[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gael wrote:
Historically, people in poverty reproduce more. People in affluence reproduce less. This has always been true. There are many theories of why this is the case, but it doesn’t matter. Explain it away however you like. They are dumb, stupid, whatever you wish – but this is fact.
What does history have to do with the future? You make assumptions that people are incapable of learning. The past does not account for people who learn better theory in the future. What has been historically true due to imporper theory can change under the right circumstances.[/quote]
You have shifted from your argument. Sure, people can learn, but so far the have not. Anyway, this isn’t really relevant. As a result, human intelligence doesn’t seem to be particularly effective at preventing overpopulation. China only succeeded in curbing overpopulation through force.
[quote]What this demonstrates is that birthrate is not kept in check by resources. Population, in the long run, is kept in check, but except in fully mature ecological systems, it is never kept in check by gentle forces of equilibrium.
It is impossible for life to out pace resources. Resources must be produced by life. They do not exist free and abundant in nature on their own accord. In the exact instant that life is brought forth by nature it immediately starts its struggle for consumption and reproduction, evolving and adapting to the environment. Eventually it gets to the point where it is sophisticated enough that it can manipulate the environment to its own ends.[/quote]
Have you studied ecology at all? This is false. It’s the other way around.
When an ecosystem begins, it is at first dominated by life forms that alter and manipulate the environment. Such simple organisms are aggressive, invasive, they spread quickly, and make inefficient use of resources. Diversity is minimal, organisms are wasteful and lifespans are short. In the initial stages, the environment is heavily modified by the life that it contains. It is a period of fast growth. It is a tumultuous period and there is no real equilibrium to speak of. All populations are either significantly growing or shrinking, but most are growing at tremendous rates.
Eventually, as the ecosystem evolves away from the immature phase characterized by growth and rapid transformation, a mature, ordered, and highly evolved system arises. The complex, highly efficient life forms that comprise the mature system do not modify it because they are perfectly adapted. As a result, the ecosystem is in a stable state of equilibrium. All populations are stable.
All human industrial systems pale in comparison with the high level of efficiency achieved by a mature ecosystem. The complex exchange of gases, nutrients, information and energy is astounding. All waste from one organism is the food for another. Although “Survival of the fittest” metaphors are often made by people trying to compare capitalism to nature, we could stand to benefit tremendously from the study of the harmony and rhythms of mature ecosystems. Doing so is far more wiser than the hubris exemplified in the “We have no limits! We are more powerful than nature!” attitude.
Industry, in its present form, is an immature ecological system struggling toward something more sophisticated and permanent. Right now, the only “progress” is “growth” even if this means exchanging sustainability for short term bursts of productivity.
Again, you should study ecology. Carrying capacity is achieved all the time. The long term population growth of all organisms is zero. Did you know that? Think about it. Sure, periods of initial growth in immature systems exist, but the organisms that have survived 4 Billion years of evolution are stable. They do not grow.
The human population, for most of its history, did not grow. In the last several centuries, we have seen extreme growth as the result of energy and technology. We are growing our population faster than we can grow our knowledge and ability to predict the effects that this will have.
This is a strange thing to say, coming from a scientist. h, G, and C are not mathematically derived. They are observed.
Since you may quibble on that point, the rate at which a disease spreads through a population is not mathematically derived, but this doesn’t mean such a number has no real value. If something cannot be mathematically derived, this more speaks to our lack of sufficient understanding than anything else. It would be foolish to say that there is no real rate at which a disease spreads. Likewise, it is foolish to say there is no such thing as carrying capacity, even if science isn’t sufficiently advanced enough to accurately predict such a number. And BTW, in most cases the science is capable of making very accurate predictions with respect to carrying capacity.