Hi y'all!
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall," eh? "Boundaries" and other
adjectives are just sound-symbols for communication or confounding, no? So
boundaries, by any other name, may need to have some presumed or actual
qualifications to account for their fuzziness, their fractal nature.
Especially when the conversation wanders off into hostile fiefdoms and the
like. Seems like everybody has a point worth considering, but there seem to
be so many that I can't get my head around all of them. Can somebody clarify
the central issue for me? Don't boundaries shift (rock n' roll) on some
scale, at some rate (however variable)? Is there such a thing as "fixed" or
"static," or are those just terms we have invented for convenience when we
don't want to count every last angel on the head of every pin? Can precision
backfire?
WT
PS: As for me, I always change the subject line to reflect the primary
subject of my email, so I can easily retrieve the entire thread along with
all of the other relevant messages. If it was stimulated by another email, I
always leave that subject line to ensure that the relevant material is all
on one message, and out of respect for the initiator (unless the initial
message is entirely irrelevant). I don't know whether this is "right" or
"wrong," but I don't object to anyone changing a subject line; however, I
think that if one is going to leave a string of relevant messages attached
it is best to leave the string of subject lines intact behind each
subsequent change to summarize the drift (across boundaries) of the
discussion. It seems to me that if one is "contributing" to a discussion
that one should only add to it, not subtract from it--unless, of course,
there is a sensible reason for doing otherwise--as when the boundary
oscillates to the point of self-destruction. When I want to open a
discussion that is not relevant to a continuing discussion or other email, I
generally just start with a blank slate. It may or may not be relevant to
some continuing discussion--I just want it to stand alone for some, I hope
sensible, reason. I think it is always up to the individual contributor to
make that judgment; I can live with it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Silvert" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:47 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Overpopulation
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1853 - Release Date: 12/17/2008
8:31 AM
