HikeArizona.COM

I saw this article online and would like to share it with you.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/ ... 662024.htm

ellehcim wrote:But, unless you have some guideline to present showing other planets or something, isnt it hard to say anything scientific about wether the population is out of control or not? The human population is part of nature wether you like to think so or not.

I agree that human population is part of nature but science is now controlling birth and death rates, not nature. In 1830 the world population hit it's highest point in the history of the earth at 1 billion people. In October (can't remember the day, I think 12th) 1999 the world population hit 6 billion. Granted the population should be going up but at the rate it is, we're going to hit our carrying capacity sooner than we can ever imagine. Doctors are giving life to millions of newborn children that, 150 years ago would have died. Same goes true for the elderly. We've taken nature out of much of the human life cycle.

The cause of all this is a high extinction rate for animal species and loss of natural land and resources. I'm getting on a tangent now so I'll just stop here. But my whole point is that even though the article says we still have 46% of the world's land mass is still considered 'wilderness' it means that we as humans have decimated 54% in the past few hundred years. I find it more alarming than comforting, but then again I guess I'm a pessimist. Just so you don't think I'm pulling this info out of my butt, I'm a Conservation Biology major at ASU, so I've been studying much of this stuff over the past 4 years.

tracker wrote: Most of the Greens live in urban area and don't have a clue about wilderness or the cycle of nature.

Amen to that. And with that said, I will now keep my thoughts to myself.

Must.....resist......posting......aaaarrrrrggghhhh......

Great Posts everyone.

I really didnt think I would get any reaction to this article. It's amazing to see different points of view from people who walk the same trails that I do.

I sympathize with you Olesma. While I don't do it much here on the website, I do have a tendancy to wear not only my heart but my mind as well on my sleeve. I am aware that this is something many people have a problem with. Thus leading to my New Years Resolution to keep my mouth shut. With 4 weeks left I am beginning to wean myself. :roll:

Couldn’t resist…

If you want to volunteer to give up your television, house, car, computer, vow not to have kids, agree to die before you reach 70 years old… then you can complain about over population and pollution all you want. Otherwise, you are part of the problem.

I like that one Daryl!

tracker wrote:I come from the conservative side of politics and I do understand the "liberal" point of view. I really believe that the environmentalist wacko's have hijacked the Democratic party for their own twisted agenda. Most of the Greens live in urban area and don't have a clue about wilderness or the cycle of nature.

Our economy runs on commerce.. plain and simple... Yes the government is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. That's why governement should get out of the business of environment and let the states (who may know just a little better) run the show. It's mostly the western states, with their huge tracts of empty spaces and government controlled lands that gets the "hold-up" from Washington.

Clinton let the "Wacko's" run wild at BLM and Dept of the Interior. Don't touch this tree or that shrub. No management = disaster (Ask the rim country communities)

The problem with laying the blame on Clinton is that it is not as accurate as you believe. States lost control of their own lands when the Congress led by Republic wacko Newt Gingrich put thru it's plan for a new America....as a result of the legislation passed by that Republican lead congress, local control vanished and control ended up with huge corporations. It's fine to lay blame, but lay blame accurately.

ellehcim wrote:

scottmackey wrote: But, unless you have some guideline to present showing other planets or something, isnt it hard to say anything scientific about wether the population is out of control or not? The human population is part of nature wether you like to think so or not.

How's this...with 6.1 billion people drawing from the resources of this planet, the amount of crops, animals and other biomatter we extract from the earth each year exceeds what the planet can replace by about 20%...this means it takes about 14.5 months to replace what we use in 12 months...creating an ever growing deficit....human population is part of nature, but it is a controllable variable, whereas the resource of the planet...soil, water...are not infinite, but rather finite.

CK1, are you an educator?

Daryl, I agree! Lots of folks like to complain about problems without offering workable solutions. For example, desert and agricultural land is being paved and plotted for houses. If you stop that then where would the added population live? We'd have to either halt births and close our borders or start demolishing existing houses to make way for high rise apartments. I hate living in apartments. Even the "green" state of California pushed Oregon to generate extra electricity during a drought, hurting endangered fish and farmers. They don't want power plants but love to heat their hot tubs.
BTW, who is the nature loving individual who hikes out to remote pristine locations to enjoy the wilderness and leaves their empty water bottles and candy bar wrappers? I've packed out lots of this stuff. I'm sure it must have been an innocent oversight. I'd just like to have an address so I can return the items to the owner's front yard.

No, I'd like to see politics left out. I'll just say I think my daughter would be safer working in the White house today than 4 years ago.

azhiker96 wrote: BTW, who is the nature loving individual who hikes out to remote pristine locations to enjoy the wilderness and leaves their empty water bottles and candy bar wrappers? I've packed out lots of this stuff. I'm sure it must have been an innocent oversight. I'd just like to have an address so I can return the items to the owner's front yard.

What gets me are the cigarette butts...I can't get that one. I don't get how a wilderness experience can be enhanced by sucking on tar...yuk.


Yes, Tracker, I teach. I tend to run on. I'm sorry.

No problem, CK1 I won't hold that against you.

I totally understand about the cigarette butts and other stuff. My wife and I were in a very remote part of Garden Valley, no footprints but ours and we come upon cigarette butts. It looked like someone dumped their asstray. My wife wondered out loud if an airliner had dumped their stash.

AZHIKer96... hmmmm I'm wondering too. Congress can't sign anything into law :roll:

tracker wrote:AZHIKer96... hmmmm I'm wondering too. Congress can't sign anything into law :roll:

? I don't understand, is this directed at one of my comments?

CK1,

I have a hard time believing those numbers when traditional farmers can no longer make a profitable living and the government subsidizes many farmed products. Last I heard, the US government still pays farmers not to grow on their land.
Plus, how can we have a shortage of resources if 46% of the planet is still wilderness? If there were shortages wouldn’t we be farming and mining that land?

I think you may have received flawed data.

We're saying that Clinton signed the legislation into law. He did not veto the legislation that Wacko Newt came up with.. nothing against you CK1.

Daryl wrote:CK1,

I have a hard time believing those numbers when traditional farmers can no longer make a profitable living and the government subsidizes many farmed products. Last I heard, the US government still pays farmers not to grow on their land.
Plus, how can we have a shortage of resources if 46% of the planet is still wilderness? If there were shortages wouldn’t we be farming and mining that land?

I think you may have received flawed data.

quote="Daryl"]CK1,

I have a hard time believing those numbers when traditional farmers can no longer make a profitable living and the government subsidizes many farmed products. Last I heard, the US government still pays farmers not to grow on their land.
Plus, how can we have a shortage of resources if 46% of the planet is still wilderness? If there were shortages wouldn’t we be farming and mining that land?

I think you may have received flawed data.[/quote]

It's not my data...Time Magazine, Special Report August 26, 2002 "How to Save the Earth"...the sources are listed on page A17...they include various UN departments and the International Energy Agency...I believe their source for that particular data was the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, though they also quote someone from the United Nations Development Program.

Now, Time could be wrong, in which case my data is inaccurate.

tracker wrote:We're saying that Clinton signed the legislation into law. He did not veto the legislation that Wacko Newt came up with.. nothing against you CK1.

You're 100% correct. I'm not defending Clinton's actions. I'm saying that neither party is particular strong with creating effective environmental laws. There was tons going on that year (1994-95) environmentally, that was when our elected officials couldnt agree on anything, and various land managers had to shut down services, close parks because of funding/budget issues....I just bristle when blame is laid with one particular party, when it takes both of them to screw stuff up...which is something I think we both agree on...like Wiz (I think), said, this is the choir, I'd guess that we each do what we can, stopping short of selling all our stuff and living in Yurts..

Your quoting UN stats? Enuff said!