The Cadillac Forums Lounge / Member IntroductionsOnly non-Cadillac discussion goes here. Cadillac discussions belong elsewhere. New members, please take a moment to introduce yourself.
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.
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.
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 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 )
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?
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? If there is ZERO population growth, do the species in the region become more, less, or equally depleted?
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.
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!
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.
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. I guess Building, and Shadow came the closest to answering this tricky question, but you all did great.
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 )
If there is ZERO population growth, do the species in the region become more, less, or equally depleted?
