The analogies would seem to be any ecological system in which growth was predicated on freely available food/energy; isn't this William Catton's premise in Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change?
Eric Olson -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Zachary Wilson Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:13 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: ECOLOG-L Digest - 23 Oct 2007 to 24 Oct 2007 (#2007-289) Aren't "overpopulation" and human contributions to climate change both related to peak oil? Peak oil is the end of cheap, easy-to-get oil (i.e. the oil that gives us fuel and fertilizer to feed 7 billion) and declining production. Overpopulation and our contribution to climate change are the result of cheap, easy-to-get oil. Doesn't that mean peak oil is the beginning of the end of overpopulation and human-induced climate change? Is that an oversimplification? - zac wilson ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:32:18 -0600 > From: Randy Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic > > I would add the topics of overpopulation and 'end of oil' as being of > vital importance. I am perplexed as to why we do not engage the topic > of overpopulation as that is the fundamental cause of the problems > under discussion. People on this list have argued that we can > continue population increase. As Joe indicated, is overpopulation > also not trendy, is it too taboo, or are we all too steeped in > denial? Why do we continue to discuss the bandaids rather than the > root cause? > > randy > ======================================= > RK Bangert, PhD > P.O. Box 335 > Mancos, CO 81328 > >
