To Dave Gordon and other Radstats members.

As I said in my previous e-mail, I must defer further discussion for a few
weeks until I have met my deadlines. Bending this a little I give this
*INTERIM* response.

1) You say "You appear to be using the term 'carrying capacity' to mean what
you want it to mean (like Humpty Dumpty?)".

This is nonsense. The idea of carrying capacity in animal ecology has to be
modified when applied to man. Man, unlike animals, can consciously
alter the environment, and has technology to help. Great variation in
affluence is also a different situation to than in animal populations.
I did not invent these ideas. They have been discused by others and used by
others to modify the carrying capacity concept when applied to man.  I have
used this view in my essays - this is not me  altering  the definition to
make it "mean what you want it to mean".  This is quite clear in my essays.
Also you mention Cohen. In my first essay I also refer to his estimates. You
still do not seem to have bothered to consider what I actually wrote about
carrying capacity in my two essays on "How many people can the earth
support?" linked to the Comment and Analysis page of our web site:
  www.gaiawatch.org.uk   or  www.population-growth-migration.info

2) Once again, you seem to throw out an accusation without bothering to
consider
your opponents evidence, given in this case in my two essays to which I had
earlier referred you. If this is not unscientific I don't know what is.

3) You misrepresent my views on both poverty and immigrants.

4) Making accusations without bothering to consider properly the evidence
advanced by
a person/organisation with opposing views, and misrepresenting what they
say, is typical of the vast politically correct lobby of which you appear to
be a part.

Finally,
I must now stick to my resolution and deal with the matters outside Radstats
on which I have deadlines. So I really must stop getting drawn in again. But
as I said earlier and also in my previous e-mail,  when I have dealt with
these other matters I will come back to Radstats on these issues.

Yours sincerely,

John Barker


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Gordon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: doubts about use of statistical procedures and presentation of
results


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]
*******************************************************

******************************************************
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]
*******************************************************