Liberal Forum

I love studying about evolution, nature, and survival of the fittest. I do wonder though why it doesn't seem to work on some human populations. Nature always aims for a state of equilibrium. It returns a damaged eco-system to its' normal condition after years and years. 

However, this doesn't seem to be the case with overpopulated areas like Dhaka Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Surat and Mumbai India, and many other cities around the world. There is thing called 'carrying capacity.' A population's ability to sustain itself is proportionate to limiting factors in their habitat that can sustain it. The carrying capacity is that equilibrium. If the population exceeds that, then nature will decrease the population. This is applicable to insects and animals. 

Yet, people in these cities keep multiplying. I would think that mother nature would step in to reduce their fertility potency, as it does with fish, insects, and any other species. But it doesn't. 

Vegas » 28 Oct 2023, 12:28 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2023, 12:28 pm

I love studying about evolution, nature, and survival of the fittest. I do wonder though why it doesn't seem to work on some human populations. Nature always aims for a state of equilibrium. It returns a damaged eco-system to its' normal condition after years and years. 

However, this doesn't seem to be the case with overpopulated areas like Dhaka Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Surat and Mumbai India, and many other cities around the world. There is thing called 'carrying capacity.' A population's ability to sustain itself is proportionate to limiting factors in their habitat that can sustain it. The carrying capacity is that equilibrium. If the population exceeds that, then nature will decrease the population. This is applicable to insects and animals. 

Yet, people in these cities keep multiplying. I would think that mother nature would step in to reduce their fertility potency, as it does with fish, insects, and any other species. But it doesn't.

That's because we aren't part of nature...which thrives without us...
 

Vegas » 28 Oct 2023, 12:28 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2023, 12:28 pm

I love studying about evolution, nature, and survival of the fittest. I do wonder though why it doesn't seem to work on some human populations. Nature always aims for a state of equilibrium. It returns a damaged eco-system to its' normal condition after years and years. 

However, this doesn't seem to be the case with overpopulated areas like Dhaka Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Surat and Mumbai India, and many other cities around the world. There is thing called 'carrying capacity.' A population's ability to sustain itself is proportionate to limiting factors in their habitat that can sustain it. The carrying capacity is that equilibrium. If the population exceeds that, then nature will decrease the population. This is applicable to insects and animals. 

Yet, people in these cities keep multiplying. I would think that mother nature would step in to reduce their fertility potency, as it does with fish, insects, and any other species. But it doesn't.

https://youtu.be/L5foZIKuEWQ?si=m9VveWEJ9nr7vIuI

Vegas » 28 Oct 2023, 12:28 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2023, 12:28 pm

I love studying about evolution, nature, and survival of the fittest. I do wonder though why it doesn't seem to work on some human populations. Nature always aims for a state of equilibrium. It returns a damaged eco-system to its' normal condition after years and years. 

However, this doesn't seem to be the case with overpopulated areas like Dhaka Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Surat and Mumbai India, and many other cities around the world. There is thing called 'carrying capacity.' A population's ability to sustain itself is proportionate to limiting factors in their habitat that can sustain it. The carrying capacity is that equilibrium. If the population exceeds that, then nature will decrease the population. This is applicable to insects and animals. 

Yet, people in these cities keep multiplying. I would think that mother nature would step in to reduce their fertility potency, as it does with fish, insects, and any other species. But it doesn't.

Our limiting habitat is the planet. Carrying capacity is there. We are rushing toward it.
Those places you mention are not in closed biospheres.
They are supported by commodities from outside their living quarters.

DeezerShoove » 28 Oct 2023, 8:00 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2023, 8:00 pm

Our limiting habitat is the planet. Carrying capacity is there. We are rushing toward it.
Those places you mention are not in closed biospheres.
They are supported by commodities from outside their living quarters.

They are ****. Not to mention some of those villages in Africa. They drink from puddles after the rain.Yet, they still multiply. 

Vegas » 28 Oct 2023, 8:29 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2023, 8:29 pm

They are ****. Not to mention some of those villages in Africa. They drink from puddles after the rain.Yet, they still multiply.

They get help from outside.
When that goes away and they are truly on their own, it will stop.

Doesn't matter what the "resource" is.
Carrying water on their heads 3 miles everyday or UN helicopters bringing in pallets of stuff.
Sooner or later if the population reaches the carrying capacity, it will abate.
Might be 200 years from now. More likely much quicker than that. ZPG.
EVERYONE will be subject to rationing at some level.

War will probably be welcomed just to clear out the baby makers.  

Vegas » 28 Oct 2023, 12:28 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2023, 12:28 pm

I love studying about evolution, nature, and survival of the fittest. 
 

.
What about Kinetic Energy 
 

RedheadedStranger » 28 Oct 2023, 6:47 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2023, 6:47 pm

https://youtu.be/L5foZIKuEWQ?si=m9VveWEJ9nr7vIuI

Classic...."Mr ANDERSON!"
 

MackTheFinger » 28 Oct 2023, 9:36 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2023, 9:36 pm

.
What about Kinetic Energy

How does that relate?

Vegas » 29 Oct 2023, 9:56 am » wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2023, 9:56 am

How does that relate?

.
Oh...I am cyber sorry...I was thinking of sole effect.
 

Vegas » 28 Oct 2023, 12:28 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2023, 12:28 pm

I love studying about evolution, nature, and survival of the fittest. I do wonder though why it doesn't seem to work on some human populations. Nature always aims for a state of equilibrium. It returns a damaged eco-system to its' normal condition after years and years. 

However, this doesn't seem to be the case with overpopulated areas like Dhaka Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Surat and Mumbai India, and many other cities around the world. There is thing called 'carrying capacity.' A population's ability to sustain itself is proportionate to limiting factors in their habitat that can sustain it. The carrying capacity is that equilibrium. If the population exceeds that, then nature will decrease the population. This is applicable to insects and animals. 

Yet, people in these cities keep multiplying. I would think that mother nature would step in to reduce their fertility potency, as it does with fish, insects, and any other species. But it doesn't. 

Your title left off Natural Balancing Outcomes as a whole Species is equal to population occupying time now..