Not surprisingly, the results were dramatic to say the least and since it is empirically derived with a sound research technique, I am definitely into trusting the results in general rather than being skeptical and disgusted by idiotic opinions by some group of people or an individual pushing some agenda through bogus nonsense. … Facts, facts, facts. Nothing, but the facts! … If the sample is random across climate regions and terrains, etc., and the only deviating factors are human population size, along with the population sizes and types of other species — what else could be done to make the study sound? Not much, I suppose.
Intuitively, we know that the size of human population in a given contained region is paired with loss of other species. Here’s a perfect example using two divergent extremes in the same location, but using visual examples:
Mannahatta in 1609 | Manhattan in 2009. Image Mark Boyer WCS.
Presently, I would like to see another study done. I have no idea about what human population concentration within a delimited region (i.e., X miles by Y miles or whatever measures other than miles are used) would be helpful to delimit biodiversity loss in an optimal way contrasted to alternatives. I wish that someone or some group could study this topic in a typical hard-nosed, empirically correct way to find out an answer. Then we may be able to plan for communities of the right size.
If the latter plan is superior to curtail loss of other species, in what density per acre is most constructive? We need to know the answer, I would think.
Okay, so I can’t find the data for which I am looking that pairs human numbers in a demarked, small region version other specie’s numbers and types capable to live there. So it goes. (And trust me: much to alarm, sorrow and dismay, I’m watching my own numbers go downward here in MA for the other kinds of life as people keep pushing for growth based on economic furtherance — money in the coffers for developers and so much more for peoples coming into my locale.)
I go back and forth in the trouble of trying to think that we should let more and more people into our region in which I live and more and more thrust against the happening over watching the biodiversity shrinking around this place wherein I live as it gradually becomes increasingly barren.
Oh yes, I’m sure that my town’s health and safety commission would shut down my actions of putting out containers of water due to their posing a threat to humans and, besides, do I want mosquitoes, possibly deadly ones, flying around my neighborhood — ones that originated in my yard? So this is not a viable way forward, obviously.
Canadians for a Sustainable Society: Home
We look at the population as not just a measure of the size of the market but as individuals living in a complex and interdependent world. Like consumption, population growth forever is illustrated as impossible … We illustrate the human population cycles of the past and try and pinpoint our place on the current …
It is easy on the eye, educational, chuck full of relevant information and straightforward. So it is worth the peak in my opinion.
We can do something to help the overall situation in the world. However, we first must know the facts to go forward in the right ways. Such a link as this is capable to provide them!
Biodiversity and Human Population Growth – SlideShare
Nov 1, 2007 – Human Population Size Resources use Land Transformation Land Clearing Forestry Grazing Intensification Biotic Additions and Loss Invasion Hunting Fishing Carbon Nitrogen Water Climate Change Enhanced Greenhouse Aerosols Land cover Loss of Biological Diversity Extinction of species And …
What does it mean to wear “rose colored glasses”? – Susan Day
Apr 5, 2016 – Remember Pollyanna? She was the little girl who only saw good things and never saw bad things? It could be said that she wore “rose colored glasses“. We usually preface this slang with “see through” or “see the world”, so you’d hear the phrase “sees the world through rose colored glasses“. It means that …