Bill, I think you hit the nail on the head in that it is a difficult problem to address not only on the issue of control of numbers (who, what, where, etc..) but also it's amazingly difficult even addressing the issue of overpopulation. I think the latter occurs because even when many ecologists recognize the issue, they hesitate to talk about it because they themselves wish to have offspring and no one likes to feel like a hypocrite.
I think one fundamental that often escapes the discussion is that the proportion of NPP that humans usurp (which I think I recall reading in Frontiers last year was currently about 40%) directly reduces the proportion available to every other species on the planet. So even if we could support 9 billion people through technological innovation (GMO's, etc..), it has to mean much less overall diversity as the proportion of NPP we use increases. I hadn't even considered the economics behind population and GHG's. Just because it seems like an intractable problem doesn't mean we shouldn't address it. If it were any other species we certainly would. -Tim -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Silvert Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 7:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Population control Recently there was a long discussion of whether ecologists are the problem, and a few posters pointed out that the biggest problem is overpopulation. There was not much discussion of this, as it is a hrad problem to solve, it is easier to get rid of ecologists. However the following Economist article is quite intriguing. Bill Silvert
