[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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.
You mean economic is not logical? What actually is a "logical or natural" way? Sorry, I don't buy this "natural" argument. Our traditional life-style was probably as hunter-gatherers. Farming is "unnatural". You want us all to go back to a hunter-gatherer life-style? How could we use or Pentax's then? Keith McG -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
