Cadillac Owners Forum banner

21 - 37 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
just one
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
Ralph said:
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.
 

·
Registered
1996 Fleetwood
Joined
·
2,536 Posts
Ralph said:
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.
 

·
Registered
91 Allante (gone), 06 SRX (gone)
Joined
·
4,396 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,235 Posts
BUILDINGCTSAMG said:
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 )
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
AirJigga25 said:
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?
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #26
ShadowLvr400 said:
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?
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
c5 rv said:
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.
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #28
kcnewell said:
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.
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
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.
 

·
Banned
1995 ETC, 75 Deville, Cad500 powered 73 Apollo, 94 Mark VIII
Joined
·
7,971 Posts
kcnewell said:
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..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,235 Posts
davesdeville said:
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
kcnewell said:
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,753 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,235 Posts
BUILDINGCTSAMG said:
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.
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #37
BUILDINGCTSAMG said:
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.
 
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
Top