Allow me to oversimplify by asking: Are we a K-selected species that has chosen to act like we were an r-selected species?
K-selection: A form of selection that occurs in an environment at or near carrying capacity, favoring a reproductive strategy in which few offspring are produced. r-selection: A form of selection that occurs in an environment with plentiful resources, favoring a reproductive strategy in which many offspring are produced. In our case (at least for those of us in first world economies), it's not that we've chosen to produce many offspring, it's that we've chosen to consume at rates that mimic high reproduction rates. A K-selected species levels off its growth (resource consumption) as it nears carrying capacity, which seems equivalent to a achieving a steady state economy. An r-selected species grows (consumes resources) until it exceeds its carrying capacity and then crashes, which seems equivalent to a boom and bust economy. Warren Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Monday, 02 April, 2007 12:38 To: [email protected] Subject: ECOLOGY Principles Population Homo sapiens and other species Re: Equilibrium/Steady State Silvert is right about population dynamics, particularly with respect to the relationship of the ratio of numbers of a species and the resource-base carrying capacity effects. He is also right about the paucity of "practical solutions." And it is true that populations fluctuate, sometimes "wildly" (depending upon how one perceives time scales), and increased populations put a strain on resources, such that, if there is no corresponding "strain" on the population, the strain will increase to some kind of "breaking" point. Whether or not we "like" it, populations do achieve a dynamic equilibrium, even if it is characterized by pretty radical "booms" and "busts." "Steady states" fluctuate too, but we like to think of them as sticking pretty close to what we consider an "optimal balance" between consumption and the productive capacity of the "resource base." Unlike all other species (with the exception of those we have domesticated and "managed"), Homo sapiens sapiens (domesticus?) exploits resources farther and farther from its core habitat at greater and greater levels of consumption of resources in a wider and wider sphere of effective habitat, effectively defeating the biological (non-living resources are diffused at best, destroyed at worst) resource base to maintain populations sufficient to support the exploiting Homo sap. population. Like boiling a frog starting in cold water, Homo sap. does not see the fatal temperature tipping point coming, largely because luxury consumption feels sooo gooood. Ugly though the consequences of years of outside resource exploitation and cultural contamination may be, if any group of Homo sapiens sapiens does survive to share the earth with roaches and rats, it is far more likely to be those populations that are accustomed to living within, or at least closer to, the nutrient cycle than, for example, the US. Those H. sapiens groups who are the master exploiters are by definition the most confident that the supermarket shelves always will be overflowing. By definition, when the bough breaks, the consequences are less likely to be survivable. Ironic, ain't it? WT PS: I apologize for sending out a rather ragged first draft. But you know--we're all "pressed for time," right?" "They tell us we are wasting TIME, but we are wasting our LIVES!" --Eric Hoffer At 10:21 AM 4/2/2007, William Silvert wrote: >This exchange prompts me to raise an issue which has been bothering me for a >long time. We keep seeing postings on this list about the need to stop >population growth, restrict economic growth, reach a steady state economy >and so on, but there seems to be a shortage of practical solutions on how to >do this. We need both to look at the causes of these problems and at >realistic solutions, but first we need to see whether in fact we are setting >possible goals. > >We know some of the driving forces for the expansion of human impact. For >example, poverty promotes population growth, since poor people (at least in >rural communities) need lots of children to do work to support the family. >Do we have any quick fixes for poverty? Improved medical care also >contributes to population growth, but who is willing to oppose it? > >Butg it is also important to ask whether we can actually hope to stabilise >our social system and achieve the steady state economy that Brian Czech >promotes. During the past few decades there has been a growing realisation >that not all systems have a stable equilibrium, and this realisation is >perhaps Buzz Holling's most important contribution to ecology and to science >in general. > >One of the earlier projects carried out by Holling's group was a study of >the spruce budworm infestations in New Brunswick, which followed a pattern >of sever infestation followed by collapse of the budworm population, >recovery of the spruce, and eventual repetition of the cycle. A more >familiar example is the cycle of forest fires which clear out combustible >brush, followed by years of recovery, accumulation of dead wood and brush, >and then another fire. We have seen that attempts to control this cycle and >stabilise it without fire often prove disastrous. > >Human populations often follow a similar type of cycle. The population >builds up to an excessive level, which leads to conflict, war, and high >mortality. Rwanda was one of the most densely populated countries on earth >when civil war broke out. Sudan is overpopulated, given its limited >resources and drought. Population pressure is a factor in many if not most >major conflicts in human history. > >So how are we going to break this cycle? We at least have to recognise that >it exists. When the first report to the Club of Rome, "The Limits of >Growth", came out I attended several seminars on it, and although some of >the scenarios involved very high levels of population density, whenever I >suggested that this could lead to armed conflict the idea was rejected with >horror -- whatever might happen, war was out of the question. And of course >90 years ago we had the war to end all wars. Have we learned anything about >human ecosystems in the past 90 years? > >Bill Silvert > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ashwani Vasishth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 9:57 PM >Subject: Re: George Monbiot on Biofuels > > > > At 05:34 PM +0000 4/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Ashwani says (and ascribing to Ernie), "conservation alone would allow > >>us to grow into the foreseeable future (say, 50 years), without ANY > >>increase being needed in energy production." I disagree. By > >>definition, conservation is not growth, but rather maintenance of > >>natural capital stocks. > >> > > I agree. The term conservation probably better applies to the steady > > state economy position than to what I have in mind--Holling's shifting > > domains of equilibrium.
