In a message dated 7/23/2006 2:14:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Den 23. jul. 2006 kl. 20.57 skrev P. J. Alling: > > > >>If your definition is true then you are wrong. The carrying capacity >>for the US is much higher than the current population. We feed a >>large >>part of the rest of the world. The US does import lots of luxury >>foods, >>(any fruit or vegetable out of season is a luxury by the way), which >>require large amounts of human labor. The foods we produce are those >>that can be machine harvested and processed. The difference in labor >>cost in Mexico is the only thing that even makes importing fruits and >>vegetables remotely possible. =========== Defining overpopulation strictly in terms of the whole world ignores actual facts. Carrying capacity for animals may be done that way, but human food and other resources are not distributed by some world government. If carrying capacity is defined as ration of population over resources, then one has to acknowledge that, we being human, affect that equation by the fact we distribute food and resources not in any logical way or natural way but by economic and national methods. And that distribution is within geographic areas, not across the board to the whole world. In other words, until some world government does distribute food and resources in some logical/natural way world-wide, overpopulation can only be considered within geographic and national borders. To do otherwise is bad science.
Since we, the US, cannot sustain ourselves, we are overpopulated. Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
