: Serious thinking question!



Ralph
11-29-03, 05:41 PM
Hi everyone, here is the question:

Zero human population growth is the point at which birth rate and death rate are equal. Some countries or areas have reached this. Does this mean that these places are now maintaining habitats and species numbers at present levels? Why or why not?

My Fiance and I have to come up with an answer, and we are stumped!

Elvis
11-29-03, 08:13 PM
See also: Malthus, Sir Thomas.

Conspiracy theorists point toward crack cocaine, homosexual unions and AIDS--claiming that the ultra-wealthy are playing some kind of societal engineering game, not just in this country, but world-wide.

kcnewell
11-29-03, 10:34 PM
My Fiance and I have to come up with an answer, and we are stumped!


Ralphie.....Go in the house and sit by the fire for a while. I think the cold air is beginning to have a negative effect on you.

davesdeville
11-29-03, 10:49 PM
Doubt it.. those people still use plenty of nonrenewable resources.

Ralph
11-29-03, 11:52 PM
Ralphie.....Go in the house and sit by the fire for a while. I think the cold air is beginning to have a negative effect on you.

Well, at least we were able to go for a walk today, -5 C. So this has you stumped too KC, gee yer a smart guy, I expected more. :disappoin It is a question for Karen's Biology class. Thanks for the lead Elvis.

kcnewell
11-30-03, 10:52 AM
So this has you stumped too KC, gee yer a smart guy, I expected more. :disappoin It is a question for Karen's Biology class. Thanks for the lead Elvis.


It's not that I'm stumped really........I simply don't care enough about it to waste time thinking about it.

lev
11-30-03, 11:54 AM
It's not that I'm stumped really........I simply don't care enough about it to waste time thinking about it.

Yes you do. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted.

KC, you seem to insult a lot of people in here :annoyed: , I ve just read your comments directed to a guy who had troublesome Eldorado in the Seville/Eldorado thread....

Just an opinion.

davesdeville
11-30-03, 02:13 PM
Doubt it.. those people still use plenty of nonrenewable resources.

I agree with me.

Mad'lac
11-30-03, 02:23 PM
KC, you seem to insult a lot of people in here :annoyed: , I ve just read your comments directed to a guy who had troublesome Eldorado in the Seville/Eldorado thread....

Just an opinion.
KC and I spoke about this a long time ago when it was just a few of us here. It bugs him that this is a Cadillac site and someone who claims to be a fan talks bad about them (not directed at any one person). I don't think KC goes out of his way to insult people (except Wes but thats ok) He says what he thinks and it may come across as an insult. Besides...we all pick on each other from time to time. KC is a cool dude in my book. Everytime I asked him something he always gives me an honest answer. He doesn't worry about being "polictically correct"

Ralph
11-30-03, 07:54 PM
It's not that I'm stumped really........I simply don't care enough about it to waste time thinking about it.

I respect that KC bud, don't sweat it.

Lev, KC may seem politically incorrect at times, (I am too) we comment on things that some may not like, who cares. I didn't want this thread to cause any trouble, I'm sorry, we'll just disregard it.

BUILDINGCTSAMG
11-30-03, 10:02 PM
Back to the question.....ill answer from the left

Clearly the answer is no,
Our generation uses more resources then the generations before us, America uses much more of the worlds resources then is preportional to our amount of people.....america is continuing to expand and we are passing on our bad habbits to the next generation......people are becoming worse with the environment (see h2) and the overall population is getting bigger not remaining neutral. Now there are some products that technology has allowed us to harvest faster then nature can produce (see diamonds, or tanzanite as examples) these are not unlimited resources......furthermore we produce waste that is technologically superior, but in a negative way, we are making a huge amount of trash that may keep your coffee warmer but takes billions of years to disentigrate....and oh we all dont recycle enough......all in all the worlds going to hell, but none of us will be alive to feel the true impacts, but are grandchildren are defn being screwed

kcnewell
11-30-03, 10:44 PM
It's not that I'm stumped really........I simply don't care enough about it to waste time thinking about it.

Yes you do. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted.

KC, you seem to insult a lot of people in here :annoyed: , I ve just read your comments directed to a guy who had troublesome Eldorado in the Seville/Eldorado thread....

Just an opinion.

1. No, I don't.....I was just teasing Ralphie ( He understands )

2. If you read correctly ( And you obviously didn't ) My comments were directed at the individual that replied to the thread who is pushing his idiot agenda on every Cadillac site that hasn't tossed him off.

I say what I think about what catches my eye and I'm neither politically correct nor diplomatic about it. I don't have any interest in mealy mouthed chat. If I say something that you disagree with take your best shot and don't be shy ( I'm certainly not! ) If sombody says something that I disagree with I'm not just gonna sit here and let it lie......I.M.H.O. the main thing that is wrong with society today is.....Everybody's so damned worried about offending someone who desperately needs a hard slap that nobody ever tells anyone anything of substance for fear of offending the offending party....Wake up America! It's just words! Get over it.

Ralph
12-01-03, 12:05 AM
Back to the question.....ill answer from the left

Clearly the answer is no,
Our generation uses more resources then the generations before us, America uses much more of the worlds resources then is preportional to our amount of people.....america is continuing to expand and we are passing on our bad habbits to the next generation......people are becoming worse with the environment (see h2) and the overall population is getting bigger not remaining neutral. Now there are some products that technology has allowed us to harvest faster then nature can produce (see diamonds, or tanzanite as examples) these are not unlimited resources......furthermore we produce waste that is technologically superior, but in a negative way, we are making a huge amount of trash that may keep your coffee warmer but takes billions of years to disentigrate....and oh we all dont recycle enough......all in all the worlds going to hell, but none of us will be alive to feel the true impacts, but are grandchildren are defn being screwed

Interesting, thanks! Your answer got us thinking, for example. Take North America for an example, if no one died, and no one was born for the next 100 years, the resources and species would still dwindle away because we have to maintain our typical North American lifestyles. (I think this is what you are implying) For example, we still demand products like kleenix, paper, petrolium products, burning coal, etc.

BUILDINGCTSAMG
12-01-03, 07:05 PM
Yeah ralph your catching on, but it goes even further then that, we cant even imagine how much waste big corporations go through, its like in the matrix, humans are kind of this disease to earth, but hey i like us more then i like earth

kcnewell
12-01-03, 08:07 PM
Yeah ralph your catching on, but it goes even further then that, we cant even imagine how much waste big corporations go through, its like in the matrix, humans are kind of this disease to earth, but hey i like us more then i like earth


Utter nonsense!

BUILDINGCTSAMG
12-01-03, 08:23 PM
Hey kc i dont mind you disagreeing but thats not productive, explain your point of view please

kcnewell
12-01-03, 08:28 PM
Humans are a kind of disease on earth? That's so foolish that it merits no explanation! ( You obviously went to public schools! )

Elvis
12-01-03, 08:38 PM
I can appreciate that concept. The Earth is a living organism of its own. Humans are like a destructive bacteria--some might even say a cancer.

Think about it: No other living thing on this planet damages it.

Now, my real opinion. I don't care. The Earth is big enough and resilient enough that it can overcome any damage we might do to it. Look at Lake Erie--it filtered itself after a few years. The ozone hole is closing. The new growth that is replacing the depleted rain forest actually produces MORE oxygen than the old timber that was cut.

We have a responsibility to be a good custodian and all that, but is this forum REALLY a good place for us to debate a topic like this? Think about it--we all LOVE Cadillacs, and historically they've been among the worst offenders to the environment.

BUILDINGCTSAMG
12-01-03, 09:05 PM
Actually kc i went to private schools and now i happen to go to a top 20 university on an academic scholarship, I know your alll pent up because you graduated bastard university but get a grip before you insult my education you pompous jerk

Ralph
12-01-03, 09:41 PM
Elvis, you are for the most part correct. I took an oddball class back at U of S called Environmental Philosophy, and the professor said something that stuck with me, see if you guys agree; People who like to think of themselves as being "environmentally friendly" will sell their Lincoln, Caddy, V8 whatever, and buy something like a Sprint. The problem is they eventually realize they have extra money and the wife needs a car, so they buy 2 Chevy Sprints. Then the couple decides we'll buy a car for their daughter going to college, a Chevy Sprint for example. So in the end, they are polluting even more by an extra cylender. That's one way to look at it.

However I think cars are related to a topic such as this. There is something called the Gayla Hypothesis that states humans are a destructive organism against mother earth, and mother earth will find a way to get even or rid of us. I know you will laugh KC, but there may be something to this. Do you remember a couple of years ago, fish off the Atlantic coast started to get "eaten alive" by some sort of strange organism, the news gave brief mention to this and a professor friend of mine said it is getting worse and they are keeping it quiet now! Wasn't there something strange happening to the forestry industry a while back where the trees that were previously planted started to get sick and die at the time they were to be cut down? There was no explanation for this from last I heard. I don't know, just interesting stuff I guess.

AirJigga25
12-01-03, 09:52 PM
Hi everyone, here is the question:

Zero human population growth is the point at which birth rate and death rate are equal. Some countries or areas have reached this. Does this mean that these places are now maintaining habitats and species numbers at present levels? Why or why not?

My Fiance and I have to come up with an answer, and we are stumped!
What areas are you talking about specifically...china? they aren't necessarily maintaining. Maybe it is on purpose. Maybe it isn't. In chinas case it is population control and population reduction. People don't have 4 or 7 or 10 kids anymore...well thats just in certain areas. your question is vague.

ShadowLvr400
12-01-03, 10:11 PM
Hi everyone, here is the question:

Zero human population growth is the point at which birth rate and death rate are equal. Some countries or areas have reached this. Does this mean that these places are now maintaining habitats and species numbers at present levels? Why or why not?

My Fiance and I have to come up with an answer, and we are stumped!


You're discussing population equalibrium. Defined by a stabilizing of both the population, and the enviornent that supports it, it is possible that a few areas have managed to reach this state. It takes a balance where the resources of the area re cycling into the animals of the area, and then back in. The closest human populations have to reaching this balance, would perhaps be Amish, or similar type communities. Something relatively basic, likely agrarian, with very few requirements as for technology. Self sufficient. The bulk of human society depends on other sections of the society. (Think US gets Iraqi oil, but we sell a LOT of grain.) But, considering our abuses of the planet as a whole, while the population may be reaching something approaching stability, the interaction with the enviornment is not balanced. Trying to recall the term. I think biosphere. Biosphere being the collection of a number of different populations (variety of species) and the habitat they live in. A population is just a large group of a single interbreeding species.
Taking Genetics and Bio Diversity this term, finals next week.

c5 rv
12-01-03, 10:44 PM
What "species numbers" and "habitats" are you referring to? Human population & development or other species? As for humans, I think that with birth control, alternative family units, and the trend of couples to marry later, we will continue to see smaller average family size in North America.

However, I'm seeing a number of couples making the choice to have a larger family. My step-son is a social worker and his wife is a teacher. They have 3 daughters and are considering having another child. A number of professionals I know have decided to live on 1 income, usually dad's, while mom stays home with a large family of 4, 5, or more children. In today's world of disposable income, some folks are opting for larger families instead of lavish cars, jewelry, or vacations.

kcnewell
12-01-03, 10:50 PM
I know your alll pent up because you graduated bastard university but get a grip before you insult my education you pompous jerk



Now THAT! Is funny! And you better stop badmouthing Bastard University or I'll hit you with my purse....You big weenie! ( There, I guess I told him! )


BTW...There is a lot of science regarding this subject that is colored by an underlying political agenda. Pure science is one thing but if you have a conclusion and THEN set about trying to prove it it destroys the integrity of the scientific process! That is what I refer to when I say that a lot of this stuff is utter nonsense time will tell...But in the final analysis most of the enviromental common wisdom of our time will most probably be laughed at in retrospect. ( Unfortunately neither you nor I will be around long enough to see it come to pass )

Ralph
12-02-03, 02:15 AM
What areas are you talking about specifically...china? they aren't necessarily maintaining. Maybe it is on purpose. Maybe it isn't. In chinas case it is population control and population reduction. People don't have 4 or 7 or 10 kids anymore...well thats just in certain areas. your question is vague.

I think too much is being read into this question. We weren't given which countries are at zero human growth rate. However, I know this, for example, in 1997 (year I graduated) they mentioned that Canada's rate was -2. Meaning, every couple in Canada would have to instantly have 2 children to get the countries human growth rate back to zero. The major reason for this is because MANY of our professionals who train in Canada move to the United States for a career. I am talking about doctors, lawyers, chemical engineers, etc. That is one of the reasons (unfortunately) why Canada has more lax immigration policies, namely, we need people from other countries to fill in the gaps of these lost professionals.

Basically, think of the question on a smaller scale, for example, say a town consisting of 10,000 people (not growing or decreasing) is occupying a space of 5 miles. The town is limited to the 5 miles by an infinite wall surrounding it. Do the townspeople consume more, equal or less the resources, do they destroy more, equal or less species in the habitat? Species being any wildlife, birds, foxes, deer, moose, etc. Maybe this is a crappy example?

Ralph
12-02-03, 02:19 AM
You're discussing population equalibrium. Defined by a stabilizing of both the population, and the enviornent that supports it, it is possible that a few areas have managed to reach this state. It takes a balance where the resources of the area re cycling into the animals of the area, and then back in. The closest human populations have to reaching this balance, would perhaps be Amish, or similar type communities. Something relatively basic, likely agrarian, with very few requirements as for technology. Self sufficient. The bulk of human society depends on other sections of the society. (Think US gets Iraqi oil, but we sell a LOT of grain.) But, considering our abuses of the planet as a whole, while the population may be reaching something approaching stability, the interaction with the enviornment is not balanced. Trying to recall the term. I think biosphere. Biosphere being the collection of a number of different populations (variety of species) and the habitat they live in. A population is just a large group of a single interbreeding species.
Taking Genetics and Bio Diversity this term, finals next week.

Interesting, you know your stuff. So what's the answer? :D If there is ZERO population growth, do the species in the region become more, less, or equally depleted?

Ralph
12-02-03, 02:25 AM
What "species numbers" and "habitats" are you referring to? Human population & development or other species? As for humans, I think that with birth control, alternative family units, and the trend of couples to marry later, we will continue to see smaller average family size in North America.

However, I'm seeing a number of couples making the choice to have a larger family. My step-son is a social worker and his wife is a teacher. They have 3 daughters and are considering having another child. A number of professionals I know have decided to live on 1 income, usually dad's, while mom stays home with a large family of 4, 5, or more children. In today's world of disposable income, some folks are opting for larger families instead of lavish cars, jewelry, or vacations.

I think they are just referring to wildlife in general. It's true about population, and I've read that professionals for the most part, are actually having less children, and if they do, they wait until well into their 30's. I am assuming that your step son's wife stays home and is raising the children? If so, I commend her. I think there is only so much a day-care can and should do, but it is good they are around today.

Ralph
12-02-03, 02:30 AM
Now THAT! Is funny! And you better stop badmouthing Bastard University or I'll hit you with my purse....You big weenie! ( There, I guess I told him! )


BTW...There is a lot of science regarding this subject that is colored by an underlying political agenda. Pure science is one thing but if you have a conclusion and THEN set about trying to prove it it destroys the integrity of the scientific process! That is what I refer to when I say that a lot of this stuff is utter nonsense time will tell...But in the final analysis most of the enviromental common wisdom of our time will most probably be laughed at in retrospect. ( Unfortunately neither you nor I will be around long enough to see it come to pass )

Now girls, you had better both start behaving properly or I'll smack you both with my purse, and I carry a brick in mine! Don't even get me started on the French-cut panties! :histeric:

You are correct, science is subjective up until the point that something can be proven, and I am not sure where that leaves this question. Like Elvis said, the ozone seems to be healing itself the last I heard, perhaps we are all too concerned about these issues? I'm not sure.

Ralph
12-02-03, 05:34 PM
OK, Karen just talked to her professor, and the answer is that even if the human population growth rate is 0, the species numbers would still be depleted. Apparently Canada has now reached 0, and of course we are polluters. Thanks for all your consideration and opinions, it has been fun, well except for a couple of you. :D I guess Building, and Shadow came the closest to answering this tricky question, but you all did great.

davesdeville
12-02-03, 07:44 PM
Now THAT! Is funny! And you better stop badmouthing Bastard University or I'll hit you with my purse....You big weenie! ( There, I guess I told him! )


BTW...There is a lot of science regarding this subject that is colored by an underlying political agenda. Pure science is one thing but if you have a conclusion and THEN set about trying to prove it it destroys the integrity of the scientific process! That is what I refer to when I say that a lot of this stuff is utter nonsense time will tell...But in the final analysis most of the enviromental common wisdom of our time will most probably be laughed at in retrospect. ( Unfortunately neither you nor I will be around long enough to see it come to pass )

KC, you're too hardheaded for your own good..

kcnewell
12-02-03, 10:13 PM
KC, you're too hardheaded for your own good..


Not really.....Because I'm perfectly fine with it! I have strong opinions, Yes. But so do the people that preach this crap about the environment without so much as a scrap of proof.. They are telling people that all this doom and gloom is going to come if we don't take ourselves back damned near to the stoneage. It's ridiculous.

powerglide
12-03-03, 10:42 PM
Humans are a kind of disease on earth? That's so foolish that it merits no explanation! ( You obviously went to public schools! )
I know idiots from public schools and idiots from private schools. Smart highschool drop-outs and retarted college profs. Let's avoid making these hateful stereotypes eh?

BUILDINGCTSAMG
12-03-03, 11:13 PM
kc who said go back to the stoneage, all i am saying is that we can be more enviromentally friendly, and if it costs 25 cents to buy new paper and 30 cents to buy recycled paper, we should take it in the wallet and help our children out

kcnewell
12-03-03, 11:32 PM
kc who said go back to the stoneage, all i am saying is that we can be more enviromentally friendly, and if it costs 25 cents to buy new paper and 30 cents to buy recycled paper, we should take it in the wallet and help our children out



The problem is.....We already do these things and the radical enviromentalists ( Pronounced " Hate America first" ) say it's not enough! Read Al Gores book...It's called "Earth in the balance" It is based on junk science and pure nonsense. The problem is this guy actually almost got into the whitehouse! My generation started all this enviro-crap back in the early seventies because in those days if you went to L.A. on a beautiful sunny day your eyes would burn and you would get light headed from the smog. Back then there was a problem and now we've come a very long way ( Farther than we ever thought we would ) Then it got out of hand.....The so called environmentalist movement shut down the timber industry in the pacific northwest ostensibly to save some stupid owl that nobody really gives a damn about. They made up some nonsense about how this idiot owl could only live in " Old Growth Forest " and we had to stop logging to save it! The FACT is that within 5 years of that so called "BIG PROBLEM" A large population of the spotted owls had in fact migrated and set up housekeeping in a "New Growth Forest" That was planted by Weyerhauser lumber co. about twenty five years before. The problem was nonexistant but the timber industry in the pacific northwest has never recovered and it has caused nothing but jobs and quality of life in most of Oregon and large areas of Washington state. Like all politicaly driven movements it has taken on a life of its own and is now doing more harm than good.

BUILDINGCTSAMG
12-03-03, 11:48 PM
i agree al gore is retarded

powerglide
12-04-03, 12:04 AM
i agree al gore is retarded
I respectfully disagree.

Ralph
12-04-03, 12:05 AM
kc who said go back to the stoneage, all i am saying is that we can be more enviromentally friendly, and if it costs 25 cents to buy new paper and 30 cents to buy recycled paper, we should take it in the wallet and help our children out

Personally, I'm not an environmentalist. My dad when he was alive started things like "nature trails" for the Wildlife Federation, photographed a lot of incredible nature, etc. His photos are touring the various libraries across Canada, and he died in 1980! I entered his name on the net and I couldn't believe the scholarships, etc. in his name, but the ironic thing was, he also owned a Gulf service station!!

It's interesting you mentioning the newspaper example. My old professor (not that I believe all is true from them) mentioned about the recycled automotive oil you can buy, usually green bottles. Well they are about the same price as new oil. So hardly anyone buys the recycled stuff, and personally I don't think I would want to use it in my car, even though it has been re-refined and is prob. just as good.

On CBC news last night they mentioned that Canada and the U.S. are the most users of water in the world. The U.S. is the highest obviously due to the population. They mentioned that people will continue to waste water washing their driveway, sidewalk, lawns, etc. I can see it for gardens, that would be allright IMO. but I would never try to tell people what to do with their property. Apparently, that water is treated just as your tap water, so it requires energy to produce, yet it is wasted. Personally, I don't think anyone really has to wash their sidewalk, just sweep it once in a while. Maybe that is one way to save a little. Also mentioned, the U.S. will have a fresh water supply problem in around 10 years, but both countries will try to somehow "tap" into all the polar ice caps and transport the water somehow.