Responding to Kenny Thursday1November20071:35:10PM where he reminds me/us that humans are part of nature.

Of course, true! However I did write:

"Modern human societies are in fact quite different from those of pre-fossil-fuel human societies and those of other animals."

The point is that fossil-fuel based societies, with industrial processes create a problem which did not exist before by the total amounts of materials used per capita and in total, and by the fact that these materials are broken down outside the normal routes involved in the original natural system, yet there is no proportionate system available which can deal with this and nurture us at the same time.

Is this success? Could actually be a big mistake. Kenny's definition of 'successful' might pass in Spencerian circles. I think that Spencer argued teleologically, and distorted Darwinian theory. It has been argued that life occurs within a certain heat spectrum in an open system and has developed a function of breaking down energy gradients and therefore any life-form will suck up as much energy as it can come by. (See Margulis, Acquiring Genomes, but I forget what page and cannot put my hand on the book). Of course not all organisms can do it the way we do it.

I apologies to Kenny for sounding moralistic. I wonder if it was the reference to 'depraves us' that bothered him. I could write an entire article on the etymology of the word 'deprave' and how it translates into physics or biology. To deprave something in part means to remove its sense and ability to function. It is similar to the word corrupt, which means to break something so that it doesn't function. Both words can mean to 'rot', which brings us back to the physical

Whilst my article is primarily about materials, the number of per capitas MUST be taken into account as a multiplier because it is now such a HUGE factor.

Still in response to Kenny, population crashes have never occurred on this prospective scale by which I also mean involving this amount of material disconnected from the ordinary bio-systems.

In response to Wizofaus: I do not believe there is any possibility of keeping up an economy to support 9 billion or even our current population without destroying this 'nest' (planet earth) and I have said why. You need to show how my thermodynamic argument is wrong. Have a go.

There have also been some assertions on this forum that there is no problem in the developed world. You would have to be especially insensitive to say that the what is happening to the places and creatures all around us is no problem. Thinking it isn't a problem because for some reason you are not upset by it, doesn't mean that others are not upset by it. Quite apart from the thermodynamics of the thing.

Perseus (bimbo)and Dozer (faff): As for the idea that the use of thermodynamics in such an argument is ‘faff’ and me a ‘bimbo’ for using my knowledge (which is unfortunately for you over your heads) - I guess that shows you up the macho-airheads they are. Whaddaya think? Only the boys can talk about thermodynamics? Tosh!

Sheila N
(aka Kanga)

Limit Australia's population and they all lived happily ever after, is that it?

For about ten or fifteen years until Uncle Hu and President Das decide that 2.4 billion people have a stronger claim to 780 million hectares of the planet than a bunch of lotus eaters who can think of nothing more contributive than sitting about measuring Lizard farts.

Australia already feeds 80 to 100 million people. But let there be absolutely zero room for doubt that with an abundance of cheap labour we could feed a whole lot more. And as long as we continue to accept people from other nations, at a rate that we can assimilate, then no other nation is likely to work up a suitable rationale for taking us over.

If we turn our back on the world then all bets are off. And don't believe for a moment that the "court of world opinion" will come to our aid when the US dollar is worth half a Yuan. China, India and Indonesia will be all the 'world opinion' there is. Get used to it folks.

Hang on dozer - Perseus' first post was an unnecessarily personal attack on the author. Catastrophist's post, while silly and misanthropic, didn't actually insult anybody individually.

"Arguing that overpopulation is a problem is not wrong or even silly in and of itself"

Er, I thought that's pretty well exactly the position I took. Further, I loathe neither myself nor my cultural heritage. However, I think that I'm allowed to say that I think that per capita overconsumption of resources and energy in 'developed' societies is disproportionately responsible for most of the world's environmental problems, aren't I?

My view on immigration to Australia is not that it should cease at all. Rather, I think that it should be restricted to refugees - whether this is caused by war, politico-religious oppression, or climate change. That way, we avoid the 'closed borders' mentality that others rightly decry, and also do our bit to help out fellow humans where we can.

As a "good capitalist", dozer may seek ways to prevent the ever-expanding bubble's inevitable burst, but in a finite system such as our planet we are ultimately going to have to find ways of equitably limiting population and restraining per capita consumption. Yes, efficiency is both desirable and essential, but it's by no means the complete answer to the world's environmental problems.

Sheila/Kanga, you need to more carefully clarify what your thermodynamic argument is. You seem to believe that burning fossil fuels adds so much extra entropy to the system, that the environment will inevitably become more entropic. But a) the actual entropy we currently add from burning fossil fuels truly is miniscule, compared to the amount of entropy that is already in the system and b) all the latent energy in fossil fuels is just stored up solar energy, that was entering the system anyway. So even if we released it all at once, it wouldn't put the system into a state it hadn't been in before.(*)
At any rate, even if there were a problem with the entropy released from burning fossil fuels, there is quite enough alternative energy available to provide many times current total usage. Now to a certain extent it's true that if we capture it for our own uses, it's less available for use by other species, and that's a very good reason for dismissing Simonesque visions of 60 billion humans (or whatever it was), but OTOH, eventually we should also be able to capture solar energy that currently *doesn't* enter the planetary system, thus giving us the capability to add order to any extra entropy we may have created (the only downside is more entropy somewhere else in the solar system, but that's hardly a major cause for concern).

(*) Actually not entirely true, because various fossil fuels were formed at different times. At any rate, as I said before, the real danger is the carbon that gets added to the atmosphere, as what this does is *trap* far more entropy in the system, that would otherwise have been reflected out.

I do hope she is taking her own advice and eschewing procreation.
Perseus,
maybe Sheila could move in with Bob Brown ? well, it would be a start wouldn't it ? And Ludwig, yes the very people who rave on about saving the planet are the ones who don't subscribe to poulation control. Yes, let's build more rehabilitation clinics etc. so we can keep more & more of the useless alive & crowd the planet. I went out of Cairns to the reef the other day & observed Mr & Mrs Average Tourist. On average each tourist slapped on a 100 ml of sunscreen before jumping into the water. Now, out of North Qld you get an average of 6000 people a day out on the reef. 100ml sunscreen X 6000.. know what I mean ? three 44 gallon drums of sunscreen everyday over the Jewel of Oz, the Great Barrier Reef. I bet 90 % of those tourist get all uptight because Howard's not ratifying the Kyoto protocol.