Author Unmentioned
URL: http://www.sustainablescale.org/ConceptualFramework/UnderstandingScale/MeasuringScale/CarryingCapacity.aspx
Post by: Patrick Walls
Summary:
This short article summarizes what we already know about carrying capacity, k-selection, and r-selection. Beyond that, this article goes to explain how ecologists have failed to apply these concepts to the human population for a long time. According to the article, unlike other species, we appear to have varying selection types depending on the time we are observed. The key variables, however, are not time, but rather consumption levels and technological advancements, the former following suit to the latter. Also stated by this article is the fact that humans need to be cautious with our population because we may or may not suffer a crash at any point global carrying capacity is reached, and it is impossible to know which because the selection dependent on the circumstances of consumption and technological advancement. Please note that while the above graph is is featured in the article, it is not elaborated upon.
Opinion/Reflection:
I believe that this article poses interesting points to both the human population and selection type topics. It states that humans by our ways of life have created a new population selection type which is solely dependent on our own choices and actions. I was disappointed, however, by the lack of elaboration on the Economic Carrying Capacity graph. I think it is good in concept, as many inorganic processes that apply to ecological principals are cyclical, such as economies. I think it would be a good idea to apply these population graphs to other processes which can either crash and burn or stabilize, as it would allow us to be more scientific approach to political problems of inequality or instability.
Thoughtful Questions
1. How do you think the selection curves will change as you go from country to country?
2. Do you think that we will be able to sustain our population when we reach carrying capacity?
3. Are there any other cyclical processes which you can relate k-selection and r-selection to?
π.
4. Do you think it would be a good idea for social scientists and ecologists/biologists/other life scientists to collaborate, considering so many patterns are similar in their fields?
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteThis article is very interesting. It explains that the human population is continually growing so fast and that eventually we will hit the carrying capacity. Then we will crash. This is a scary thought to me because it means so many people will die because of over consumption. I think it will be scary to have so many of our population die.
Response to a question:
I think when we reach our carrying capacity we won't be able to sustain our population. I think the most we could hope for is a slow but steady decline. The reason for this is because we consume so much we will eventually run out.
Response/Opinion
ReplyDeleteI am glad this article brings into light the idea of varying selection types for humans, based on our consumption and technological standing. It is important that when we are placing a species within a certain category, such as selection, we consider as many factors as possible before coming to a conclusion. Otherwise, our view may be coming from only a single source and the result is either biased or skewed. It is amazing yet scary how much control we, as a species, hold over our own survival. Growing up I had always thought things happened because that is what nature intended. Now I have more knowledge on the subject and understand that we are the ones keeping ourselves alive.
Answer to Question:
1. I believe that when we do reach carrying capacity, which may well be in less than 40 years, that we will stabilize rather than crash. We have been able to sufficiently slow down the process of natural selection to a point in which we can cure most diseases that would otherwise kill off many who develop them, with key advancements in technology. I see no reason in which new technological advancements sure to come in the next several decades, will not be able to aid in sustaining the population when we reach our limit. Who knows, we could have colonies on the moon by then.
Response/ Opinion:
ReplyDeleteWhile this isn't a news article, I found it still somewhat interesting. It has some facts in it that I didn't know about before. It brings up a good point that people need a different scaling system than other species. Depending on the amount of war and inventions, our carrying capacity can be measured in with many factors. Since humans have the ability to think, we can adapt to much more than other things can. This gives us the ability to last much longer as a species than others have. I've always been skeptical of environmentalists, and just learning envi. sci. in general, because of how much they say is nature's way of doing things. What they don't account for ever is that we can control so much. Our carrying capacity may never be known just because we can always find ways to increase it.
Response to Thoughtful Question:
2) Yes humans can sustain the population after reaching carrying capacity. We've actually done it multiple times now. Every few decades some "apocalyptic scientist" decides to give us a scare whether it be solar flares, ancient calendars, or overpopulation. And every time it was predicted that we were going to overpopulate and die, we continued on. Sometimes we had to invent better ways to make food, but we have always found a way to keep going. Species can adapt including us.
Response to Silly Question:
Yeah I was kind of expecting an article that would be a pain to read. Still was a good article though.
Response/ Opinion:
ReplyDeleteThis is a tricky subject for me because I have not yet formed a clear opinion and prediction on the human population. We have learned that populations are either k-selection or r-selection, but this article says there is another one... one that we control. Not only is confusing but annoying; is the world going to end or will we start colonies on another planet? There is too much time spent on worrying about this stuff. We come up with dozens of different possible outcomes, and for what? To fear the future even more. The world could eventually hit a population limit or an asteroid could hit earth tomorrow and destroy us all. In my opinion, we should focus on things that we can more accurately predict instead of blindly guessing on something that might not even be a problem. Sure the future is scary, but we should not live our lives in fear pondering on the what if.
Response to thoughtful question:
4. No I do not think that social scientists and life scientists should collaborate because that would just result in more outcomes that have the same possibility of happening. I think those scientists should spend more time on things that matter in their own fields. In the end, predictions are almost always wrong. Once a scientist predicted that the television would never catch on.