Re: Overpopulation-Major Catastrophe or Human Control
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:52:46 -0500 (EST)
RAGLANDMYCOOL@xxxxxxx wrote:-
You are contradicting yourself.
JE:-
Sorry Michael, I cannot see where. Your quotes below do not point out what
constituted to you, my alleged contradictions.
You state, "Quite clearly, the density
dependent mechanism is much more efficient. However, the old bugaboo of
"group selection" (on which most of density dependent arguments remain
incorrectly predicated) remains the real fuel for
this particular fire." Then you state, "My argument is that our evolved
tribal sized density dependent system for population regulation failed
long ago and is has struggles to keep up with our cultural evolution
ever since." Then you say, "My prediction: IF free markets are allowed
to more fully operate within free Democratic societies THEN solutions
can and will be found long before things get out of hand. Cultural
evolution based on theory building will always replace doom and gloom
prophecies based on biased belief systems."
Finally, "Darwin put a dog leash around the neck of Malthusian thinkers
over 150 years ago called: natural selection. The problem is, false
theories of group selection removed it."
I think density independent factors can be more important in
eliminating overpopulation, especially extinction events. Natural
selection still operates but in a weakened form. One could say this is
a result of cultural evolution i.e. advances in science and technology
which have relieved the usual pressures natural selection imposes on
populations. Density dependent factors such as in territoriality i.e.
natural selection are not sufficient in stopping overpopulation. If you
look at all "predictions" if population continues at the current rate
it spells a diaster in the future. This is more than gloom and doom and
a biased perspective.
JE:-
The human population explosion is almost entirely a 3rd world phenomenon.
These populations keep on expanding and crashing while 1st world populations
remain stable or slightly decrease (WW2 was just a blip). If you wish to
stabilize at a lower level _expanding_ 3rd world populations the best tried
and tested way is: INCREASE their standard of living. The best way to START
this long haul upwards is to lend money to FEMALES to start a small
business. I believe that the guy who pioneered this self evident strategy
has only recently been awarded the Nobel prize. Women run reproduction not
men (they mostly just have sex). Fecundity (the reproduction of infertile
immatures) in women increases and does not decrease with poverty.
So what will cultural evolution based on theory building accomplish.
JE:-
RATIONAL SOLUTIONS
One has to admit this is vague. Do you have some specific hypothetical
examples?
JE:-
Yes. Poverty _increases_ fecundity (as Darwinism predicts). IF you are so
poor as not to be able to judge about how many of your wretched children
will survive to fertile adulthood THEN the best solution for you is to
maximize fecundity (simply reproduce as many infertile immature as you can)
making life cheap.
According to you Darwinism is incompatible with group
selection. Yet genocides have happenned many times in the 20th Century
and this suggests group selection.
JE:-
No it doesn't. Both fertile organism centric and population centric
arguments explain these events. The difference is: only the organism centric
argument remains refutable.
Such density dependent factors have
a negligible effect on overall human population growth; they are
localized more or less.
JE:-
No it is just the opposite. NORMALLY they work. They may not work if you
suddenly displace a species into an entirely foreign environment e.g. the
typical weed. Some of our populations are acting like weeds because our
density dependent factors still think we live in tiny tribal sized
populations and not super tribally sized populations.
So if natural selection isn't the answer to overpopulation (and such
drastic natural selection could hypothetically happen) then what is the
solution to human overpopulation problem?
JE:-
Natural selection IS operating. In our populations it attempts to operate
through CULTRURAL phenotypes (please note: these are NOT group selective).
snip<
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Evolution without either drift or selection?
- Next by Date: Re: The role of radioactivity in evolution
- Previous by thread: Re: The Cost of Substitution
- Next by thread: Re: Overpopulation-Major Catastrophe or Human Control
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
