Dear John
You appear to be using the term ‘carrying capacity’ to mean what you want it to
mean (like Humpty Dumpty?). It is a free country so there is no harm in this
but in the science of Ecology, where the term originated it means;
‘the number of individuals of a population (species) sustainable by an
environment (as long as the environment remains the same)’
Carrying Capacity is assessed using standard population dynamics equations, e.g.
dN/dt = rN (K-N/K)
The term carrying capacity is also sometimes used to mean the ‘maximum
population density theoretically supportable by the habitat’
Using either of these scientific definitions the statements on your web site are
demonstrably untrue.
I presume you are using the term carrying capacity to have something like the
following definition;
‘Carrying capacity is the maximum number of individuals of a defined species
that a given environment can support over the long term.’
If so then estimates of the earths carrying capacity vary widely from 1 to 1,000
billion people depending on assumptions about technology and the time horizon
used. (Cohen, J. Science Vol 269 p 341). Most estimates, even those by
neo-Malthusians, estimate that the Earth’s carrying capacity is well above
current population levels.
You seem to believe that people are hungry because there is not enough food and
poor because there is not enough money. This is not true, hunger and poverty
are a result of the inequitable distribution of food and money not due to a lack
of either. According to the UN Food and Agricultural organization (FAO) the
amount of food per person has increased every year since records began in 1945 –
but more people are now hungry. According to the World Bank about half the
population of the planet lives on less than the equivalent of 2 US dollars per
day (less than each cow in Britain receives in agricultural subsidies). Yet the
income of the World is the equivalent of about 20 US dollars per person per day
e.g. about 10 times the median.
None of this means that we should not take concerns about the environment and
pollution very seriously, but attacking immigrants is not the answer as they are
not the cause of these problems. Stopping immigration will not result in
environmental improvements, nor will it result in an increased standard of
living or a better society.
Best wishes
Dave Gordon
--
Dave Gordon
Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research
University of Bristol
8 Priory Road
Bristol BS8 1TZ, UK
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel: (44)-(117)-954 6761
Fax: (44)-(117)-954 6756
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|