You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The future of salmon in Puget Sound
- Thread starter localboy
- Start date
Hunkydory":2e42867k said:Your theory on intelligence & dividing had JoLee & I laughing.Marco Flamingo":2e42867k said:nimrod":2e42867k said:"It's people!"
jd
Washington is one of the fastest growing states. And the new tax bill doubles the child tax credit? Who decided that we need more children and that people who don't have children should subsidize those who have lots? Shouldn't there at least be a numeric limit? When will people finally figure out that what we need is a tax deduction for people not having children? 9 billion? 11 billion?
I always voted for property tax increases for schools. My theory was that we needed smarter children. That hasn't worked out. I voted against my first one last year. I have a new theory. There is only so much intelligence in the world. We are now dividing the pie up in very thin slices.
Mark
My thought on the 1st part are thus; In the US, as of 1972 our replacement birth rate has not increased our population.
http://www.susps.org/overview/immigration.html
Still, the people, who are having most of the children are the ones, who can afford them the least. The world population has increased to over 7 billion & as much as our country is subject to degradation here & abroad, it is still a wonderland & magnet of opportunity to enough of those 7 billion people to turn this country into what they are justifiably trying to escape. So our own more recent huge population increase is not due to birth rates, but rather the huge increase in both legal & illegal immigration & to “give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free” not apropos to our present state.
Jay
Being as Johnr’s humor was a quote from me posted in this thread near the start, way back in January, I thought it relevant to clarify context, so here is the unedited version along with the following related post made by me before & after.
“My not so cheery winter thoughts for today. Yes, it’s the people as in numbers of people. When I was a youngster in the early 1960’s few of these problems were evident at least in the West, the US had around 180,000,000 people now 325,000,000. Yet our birth rates are now at a historic low. To many of the folk, who are active in wanting to solve our environmental problems are the same ones who support the politicians who proscribe to semi or completely open borders wanting cheap labor for both small & large business & votes to keep them in power. The example here of the fish is a microcosm of our country & then of the world. All that is being done & most likely will be done to address these problems are like the little boys finger in the Dutch dike, until the root problem of to many people for the environment to support is addressed. We are a long ways down the road from the days when small tribes lived along the river & overfishing was not a concern, much like the plains Indians & buffalo hunting. In the long run, the Stillaguamish chinook are doomed much like the buffalo were. Allowing even more fishing could make their demise quick or working on habitat slow, but the fish like the buffalo are doomed with the continued drastic increase in human population. I see a even more reduced will in this increased population to make the changes necessary for a positive outcome for the fish & intern, eventually for us “
“Since 1972, the US population has increased 115 million people or 55% with roughly 12.5 million of those, illegals & none of that increase is due to birth rate. That equals the present population of our 5 most populated states & now the most populated state & many of the large cities are sanctuary areas for illegals. This is not a straight left/right issue as one party predominantly wants the cheap labor & the other the power from their votes, which has lead to what has become unfettered immigration if not in strict definition at least in reality of numbers. You are right Marty in that the majority of the people are against it, but the people who have been in power & many who still are have & continue to allow it to go on. This is not a racist issue, though many try to make it so. My oldest granddaughter is half Mexican & her Mexican family who are legal immigrants or their decendents, know their present wages & jobs are at risk from the illegals or large numbers of allowed legal immigrants, Mexican or not. It’s not just the environment being put at risk.”
Marty has concluded from this thread, “the root appears to be climate change and warming of the waters.” My opinion is the climate has been changing for eons with animal & plant species either adapting to the change or being replaced with what does, but at the present it’s not even a close contender to being a root cause for the low salmon count in the PNW. What has radically changed is the human population, which has doubled in Seattle alone, since just 1970. It’s very strange to me, how so many will readily accept global warming as being human caused & the present human world wide population unsustainable environmentally, but close there minds to the environmental cost of our own population increasing by 115,000,000 since just 1972 with a neutral USA birthdate during this time period. It’s seems many won’t connect the dots between more houses on land, boats on the water, cars on the streets & less fish in the water to the increase of people there locally or just to busy squabbling over what little remains to seek viable long term options. It’s near uncorrectable now & imagine another doubling or more of the present population.
Jay
Well Jay you are right, in a sense. I'm not a scientist but it's obvious that the exponential growth in population has been caused by our industrial and scientific discoveries over the past generations. We're living longer, preventing and curing illnesses. As a consequence people are more affluent and, to be simplistic, make more things in industry and use more things like cars. Consequently we pollute and harm the environment. We know how to control this devastation but because of politics , cultural differences and just plain refusal to accept that there will be a personal cost to fighting this battle, we are losing it .It's a real tough war, but make no mistake, we are the enemy.
I really admire you Jay, and I'm glad you get to explore and write about those wonderful nooks and crannyies and glaciers of Alaska before they melt .
Marty
I really admire you Jay, and I'm glad you get to explore and write about those wonderful nooks and crannyies and glaciers of Alaska before they melt .
Marty
dotnmarty":lw9fpp4m said:Well Jay you are right, in a sense. I'm not a scientist but it's obvious that the exponential growth in population has been caused by our industrial and scientific discoveries over the past generations. We're living longer, preventing and curing illnesses. As a consequence people are more affluent and, to be simplistic, make more things in industry and use more things like cars. Consequently we pollute and harm the environment. We know how to control this devastation but because of politics , cultural differences and just plain refusal to accept that there will be a personal cost to fighting this battle, we are losing it .It's a real tough war, but make no mistake, we are the enemy.
I really admire you Jay, and I'm glad you get to explore and write about those wonderful nooks and crannyies and glaciers of Alaska before they melt .
Marty
This is not quite right. Generally, and by mathematical definition, density independent growth (i.e. population growth) is exponential. Medical and scientific advancements serve only to decrease the doubling time of a population, but growth is exponential regardless. Science and medicine don't cause exponential growth....making babies does.