What if an endangered bird eats an endangered fish

Exactly. And well said (better than I did). Thanks

Kill them all. Problem solved.

Am I wrong?. Or even incorrect about what will happen? Why argue about something that's as natural as human nature?

The biggest worry for humans is the increase in the human population in just fifty years. We now have six billion three hundred thirty six million people on this planet, and growing. The worry isn't so much which birds or fish survives, but how humans will survive fifty years from now.

C.I., in his post of Tue Dec 09, 2003 12:57 am has looked down the evolutionary road a bit and seen a vision that the forefathers of the "Dismal Science" also feared: a nightmare of over population come true. These early scenes of competition for scarce resources, espoused by those early economists, have come true in certain less developed countries but have been avoided by those more industrialized. The two biggest counter measures to over population are technology and education (especially of women). All remedies flow from the pair.

Perhaps, we, as members of an educated and caring civilization, can overcome these worrying tendencies. However, C.I. has warned us that ultimately man will protect his own interests first. Obvious you say! After all, these human acts promoting self preservation can be seen today. This concept is manifest in the clearing of rain forests, over cultivation of land, and even the over irrigation of land which sometimes dumps alkali and other residue onto the earth rendering the land unusable for generations (see the agriculture history of Byzantium).

But this transparency is either unavailable to or simply ignored by some environmentalist in their narrowly focused efforts to preserve this or that species. These are the same individuals that are quick to point out that we must share the same environment, we are all one, and so forth. But their activism, many times, belies this latter sentiment. Their focus on individual species blatantly demonstrates the opposite.

Obvious is the need for balance. This obsession towards saving a species, via legislation and activism, cannot help but invade the normal natural rights of others. That right may very well impinge upon that of the "Alien (in the sense of not belonging) Invader" to carve out its own niche in the evolutionary temple.

These individuals may respond: "But JM, what you propose flies in the face of species diversity!" Really? Suppose the "invadee" develops a successful defense mechanism against the "invador"? Suppose this mechanism is successful in the extreme? Do we now protect the big bad invader from extinction? A lassez faire policy promotes diversity not the opposite. It is Ice ages and big ass stones falling from the sky that act against diversity (although the stone thing was a happy circumstance for us mammals).

Is C.I.'s exposure of humanity's actions to continue in existence an act of revealing its ultimate ignoble intentions towards the rest of life on this planet? Perhaps. But if not man, what other species will accomplish this noble balance? The operative word is Balance. Those seeking the preservation of species must do so with this in mind. Lack of such consideration places their goal descriptively in the same realm as that of Sisyphus' efforts.

JM

I think the interests of all parties concerned
would best be served with ketchup.

Ketchup is our families middle name. Everybody absolutely must have ketchup on everything that sits on our plate.

JM, We can't feed the six billion on this planet today. Famine will only get worse with the addition of mouths to feed. We will continue to multiply, but the death rate from starvation will increase exponentially. It has to do more with water and economics than it does with our ability to mulitply.

Intention is everything. Most of our actions are motivated by self interest. In this case, as with many others, the problem is that we are trying to satisfy our conscience, and so it becomes an act of self interest. Anyway, our species wants to be superior. It is written in our genes. Otherwise, why did we pick up the stick in the first place?

Because the carrot was buried?

the bird runs the 'danger' of becoming 'very, very, hungry'.

the very source of its 'endangerment'!

The world can easily increase basic food production by 10% with some rather simple changes that involve sacrifices mostly by the rich and powerful. Almost everyone would have to change habits and procedures rather radically to double world food production in the next ten years. Clearly humans are doing some long term damage to the biosphere. With good luck, science and technology can keep the residents of first world countries fat and happy for several more centuries. Third world countries with rare exceptions have been in trouble for centuries, and conditions will likely get worse in most of them unless they can reduce their birth rate and make better group decisions. We should do what we can, without being overly pushy.
Perhaps most important first world citizens and leaders should set a good example, by protecting our aquifers, reducing waste, especially of non-renewable resources and avoiding corruption.
Perhaps most helpful would be to offer prizes to manufactures who consistently produced products that frequently remain servicable for several centuries. Many products can have dramatically improved useful life. While I hate to suggest curbs on advertising, it is largely responsible for us wanting the latest and most fashionable bells and whistles. Neil

c.i., regarding your statement of Wed Dec 24, 2003 9:55 pm:



I am unsure as to this statement's factual accuracy. It is a well known scientific and social fact that population growth can not only be curbed but actually manipulated when the desire of society so desires. A combination of education and social pressure is the usual tool.

As to our lack of success in feeding the world population, I suspect the problem is in how the word "We" is defined and not the scarcity of global food resources. I cannot cite specific figures but I do suspect that if those nations, with obvious surpluses, worked together with those less fortunate the "We" definition might include everyone on the planet.

This could even be accomplished without the need for "foreign aid". But those who envision every one in the world getting paid equally or a "decent wage" would be disappointed in this real world solution. Sad thing is that those so in need would be more than willing to accept such a circumstance given a chance to actually do so. Those with chronically empty bellies care little about "union rules" and so-called "degrading work conditions". Thus we see those demonstrating against the WTO and globalization complaining about such ignobilities while the citizens of poor countries strive mightily to find nobility in their starvation (and these are some of the less selfish reasons rooted in their complaints).


JM

JM, I'm not that sure about the factual accuracy of my statement; only that we do have so many in this world literally starving. Many point to South Africa for some of the worst examples of food shortgages - probably exacerbated by their continued draught and taking over farms owned by whites by blacks who have no experience running farms. I'm sure there are other countries in dire need of food such as North Korea. I also know that the Farm Bill helps feed millions in this country through the Food Stamp Program. I'm not sure what the true logistics of food vs people going hungry are, but I think we have a long ways to go before we feed the current world population. I'm sure it has to do with politics and economics. I really don't know.

c.i.

You're mentioning of such countries as DPRK and, implicitly, Zimbabwe brings up the excellent observation of the failure of rigidly controlled states and centrally controlled national economies. In the case of North Korea the main force driving the decisions of the regime is its continued existence -- everything and everyone else is merely a secondary consideration. This is an economically unnatural phenomenon. The conceptual division of the 48th parallel does not explain why those in the south are so much better off than the millions to the north starving to death. It is doubtful whether unification under Kim Jong Il would make life better for all Koreans whereas a similar merger conducted under the present South Korean liberal democratic administration assuredly would.

We see the same problem in Zimbabwe, although this is not as sinister and is caused merely by ignorance and not design. Here we see land reform not much different than that visited upon the Kazaks in early soviet Russia with similar resultant inefficiencies leading to overall failure in agriculture production. I am, of course, referring to Zimbabwe leader Mugabe's attempt at accelerated social and economic reform embodied in his confiscation of farms from predominately white farmers and their transfer to that of black ownership. It didn't work because he forgot to steal the tractors used to work the land also. This faux pas has since been remedied by the use of the governmental sanctioned action of grand theft tractor. Problem solved? Well, if such an obvious action required for the successful conduct of an agricultural or social policy was overlooked, how valid can one assume any centralized planning could be as the driving economic or societal process with a demonstrated greater degree of complexity?

So in these two examples human education and natural market forces can naturally drive successful ventures, given an unbiased eye toward cold realities in the market place.

You have also brought up the concept of welfare both social, in the form of food stamps, and corporate, in the form of farm subsidies that end up not in individual farmer's accounts but that of large corporations that own large groups of those farms. This form of governmental protection of industry also works towards global poverty itself. I am not going to bore anyone further, but one must surely question the logic of a nation who advocates the action of free markets on the one hand while passing legislature that demands the price of milk not fall below a certain set price. Sure the subject is complicated but only when one ignores natural market forces and practices to make one special interest group's life better rather than that of the consumer's.

JM

JM, I don't see how we can divorce politics from feeding the masses. If you have the answer, I'd like to hear it.

c.i.

Re:

"JM, I don't see how we can divorce politics from feeding the masses. If you have the answer, I'd like to hear it. "

The overall theme of my past posts is that we on the planet are not doomed to not being able to "feed the six billion on this planet today" If we so desire we may do so given the resources and technology we already possess.

The fact that politics is entwined with the economics of food production does not guarantee failure of any efforts to feed the world's human population. When the need is great, politics is the tool we use to accomplish the desired goal. We need merely to want the goal strongly enough. Unaminity is the force to accomplish this particular role.

JM

JM, Given that we already possess the resources and technology to feed the current world population, what impact will future growth in the human population have on the limited resources of land and fresh water - if any - or is that not a problem?

i think it is very important to look at problem number two, in the way of equitable sharing of the planet's resources:

"lifespan".

the solutions to the needs of the residents of this planet, be they sustenance, emotional well being, or cultural fullfillment; all are based on 'longterm' organization and planning.

the success of all these programs will not occur within the lifetimes of those who propose, design, execute, or oversee these measures, but will benefit their offspring down two, three, or more generations. Indeed the short term will bring increased stresses, caused by regional inequities.

how shall we find a way to engage the will of the general public, in sacrificing their short term indulgence, for the well being of their unknown progeny?

c.i.,

Re:

"...what impact will future growth in the human population have on the limited resources of land and fresh water - if any - or is that not a problem?"

The issue of land as regarding living space is not really an issue and will not be for a long, long time.
Even arable land can be increased via technology as can fresh water. There is, of course, a point at which these measures will yield no further increase without considerable expense.

The implication of the quoted statement is that sooner or later an increasing population's demand for such resources will outstrip the supply. But this assumes humans and their governments have no free will and no choice but to continue copulating ad doomsday scenarios.

I believe this assumption is in error. Nations like China and India have implemented successful programs that work towards zero population growth. (As a side bar, it will be interesting to see what happens in China in the next 20-30 years since they feel their power in international trade lies with cheap labor that supplies millions with jobs they did not have before, but I digress.) Have these programs reached perfection? Well, no. But their success will improve as the stakes grow higher and people are willing to sacrifice more to make their and their children's lives better in the future. But why will they do this? I believe this is where education enters the formula. It is a well known fact that an increase in the level of education has a direct and inverse affect regarding infant births. The product decreases numerically while increasing in quality. This is especially true when those being educated are women, but I fear I am repeating myself.

JM

As a postscript to my post of Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:28 pm, I would mention that the Jan/Feb issue of Foreign Policy Magazine published a proposed job description of the next Pope by Scott Appleby which challenges the Catholic Church and its leaders to rethink their views towards science, its products, and the well being of its congregation. In that spirit, perhaps they might want to re-examine (along with the leaders of Islam) the church's position on contraception. Such an action would mean a big step in the right direction of educating millions of the world's poor.

JM