I can't buy the logic of this. A boundary is a boundary, whether it is an
ocean, a crocodile-infested river, or a row of soldiers with guns. There are
few boundaries as inpenetrable as the one between North and South Korea.
Rwanda is clearly an example of a country whose suffering is caused largely
by overpopulation, even though it is surrounded by land and artificial
boundaries.
Overpopulation can be described as the presence of too many people for the
resource base, and while it may be alleviated by emigration, I don't think
it is important whether the barriers to moving on are ecological, physical,
economic or political.
Bill Silvert
PS - apologies to those who feel that we should never change the subject
line, but really, isn't "Re: [ECOLOG-L] FW: [ECOLOG-L] ECONOMICS AND ECOLOGY
Growth or Equilibrium? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Experts lose faith in
Renewable Energies" getting a bit ridiculous!?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jane Shevtsov" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] FW: [ECOLOG-L] ECONOMICS AND ECOLOGY Growth or
Equilibrium? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Experts lose faith in Renewable
Energies
... 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.
