Re: world government

["Jay Hanson" <j@qmail.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Roberto Verzola <rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org>

>It simply means that Americans have to learn how to live using less
>energy and on a lower standard of living. My point in all these is
>that there is a way out, if people think hard to find out how to do it
>and enough people want to do it. This is very different from your
>dead-end, dieoff, "we're finished; there's no hope" scenario.

As the dominant primate on a spherical, thus, finite planet, we are
face with two choices:

#1. Be managed like domestic pets.

#2. Dieoff like individual wild animals.

In 1944, 29 reindeer were moved to St. Matthew Island. The reindeer
thrived by "exploiting" (making the best use of) their rich "commons".
(A commons is any resource used as though it belongs to all. In other
words, when any animal can use a shared resource simply because it
wants to use it, then it is using a commons. Remember that a  commons
is destroyed by uncontrolled use -- ownership is not a factor.)

The island had no natural predators to keep the reindeer population in
check, so the population swelled to 6,000 animals during the next 19
years. Suddenly the commons was depleted and the population crashed
until only 42 animals remained alive! The reindeer could have avoided
the crash by keeping the population within the carrying capacity of
the island, but reindeer politics couldn't manage it, so naturally the
population crashed. http://dieoff.com/page80.htm ]

"Transgressing the carrying capacity for one period lowers the
carrying capacity thereafter, perhaps starting a downward spiral
toward zero. David Klein's classic study of the reindeer on St.
Matthew Island illustrates the point.26 In 1944 a population of 29
animals was moved to the island, without the corrective feedback
(negative feedback) of such predators as wolves and human hunters. In
19 years the population swelled to 6,000 and then "crashed" in 3 years
to a total of 41 females and one male, all in miserable condition.
Klein estimates that the primeval carrying capacity of the island was
about 5 deer per square kilometer. At the population peak there were
18 per square kilometer. After the crash there were only 0.126 animals
per square kilometer and even this was probably too many once the
island was largely denuded of lichens. Recovery of lichens under zero
population conditions takes decades; with a continuing resident
population of reindeer it may never occur. Transgressing the carrying
capacity of St. Matthew Island reduced its carrying capacity by at
least 97.5 percent. It is facts like these -- repeated over and over
again in game management experience -- that justify the ecolate game
manager in viewing carrying capacity as partaking of the sacred. I do
not think it is going too far to assert and defend the sanctity of the
carry capacity. " Garrett Hardin, 1980; http://dieoff.com/page14.htm

> >I am afraid this doesn't really say anything.  What exactly does
> >this have to do with the real world?
>
>If you try to become more familiar with the recent studies about
>self-organization and complexity, you'll find out that they have a lot
>to do with the real world, because they explain better how
>self-organization and complexity comes about in the real world. Based

You have simply restated your assertion.  You tell me: what do
 these studies have to do with real world animals (us) who have
 overshot the carrying capacity of their planet (Earth)?

>* the rulesets that guide the local interactions are well-thought
>  out over a long time horizon of many generations.

What are they?  Where are they?  How do they apply to
 animals who have overshot the carrying capacity of their planet?

Jay