Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Are we haggling over the wrong things?

Hunting Wife said:
May I ask what you would suggest, given that the global human population is rapidly outstripping natural resources on this planet?
Click to expand...
An excellent question, and a very good article, thank you for posting. I do understand the sentiment posted above, and numbers don’t lie or have emotions - I fully believe we are in trouble. I do cringe strongly when folks begin talking of “mandatory” reductions family size and forced population control.

So what to do? Modern medicine (largely vaccines) and large scale agriculture have largely eliminated the factors (“pestilence”, high infant mortality, large scale starvation, etc.) that kept populations in check for 99.9% of human history. We are undoubtedly in uncharted waters.

Reduced human population growth IS the only real answer, so the debate is how do we achieve that? As as been previously posted, the most affluent and able to take care of themselves and their progeny are precisely the ones most likely to comply and “take one for the team” on population reduction …but where does that lead us? Hoping to convince other cultures to eliminate themselves like “we” are?

How do we help 2nd and 3rd world countries develop to a point where they also largely lead lives that have a level of affluence in which the majority of the population lives in comfort enough to become self aware to the point that the thought takes hold on a culture wide scale to reproduce responsibly? Is that possible? Can we survive long enough to achieve that? I don’t know. In the end I am not smart enough to know how to get us there.

My mostly tongue in cheek previous comment was a little push back to the sentiment of people feeling guilty or making others feel guilty for having kids; a sentiment with which I strongly disagree.
 
D_Walt said:
An excellent question, and a very good article, thank you for posting. I do understand the sentiment posted above, and numbers don’t lie or have emotions - I fully believe we are in trouble. I do cringe strongly when folks begin talking of “mandatory” reductions family size and forced population control.

So what to do? Modern medicine (largely vaccines) and large scale agriculture have largely eliminated the factors (“pestilence”, high infant mortality, large scale starvation, etc.) that kept populations in check for 99.9% of human history. We are undoubtedly in uncharted waters.

Reduced human population growth IS the only real answer, so the debate is how do we achieve that? As as been previously posted, the most affluent and able to take care of themselves and their progeny are precisely the ones most likely to comply and “take one for the team” on population reduction …but where does that lead us? Hoping to convince other cultures to eliminate themselves like “we” are?

How do we help 2nd and 3rd world countries develop to a point where they also largely lead lives that have a level of affluence in which the majority of the population lives in comfort enough to become self aware to the point that the thought takes hold on a culture wide scale to reproduce responsibly? Is that possible? Can we survive long enough to achieve that? I don’t know. In the end I am not smart enough to know how to get us there.

My mostly tongue in cheek previous comment was a little push back to the sentiment of people feeling guilty or making others feel guilty for having kids; a sentiment with which I strongly disagree.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I get it. I don’t like mandates either, and they are often counterproductive anyway. I certainly don’t have any answers.

Mostly, I just live in a Groundhog Day type scenario where we (people? Americans? Western state residents?) profess to value habitat and wildlife and biodiversity and nature. But when the time comes to either change our behaviors and reduce our consumption, or give up the thing we claim to love just to make a buck/have a nice house with a view/insert other convenience here, we give it up without much more than an “oh well”, or “everyone else is doing it”.

Then we do it all over again on the next thing.

It makes me wonder if humans have the, what- will? Intelligence? Capability? - to rein ourselves in. So far I see no evidence that we do. And I’m just as guilty, to be clear.

I read the article right after reading the mule deer thread, and the juxtaposition was a little ironic, and depressing honestly.
 
As D_Walt pointed out, there is strong evidence that, for lack of a better term, the more well-to-do a country is, the more likely they are to have a significant drop in their fertility rate to that which is below replacement rate (2.1). Here in the US, our population's total fertility rate is now 1.7, and yet, as a function of immigration, our population continues to grow.

If I oversimplify my hope, it is that we can rise the tide to "lift all ships" across the globe to something approaching what is more or less an equilibrium, before it all falls apart.


Apologies for the Mercator Projection. :)

1670383281806.png


I still think we should haggle over mule deer, and elk, and corner crossing, and the fact that my wife's engine just blew up. I think it is unhealthy mentally to focus on a sort of maximal issue so much that one dismisses all others. For one, you're no fun at parties, and for two, you could be wrong. To some it is Climate Change, to others it is Artificial General Intelligence, overpopulation, planet-killing asteroids, and on and on - all seemingly legitimate and existential. Something I think about tangential to this when people dabble in antinatalism, is there is significant evidence out there that we could reduce a hell of a lot of human suffering with varying expense, and it sure wouldn't help with human overpopulation, and yet we should. We are certainly on a ride, and I do have hope in the fact that the future is dang near impossible to predict whether it is events that will happen, or technologies that will arise.
 
Hunting Wife said:
This came through my inbox at work today, and it sort of articulated a thought that’s been brewing in the back of my mind as I watch us argue ad nauseum about the minutiae of why there aren’t more deer, why there is low social tolerance for elk, why there is poor habitat on public land, why aren’t agencies doing more to fix all these problems, climate change isn’t real, green energy is going to save us.

What if it all boils down to one problem, and that problem is us? Interesting article.

https://theintercept.com/2022/12/03/climate-biodiversity-green-energy/
Click to expand...
This certainly is not news, and the article does not acknowledge this Paul Ehrlich made it clear 50 yrs ago. Thomas Malthus made it crystal clear in 1798. I'm sure someone precede that as well. I don't know any younger ecologist that is willing to acknowledge the enormity of the overabundance of humans. It is just too overwhelming - where to even start?

And Biodiversity is not a crisis in and of itself. It is a symptom.

In 1989 when NPR and every other media outlet was going gogga over Martin Fleischmann's and Stanley Pons "discovery" of cold fusion, I was terrified. I cannot imagine a worse fate for the planet than humans with essentially unlimited, cheap, clean energy. But regardless, the planet is still doomed without huge reductions in human populations - and that will not happen until Mother Nature clamps down and asserts its long delayed, but always increasing density dependence effect.

Humans have never increased the carrying capcity of the planet with technology. They have only delayed the onset of density dependence. The affect of that is well known in the study of time-lags. I actually started writing some models of this, but really the dynamics are clear, well known, and unavoidable.

Ahhh, enough of that. I don't think anyone wants a popululation dynamics lecture and I don't have enough beer for one anyway. :)
 
Hunting Wife said:
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I get it. I don’t like mandates either, and they are often counterproductive anyway. I certainly don’t have any answers.

Mostly, I just live in a Groundhog Day type scenario where we (people? Americans? Western state residents?) profess to value habitat and wildlife and biodiversity and nature. But when the time comes to either change our behaviors and reduce our consumption, or give up the thing we claim to love just to make a buck/have a nice house with a view/insert other convenience here, we give it up without much more than an “oh well”, or “everyone else is doing it”.

Then we do it all over again on the next thing.

It makes me wonder if humans have the, what- will? Intelligence? Capability? - to rein ourselves in. So far I see no evidence that we do. And I’m just as guilty, to be clear.

I read the article right after reading the mule deer thread, and the juxtaposition was a little ironic, and depressing honestly.
Click to expand...
The evidence does not point to a high likelihood of any culture/nation/group deliberately moving towards a multigenerational “decline” in standard of living. Even if the decline is more perceived than real, and comes with long term benefits (like not going extinct!).

We are all the products of modern western society that has for a couple hundred years been nearly 100% focused on the idea of working hard and leaving your mark and hand down an “improved world” to the next generation. Ironic, that at some point forward thinking peoples will have to rein themselves in to control the “gains” the previous dozen or so generations worked so hard to give them.

As it relates to the mule deer thread, perhaps if hunters would voluntarily refrain from killing public land deer for half a decade the resource could recover? I’m sure many do, but many more line up to use the resource, and will continue to do so until the last drop is squeezed out. Because well, “someone is going to, might as well be me”! We’re a complicated species, brilliant & foolish.
 
OverlordBear said:
It is why I believe in child limits globally and any efforts to reduce reproduction of the human race. Globally we are only one dust bowl away from a massive starvation event. If people think wars are bad over oil wait til it is over fresh water and food. People should only reproduce at a replacement rate. Ie two children per couple.
Click to expand...
I sent this to my daughter who says she’s never going through another pregnancy and having another baby. She said if her husband wants to be replaced with a child he better figure out how to squeeze one out! She’s with you on child limits!
 
D_Walt said:
The evidence does not point to a high likelihood of any culture/nation/group deliberately moving towards a multigenerational “decline” in standard of living. Even if the decline is more perceived than real, and comes with long term benefits (like not going extinct!).

We are all the products of modern western society that has for a couple hundred years been nearly 100% focused on the idea of working hard and leaving your mark and hand down an “improved world” to the next generation. Ironic, that at some point forward thinking peoples will have to rein themselves in to control the “gains” the previous dozen or so generations worked so hard to give them.

As it relates to the mule deer thread, perhaps if hunters would voluntarily refrain from killing public land deer for half a decade the resource could recover? I’m sure many do, but many more line up to use the resource, and will continue to do so until the last drop is squeezed out. Because well, “someone is going to, might as well be me”! We’re a complicated species, brilliant & foolish.
Click to expand...

Apply the Evolutionary Stable Strategy Theory and you will have your answer, and it ain't pretty. There is zero reason to have anything but pessimism for the future, but say that in public places as a working ecologist (like I used to be) will only get you ostracized and kicked to the curb.
 
D_Walt said:
As it relates to the mule deer thread, perhaps if hunters would voluntarily refrain from killing public land deer for half a decade the resource could recover?
Click to expand...
So in this example, the thought that I alluded to that’s been rattling in my brain lately is that it doesn’t matter what we do, they won’t recover. We don’t leave other species enough resources to survive. Then we wonder why they aren’t surviving. We (wildlife managers) can’t manage our way out a of lack of finite resources.

Pretty much what @BrentD is saying, but he can probably explain it better than me. I’m just arriving at this thought, but clearly it’s not a new one.
 
Hunting Wife said:
So in this example, the thought that I alluded to that’s been rattling in my brain lately is that it doesn’t matter what we do, they won’t recover. We don’t leave other species enough resources to survive. Then we wonder why they aren’t surviving. We (wildlife managers) can’t manage our way out a of lack of finite resources.

Pretty much what @BrentD is saying, but he can probably explain it better than me. I’m just arriving at this thought, but clearly it’s not a new one.
Click to expand...

You are on the right track. It is just that is a super ugly track.

I'm not a climatologist, but I can imagine a scenario where we don't even leave earth with an atmosphere, nevermind, life-supporting resources.
 
Hunting Wife said:
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I get it. I don’t like mandates either, and they are often counterproductive anyway. I certainly don’t have any answers.

Mostly, I just live in a Groundhog Day type scenario where we (people? Americans? Western state residents?) profess to value habitat and wildlife and biodiversity and nature. But when the time comes to either change our behaviors and reduce our consumption, or give up the thing we claim to love just to make a buck/have a nice house with a view/insert other convenience here, we give it up without much more than an “oh well”, or “everyone else is doing it”.

Then we do it all over again on the next thing.

It makes me wonder if humans have the, what- will? Intelligence? Capability? - to rein ourselves in. So far I see no evidence that we do. And I’m just as guilty, to be clear.

I read the article right after reading the mule deer thread, and the juxtaposition was a little ironic, and depressing honestly.
Click to expand...
For all of human history, the evolutionary prizes went to the most growth-oriented cultures, until now. That depended on human resource consumption and reproduction. This is how imperialistic conquering cultures from Europe subjugated and largely eradicated the indigenous peoples of Africa and the Americas. Read Diamond's Pulitzer winning Guns, Germs and Steel for more on why some win cultural competitions.

Now comes the sea change: humans have overridden the natural limits of earth, temporarily. To do that, we have accumulated unpaid debts by depleting or eliminating air and water quality, polar ice, forests, soil, oceans, frontiers altered by humans. The planet's ability to rebound from these depletions is now overcome by too many people doing what successful peoples have always done. Note, always is really only the last 500 years, not even a blink of the eye in the history of the planet, or mammals, or hominid human ancestors. Almost all of human history was in small clans, subsisting by gathering, scavenging and hunting. Agriculture led to concentrated populations that needed and created rulers focused on growth and conquest, and allowed for specialists to develop religion, science, technology, medicine, warfighting.

Solutions? Nurture the imperative of living within our means and nature's limits. Europe is ahead of us in this regard, they haven't been a frontier for 1500 years. They've been where we are going, at a frightening, unprecedented, exponentially accelerating pace. For modern societies this almost certainly requires legal and financial incentives. What if children beyond 2 per couple cost much more, because government tax subsidies for having over 2 children were reversed? Think carbon credits, except for children. Not pretty, not humane or ethical by current standards. Global famine- and water wars, unstoppable pandemics, nuclear conflicts are the likely alternatives. Its what we've always done in times of scarcity, when we were unable to relocate. Who is willing to live in the ocean or antarctica, or the moon, or or or. I won't be here for this unraveling, and for that I'm grateful. My progeny and yours will, though.
 
Big Fin said:
I read that article on Saturday while in the middle of a "metropolis in denial;" that being Vegas and its rapid race to deplete all useable water before the next person might grab some of it. After reading that article, I told my wife, "It's nice to know I'm not the only person resolved to the idea that homo sapiens will breed themselves out of a habitable landscape and someday those landscapes will again be reclaimed by the more resilient and less arrogant species of the planet."

She looked at me as if I have too much time to think about things. Then realizing I have hardly any spare time and concerned of my mental well being, she Googled "Psychologists Near Me."

All the climate issues, all the habitat issues, all the (insert here) are heavily (mostly) impacted by the denial of humans that we are subject to the same habitat constraints of every other species on this planet. We cannot continue to breed and populate to the Nth degree and think the planet can sustain. We can't and the planet can't.

And as such, we will have more wars, religious arguments, more diseases, and other ancillary activities trying to justify/claim the share of resources and habitat we feel we are owed/deserve. It is the greatest example of "Tragedy of the Commons" that our planet ever has experienced

It's not just humans and governments that are in denial. It is also our lazy media. Everyone wants to make it about the changing climate without any connection to the fact that too many people with too many demands is what changes the climate; cause v. effect. It's far easier, lazier, and safer to talk about abstract ideas of climate change. Heaven forbid we talk about issues causing climates to change, such as having ten kids, coming to the rescue of every country that has overpopulated the carrying capacity of their land, trying to grow cities in deserts, fishing the oceans to the last minnow, and on and on and on.

I know, I've lost my marbles. Excuse me while I go look for those marbles.

Coming soon to the Fresh Tracks merch store - Men's T-shirts, "Save the planet; keep your dick in your pants."
Click to expand...
When I was a youngster in grade school (70s) I remember the teacher telling us how some day the US population would reach 250 million and that scientists had determined the carrying capacity of the earth was four billion.
The US is over 320 million now? We are pushing nine billion on earth IIRC.

All environments have a carrying capacity. Ranchers know this, biologists know this, and many hunters realize this.

We have undoubtedly exceeded the earth's carrying capacity.

We compensate by raising more cattle (devastating to habitat), drilling for more oil, genetically altering plant and animal life, and doing nothing to slow consumption.

All that being said: Who will be the first volunteer to not have children, not drive a vehicle, not hunt mule deer, or to eat artificial foods?

Yeah, we are too comfortable and too spoiled.

For those of us that have found peace in a future life this is not as mind blowing and devastating as can be interpreted... but it is a travesty that we took such a beautiful gift and became a cancer, eating away at it until it is diseased and a shell of the perfect design that it was established for.

We are selfish and greedy moreso than we realize or want to admit. In the end, there is nothing material that really matters... nothing. What matters is the love we shared, the lives we touched, and for those that believe: the lives we saved for eternity.
 
Last edited:
Hunting Wife said:
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I get it. I don’t like mandates either, and they are often counterproductive anyway. I certainly don’t have any answers.

Mostly, I just live in a Groundhog Day type scenario where we (people? Americans? Western state residents?) profess to value habitat and wildlife and biodiversity and nature. But when the time comes to either change our behaviors and reduce our consumption, or give up the thing we claim to love just to make a buck/have a nice house with a view/insert other convenience here, we give it up without much more than an “oh well”, or “everyone else is doing it”.

Then we do it all over again on the next thing.

It makes me wonder if humans have the, what- will? Intelligence? Capability? - to rein ourselves in. So far I see no evidence that we do. And I’m just as guilty, to be clear.

I read the article right after reading the mule deer thread, and the juxtaposition was a little ironic, and depressing honestly.
Click to expand...

I don't how to say this without sounding trite, and a bit fruity, but I really feel it is a lack of spiritual development in humans, we focus so much on external crap (the stuff you mentioned), and not enough on improving ourselves. I genuinely feel that nearly every person wants to be a better human, but for most of us we only give it a few seconds of attention each day, and sadly for some they don't even know where to start.

(Yup, that came out just about as trite and fruity as I expected.)
 
D_Walt said:
Modern medicine (largely vaccines) and large scale agriculture have largely eliminated the factors (“pestilence”, high infant mortality, large scale starvation, etc.) that kept populations in check for 99.9% of human history. We are undoubtedly in uncharted waters.
Click to expand...
This appears to account for the majority of the unfolding biodiversity crisis. Over the last 75 years or so nations have facilitated modern food production and disease mitigation almost everywhere on earth, but these islands of science are often accompanied by little else. Humanity’s proclivity towards compassion becomes the undoing for our species’ collective welfare in the long-term.

I don’t know what the “cure” for that one is. Maybe the ring is long since out of the bell and it’s all moot now anyways.
 
BrentD said:
Apply the Evolutionary Stable Strategy Theory and you will have your answer, and it ain't pretty. There is zero reason to have anything but pessimism for the future, but say that in public places as a working ecologist (like I used to be) will only get you ostracized and kicked to the curb.
Click to expand...
That is not a comforting thought, that we cannot overcome our own societal evolution even knowing we are on a path to destruction? The comforting thought (and the crux of the problem) is we probably won’t live long enough to see the end!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
How the fight to save a bird species shows how to bridge the red/blue divide
2
Replies
28
Views
6K
17remhunter
17remhunter
RobG
Crazy Mountain access update
2
Replies
25
Views
7K
Fsmith
Fsmith
Big Fin
A counter to the Bundy sympathies
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
18K
Dancerpro
Dancerpro
G
Plowing away the prairie, at a price
Replies
1
Views
3K
Gunflint
G
Big Fin
Big Gubment Power Grab
2
Replies
22
Views
7K
sweetnectar
sweetnectar

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
119,698
Messages
2,235,165
Members
38,986
Latest member
lcboyer3

Share this page

Back
Top