Neal: =20
Yes, touch=E9, it was a "pedantic diatribe", but those with the = conviction of the severity of the problems will continue to pen = "pedantic diatribes" to your (and others) discomfort. =20 Notably, however, you present NO empirical or theoretical ecological = argument to challenge my basic thesis (I would honestly welcome this = from professional ecologists). =20 Notably X2, you give NO reasons why my "pedantic diatribe" was, in = itself, "astoundingly unhelpful". If a diatribe is not factually or = theoretically incorrect, it may serve as a tiny, volatile but useful = stimulus, at least to those who are in broad agreement with my views, = and are more ecologically-knowledgeable and tactful than myself. =20 As a non-professional ecologist, I see, for example, daily global = consumption rates of oil now at 1000 barrels per second (!), the US = population growth rate at 1% (i.e. a doubling time of a mere 70 yrs, = i.e. one average human lifespan), and unquestioned devotion to unending = economic growth from world leaders. Perhaps I am na=EFve and ignorant, = but data such as these are stark & unambiguous, as are the principals we = derive from basic population dynamics. =20 Against this FACTUAL background, mealy-mouthed policy statements and = timidity from the largest professional body of ecologists in the world = does seem unfortunate, IMNSHO. =20 But Dr Bryan, you can take immense solace from the fact that ecologists = such as yourself, Dr Shevstov, and Dr Vasishth, who view population = growth as a non-problem, appear to be in the ESA majority. =20 You guys can now return to more pressing matters such as writing grant = proposals and publishing papers in careerist journals to inflate your = citation factor. =20 This has been another long, ugly, pedantic diatribe, so I will finish = with a quote from a far more tactful and distinguished personality in = the form of ecologist Robert May, who was recently President of the = Royal Society; of course, the United Kingdom's foremost scientific = society. =20 He stated (in 1993): =20 "... [the growth of human populations] is the engine that drives = everything. Patterns of accelerating resource use, and their variation = among regions, are important but secondary: problems of wasteful = consumption can be solved if population growth is halted, but such = solutions are essentially irrelevant if populations continue to = proliferate. Every day the planet sees a net increase (births less = deaths) of about one quarter of a million people. Such numbers defy = intuitive appreciation. Yet many religious leaders seem to welcome these = trends, seemingly motivated by calculations about their market share. = And governments, most notably that of the U.S., keep the issue off the = international agenda; witness the Earth Summit meeting in Rio de = Janeiro. Until this changes, I see little hope." May, R.M. The End of Biological History? Scientific American, March = 1993, pp. 146-149. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20
