Archive for the 'Human Population' Category

Historic Human Population Equilibrium below 5 million?

March 21, 2007

A necessary but not sufficient condition for equilibrium is that the number of species that go extinct each year equals the number created each year. We can call this criterion, species equilibrium.

If more species go extinct than are created each year, eventually you get to zero. At that point, humans would be extinct as well.
What number of people can live on earth consistent with the criterion of species equilibrium? We are now in the midst of a human caused mass extinction of species. When in history were humans not causing extinction of species? What was the human population at that time?

8000 BC World Population 5 million total.

By that point, humans had already contributed to the extinction of the wooly mammoth and other species?

While most woolly mammoths died out at the end of the Pleistocene (12,000 years ago), a small population survived on Wrangel Island, located in the Arctic Ocean, up until 1700 B.C..

So at 5 million people, the species equilibrium criterion was already violated.

Can technology raise the sustainable human population that meets the species equilibrium criterion?

Have humans caused extinction of other species and ecosystems or added so much CO2 or done other things that have already lowered the sustainable human population consistent with the species equilibrium criterion? We may have already put ourselves farther behind than we were in 8000 BC by extincting or near extincting other species.

== Stability comes from Diversity of Species or within them.

If we had one identical bee everywhere in the world, with identical DNA, and all other species that did the work of bees to pollinate plants were gone, would that be so bad? Well that would be a lot of identical bees. Viruses and bacteria would evolve to attack that specific bee, by random chance and natural selection. There are so many of these identical bees that viruses have more chances to evolve that can attack them. If the right virus evolves, one that can spread quickly and kill the bees slowly, e.g. stop reproduction of the queen, that virus might wipe out all of that specific bee species.

But without a variety of bees, with one bee with the same identical DNA, a single virus could wipe them all out. What happens to plants? What happens to what eats plants? This results in catastrophic loss.

So by losing diversity, we set up the possibility of a catastrophic loss of multiple species. Moreover, this becomes a probability that applies each year and eventually it happens.

== Market Morality for Human Extinction?

Is there market failure for extinction? Can extinction be a market equilibrium? If sellers of the future outnumber buyers, then extinction is morally right by market economics? Some people can own the future, and they can choose to have it end in the form of extinction of human life?

If morality and the future are determined by the market, and the market chooses our extinction is that moral? Can people who disagree with that outcome try to prevent it? Is that immoral?

==War on Equilibrium

In actuality, not the market but do-gooders may have done more harm.   The population of the third world has skyrocketed as choices are imposed on them by do-gooders.

If people in the third world were not the recipients of aid but bought what they chose, their population would be far less. Do gooders choose that what the 3rd world will consume is what increases population in the 3rd world.  This is a choice imposed by do-gooders on the 3rd world as the type of conssumption the 3rd world will have.

This also interferes with the ability of the 3rd world to make choices for itself of all kinds.  By creating this huge population expansion, do gooders have prevented the 3rd world having a middle class that controls itself and makes its own choices.

Buffet Gates are an example of this type of harm.  They are more harmful by far as aid givers than what they do as business people.   They are making war on equilibrium within the 3rd world and in the world. They are at war with equilibrium population, with equilibrium in species, and with equilibrium for the environment.

Buffet Gates have decided they own the future and are destroying it by their choices. Are we powerless to stop them? Do they have a moral right to destroy the future with the wealth they have managed to acquire?

%d bloggers like this: