the extremists

[David Webster]

>
> Anne Kilmer wrote:
> >
> > This is the Wrong List to discuss population control.
>
> I completely disagree.  I was not talking about population control in
> and of itself.  If I had, it *would* be inappropriate to discuss it on
> this list.  As Chris Durden correctly pointed out "... it is the
> appropriate place to remind and be reminded of the primary cause of
> habitat loss - if we are to discuss habitat loss at all".
>
> Not recognizing the impact ever increasing human biomass is having and
> will have on the environment, habitat, species diversity, and global
> climate, (which are all dependent on population size) is not seeing the
> whole problem, and will result in the wrong solutions.  I believe
> creating draconian regulations and setting aside preserves, but at the
> same time doing nothing about over population, give a *false* sense of
> having accomplished something of value to save the environment.  They
> will fail in the long run. If one believes that draconian regulations
> and preserves solve the problem, then naturally one would ignore and
> not want to discuss (and do something about) the long range impact of
> overpopulation on habitat.
>
> I'm a collector (a casual one, but I do like getting out and swinging
> the net once in awhile), but it appears that conservationists and
> environmentalists are not taking steps to address the problem of
> overpopulation, and instead prefer to impose regulations against
> activities I enjoyed as a kid.  Having said this, I do believe in
> protecting species that are endangered.
>
> Now I have stuck my neck out.  I eagerly await being lambasted by those
> who disagree.
 
Hi Stan, Neil and All,          Jan 25, 2001
        I don't disagree with you Stan but, on this point, I agree with Neil
more, i.e. his comment  "Here we don't see population itself as the
problem
> but *per-capita consumption*".
 The total impact on habitat is the product of population times
impact per capita.
        Getting the population bomb defused is problematic to say the least.
But most people in Canada and the USA could decrease their impact
substantially by acting independently and government action could lead
to much greater gains e.g. facilitating the development of
energy-efficient communities, where work, shops and play are within an
easy walk of home.
        Decreasing the impact per capita does not alleviate the population
problem but it does buy time.
        I wonder how the per capita consumption of e.g. energy and
non-renewable resources in Canada and the USA compares with that of the
60,000 Mexicans in the Monarch roost area who received an average (so I
understand) of a whopping $83 each for loss of logging rights ?
Cheers, Dave Webster, Kentville, Nova Scotia
 
 
> Niel, I do not understand the distinction between over population and
> *per capita etc.* (I can't recall the exact wording).  Could you explain
> this?  I recall recently on this list reading a message from someone who
> lives in England lamenting on how he has to really hunt for species that
> used to be common in prior generations.  This looks like the result of
> over population to me.
>
> Stan
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl