Although the concept of overpopulation applies, the definition of
self-sufficiency is different for human populations than for other species.
A self-sufficient human population is one that can produce enough to meet
its needs, but because we use money we do not have to produce the same items
that we consume.
For example, a desert country can support a population of millions of humans
without growing any food if it generates enough oil revenues to buy the food
they need. That is why wealthy countries like Singapore can support
extremely high human population densities without being overpopulated. But a
poor country like Rwanda with a much lower population density (around that
of the Netherlands and Belgium) is probably overpopulated.
We think of an ecosystem as overpopulated if there are not enough nutrients
or food to support the existing population. This does not apply to human
societies, but they still have to produce enough something to support their
consumption, and that something can be food, building supplies or money.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jane Shevtsov" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:57 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] FW: [ECOLOG-L] ECONOMICS AND ECOLOGY Growth or
Equilibrium? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Experts lose faith in Renewable
Energies
You wrote, "pretty much every industrial nation is overpolulated,
especially Canada, where I live, since we are only able to survive by
importing food and other resources from an extended hinterland". Now,
national boundaries are arbitrarily drawn and may describe a region of
essentially any size, from Canada to Monaco. Are you willing to argue
that ANY region that can be drawn on a map should be self-sufficient
if it is not to be considered overpopulated? If so, can we apply this
standard to other species?
