The numbers neil and balance

Fri Jun 1 10:08:59 EDT 2001

James Kruse makes reasonable points against rosy future scenarios. Rather than bore
you with a detailed list of fixes and adjustments, let me just hint at a few.
1) Human populations in much of Europe show negative growth. Populations in Ireland,
Russia and (I believe) Spain have even declined substantially from one-time highs.
Human population growth can be voluntarily diminished, often just by educating
people and allowing women more control over their lives.
2) Most humans, by far, live in areas of the world where solar power is presently a
realistic alternative. Cheap oil prices are the main deterrent to improved solar
energy. This appears to be correctable.
3) My family grows some of its own organic food, buys more from friends in weekly
boxes from small organic farms which nestle rather peacefully in native habitats.
Recent studies by Dr. Claire Kremen (Priceton) and others have shown, for example,
that most or all of the pollination needs of these farms are met by native
pollinators. Most of our food (pasta, rice etc) is probably coming from large-scale
agriculture. I think that over time, plant breeding and genetic engineering (which
in its present forms _is_ pretty stupid - my PhD is in Population Genetics, so this
is not a knee-jerk liberal reaction nor a moss-bound fundamentalist distrust of
science) can lead to an approximate 50% decline in the amount of land needed to
produce food.

I don't think the future is inevitably good. I think that we as individuals and
community had better make it good, or we will have a lot more to whine about than
rolling blackouts, the sneers of the unnetted and the ignorance of our leaders.

Taking off the seer's cap and returning to the prediction of extinctions in small
populations,
Patrick Foley
patfoley at csus.edu

James J Kruse wrote:

> No real lep content, some habitat content, mildly entertaining comments
> on the social condition. Eh, you might like it/be amused by it anyway.
>
> ---
> My comments to Patrick Foley's email follows:
>
> I hate to interject realism into this beautiful utopia (sounds good on
> digital screens and I could agree with much of it in spirit), but.....
>
> > Natural habitat need not continue to decline. Human populations do not need to
> > grow.
>
> Okay, line up at the sterilization chambers. How do you plan on fixing the
> population problem? ! rhetorical, lets not go back there. My point is that
> it can't be fixed without bringing some Hitleresque tyrant into things,
> or you irradiate folks without their knowing....
>
> > Even if human populations do grow, we do not need to damage as much
> > natural habitat as we sometimes do
>
> What does this mean? As populations grow, people need housing, schools,
> grocery stores, power plants, water, sewage treatment plants, landfills,
> airports, bus stations, rail roads, factories, churches (buddist or
> otherwise), etc, etc, etc...  Population growth and habitat alteration
> are linked.
>
> > need less farmland in the future if we genetically engineer our crops in a
> > clever, safe and open way.
>
> You just horrified many people. Many folks are totally against _any_
> genetic manipulation of their food, and are often against the use of
> pesticides too. Organic farming, in its true sense, needs more space than
> other farming. "Organic" has different meanings to different people too. I
> respect all different foods and ways of having your food.
>
> (sidebar for limited amusement:  Even if you don't like Jeffrey Dahmer, he
> at least ate what he killed.)
>
> > We may need to mine less coal if we put solar collectors on every rooftop.
>
> First off, this won't work in northerly latitudes where there is far
> reduced sunlight in the winter when you need the power/heat most, nor
> would it work well in perpetually rainy areas like Seattle or London.
> Solar power stations to 'pipe' power to these areas would have to be
> huge, much larger than other types of plants generating electricity.
>
> Second, how are you going to get people to willingly put these big things
> on their roof versus the little boiler down in the basement as it is now?
> I grew up in a house with solar heating. We tried it. After 15 years of
> trying it still needed oil heat as backup, it heated the water but did
> nothing to help electricity, it cost us $25,000 back in 1980, and the
> maintenance costs were astonishing.
>
> > If our cities are beautiful, we may feel less need
> > to trash the landscape with suburban development.
>
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I know some city dwellers that think
> that huge glass buildings with neon lights everywhere are beautiful and
> could care less about the parks that are often the most dangerous parts of
> cities. I think tortricid moths are beautiful... I think Olive Hairstreaks
> are much more beautiful than Morphos or Birdwings... see? (hey, some lep
> stuff did get in here).
>
> If cities planted native trees I might be somewhat sympathetic to the
> 'bring the woods to town' idea, but they don't. They plant ginkos,
> eucalyptus, Japanese maples, etc.
>
> > 9) Since we will live in this complicated situation for the rest of our lives,
> > live with it!
>
> Thats how you eventually convince people to be apathetic and agree to live
> under tyrants, kings and dictators. No, I can alter my attitudes (I am
> not a victim of society...repeat), my habitat (as long as I don't obstruct
> anyones scenic view), my lifestyle (unless I smoked, then I'd be a victim
> deserving scorn, money, and some limited pity if it benefitted the person
> doing the pitying), and I kinda like the ability to change things that I
> want to/can change. "Think globally, act locally", "I have a siamese
> cat and I vote", right?
>
> > 10) Smoking, abortion, the Supreme court, the US Constitution, the God-given
> > right of Americans to do any stupid thing they feel like are all beside the
> > point.
>
> No, not really. Think about what is important politically and religiously
> and can have an effect on your every day life and rights, including
> preserving/conserving habitat and making collections of butterflies.
> These four things you mentioned are likely to be in the top 10 things you
> can come up with in a list. The first two are rights (one way or the
> other depending on where you put the fence), the second two uphold those
> rights and everyone wants to either change these two things and what
> they stand for or leave them alone. I can't see how they are not relevant.
>
> > I am distressed by the extremism in my country (USA) which feels
> > like it is falling apart,
>
> So am I. Remember though, there are two extremes on the spectrum, not
> just one.
>
> James J. Kruse, Ph.D.
> Curator of Entomology
> University of Alaska Museum
> 907 Yukon Drive, PO Box 756960
> Fairbanks, AK  USA  99775-6960
> Phone: 907.474.5579
> Fax: 907.474.1987/5469
> http://www.uaf.edu/museum/ento/
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    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 