[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: I will no longer respond to barks from the kennel.
"Mike Asher" <masher@tusc.net> wrote for all to see:
>Jay Hanson <jhanson@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>>
>> Ecologists define "carrying capacity" as the population of a
>> given species that be supported indefinitely in a defined
>> habitat without permanently damaging the ecosystem
>
>Incorrect, as I pointed out. Carrying capacity is the asymptotic value of
>the population model's defining equation. Most models will show a "hump"
>under certain boundary conditions, where population increases then declines
>before reaching the asymptote. The decline results from an inserted
>competition term; some models add other terms, which may include estimates
>as to "ecosystem damage". However, the definition remains unchanged.
I am finally going to donate my two cents to this argument, just for a
moment. I must say I think that Jay's definition is fine for a
nontechnical discussion, as long as you recognize the assumptions he
has placed in it. Mike is trying to use a more general definition.
These do not compare well.
Look at the terms Jay uses, and you will note that Jay has very
narrowly defined the domain of his argument with the phrases, "given
species", "supported indefinitely", "defined habitat", "permanently
damaging the ecosystem".
These phrases, taken together, make it clear that Jay's definition can
really only be applied to a severely restircited few cases, and
probably not to human beings at all. Just the phrase "given species"
is narrow, but the phrases "supported indefinitely", "permanently
damaging the ecosystem" and "defined habitat" are, while not
meaningless, slippery in application, because the natural world is
changing constantly, thus the envirnoment changes. When you add in
the fact that human beings can alter their environment to suit their
needs, you can realize how restricted the definition actually is, in
that it cannot be applied to human beings without considerable caution
being required.
Mike's definition, while not current back when I was getting my
degree, appears to be more general. My criticism of it would be that
I find it unlikely that investigators would ever be able to
satisfactorily define all the terms of the equation, or even find all
of them. It looks to me to be like one of those equations so popular
in economics or climate prediction, which could explain everything if
you could just find out how to define all the terms.
Regards, Harold
----
"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity,
bought and sold among individuals, but absolutely limited to
the state."
- Kenneth Boulding, 1982, "Progress and Privilege",
William Tucker, pp. 105-106.
Follow-Ups:
References: