Hi Andrew, I think you misunderstood the point I was making. Of course political boundaries affect environmental management, since political bodies are the ones making management decisions. My point, however, was that the concept of overpopulation does not apply to purely political entities whose boundaries are based on nothing ecological or physical.
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? Cheers, Jane On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:43 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > With respect, I disagree, > > National boundaries make a profound difference to the management of > ecosystems and resources. The wars in the horn of Africa, which have their > roots in nationalistic and religious stresses, have undoubtedly contributed > to the ecological probems faced by these societies. Further, your state > boundaries int he USA make a big difference to environmental policies - > California Emissons Standards, for example, have not been replicated on the > other side of some state lines. You now have Obama, who has promised to > take concrete action on climate change (which will presumably lead to a > lowering of USA's national impact on GHG emissions), while we (sigh) have > Harper, a paleoconservative who acknowledged climate change with great > reluctance, and who has stonewalled any effective action on GHGs. So > boundaries do make a difference to a population's impact. > > With respect to our footprints, 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. > > Cheers, > > A > > Quoting Jane Shevtsov <[email protected]>: > >> Let's be careful here. Countries with stable or declining populations >> can and do have growing economies. (Think Japan and the EU.) >> >> Also, overpopulation is an ecological concept and it applies to >> spatial units that have some ecological or physical reality -- planet >> Earth, the Los Angeles basin, a hillside, a watershed. Most countries, >> on the other hand, are arbitrarily bounded and I don't think they can >> be said to be overpopulated any more than a sound can be said to be >> orange. >> >> Jane Shevtsov >> >> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Ganter, Philip <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> To All, >>> >>> The recent posts on a steady-state economy and economic growth have lost >>> focus on the ecological underpinnings of any macroeconomic model. Even if >>> one uses a model that postulates an infinite universe of material resource >>> (accomplished deus ex machina by substitution and the genie of technology), >>> one must still account for population size. Steady-state economy is >>> obviously not possible without steady-state population size unless we are >>> are willing to condemn future generations to ever-sinking living >>> standards. Andy Park wonders why we have to grow. Population, >>> population, population. This is so without considering such evils as >>> worldwide income disparity (and consequent ecological footprint disparity), >>> which is a significant driver on growth. If you narrow your focus on the >>> US, which is reasonable given that the ESA is based in America, and that >>> the US has a monstrous per-capita footprint and a growing population, one >>> still has to account for growth (even if migratio! >> >> n is a driver on the growth rate) when promoting a shift to a >> steady-state economy. The issues surrounding limiting human population >> size touch deeply into our attitudes, our perception of freedom, and our >> religious beliefs but that does not justify ignoring the problem. The >> history of attempts to affect population growth rate is full of successes, >> failures, and cautionary examples of bureaucratic tyranny. We might find >> it easier to promote a steady-state economy if we also recommended policies >> consistent with our values that promoted a steady-state population size. >>> >>> Phil Ganter >>> Biology Department >>> Tennessee State University >>> >>> >>> On 12/14/08 12:40 AM, "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Ecolog: >>> >>> Quite! But I suppose that any decline in support for romantically >>> appealing "alternatives" that can thus easily convince the taxpayers to >>> support more and more subsidies for "green" fleecing is encouraging. That >>> means that a whopping 34% see through the schemes for what they are. >>> >>> Nonetheless, even if anthropogenic global warming also turns out to be >>> hyperflummoxing technically, it still may be just the surrogate needed to >>> put the brakes on energy waste. Certainly, if one looks at replacing the >>> waste fraction (Advertizing signs, inefficient transport, concentrated >>> generation) one will get numbers in infeasible territory. The message that >>> has got to get out is that, regardless of the reasons used, energy use has >>> got to decline, and if it does, everybody will be better off (except for >>> the gamblers that don't care what happens to their children and >>> grandchildren). >>> >>> Cutting just the waste fraction out need cause no pain for anybody in >>> the world--on the contrary, it has more potential than all the >>> "alternative" profit-centers on the block, and they won't even cost the >>> energy producers a dime, because they will still be able to gouge their >>> customers ever more, out of proportion to the reduction in use. If we need >>> more energy reduction, just going to bed at night need not be a huge >>> sacrifice--and the list goes on, all without the flocks of yellow-bellied >>> grantsuckers eating the seed corn, if any is left over after its conversion >>> to alcohol fuelishness. >>> >>> This shot across the bow in the "economic" (laughable, eh?) sphere >>> (irony intended) will seem like a pebble compared to the coming >>> skyrocketing of energy PRICES, not to mention the VALUE lost in human >>> habitat (even if you forget all the other species and habitats that will go >>> first, concurrently, and afterwards) degradation and cultural chaos. The >>> gamblers may be some of the last to feel the full weight of the resolving >>> of the real factors that influence life quality at a greatly reduced level >>> of ATTAINABILITY--forget mere SUSTAINABILITY! But even the Emperiors will >>> have to do without their gold toilets, not to mention having to beef up >>> their defenses at every level. >>> >>> WT >>> >>> Apolgies for getting off into opinion territory . . . >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Tom Giesen" <[email protected]> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 4:43 PM >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Experts lose faith in Renewable >>> Energies >>> >>> >>>> Odd headline - I read it as "they don't think they will work" while the >>>> actual reductions in support are from 4 - 8%, and, for two of the >>>> technologies, way above 50% support (66 and 61%). It is "just a tad less >>>> faith" instead. >>>> >>>> Tom Giesen >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Geoff Patton <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> (originally seen in post by Sam White of Cedar Rock Farm/CSA) >>>>> >>>>> Climate Change Experts lose faith in Renewable Energies: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-climate-change- >>>>> >>>>> renewable-energy<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-climate-change-renewable-energy><http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-climate-change-renewable-energy>( >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/56hoah). >>>>> >>>>> Cordially yours, >>>>> >>>>> Geoff Patton, Ph.D. >>>>> Wheaton, MD 20902 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tom Giesen >>>> 629 NW 29th St. >>>> Corvallis, OR 97330 >>>> (541) 554-4162 >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> The New Scientist Editorial that (re) initiated this Discussion thread >>> had the following to say about growth: >>> >>> "This is the logic of free-market capitalism: the economy must grow >>> continuously or face an unpalatable collapse." >>> >>> This facet of our economy has always been a bit of a mystery to me. >>> You are either forever growing; otherwise you face collapse. In the >>> current system (which we may characterize as socialist / capitalist >>> after the bail out of money losing and still doomed companies), it >>> seems "steady state" cannot work. >>> >>> It seems to me that this aspect of the economy is the Achilles heel of >>> any attempt to mitigate carbon emissions, manage fisheries >>> effectively, or achieve any number of other desirable ecological >>> outcomes. Tony Blair said it best when he stated that "there is a >>> mismatch in timing between the environmental and electoral impact". >>> In simple terms, a politician (even Obama) will always choose to grow >>> now and pay later. The penalty for not doing so is collapse. >>> >>> But these sad facts beg some serious questions that I have been trying >>> to answer in vain. Maybe you , dear Ecologgers, can offer some answers: >>> >>> 1. Why does the globalized economy have to grow or collapse; that is, >>> what are the mechanics that dictate it. >>> >>> 2. What would happen if the global economy grew at, say, 0.5 percent >>> for 1, 5, 10, or 20 years? >>> >>> 3. is there a way to get to a steady state economy from where we are? >>> That is can we decouple social and political stability from growth? >>> >>> I have some thoughts on this that involve the economic multiplier >>> effect, which is a positive feedback that reinforces the effects of >>> adding or subtracting money form the economy. But surely it has to be >>> more complex than that? >>> >>> Interestingly, I have been exploring the economic literature (I know, >>> I know, it's horrific, but someone has to do it!). Turns out that >>> economists may know a good deal less about economic growht than one >>> might have imagined. Not so surprisingly, the literature appears to >>> concentrate on understanding the drivers of growth or how to achieve >>> more of it. I have searched in vain for literature describing in >>> detail the consequences of failing to grow..... >>> >>> Ciaou, >>> >>> Andy Park >>> >>> ------ End of Forwarded Message >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------- >> Jane Shevtsov >> Ecology Ph.D. student, University of Georgia >> co-founder, <a href="http://www.worldbeyondborders.org";>World Beyond >> Borders</a> >> Check out my blog, <a >> href="http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com";>Perceiving Wholes</a> >> >> "Political power comes out of the look in people's eyes." --Kim >> Stanley Robinson, _Blue Mars_ >> > > > > -- ------------- Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. student, University of Georgia co-founder, <a href="http://www.worldbeyondborders.org";>World Beyond Borders</a> Check out my blog, <a href="http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com";>Perceiving Wholes</a> "Political power comes out of the look in people's eyes." --Kim Stanley Robinson, _Blue Mars_
