you do personally if you get junk mail? --------------------------------------------------- Just delete it and move on without reading it further. Filing a protest is becoming increasingly useless because spammers are often disguising the addresses where the messages are sent from. Unless you really understand Internet mail systems, your attempt at protest by sending replies to the message will often end up being sent to the address of an innocent person that the spammer is victimizing. What can BIOSCI/bionet do to protect its newsgroups? ---------------------------------------------------- The only solution currently available is to moderate the newsgroup. If this newsgroup is already moderated, then you are in good shape. Moderation protects the USENET distribution from about 95% of the spams that are being sent to date and protects the mailing lists completely. Moderation means, however, that someone has to take the time to review each message before it goes out. We have set up software here that simply allows the moderator to forward to an address at net.bio.net messages that (s)he wishes to have distributed. This takes no more time than that needed to read the message and pass it on, say about 1 min. per message. Most newsgroups currently have a discussion leader who is responsible for their newsgroup. The discussions leaders and their e-mail addresses are listed in the BIOSCI Information Sheet which is available on the Web at http://www.bio.net/. If a newsgroup is being hit with too many junk postings, please contact the discussion leader for that group and see if there is interest in moderating the group. Please do not assume that by simply posting a complaint to the newsgroup itself, anyone on the BIOSCI staff will act on your complaint. With close to 100 newsgroups to run, the BIOSCI staff has to rely on the discussion leaders of each newsgroup to report problems directly to us at biosci-help@net.bio.net. We will moderate any of our newsgroups if the discussion leader tells us that the readership of the group wishes to do so and if a moderator is willing to do the work. For most BIOSCI/bionet groups, this entails only a few minutes of work each day. Moderating a newsgroup will resolve probably 95% of the junk postings on the USENET distribution. Unfortunately there are easy ways for determined spammers to override the moderation mechanism on USENET, but we can protect our e-mail subscribers from unwanted postings if the newsgroup is moderated. You can also access our newsgroups over the WWW at URL http://www.bio.net. While this Web interface will not stop spammers from trying to post to the groups, this will give you yet another way, besides using USENET news, to keep the junk out of your personal mail files. For those of you with local USENET news systems, the Web interface will also give you faster access to new newsgroups and recent postings. 3) Examples of subscribing and unsubscribing to the mailing lists. ------------------------------------------------------------------ PLEASE NOTE: The BIOSCI management does NOT act on subscription/unsubscription requests that are posted improperly to the newsgroups and mailing lists. People who do this only bother everyone on the lists to no avail. Please be sure to follow the proper procedures below. Gory details are in the BIOSCI Information sheets on the Web at http://www.bio.net. Below we give an example utilizing the METHODS-AND-REAGENTS list at both of our two BIOSCI sites: Users in the Americas and Pacific Rim countries who use the BIOSCI ------------------------------------------------------------------ node at computer net.bio.net: ---------------------------- A) Determine the "listname" which is the <=8 character mail address ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ for the group. These can be found in the BIOSCI Info. Sheet. For the METHODS-AND-REAGENTS group the mailing address is methods@net.bio.net. The listname is the portion of the address to the left of the @ sign, i.e., "methods". The listname is used with the "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" commands illustrated below. B) Mail all commands in the body of a mail message addressed to biosci-server@net.bio.net. Do NOT send commands to the newsgroup posting addresses! Leave the Subject: line blank, any text on it will be ignored. C) In the body of your message put one or more of the following commands with an "end" command on the last line, e.g., subscribe methods unsubscribe methods end Do NOT put your e-mail address or other text on these lines. The server only allows you to cancel your subscription if the address on your mail header matches the address on our mailing list. Please ask for help at biosci-help@net.bio.net if your address has changed, e.g., if you know you are on the list but the server tells you that you are not a member. Users in Europe, Africa, and Central Asia who use the BIOSCI node at -------------------------------------------------------------------- computer daresbury.ac.uk (also known as dl.ac.uk): ------------------------------------------------- To subscribe and unsubscribe to/from the BIOSCI lists, you need to specify the full USENET newsgroup name with "bionet-news." prepended. The USENET newsgroup names are listed in the BIOSCI Information sheet on the Web at http://www.bio.net/. For the METHODS-AND-REAGENTS list the USENET newsgroup name is bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts, thus the appropriate commands are sub bionet-news.bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts unsub bionet-news.bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts These commands are included in a message addressed to mxt@dl.ac.uk, NOT to the newsgroup mailing addresses. As usual, include the text in the body of the message as text on the Subject: line is ignored. To unsubscribe from all the lists at the UK node, use unsub bionet-news Please note that if the address in the list is different than the one in your mail message header, you will not be able to unsubscribe by this method. If you have problems, please mail biosci@daresbury.ac.uk. 4) The BIOSCI user address and research interest directory. ----------------------------------------------------------- Please take this opportunity to add your name, address, and research interest information to the BIOSCI User Address Database if you have not already done so. You can fill out the address form directly through our Web page at URL http://www.bio.net/adrform.html. The address database is reindexed nightly for WWW access (the URL is http://www.bio.net/). If you are not directly on the Internet but can reach it by e-mail, please use our waismail server to access the user directory. waismail use is described above. You can also request a user address form by e-mail from biosci-help@net.bio.net. Please check your database entry from time-to-time to see if your address information is still up-to-date. Because of our limited personnel resources, we ask that you resubmit a *complete* form to revise your entry; we only replace complete entries and do not have resources to edit old forms. Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson BIOSCI/bionet Manager biosci-help@net.bio.net From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Apr 13 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!quantcom.com!mailman From: mailman@quantcom.com ("mail") Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Free Service Date: 13 Apr 1997 17:58:37 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 34 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <12264418544617@quantcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Subject:Free Service We are a free service to you. If you find that the internet is a clutter of information, and you don't have a month of Sundays to go looking for New and Unique offers. We are your solution! Subject:Subscribe T1 Reply to:mailman@quantcom.com The below are just two examples of which may be of interest to you. We honor all request for removal from our mailing list, just type REMOVE in the subject heading. ----------------------------------------------------------------- JPA2 INTERNET BREAKTHRU!!! Work from home! Licensed in 33 countries $500-$1200 P/T $2000-$6000 F/T Start immediately! Full Business training Paid vacation! Bonuses based on merit Reply Now! Subject:Subcribe JPA2 Reply to:mailman@quantcom.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- BC1 No Credit, Bad Credit,Divorce, Bankruptcy, Just Starting Out? NO PROBLEM! You can be approved for a credit line of $2000.00 By becoming a member. For more information Subject:Subscribe BC1 Reply to:mailman@quantcom.com From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Apr 14 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!daresbury!lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!nntpfeed.doc.ic.ac.uk!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!howland.erols.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!sprint!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.pbi.net!news.pacbell.net!usenet From: nojunkmailskadanks@cyberearth.net (Skadanks) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:16:34 GMT Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services Lines: 42 Message-ID: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> Reply-To: nojunkmailskadanks@cyberearth.net NNTP-Posting-Host: ws110.cyberearth.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2262 sci.bio.ecology:26223 sci.environment:106435 talk.environment:91559 Helllo, I am in the process of gathering information for a research paper that will be discuss the correlation between population growth and standard of living. It will basically focus on what the threats that an exponentially growing population presents to the environment, the economy, and our lives. I have heard that there are arguments against the fear that overpopulation is presenting a threat. Is anyone familiar with what these arguments are? Also, if anyone can point me toward some good references such as publications, books, or especially reputable, reliable web pages I would greatly appreciate it. One more thing, Mormans are known for having large families. Does anyone have any general knowledge about whether their high population growth is causing any adverse effects? Thanks in advance. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ QUESTION THE WARRANT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To email, remove "nojunkmail" from the address -skadanks www.cyberearth.net/~skadanks ******************************************* LEGAL NOTICE!: Anyone who sends me unsolicited/commercial e-mail will be charged a $500 proofreading fee. Consider this official notification. Failure to abide by this will result in legal action. "By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation." ****************************************** YOU ARE FOREWARNED!!! From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Apr 15 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!AVA.BCC.ORST.EDU!andersto From: andersto@AVA.BCC.ORST.EDU (Todd Anderson) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: (none) Date: 16 Apr 1997 14:25:38 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 15 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199704162126.OAA21841@bcc.orst.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Please! I assumed that this discussion group about population biology pertained to science -- the population ecology and population genetics of organisms -- not advocacy of particular views of the social and economic costs of human population growth. *************************** Todd W. Anderson Department of Zoology Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331-2914 Phone: 541-737-7528 FAX: 541-737-0501 E-mail: andersto@bcc.orst.edu *************************** From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Apr 15 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!bcm.tmc.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!europa.clark.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!torn!kone!news.ccs.queensu.ca!not-for-mail From: 4pfm@qlink.queensu.ca (Makepeace Paul F) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Followup-To: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Date: 16 Apr 1997 15:12:15 GMT Organization: Queen's University, Kingston Lines: 33 Message-ID: <5j2q8f$bca@knot.queensu.ca> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <33545CAA.6D70@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: qlink.queensu.ca X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2273 sci.bio.ecology:26278 sci.environment:106564 talk.environment:91702 Dennis Nelson (innrcrcl@erols.com) wrote: : One aspect which is often overlooked by the population control advocates, is : that slowing or reversing the rate of population growth can have undesirable : economic side effects. For example the pyramid scheme we call Social Security : was conceived when the population growth rate was much higher than it is today. : As the average age of the population increased and the base of the pyramid : contracted the edifice began to become unstable. Other social democracies : such as Austria and Sweden are having trouble supporting the older generations : and even keeping all the public service positions filled. In some of these : countries women are payed a "bounty" to have children and are given liberal : benefits such as a year maternity leave and other incentives. There must : be a happy medium. : The problem, of course, is not the slowing of population growth. The problem is the Social Security programs themselves, because they rely on a continual increase in population. Here in Canada, many people make the absurd claim that we need to keep increasing the population in order to maintain our pension plan. It is the Canada Pension Plan that needs fixing. Paul ************************************************************************* * Congrats to Jacques Villeneuve,winner of the '97 Brazilian Grand Prix!* * and the '97 Argentine Grand Prix too! * * To learn about cohousing, check out http://www.cohousing.org * * * * Email: 4pfm@qlink.queensu.ca Web page: http://qlink.queensu.ca/~4pfm * ************************************************************************* From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Apr 15 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!news.daimi.aau.dk!klovnen.herb.bio.aau.dk!user From: reno@pop.bio.aau.dk (Reno Lindberg) Newsgroups: bionet.biology.tropical,bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.botany,sci.bio.ecology Subject: Triplaris americana Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:07:15 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University Lines: 5 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: klovnen.herb.bio.aau.dk Xref: biosci bionet.biology.tropical:2391 bionet.population-bio:2267 sci.bio.botany:4485 sci.bio.ecology:26259 Are there any publications on the relationship between Triplaris and azteca or psudomyrmex. If there are, do they discuse the effect the ants have on the establishment of new triplaris individuals? Do they evaluate the Janzen-Connel hypothesis? reno@pop.bio.aau.dk From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Apr 15 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!gondor!newshub.sdsu.edu!newshub.csu.net!mr.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!news.daimi.aau.dk!klovnen.herb.bio.aau.dk!user From: reno@pop.bio.aau.dk (Reno Lindberg) Newsgroups: bionet.biology.tropical,bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.botany,sci.bio.ecology Subject: invasive plant species Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:52:46 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University Lines: 9 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: klovnen.herb.bio.aau.dk Xref: biosci bionet.biology.tropical:2390 bionet.population-bio:2266 sci.bio.botany:4484 sci.bio.ecology:26258 I have heard a couple of examples of species introduced to Australia that invaded large areas until its species specific herbivore also was introduced (biological pest control). I have also heard an example of an euculyptus species introduced to south africa where it also spread like a pest until the species specific herbivore was introduced. I do not remember the references, if any of you know it, please write back. Do any of you know of introduced plant species that are invading rain forest areas? reno@pop.bio.aa.dk From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Apr 15 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!ELLENSBURG.COM!digress From: digress@ELLENSBURG.COM (Mike Pearson) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Consumption is NOT wealth, so what IS? Date: 15 Apr 1997 20:33:12 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 86 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9704160334.AA11008@ellensburg.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net At 03:23 PM 4/15/97 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: >Skadanks wrote: >> >> Helllo, I am in the process of gathering information for a research >> paper that will be discuss the correlation between population growth >> and standard of living > >Be sure to clearly define "standard of living". It usually means >GDP per capita and is NOT considered to be an objective measure of >human well being. >Economists have many undefined terms and unfounded assumptions. >Visit my web site for lots of goodies: >Jay -- http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/ > Hi, Great site, Jay! Please accept my admiration and then straight to the sticking points -- at that site I found many undefined terms and unfounded assumptions. Maybe it can't be avoided. Would you mind venturing an opinion, or delegating an assignment to report on which 10 articles at your site present a clear, accurate and useful summaryof the matter when taken as a collection? (each one need not be broadly all-inclusive) At the site, I found the following article and will answer the first paragraph critically following the citation. However I like Dr. Ehrlich's work, he sometimes swerves and would probably crash, like most drivers of a "bus" this big. **************************************************** QUOTING **************************** Weighing Relative Burdens on the Planet INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT Cairo, 5 - 13 September 1994 by Paul Ehrlich Concern about population problems among citizens of rich countries generally focuses on rapid population growth in most poor nations. But the impact of humanity on Earth's life support systems is not just determined by the number of people alive on the planet. It also depends on how those people behave. When this is considered, an entirely different picture emerges: the main population problem is in wealthy countries. There are, in fact, too many rich people. The amount of resources each person consumes, and the damage done ****************** End of quote ****************** Unfortunately, the best population writing is usually done by scholars, who do not understand wealth. Dr. Ehrlich is a tower of scholarship.. But my conclusion is completely different, while I rely on his work. Perhaps he would even agree with the following after reading it. Dr. Ehrlich's thesis, that over-consumption is unsustainable and bad must be correct. However, by definition, wealth and riches will always be desired by most. Let's say people consume too much; it's obvious, but please consider where I'm going with this -- to propose a new "literature of wealth" with wealth considered in new, sustainable ways. Let's not do it with political or ethnic agendas, but with full awareness of the constant tendency for those to arise. ******************Consumption is not wealth.****************** Over-consumption is the very activity which distracts us from enjoying the wealth that is in our lives. Let us *endorse* the pursuit of wealth, properly defined, and comment knowledgeably about its use. "Too many rich people" should not be our complaint. Let's not talk that way and blame the few. Let's not look to blame. Or else some very unfavorable things could be said about the poor too. Let's not play that game, or use those words. The masses of the world will be pressing for mass consumption culture unless we think differently about wealth and make wealth less based on consumption....and still just as attractive, or it will not accomplish our goal of saving the present and future. The old Soviet Union was a bad air-polluter because they had bad pollution control operations, not because of their wealth. Examples abound. We can begin a great literature about the use of wealth rather than blaming wealth for the problems which unplanned mass consumption causes. Mike http://www.ellensburg.com/~digress References with page numbers are not always available upon request. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Apr 15 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!daresbury!uninett.no!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!sprint!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-chi-13.sprintlink.net!utk.edu!not-for-mail From: Massimo Pigliucci Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:09:51 -0400 Organization: University of Tennessee Lines: 31 Message-ID: <3354C18F.28A5@utk.edu> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <33545CAA.6D70@erols.com> Reply-To: pigliucci@utk.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: tchm15a14.rmt.utk.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2269 sci.bio.ecology:26261 sci.environment:106511 talk.environment:91655 > One aspect which is often overlooked by the population control advocates, is > that slowing or reversing the rate of population growth can have undesirable > economic side effects. For example the pyramid scheme we call Social Security > was conceived when the population growth rate was much higher than it is today. yes, this is all very nice and dandy, except that it seems to me that "undesirable economic side effects", which are usually short term, play way too much of a role in our long-term decisions. Who cares about short term economic gain if the stakes include the very existence of a viable planet two or three decades down the road? One of the most annoying established practices in America is to refer to citizens as "taxpayer", as if the only, most important, overruling factor is the buck! Boy, what a limited perspective! ciao, Massimo Pigliucci -- ******************************************************* Massimo Pigliucci, phone 423-974-6221 fax 0978 Dept. of Botany, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-1100 Lab page http://www.bio.utk.edu/botany/pgl/mphome.html Science & Society http://www.bio.utk.edu/botany/pgl/s&s/s&s.html Darwin Day http://www.bio.utk.edu/botany/darwin/root.html "The awful truth is that the Universe is against YOU" Robert A.J. Matthews ******************************************************* From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Apr 15 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!agate!howland.erols.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!sprint!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-chi-13.sprintlink.net!utk.edu!not-for-mail From: Massimo Pigliucci Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Consumption is NOT wealth, so what IS? Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:15:53 -0400 Organization: University of Tennessee Lines: 35 Message-ID: <3354C2F9.4AB2@utk.edu> References: <9704160334.AA11008@ellensburg.com> Reply-To: pigliucci@utk.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: tchm15a14.rmt.utk.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) Mike Pearson wrote: > Unfortunately, the best population writing is usually done by scholars, > who do not understand wealth. Dr. Ehrlich is a tower of scholarship.. > But my conclusion is completely different, while I rely on his work. > Perhaps he would even agree with the following after reading it. > > "Too many rich people" should not be our complaint. > Let's not talk that way and blame the few. Let's not look to blame. > Or else some very unfavorable things could be said about the poor too. > Let's not play that game, or use those words. > Too many rich people is a perfectly reasonable complain. And LET us look for blame! Some IS to blame for the pitiful state of our planet, and the minority of rich western people is the most likely culprit! Obviously our goal should not be a society of equally poor people (Soviet style). That is why we should go after BOTH a dramatic decrease in the population AND a more reasonable (sustainable is the word you used) definition of "wealth". ciao, MP -- ******************************************************* Massimo Pigliucci, phone 423-974-6221 fax 0978 Dept. of Botany, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-1100 Lab page http://www.bio.utk.edu/botany/pgl/mphome.html Science & Society http://www.bio.utk.edu/botany/pgl/s&s/s&s.html Darwin Day http://www.bio.utk.edu/botany/darwin/root.html "The awful truth is that the Universe is against YOU" Robert A.J. Matthews ******************************************************* From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Apr 15 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!daresbury!uninett.no!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!ais.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!199.0.65.182!news-in.tiac.net!posterchild!news@tiac.net From: Richard Schaffner Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Bioremediation Resource Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:46:34 -0400 Organization: GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Lines: 45 Message-ID: <33553AAA.2FA7@gzea.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.105.135.31 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) Fellow Environmental Scientist/Engineer, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) hosts the Bioremediation Discussion Group (BioGroup) on the Internet. The BioGroup consists of a moderated mailing list serving nearly 1,300 members worldwide. The BioGroup was established to provide a global forum for the discussion of intrinsic/ enhanced bioremediation topics. GZA hopes this forum provides a medium to transfer technology, standardize biotreatability protocols, and advance the science and engineering of bioremediation technologies. GZA recognizes bioremediation is not a panacea for soil/groundwater contamination; however, we feel it is an under-utilized remediation technology, its limitations notwithstanding. The forum was developed to be a springboard for the pursuit of innovative approaches to bioremediation. Because the success of the BioGroup is a function of the participation of its members, GZA invites anyone with experience and/or interest in bioremediation to join. Due to the complexities of the biogeochemical processes that control contaminant biotransformation, we welcome input from environmental engineers, hydrogeologists, soil scientists, microbiologists, environmental chemists, and all who wish to contribute to this important topic. BioGroup postings are archived as a collaborative effort of the University of Guelph Department of Environmental Biology, the National Water Research Institute (Environment Canada), and GZA. The archive URL is http://gwrp.cciw.ca/internet/bioremediation/biorem-archive.html. To join the BioGroup, please visit http://biogroup.gzea.com, select "Membership Info", and follow the directions therein. Members may participate in either a non-digest mode (i.e., receive each message at the time it is posted) or a digest mode (i.e., receive one message each day summarizing all the postings of that day). There is no membership fee. Please direct any questions about the BioGroup to my attention. Regards, I. Richard Schaffner, Jr., P.G. Technical Specialist, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (http://www.gza.net) Moderator, Bioremediation Discussion Group (http://biogroup.gzea.com) E-mail: rschaffner@gzea.com Phone: 603.623.3600 Fax: 603.624.9463 From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Apr 15 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!lhc.nlm.nih.gov!cpk-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!ais.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!206.66.12.35!news-in.iadfw.net!excalibur.flash.net!not-for-mail From: "THE END" Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: 16 Apr 1997 20:18:08 GMT Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Lines: 8 Message-ID: <01bc4aa2$f7bf5480$39d5b5cf@hp> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <33545CAA.6D70@erols.com> <33551C78.127B@ilhawaii.net> Reply-To: "THE END" NNTP-Posting-Host: detasc21-57.flash.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2271 sci.bio.ecology:26273 sci.environment:106551 talk.environment:91695 What a bunch of idiots you are you think killing human is the right thing if so start then kill your self then for a good example THE TRUE GOD WILL RETURN SOON TO KICK YOUR BUTTS SO START REPENTING AND REMEMBER SCIENCE MUST BE PROVEN NOT THEORY LIKE HUMANS WHO THINK WE COME FROM APES... From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Apr 15 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!daresbury!uninett.no!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!sprint!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.aloha.net!news From: Jay Hanson Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:37:44 -1000 Organization: www.qmail.com/^j Lines: 103 Message-ID: <33551C78.127B@ilhawaii.net> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <33545CAA.6D70@erols.com> Reply-To: j@qmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: hawaii-126.u.aloha.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2270 sci.bio.ecology:26271 sci.environment:106537 talk.environment:91682 Dennis Nelson wrote: > One aspect which is often overlooked by the population control advocates, is > that slowing or reversing the rate of population growth can have undesirable > economic side effects. For example the pyramid scheme we call Social Security > was conceived when the population growth rate was much higher than it is today. > As the average age of the population increased and the base of the pyramid > contracted the edifice began to become unstable. Other social democracies > such as Austria and Sweden are having trouble supporting the older generations > and even keeping all the public service positions filled. In some of these > countries women are payed a "bounty" to have children and are given liberal > benefits such as a year maternity leave and other incentives. There must > be a happy medium. Unfortunately, the time for a "happy medium" passed quite a few years ago. ============================================================== WE HAVE BEEN WARNED! In 1992, the two most prestigious scientific institutions in the world, the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, issued POPULATION GROWTH, RESOURCE CONSUMPTION, AND A SUSTAINABLE WORLD which ended with: "The future of our planet is in the balance. Sustainable development can be achieved, but only if irreversible degradation of the environment can be halted in time. The next 30 years may be crucial." Archived http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page7.htm ................................................................. Also in 1992, a WARNING TO HUMANITY was issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists that began: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about." This warning was signed by over 1,500 members of national, regional, and international science academies. Sixty-nine nations from all parts of Earth are represented, including each of the twelve most populous nations and the nineteen largest economic powers. It was also signed by 99 Nobel Prize winners. Archived http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page8.htm ................................................................. In 1993 THE GROWING WORLD POPULATION, a joint statement by 58 of the world's scientific academies said: "In our judgement, humanity's ability to deal successfully with its social, economic, and environmental problems will require the achievement of zero population growth within the lifetime of our children." Archived http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page75.htm ................................................................. On February 13, 1997 over 2000 economists, including six Nobel Laureates, signed the "Economists' Statement on Climate Change". This statement says in part: "As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it significant environmental, economic, social, and geopolitical risks, and that preventive steps are justified. ... Economics studies have found that there are many potential policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for which the total benefits outweigh the total costs." -- The six Nobel Laureates are: Kenneth J. Arrow, Stanford University; Gerard Debreu, University of California at Berkeley; John C. Harsanyi, University of California at Berkeley; Lawrence R. Klein, University of Pennsylvania; Robert M. Solow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and James Tobin, Yale University. The project's five organizers are: Arrow and Solow, plus Dale W. Jorgenson, Harvard University; Paul R. Krugman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and William D. Nordhaus, Yale University. http://csf.colorado.edu/authors/hanson/page6.htm#GLOBAL_WARMING ................................................................. GLOBAL POPULATION GROWTH WITH LIFE-SUPPORT COLLAPSE Billions ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |11 You are here----------------+ |10 | _ |9 | _ -|~~-_ |8 V _ -~ | ~ - _ |7 _-~ | ~ _ |6 _- ~ | ~_|5 _-~ | |4 _-~ | |3 ____ ---~ Massive human die-off begins. |2 -- ~~~~~~ (GIGADEATH) |1 --|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|--- 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 [P. 133, Meadows, et al., BEYOND THE LIMITS; Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 1992. 800-639-4099, 603-448-0317, Fax 603-448-2576; ISBN 0-930031-62-8] From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Apr 15 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!agate!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!news From: Dennis Nelson Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:59:22 -0700 Organization: INNER CIRCLE Lines: 33 Message-ID: <33545CAA.6D70@erols.com> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: spg-as63s39.erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Received-On: 15 Apr 1997 22:01:08 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2264 sci.bio.ecology:26243 sci.environment:106463 talk.environment:91596 Skadanks wrote: > > Helllo, I am in the process of gathering information for a research > paper that will be discuss the correlation between population growth > and standard of living. It will basically focus on what the threats > that an exponentially growing population presents to the environment, > the economy, and our lives. > I have heard that there are arguments against the fear that > overpopulation is presenting a threat. Is anyone familiar with what > these arguments are? > Also, if anyone can point me toward some good references such as > publications, books, or especially reputable, reliable web pages I > would greatly appreciate it. > One more thing, Mormans are known for having large families. Does > anyone have any general knowledge about whether their high population > growth is causing any adverse effects? Thanks in advance. > One aspect which is often overlooked by the population control advocates, is that slowing or reversing the rate of population growth can have undesirable economic side effects. For example the pyramid scheme we call Social Security was conceived when the population growth rate was much higher than it is today. As the average age of the population increased and the base of the pyramid contracted the edifice began to become unstable. Other social democracies such as Austria and Sweden are having trouble supporting the older generations and even keeping all the public service positions filled. In some of these countries women are payed a "bounty" to have children and are given liberal benefits such as a year maternity leave and other incentives. There must be a happy medium. Dennis Nelson From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Tue Apr 15 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!rutgers.rutgers.edu!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!news.aloha.net!news From: Jay Hanson Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:23:36 -1000 Organization: www.qmail.com/^j Lines: 17 Message-ID: <33542A18.398E@ilhawaii.net> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> Reply-To: j@qmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: hawaii-144.u.aloha.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2263 sci.bio.ecology:26239 sci.environment:106459 talk.environment:91591 Skadanks wrote: > > Helllo, I am in the process of gathering information for a research > paper that will be discuss the correlation between population growth > and standard of living. It will basically focus on what the threats > that an exponentially growing population presents to the environment, > the economy, and our lives. Be sure to clearly define "standard of living". It usually means GDP per capita and is NOT considered to be an objective measure of human well being. Economists have many undefined terms and unfounded assumptions. Visit my web site for lots of goodies: Jay -- http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/ From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Apr 16 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!agate!news.Stanford.EDU!nntp.Stanford.EDU!Bio-MF7.Stanford.EDU!hamish From: hamish@charles.stanford.edu (Hamish Spencer) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Faculty Positions Available, New Zealand Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:45:39 GMT Organization: Dept. of Biological Sciences, Stanford University Lines: 87 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: bio-mf7.stanford.edu X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B] Our department has 3 new faculty positions available, including one for an applied population ecologist. If you want more information, please do NOT reply to this message, but email one of the two people mentioned towards the end of the ad. They have further information regarding the Department and the University, which I have deleted to keep this message shorter. Thanks, Hamish Spencer UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO Te Whare Wananga o Otago Dunedin, New Zealand LECTURERS IN ZOOLOGY (APPLIED POPULATION ECOLOGY; BIOSYSTEMATICS; ENVIRONMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY) Applications are invited for several positions of Lecturer in the Department of Zoology (equivalent to Assistant Professor in North America). An exceptionally well qualified candidate might be considered for appointment at a more senior level. These positions are available from 1 August 1997 and successful applicants are expected to take up duties by 1 February 1998 at the latest.The Department is large, friendly and productive, with good research and computing facilities and an excellent team of support staff. All in the Department are committed to excellence in teaching. The Department offers BSc, BSc Honours, Diploma, Masters and PhD programmes across a wide range of biological disciplines. Candidates must have a good record of published research and will be expected to engage in an active programme of research. Applications are invited from Applied Population Ecologists to teach population ecology for conservation, pest control and/or harvest management, and with research interests in any habitat or group of animals. We seek a Biosystematist who can apply systematic theory to conservation, biological control or evolution; entomological expertise will be particularly welcome. We seek an environmental physiologist whose research involves the energetics of terrestrial animals. Other duties of those appointed will include teaching in undergraduate biology/zoology/ecology courses and supervision of under-graduate and graduate research. Appointments will be confirmation path (tenure track) except one which will be fixed term for 3 years.The decision about which position will be fixed term will be based on how well the applicants research complements existing areas of research strength in the Department. Applicants who are only interested in the confirmation path positions should indicate this at the time of applying. The department is committed to diversity in staffing and we encourage applications from women and other under-represented groups. Parental leave without pay of up to 54 weeks and paid parental leave of six week's salary may be granted to female or male employees with at least one year's service. The University operates childcare centres covering the period birth to eight years. We are prepared to discuss job-splitting and flexibility of working hours during periods of child rearing. Salary: Lecturers NZ$42,750 - NZ$53,250 per annum. Senior Lecturers NZ$56,250 - NZ$66,250 per annum. Further information is available from Professor Colin Townsend, Head of Department (Phone: 64-3 479 7975; Fax: 64-3-479 7584, e-mail: colin.townsend@stonebow.otago.ac.nz), or during April from Professor Carolyn Burns (e-mail: carolyn.burns@stonebow.otago.ac.nz). Reference Number A97/30. Closing Date 15 June 1997. METHOD OF APPLICATION Further details regarding this position, the University and the application procedure are available from the Deputy Director, Personnel Services, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand (facsimile 64-3-474 1607). Applicants should send two copies of their curriculum vitae together with the names, addresses and fax numbers of three referees, to the Deputy Director of Personnel Services by the specified closing date, quoting the appropriate reference number. If an applicant is shortlisted for interview, whanau support will be welcome. Equal opportunity in employment is University policy. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Apr 16 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!ELLENSBURG.COM!digress From: digress@ELLENSBURG.COM (Ampli -Thought) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: 17 Apr 1997 00:20:38 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 71 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <9704170721.AA23071@ellensburg.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net At 07:14 PM 4/16/97 -0700, Mr. McCarthy wrote: >To say that the population is growing exponentially is an exaggeration >at present. Your basic point is life-enhancing ...we could adjust our knowledge. The magnitude of the exponential growth is *visually evident* only depending upon the span of years and the corresponding population numbers on the graph paper you use. Yet it is true that some populations are not growing. Wilderness is disappearing...longterm that will hurt even the non-fans of wilderness. Yes, human expondential growth rates ARE presently happening on Earth a fairly modest time-scale. >American and European birth rates are below replacement >levels. But overall population growth is high world wide. Dr.Ehrlich's book makes a case that must be taken into account: http://www.bio.net/hypermail/POPULATION-BIOLOGY/9504/0013.html Even if populations were not growing in Europe and America (they are), the birth rate citation is the straw man argument "...there is no horse on the roof, therefore there is no horse anywhere." The horse in this metaphor is population growth that outruns the growth of their sustaining systems. Could we be excused for being concerned about the welfare of humankind worldwide as well as locally? People are not so terribly different anywhere? Then we should look at the whole picture, and not just the example that supports our argument. The enthusiast for population growth is Julian Simon of the >University of Maryland. > >Simon, Julian (email: Julian_L_SIMON@umail.umd.edu) > (office: 301 951 0922) (fax: 301 951 846) > >There are references to his books on his Web page. Also see my Web >page referenced below. It gives scientific and technological reasons >why material progress is sustainable for a very long time. I'm glad you laid all that out --a definite resource. Still, I propose that a good engineer is a pessimist about "luck," and the questions not raised now are not forgiven when the stresses kick in later. A high mental state is important to fostering good stewardship of Earth. A mass consumption culture is not sustainable. A high mental state could make human life sustainable, but let's not keep assuming it's going to be alright. We gotta make it be alright. And it's not as easy for bio-brains and bio-people in real life as the numbers make it on paper. Evolution was a long cruel wasteful process...individuals counted for so little. Let's not let nature correct our work before we go over it carefully ourselves. To say high population growth can be sustained at a high level of comfort is not to say it *will* be sustained at a high level of comfort. >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 >http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ What a great looking page so far! Worth a look--I hope the facts are correct. No doubt a few facts will be out of place -- so hard to avoid. Still, it should be considered along with Jay Hanson's page as a good debate. Mike From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Apr 16 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!bcm.tmc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.Stanford.EDU!nntp.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: John McCarthy Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: 16 Apr 1997 19:14:35 -0700 Organization: Stanford University Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: steam.stanford.edu X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.2.25/XEmacs 19.14 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2275 sci.bio.ecology:26294 sci.environment:106591 talk.environment:91736 To say that the population is growing exponentially is an exaggeration at present. American and European birth rates are below replacement levels. The enthusiast for population growth is Julian Simon of the University of Maryland. Simon, Julian (email: Julian_L_SIMON@umail.umd.edu) (office: 301 951 0922) (fax: 301 951 846) Organization: Deja News Usenet Posting Service References: <9704170721.AA23071@ellensburg.com> X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Apr 17 20:24:33 1997 GMT X-Originating-IP-Addr: 142.150.32.135 (alsbachite.feut.utoronto.ca) X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0Gold (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Authenticated-Sender: Jessica_Bennett@tednet.oise.utoronto.ca Lines: 6 Hey I'm a high school student doing research on the subject of overpopulation in relation to birth control and government intervention. I was wondering what people thought about these issues. Thanx. -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Wed Apr 16 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!bcm.tmc.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!europa.clark.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ais.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!204.238.120.21!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 15:41:28 -0600 From: David_Wachsmuth@tednet.oise.utoronto.ca Subject: Overpopulation Project Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Message-ID: <861308670.27865@dejanews.com> Organization: Deja News Usenet Posting Service X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Apr 17 20:24:32 1997 GMT X-Originating-IP-Addr: 142.150.32.144 (aluminous.feut.utoronto.ca) X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.01 (Win95; I) X-Authenticated-Sender: David_Wachsmuth@tednet.oise.utoronto.ca Lines: 8 I am a high-school student doing a research project on overpopulation. I am wondering, how does overpopulation affect areas where industrialization is developing, such as India and Pakistan? Are there implications concerning food supply? Please respond if you are informed on the issue. Thanks. -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Apr 17 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!rutgers.rutgers.edu!csn!nntp-xfer-1.csn.net!news-2.csn.net!not-for-mail From: felbel@NOSPAMcsn.net (Fred Elbel) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 03:01:54 GMT Organization: SuperNet Inc. +1.303.296.8202 Denver Colorado Lines: 24 Message-ID: <335ad8bc.43593813@news-2.csn.net> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <33545CAA.6D70@erols.com> <33551C78.127B@ilhawaii.net> <01bc4aa2$f7bf5480$39d5b5cf@hp> Reply-To: felbel@NOSPAMcsn.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.169.41.17 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2280 sci.bio.ecology:26346 sci.environment:106732 talk.environment:91872 On 16 Apr 1997 20:18:08 GMT, "THE END" wrote: > > What a bunch of idiots you are you think killing human is the right thing > if so start then kill your self then for a good example > THE TRUE GOD WILL RETURN SOON TO KICK YOUR BUTTS > SO START REPENTING AND REMEMBER SCIENCE MUST BE PROVEN > NOT THEORY LIKE HUMANS WHO THINK WE COME FROM APES... I just started reading articles in this thread. To my knowledge, no one proposed killing humans and no one proposed abortion. The issue of overpopulation is separate and distinct from killing people (of any age). Population reduction can be achieved without outright murder. In my opinion, until such a god as you describe apears to kick our butts, it would be a good idea for us to maintain a sustainable planet in the interim. Regards, Fred -- Fred Elbel felbel@NOSPAMcsn.net -- To e-mail: delete NOSPAM in my return address -- Why population is important: -- http://www.csn.net/~felbel/populat.html From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Apr 17 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!bcm.tmc.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!europa.clark.net!newsfeed.nacamar.de!news-xfer.cybernet.dk!news.onramp.net!news.eng.convex.com!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.cis.okstate.edu!nntp.ksu.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu!not-for-mail From: brent@iastate.edu Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Marking techniques for inverts Date: 18 Apr 1997 13:19:06 GMT Organization: Iowa State University Lines: 30 Distribution: world Message-ID: <5j7sca$1fa$1@news.iastate.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lemming.aecl.iastate.edu X-Newsreader: I have seen once, a methodology for marking invertebrates that consists of gluing tiny pieces of plastic with unique numbers to the carapaces of aquatic insects. I am interested in finding the source of these tiny plastic lables, and the technique for attaching them. As I much prefer ennumerating small mammals with numbered metal earrings, this technique is pretty far afield for me, but something I recall from an seminar years ago. What we intend to do is mark very small terrestrial snails in the range of 5-10mm. I can imagine that these sorts of lables might be glued to them rather easily with superglue, but perhaps there is something better for a glue and I have no idea where I could find such lables. Alternative suggestions would certainly be appreciated. To date, the only method that has been used is a system of dots of finger nail polish coded spatially and by color. This leaves a LOT to be desired in my opinion. Thus, my interest in numbered tags of some sort. If anyone has a suggestion and/or source for such tags, I would very much appreciate hearing from you. Thanks, Brent Danielson brent@iastate.edu Dept. Animal Ecology Iowa State University From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Apr 17 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!rutgers.rutgers.edu!csn!nntp-xfer-1.csn.net!news-2.csn.net!not-for-mail From: felbel@NOSPAMcsn.net (Fred Elbel) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 03:01:56 GMT Organization: SuperNet Inc. +1.303.296.8202 Denver Colorado Lines: 47 Message-ID: <335bdba5.44338921@news-2.csn.net> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> Reply-To: felbel@NOSPAMcsn.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.169.41.17 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2281 sci.bio.ecology:26347 sci.environment:106733 talk.environment:91873 On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:16:34 GMT, nojunkmailskadanks@cyberearth.net (Skadanks) wrote: > Helllo, I am in the process of gathering information for a research > paper that will be discuss the correlation between population growth > and standard of living. It will basically focus on what the threats > that an exponentially growing population presents to the environment, > the economy, and our lives. > ... > One more thing, Mormans are known for having large families. Does > anyone have any general knowledge about whether their high population > growth is causing any adverse effects? Thanks in advance. I have been involved for years with the issue of Utah Wilderness in the US. The Utah Congressional delegation has been trying to subvert any effort to preserve and protect the land of Utah for future generations. It seems that the rural population of Utah favors resource exploitation at the expense of protecting the wild and scenic beauty of the landscape. Urban people of Utah generally favor protection. Why? I have no direct experience with Mormanism, but I have been lead to believe that: o Mormons are encouraged to have large families (e.g., 12 children) for a number of reasons, including religious reasons. Obviously, they value families (which is not bad in itself). o Mormons were persecuted in the past, resulting in somewhat of a "siege mentality", which translates to a vehement distrust of federal government involvement. o Rural residents of Utah (who are generally Mormon) have used public lands for decades for purposes of mining and livestock grazing. Such is the "welfare economy" of the West. o No matter what points of view an individual has, they are encouraged to go along with the official church position on specific issues, especially regarding public statements. I have yet to hear from a Mormon person on the issue of population growth and the impact on the planet, let alone on the ecosystem of southern Utah Wilderness areas. Anyone out there? Regards, Fred -- More info on Utah Wilderness as well as Population -- at < http://www.csn.net/~felbel/ > -- Fred Elbel felbel@NOSPAMcsn.net -- To e-mail: delete NOSPAM in my return address From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Apr 17 23:00:00 1997 Newsgroups: bionet.biology.tropical,bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.botany,sci.bio.ecology Path: biosci!rutgers.rutgers.edu!gatech!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!sprint!uunet!in1.uu.net!204.255.73.2!perkin-elmer.com!news From: Karl Subject: Re: invasive plant species X-Nntp-Posting-Host: kingke.abd.perkin-elmer.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <33574FA8.51C0@perkin-elmer.com> Sender: news@perkin-elmer.com (News Admin) Reply-To: kingke@perkin-elmer.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Perkin-Elmer Corporation References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 10:40:41 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Lines: 9 Xref: biosci bionet.biology.tropical:2397 bionet.population-bio:2283 sci.bio.botany:4508 sci.bio.ecology:26381 Reno, The punk tree, a cousin of the eucalyptus, was introduced into the Everglades to dry it out (misguided effort, IMHO). It has become quite a pest there. And when it is cut, it promptly casts out thousands of seeds. Last I heard the punk trees were being chopped up for mulch. Karl King http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1978/ From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Thu Apr 17 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!agate!news.ucsc.edu!usenet From: Erle Ellis Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:03:58 -0700 Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Lines: 38 Message-ID: <33579B6E.64AF@cats.ucsc.edu> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> Reply-To: ece@cats.ucsc.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: tsa-39.ucsc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (WinNT; I) Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2284 sci.bio.ecology:26382 sci.environment:106820 talk.environment:91936 John McCarthy wrote: > > To say that the population is growing exponentially is an exaggeration > at present. American and European birth rates are below replacement > levels. American and European populations are a small fraction of global populations (<16%). The main problem with American and European populations is that they consume so much. Human population densities and growth rates of these areas are not problematic in themselves. After several years working in China, I know what overpopulation looks and feels like. Still, with all of its overpopulation, China is doing better and better, in its own way, though perhaps just for the short term. The problem is, the possibilities for China's people to enjoy standards of living similar to those of American and European populations are limited by the incredible density of Chinese populations. This is a problem throughout Asia. Furthermore, what if half of Chinese families were able to purchase a simple inexpensive refrigerator? This is not such a luxury (like purchasing a huge 4-wheel drive vehicle that will never leave city streets). Who would deny this refrigerator to a family that wants and can afford one? Yet this would certainly end the ozone layer as we know it, if China uses the technologies that it can afford. High population density alone tells us little about our problems, though it makes solving our problems more difficult. My two cents, -Erle ----- Erle C. Ellis, Ph.D. Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 Tel: (408) 459-2506 | Fax: (408) 459-2867 -->http://wwwscas.cit.cornell.edu/Ellis/intro.htm From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Fri Apr 18 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!bcm.tmc.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!europa.clark.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!comp.vuw.ac.nz!usenet From: Tony Plate Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: 19 Apr 1997 13:32:40 +1200 Organization: School of Mathematical and Computing Sciences, VUW. Lines: 57 Sender: tap@debretts.mcs.vuw.ac.nz Message-ID: <6niv1j94qv.fsf@debretts.mcs.vuw.ac.nz> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <33579B6E.64AF@cats.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: kaukau.mcs.vuw.ac.nz X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Cache-Post-Path: kaukau.mcs.vuw.ac.nz!unknown@debretts.mcs.vuw.ac.nz Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2285 sci.bio.ecology:26393 sci.environment:106858 talk.environment:91971 Erle Ellis writes: > American and European populations are a small fraction of global > populations (<16%). The main problem with American and European > populations is that they consume so much. Human population densities > and growth rates of these areas are not problematic in themselves. > > After several years working in China, I know what overpopulation looks > and feels like. Still, with all of its overpopulation, China is doing > better and better, in its own way, though perhaps just for the short > term. The problem is, the possibilities for China's people to enjoy > standards of living similar to those of American and European > populations are limited by the incredible density of Chinese > populations. This is a problem throughout Asia. I have trouble understanding this. Population densities in some European countries are much higher than in China (whose pop density is way down on the list: just over half that of Germany's, and comparable with France's). Why is population density so often claimed to be a problem in Asian countries, but not in European countries? For interest, here are population densities for some countries, calculated from the CIA world fact book dated 02/07/97. Rank Country Area sqkm Population Density 1 Macau 16 496837 31052.3 2 Monaco 1.9 31719 16694.2 3 Hong_Kong 1040 6305413 6062.9 4 Singapore 632.6 3396924 5369.78 15 Taiwan 35980 21465881 596.606 17 Korea_South 98480 45482291 461.843 19 Netherlands 37330 15568034 417.038 26 Belgium 30510 10170241 333.341 27 Japan 377835 125449703 332.022 32 India 3287590 952107694 289.607 47 United_Kingdom 244820 58489975 238.91 49 Germany 356910 83536115 234.054 51 Vietnam 329560 73976973 224.472 52 Netherlands_Antilles 960 208968 217.675 54 Korea_North 120540 23904124 198.309 74 China 9596960 1210004956 126.082 89 Indonesia 1919440 206611600 107.642 93 France 547030 58317450 106.607 122 Malaysia 329750 19962893 60.5395 123 Cambodia 181040 10861218 59.9935 164 United_States 9372610 266476278 28.4314 172 Laos 236800 4975772 21.0126 195 World 510072000 5771939007 11.3159 -- Tony Plate School of Mathematical and Computing Sciences Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Apr 19 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!torn!kone!news.ccs.queensu.ca!not-for-mail From: 4pfm@qlink.queensu.ca (Makepeace Paul F) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Followup-To: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Date: 19 Apr 1997 14:17:53 GMT Organization: Queen's University, Kingston Lines: 33 Message-ID: <5jak6h$pju@knot.queensu.ca> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <33579B6E.64AF@cats.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: qlink.queensu.ca X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2289 sci.bio.ecology:26445 sci.environment:106950 talk.environment:92052 Erle Ellis (ece@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : : High population density alone tells us little about our problems, though : it makes solving our problems more difficult. : I wish that more people would understand this. People often deny that Canada has an overpopulation problem, because our population density is so low. They fail to realize that: 1) Canada has a lot of land that can only support very very small number of people (especially up north) 2) Canadians consume way beyond what is sustainable. (eg. the wiping out of the East Coast cod stocks, huge reductions in forests) People also claim that Africa is not overpopulated because its population density is lower than most other continents, without taking into account that much of Africa is inhospitable desert. The *capacity* of the land and how we *use* that land is of utmost importance. - Paul ************************************************************************* * Congrats to Jacques Villeneuve,winner of the '97 Brazilian Grand Prix!* * * * To learn about cohousing, check out http://www.cohousing.org * * * * Email: 4pfm@qlink.queensu.ca Web page: http://qlink.queensu.ca/~4pfm * ************************************************************************* From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Apr 19 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!daresbury!uninett.no!nntp.uio.no!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!sprint!news-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-ana-24.sprintlink.net!news.aloha.net!news From: Jay Hanson Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:23:11 -1000 Organization: www.qmail.com/^j Lines: 131 Message-ID: <33596FFF.6D57@qmail.com> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <33579B6E.64AF@cats.ucsc.edu> <6niv1j94qv.fsf@debretts.mcs.vuw.ac.nz> Reply-To: j@qmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: hawaii-177.u.aloha.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2288 sci.bio.ecology:26444 sci.environment:106949 talk.environment:92051 Tony Plate wrote: > I have trouble understanding this. Population densities in > some European countries are much higher than in China (whose When ecologists talk about "overpopulation", they are not talking about "population density". Here the Ehrlichs explain: =========================================================== THE POPULATION EXPLOSION by Paul and Anne Ehrlich (1990) Published by Simon and Schuster Tel. 212-698-7000 OVERPOPULATION Having considered some of the ways that humanity is destroying its inheritance, we can look more closely at the concept of "overpopulation." All too often, overpopulation is thought of simply as crowding: too many people in a given area, too high a population density. For instance, the deputy editor in chief of Forbes magazine pointed out recently, in connection with a plea for more population growth in the United States: "If all the people from China and India lived in the continental U.S. (excluding Alaska), this country would still have a smaller population density than England, Holland, or Belgium." *31 The appropriate response is "So what?" Density is generally irrelevant to questions of overpopulation. For instance, if brute density were the criterion, one would have to conclude that Africa is "underpopulated," because it has only 55 people per square mile, while Europe (excluding the USSR) has 261 and Japan 857. *32 A more sophisticated measure would take into consideration the amount of Africa not covered by desert or "impenetrable" forest. *33 This more habitable portion is just a little over half the continent's area, giving an effective population density of 117 per square mile. That's still only about a fifth of that in the United Kingdom. Even by 2020, Africa's effective density is projected to grow to only about that of France today (266), and few people would consider France excessively crowded or overpopulated. When people think of crowded countries, they usually contemplate places like the Netherlands (1,031 per square mile), Taiwan (1,604), or Hong Kong (14,218). Even those don't necessarily signal overpopulation -- after all, the Dutch seem to be thriving, and doesn't Hong Kong have a booming economy and fancy hotels? In short, if density were the standard of overpopulation, few nations (and certainly not Earth itself) would be likely to be considered overpopulated in the near future. The error, we repeat, lies in trying to define overpopulation in terms of density; it has long been recognized that density per se means very little. *34 The key to understanding overpopulation is not population density but the numbers of people in an area relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities; that is, to the area's carrying capacity. When is an area overpopulated? When its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources (or converting renewable resources into nonrenewable ones) and without degrading the capacity of the environment to support the population. In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants, that area is overpopulated. *35 By this standard, the entire planet and virtually every nation is already vastly overpopulated. Africa is overpopulated now because, among other indications, its soils and forests are rapidly being depleted -- and that implies that its carrying capacity for human beings will be lower in the future than it is now. The United States is overpopulated because it is depleting its soil and water resources and contributing mightily to the destruction of global environmental systems. Europe, Japan, the Soviet Union, and other rich nations are overpopulated because of their massive contributions to the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, among many other reasons. Almost all the rich nations are overpopulated because they are rapidly drawing down stocks of resources around the world. They don't live solely on the land in their own nations. Like the profligate son of our earlier analogy, they are spending their capital with no thought for the future. It is especially ironic that Forbes considered the Netherlands not to be overpopulated. This is such a common error that it has been known for two decades as the "Netherlands Fallacy." *36 The Netherlands can support 1,031 people per square mile only because the rest of the world does not. In 1984-86, the Netherlands imported almost 4 million tons of cereals, 130,000 tons of oils, and 480,000 tons of pulses (peas, beans, lentils). It took some of these relatively inexpensive imports and used them to boost their production of expensive exports -- 330,000 tons of milk and 1.2 million tons of meat. The-Netherlands also extracted about a half-million tons of fishes from the sea during this period, and imported more in the form of fish meal. *37 The Netherlands is also a major importer of minerals, bringing in virtually all the iron, antimony, bauxite, copper, tin, etc., that it requires. Most of its fresh water is "imported" from upstream nations via the Rhine River. The Dutch built their wealth using imported energy. Then, in the 1970s, the discovery of a large gas field in the northern part of the nation allowed the Netherlands temporarily to export as gas roughly the equivalent in energy of the petroleum it continued to import. But when the gas fields (which represent about twenty years' worth of Dutch energy consumption at current rates) are exhausted, Holland will once again depend heavily on the rest of the world for fossil fuels or uranium. *38 In short, the people of the Netherlands didn't build their prosperity on the bounty of the Netherlands, and are not living on it now. Before World War II, they drew raw materials from their colonies; today they still depend on the resources of much of the world. Saying that the Netherlands is thriving with a density of 1,031 people per square mile simply ignores that those 1,031 Dutch people far exceed the carrying capacity of that square mile. This "carrying-capacity" definition of overpopulation is the one used in this book. *39 It is important to understand that under this definition a condition of overpopulation might be corrected with no change in the number of people. For instance, the impact of today's 665 million Africans on their resources and environment theoretically might be reduced to the point where the continent would no longer be overpopulated. To see whether this would be possible, population growth would have to be stopped, appropriate assistance given to peasant farmers, and certain other important reforms instituted. Similarly, dramatic changes in American lifestyle might suffice to end overpopulation in the United States without a large population reduction. But, for now and the foreseeable future, Africa and the United States will remain overpopulated -- and will probably become even more so. To say they are not because, if people changed their ways, overpopulation might be eliminated is simply wrong -- overpopulation is defined by the animals that occupy the turf, behaving as they naturally behave, not by a hypothetical group that might be substituted for them. [p.p. 37-40] From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Apr 19 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!daresbury!uninett.no!nntp.uio.no!newsfeed.nacamar.de!worldnet.att.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!195.31.190.112!news.tin.it!news From: "De Lazzari Giovanni" Newsgroups: bionet.biology.tropical,bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.botany,sci.bio.ecology Subject: Re: invasive plant species Date: 20 Apr 1997 16:43:28 GMT Organization: G.D.L. Informatica Lines: 6 Message-ID: <01bc4da9$e8455180$219b1fc3@delgio.vol.it> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: genova6-34.tin.it X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Xref: biosci bionet.biology.tropical:2404 bionet.population-bio:2292 sci.bio.botany:4527 sci.bio.ecology:26455 is there any example reguarding marine species passed from one area to another, especially in the mediterranean? help us. we are students! patty@poboxes.com From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Apr 19 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!webtv.net!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!ais.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!129.33.24.22!fox.almaden.ibm.com!garlic.com!news.vbc.net!vbcnet-west!news.mira.net.au!news.netspace.net.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!phaedrus.kralizec.net.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!inferno.mpx.com.au!user From: vickery@mpx.com.au (Bob Vickery) Newsgroups: bionet.biology.tropical,bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.botany,sci.bio.ecology Subject: Re: invasive plant species Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 22:28:15 +1000 Organization: University of New South Wales Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.17.137.224 Xref: biosci bionet.biology.tropical:2403 bionet.population-bio:2291 sci.bio.botany:4524 sci.bio.ecology:26452 In article , reno@pop.bio.aau.dk (Reno Lindberg) wrote: >I have heard a couple of examples of species introduced to Australia that >invaded large areas until its species specific herbivore also was >introduced (biological pest control). You are probably referring to the invasion of Australia by prickly pear cactus, Opuntia stricta. It was introduced in 1839 and by 1925 covered 25 million hectares (about 60 million acres). In many places the thickets of pear were impenetrable. The pear was almost wiped out in about 10 years following the introduction of the insect Cactoblastis cactorum in 1926. Curiously, the cactus came from the southern USA, but its enemy came from South America. Cheers Bob Vickery vickery@mpx.com.au From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Apr 19 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!agate!news.Stanford.EDU!nntp.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: John McCarthy Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: 19 Apr 1997 19:38:00 -0700 Organization: Stanford University Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <33579B6E.64AF@cats.ucsc.edu> <6niv1j94qv.fsf@debretts.mcs.vuw.ac.nz> <33596FFF.6D57@qmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: steam.stanford.edu X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.2.25/XEmacs 19.14 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2290 sci.bio.ecology:26446 sci.environment:106955 talk.environment:92059 The Ehrlichs' discussion of the Netherlands does not mention the exports from the Netherlands that pay for their imports. Incidentally, the Netherlands is the second largest food exporter - after the US. At least the 1990 Ehrlich _Population Explosion_ doesn't predict the imminent famines (1970s) predicted by the Ehrlich's 1968 _Population Bomb_. They learn a little, even if slowly. -- John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Apr 19 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.Stanford.EDU!nntp.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: John McCarthy Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: 20 Apr 1997 15:54:43 -0700 Organization: Stanford University Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <33579B6E.64AF@cats.ucsc.edu> <5jak6h$pju@knot.queensu.ca> <5je00s$6c2@lace.colorado.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: steam.stanford.edu X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.2.25/XEmacs 19.14 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2294 sci.bio.ecology:26460 sci.environment:107011 talk.environment:92123 adamsonj@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ADAMSON JOEL JAMES) writes: > > In article <5jak6h$pju@knot.queensu.ca>, > Makepeace Paul F <4pfm@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote: > > > >Erle Ellis (ece@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: > >: > >: High population density alone tells us little about our problems, though > >: it makes solving our problems more difficult. > >: > > > >I wish that more people would understand this. People often deny that > >Canada has an overpopulation problem, because our population density is so > >low. They fail to realize that: > > > >1) Canada has a lot of land that can only support very very small number > >of people (especially up north) > > > >2) Canadians consume way beyond what is sustainable. (eg. the wiping out of > >the East Coast cod stocks, huge reductions in forests) > > > >People also claim that Africa is not overpopulated because its population > >density is lower than most other continents, without taking into account > >that much of Africa is inhospitable desert. > > > >The *capacity* of the land and how we *use* that land is of utmost > >importance. > > All this means that the problem is not over population, not overpacking > (or what ever you want to call high population density) but how we utilize > the planet's resources. It isn't even a question of population, it's a > question of resource exploitation. You still have to say what resources are short. Indeed the cod stocks have to be allowed to recover, but it isn't Canadians eating cod that reduced them. Please offer evidence that Canadians use forest products at an unsustainable rate. I doubt you can even show that Canadian consumption of forest products plus Canadian exports of forest products is unsustainable. For many people, the conviction that our ways are unsustainable is independent of any specific resource. If it isn't cod or forest products, it must be something else. - John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sat Apr 19 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!daresbury!uninett.no!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!128.138.240.25!boulder!ucsu.Colorado.EDU!adamsonj From: adamsonj@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ADAMSON JOEL JAMES) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: 20 Apr 1997 20:58:04 GMT Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Lines: 32 Message-ID: <5je00s$6c2@lace.colorado.edu> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <33579B6E.64AF@cats.ucsc.edu> <5jak6h$pju@knot.queensu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu NNTP-Posting-User: adamsonj Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2293 sci.bio.ecology:26456 sci.environment:107001 talk.environment:92113 In article <5jak6h$pju@knot.queensu.ca>, Makepeace Paul F <4pfm@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote: > >Erle Ellis (ece@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: >: >: High population density alone tells us little about our problems, though >: it makes solving our problems more difficult. >: > >I wish that more people would understand this. People often deny that >Canada has an overpopulation problem, because our population density is so >low. They fail to realize that: > >1) Canada has a lot of land that can only support very very small number >of people (especially up north) > >2) Canadians consume way beyond what is sustainable. (eg. the wiping out of >the East Coast cod stocks, huge reductions in forests) > >People also claim that Africa is not overpopulated because its population >density is lower than most other continents, without taking into account >that much of Africa is inhospitable desert. > >The *capacity* of the land and how we *use* that land is of utmost >importance. All this means that the problem is not over population, not overpacking (or what ever you want to call high population density) but how we utilize the planet's resources. It isn't even a question of population, it's a question of resource exploitation. Joel J. Adamson From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Apr 20 23:00:00 1997 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Path: biosci!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!rfoy From: rfoy@netcom.com (Richard Foy) Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Message-ID: Organization: ACLU, AI, UDC, WCSB, VFP References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <5jak6h$pju@knot.queensu.ca> <5je00s$6c2@lace.colorado.edu> <335cb277.20058575@news-2.csn.net> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 16:27:59 GMT Lines: 19 Sender: rfoy@netcom5.netcom.com Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2299 sci.bio.ecology:26484 sci.environment:107054 talk.environment:92161 In article <335cb277.20058575@news-2.csn.net>, Fred Elbel wrote: > >I can't imagine supporting a world population of 12 billion without >severe consequences. But if I'm wrong on this figure, what's the >limit? 16 billion? 32 billion? Perhaps the disagreement is on what >the upper limit is -- what the carrying capacity of the planet is, at >what point it will be exceeded and a population crash will occur, and >at what point along the way we want to choose to contain growth. I can't imagine such world populations either. However, in my opinion many of the problems we have today are a serious result of large populations. -- There is intellectual debate and there is religious debate. Never the twain shall meet. --Ram Dass URL http://www.he.tdl.com/~hfanoe/legal.html From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Apr 20 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!COMP.UARK.EDU!wetges From: wetges@COMP.UARK.EDU (William J. Etges) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Re: invasive plant species Date: 21 Apr 1997 09:18:33 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 48 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Actually, the sources of Opuntia that were introduced into Australia did not come solely from the "the southern USA". First, ca. 26 Opuntia species were introduced into Australia, including O. stricta, from Florida and Texas, O. tomentosa and O. streptocantha from Mexico, and O. aurantiaca and O. vulgaris from South America. Also, there were several species of Eriocereus, Acanthocereus, and Nyctocereus introduced as well. Cactoblastis cactorum does not do equally well on all species. Bill >In article , >reno@pop.bio.aau.dk (Reno Lindberg) wrote: > >>I have heard a couple of examples of species introduced to Australia that >>invaded large areas until its species specific herbivore also was >>introduced (biological pest control). > > > >You are probably referring to the invasion of Australia by prickly pear >cactus, Opuntia stricta. It was introduced in 1839 and by 1925 covered 25 >million hectares (about 60 million acres). In many places the thickets of >pear were impenetrable. The pear was almost wiped out in about 10 years >following the introduction of the insect Cactoblastis cactorum in 1926. >Curiously, the cactus came from the southern USA, but its enemy came from >South America. > >Cheers > >Bob Vickery >vickery@mpx.com.au ------------------------------------------------------------------------- William J. Etges Department of Biological Sciences SCEN 629 University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 72701 USA wetges@comp.uark.edu http://comp.uark.edu/~wetges/wetges.html voice: (501) 575-6358 FAX (501) 575-4010 Time flies like an arrow......... Fruit flies like a banana. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Apr 20 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!csn!nntp-xfer-1.csn.net!news-2.csn.net!not-for-mail From: felbel@NOSPAMcsn.net (Fred Elbel) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 00:52:41 GMT Organization: SuperNet Inc. +1.303.296.8202 Denver Colorado Lines: 33 Message-ID: <335cb277.20058575@news-2.csn.net> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <33579B6E.64AF@cats.ucsc.edu> <5jak6h$pju@knot.queensu.ca> <5je00s$6c2@lace.colorado.edu> Reply-To: felbel@NOSPAMcsn.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.169.41.9 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2296 sci.bio.ecology:26462 sci.environment:107017 talk.environment:92124 > Makepeace Paul F <4pfm@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote: > >The *capacity* of the land and how we *use* that land is of utmost > >importance. adamsonj@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ADAMSON JOEL JAMES) wrote: > All this means that the problem is not over population, not overpacking > (or what ever you want to call high population density) but how we utilize > the planet's resources. It isn't even a question of population, it's a > question of resource exploitation. It is both, and both are inextricably related. Whether you define resource consumption as utilization or exploitation is immaterial. The important relationships are: a) as population increases, so do requirements for the planet's resources, b) as we extract more resources, the cumulative impact on the planet increases, and the incremental cost of extraction increases, and c) at some point we will not be able to extract enough resources to meet demand. I can't imagine supporting a world population of 12 billion without severe consequences. But if I'm wrong on this figure, what's the limit? 16 billion? 32 billion? Perhaps the disagreement is on what the upper limit is -- what the carrying capacity of the planet is, at what point it will be exceeded and a population crash will occur, and at what point along the way we want to choose to contain growth. Regards, Fred -- Fred Elbel felbel@NOSPAMcsn.net -- To e-mail: delete NOSPAM in my return address From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Apr 20 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!daresbury!uninett.no!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!sprint!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.wwa.com!news.ucdavis.edu!not-for-mail From: Ellen Pyatt Rudolph Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 13:22:14 -0700 Organization: University of California, Davis Lines: 21 Message-ID: <335BCC6E.2A76@ucdavis.edu> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <33545CAA.6D70@erols.com> <33551C78.127B@ilhawaii.net> <01bc4aa2$f7bf5480$39d5b5cf@hp> <335ad8bc.43593813@news-2.csn.net> Reply-To: elrudolph@ucdavis.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: meyer1154-20.ucdavis.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2301 sci.bio.ecology:26502 sci.environment:107085 talk.environment:92181 As a semi-quasi believer that if there is a God, he doesn't play favorites, I can state: God didn't create the human overpopulation problem, humans created it. God does not reverse the extinctions of other species, who were certainly as intricate and beautiful pieces of creation (and many exhibit the emotional capacity we pride ourselves on) as humans. Even if, as you say, the true God arrives and magically restores the planet for his human children, how many will suffer excruciatingly and needlessly from hunger, disease and war over resources during the interim? We expect ourselves to behave with at least civility, thus it would seem that we would expect at least as much from *God*. How does it serve God to inflict such misery on infants? The idealogical argument that God will come before we destroy ourselves loses in this point (and many others): if you preach a doctrine of unlimited population growth, you preach the doctrine of intentionally inflicted suffering. The folks out there saying that population control contradicts the will of God are kidding themselves, and they will certainly receive the justice they deserve: for all their good intentions, they are the vehicle of evil on all God's creatures. From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Sun Apr 20 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov!cpk-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!sprint!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.aloha.net!news From: Jay Hanson Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 06:57:46 -1000 Organization: www.qmail.com/^j Lines: 131 Message-ID: <335B9C8A.29B3@qmail.com> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <33579B6E.64AF@cats.ucsc.edu> <5jak6h$pju@knot.queensu.ca> <5je00s$6c2@lace.colorado.edu> Reply-To: j@qmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: hawaii-165.u.aloha.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) To: ADAMSON JOEL JAMES Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2300 sci.bio.ecology:26485 sci.environment:107055 talk.environment:92162 ADAMSON JOEL JAMES wrote: > All this means that the problem is not over population, not overpacking > (or what ever you want to call high population density) but how we utilize > the planet's resources. It isn't even a question of population, it's a > question of resource exploitation. For ecologists, the "overpopulation" question is wheither or not resident animals are over "carrying capacity". The is more or less how ecologists define carrying capacity: ============================================================ Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Approach to Sustainability CARRYING CAPACITY REVISITED Ecologists define "carrying capacity" as the population of a given species that be supported indefinitely in a defined habitat without permanently damaging the ecosystem upon which it is dependent. However, because of our culturally variable technology, different consumption patterns, and trade, a simple territorially-bounded head-count cannot apply to human beings. Human carrying capacity must be interpreted as the maximum rate of resource consumption and waste discharge that can be sustained indefinitely without progressively impairing the functional integrity and productivity of relevant ecosystems wherever the latter may be. The corresponding human population is a function of per capita rates of material consumption and waste output or net productivity divided by per capita demand (Rees 1990). This formulation is a simple restatement of Hardin's (1991) "Third Law of Human Ecology": (Total human impact on the ecosphere) = (Population) x (Per capita impact). Early versions of this law date from Ehrlich and Holdren who also recognized that human impact is a product of population, affluence (consumption), and technology: I = PAT (Ehrlich and Holdren 1971; Holdren and Ehrlich 1974). The important point here is that a given rate of resource throughput can support fewer people well or greater numbers at subsistence levels. Now the inverse of traditional carrying capacity provides an estimate of natural capital requirements in terms of productive landscape. Rather than asking what population a particular region can support sustainably, the question becomes: How much productive land and water area in various ecosystems is required to support the region's population indefinitely at current consumption levels? Our preliminary data for developed regions suggest that per capita primary consumption of food, wood products, fuel, and waste- processing capacity co-opts on a continuous basis up to several hectares of productive ecosystem -- the exact amount depends on the average levels of consumption (i.e., material throughput). This average per capita "personal planetoid" can be used to estimate the total area required to maintain any given population. W call this aggregate area the relevant community's total "ecological footprint' (see Figure 20.2) on the earth (Rees 1992). This approach reveals that the land "consumed" by urban regions is typically at least an order of magnitude greater than that contained within the usual political boundaries or the associated built-up area. However brilliant its economic star, every city is an entropic black hole drawing on the concentrated material resources and low-entropy production of a vast and scattered hinterland many times the size of the city itself. Borrowing from Vitousek et al. (1986), we say that high density settlements "appropriate" carrying capacity from all over the globe, as well as from the past and the future (Wackernagel 1991). The Vancouver-Lower Fraser Valley Region of British Columbia, Canada, serves as an example. For simplicity's sake consider the region's ecological use of forested and arable land for domestic food, forest products, and fossil energy consumption alone: assuming an average Canadian diet and current management practices, 1.1 ha of land per capita is required for food production, 0.5 ha for forest products, and 3.5 ha would be required to produce the biomass energy (ethanol) equivalent of current per capita fossil energy consumption. (Alternatively, a comparable area of temperate forest is required exclusively to assimilate current per capita C02 emissions (see "Calculating the Ecological Footprint"). Thus, to support just their food and fossil fuel consumption, the region's 1.7 million people require, conservatively, 8.7 million ha of land in continuous production. The valley, however, is only about 400,000 ha. Our regional population therefore "imports" the productive capacity of at least 22 times as much land to support its consumer lifestyles as it actually occupies (see Figure 20.3). At about 425 people/km2 the population density of the valley is comparable to that of the Netherlands (442 people/km2) [p.p. 369-371] Even with generally lower per capita consumption, European countries live far beyond their ecological means. For example, the Netherlands' population (see Figure 20,4) consumes the output of at least 14 times as much productive land as is contained within its own political boundaries (approximately 110,000 km2 for food and forestry products and 360,00 km2 for energy)(basic data from WRI 1992).8 [p. 374] Investing in Natural Capital is published by The International Society for Ecological Economics and Island Press -- 1994 http://www.islandpress.com 1-800-828-1302 or 1-707-983-6432 Fax 1-707-983-6164 ================================================================= File Retrieval System If anyone wants any of the following files, just put an X at END of the name and send this back to me at j@qmail.com THE_FATAL_FREEDOM KNOW_THYSELF A_KIND_OF_PONTIUS_PILATE_FEELING SOROS_NEWSWEEK THERMODYNAMICS_AND_THE_SUSTAINABILITY_OF_FOOD_PRODUCTION THE_4P_APPROACH_TO_DEALING_WITH_SCIENTIFIC_UNCERTAINTY WHAT_IS_THE_GENUINE_PROGRESS_INDICATOR_(GPI) ECONOMIST'S_STATEMENT_ON_GLOBAL_WARMING NAS_AND_RS_STATEMENT UCS_WARNING_TO_HUMANITY 58_ACADEMIES_ON_POPULATION From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Apr 21 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!agate!nntpfeed.doc.ic.ac.uk!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!dundee.ac.uk!jeh.biolsci.dundee.ac.uk!jphughes From: jphughes@biolsci.dundee.ac.uk (JOHN HUGHES) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: PhD offered Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:31:11 GMT Organization: University of Dundee Lines: 7 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: jeh.biolsci.dundee.ac.uk X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] The Animal Ecology group at Dundee are seeking applicants for an NERC Quota studentship, looking at dolerine sawflies in Scottish arable ecosystems Please contact Dr Steve Hubbard on 01382 344291 or Dr john Hughes on 01382 344864 From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Apr 21 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!bcm.tmc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!sprint!EU.net!Ireland.EU.net!web3.tcd.ie!gen093.gen.tcd.ie!user From: dmachugh@mail.tcd.ie (David MacHugh) Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio Subject: Genetic Research in Thoroughbred Horses Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:16:12 +0100 Organization: Genetics Department, Trinity College, Dublin 2. Lines: 40 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: gen093.gen.tcd.ie *************************************** Genetic Research in Thoroughbred Horses *************************************** A research programme on the genetics of thoroughbred horses, with industry and Forbairt (Irish government research agency), is being undertaken at the Department of Genetics, Trinity College. The objective of this project is to analyse population structure and genetic relationships among individuals. Both molecular (particularly microsatellites) and statistical methodology will be involved. Applications are invited from appropriately qualified graduates for contract positions on this programme. Candidates should ideally have experience in both molecular genetics and statistics/computing/database work. However, candidates with exceptional strength in one or other discipline are also encouraged to apply. Registration for a higher degree is a possibility. Applications should be sent before 31 May 1997 to: Professor E.P. Cunningham, Department of Genetics, Trinity College, Dublin 2. Ireland. Telephone: (353)-1-608-1064 Fax: (353)-1-679-8558 E-mail: epcnnghm@mail.tcd.ie ********************************************************************* * (__) David MacHugh PhD, E-mail: dmachugh@mail.tcd.ie * * (@*) Bovine Genetics, Phone: (353)-1-6081088 * * /-------\u' Genetics Department, Fax: (353)-1-6798558 * * / | || Trinity College, * * ||----|| Dublin 2. * * ^^ ^^ Ireland. * ********************************************************************* From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Apr 21 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!agate!nntpfeed.doc.ic.ac.uk!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!nntp0.brunel.ac.uk!usenet From: Joseph David Chiodo Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 11:17:50 +0000 Organization: Cleaner Electronics Research Lines: 29 Message-ID: <335C9E5E.1687@brunel.ac.uk> References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <33545CAA.6D70@erols.com> <33551C78.127B@ilhawaii.net> <01bc4aa2$f7bf5480$39d5b5cf@hp> <335ad8bc.43593813@news-2.csn.net> <335BCC6E.2A76@ucdavis.edu> Reply-To: joseph.chiodo@brunel.ac.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: drc-mac-18.brunel.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) To: elrudolph@ucdavis.edu Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2303 sci.bio.ecology:26514 sci.environment:107130 talk.environment:92223 Ellen Pyatt Rudolph wrote: > > As a semi-quasi believer that if there is a God, he doesn't play > favorites, I can state: > > God didn't create the human overpopulation problem, humans created it. > God does not reverse the extinctions of other species, who were . . . . ect ourselves to behave with at least civility, thus it > would seem that we would expect at least as much from *God*. How does > it serve God to inflict such misery on infants? The idealogical > argument that God will come before we destroy ourselves loses in this > . . . . . . . I do not believe the problem is overpopulation as much as it is wealth distribution. Our planet can sustain many times more people than we have now. The problem lies in the current practice mass economics and tradition. As for your argument about God: "We expect ourselves to behave with at least civility, thus it > would seem that we would expect at least as much from *God*. How does > it serve God to inflict such misery on infants? " How do you know it is God inflicting misery on infants or people or anyone? regards, Joe From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Apr 21 23:00:00 1997 Path: biosci!bcm.tmc.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!uwm.edu!newsspool.doit.wisc.edu!news.doit.wisc.edu!news From: Eric Cabot Newsgroups: bionet.biology.tropical,bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.botany,sci.bio.ecology Subject: Re: invasive plant species Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 17:34:17 -0500 Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison Lines: 16 Message-ID: <335D3CE9.41C6@gcg.com> References: <01bc4da9$e8455180$219b1fc3@delgio.vol.it> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.104.224.10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (X11; I; OSF1 V3.2 alpha) Xref: biosci bionet.biology.tropical:2408 bionet.population-bio:2313 sci.bio.botany:4549 sci.bio.ecology:26533 De Lazzari Giovanni wrote: > > is there any example reguarding marine species passed from one area to > another, especially in the mediterranean? help us. we are students! > patty@poboxes.com There are several examples of marine species being introduced from Japan to the West Coast of Canada, largely as a result of intentional transplanting of shell fish. Some of the unintentional introductions include predatory gastropods and others involved marine plants. Eric, Cabot@gcg.com From owner-population-bio@net.bio.net Mon Apr 21 23:00:00 1997 Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Path: biosci!daresbury!uninett.no!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!server1.netnews.ja.net!warwick!bris.ac.uk!not-for-mail From: jh5765@ncs.bris.ac.uk (JF. Howlett) Subject: Re: Rebuttals to overpopulation argument X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ncs.bris.ac.uk Message-ID: Followup-To: bionet.population-bio,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,talk.environment Sender: usenet@fsa.bris.ac.uk (Usenet) Organization: University of Bristol, England X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] References: <3353ded2.3417653@news.pacbell.net> <33579B6E.64AF@cats.ucsc.edu> <5jak6h$pju@knot.queensu.ca> <5je00s$6c2@lace.colorado.edu> <335cb277.20058575@news-2.csn.net> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 21:45:11 GMT Lines: 60 Xref: biosci bionet.population-bio:2312 sci.bio.ecology:26531 sci.environment:107183 talk.environment:92264 Fred Elbel (felbel@NOSPAMcsn.net) wrote: : : > Makepeace Paul F <4pfm@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote: : : > >The *capacity* of the land and how we *use* that land is of utmost : > >importance. : : : adamsonj@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ADAMSON JOEL JAMES) wrote: : : > All this means that the problem is not over population, not overpacking : > (or what ever you want to call high population density) but how we utilize : > the planet's resources. It isn't even a question of population, it's a : > question of resource exploitation. : : It is both, and both are inextricably related. Whether you define : resource consumption as utilization or exploitation is immaterial. : The important relationships are: a) as population increases, so do : requirements for the planet's resources, b) as we extract more : resources, the cumulative impact on the planet increases, and the : incremental cost of extraction increases, and c) at some point we : will not be able to extract enough resources to meet demand. I don`t wish to start a troll on resource econ