Species overpopulation?
Don Coldsmith
Originally published 12:55 p.m., January 7, 2008
Updated 12:55 p.m., January 7, 2008
We're a quarter of the way through January already, which seems impossible. It was only the other day that we were preparing for the Thanksgiving-Christmas-New Year’s series of holidays, wasn’t it? But time flies, whether we like it or not.
A frequent topic in the news during the autumn and part of the winter has been that of “global warming.” This phenomenon has been blamed for everything that’s wrong with the world, from headaches to hangnails and the follies of the human race.
Nobody has mentioned, to any real extent, that the human race has doubled in number in only the last few decades. Could it be that we’re worrying about the wrong problem? Not the misuse of our resources, but overpopulation of planet Earth.
Any species, especially mammals, have a tendency if undisturbed to increase until the population becomes a destructive factor. I did quite a bit of research on this subject a few decades ago when I was working in the sciences, rather than creative writing.
I ran across a very lengthy study involving overpopulation among mammals. A major experiment in one of the research facilities had been successfully completed. Left over, after the results were in, was a large quantity of laboratory rodent food and 50 or more “lab rats,” the traditional white rats used to test the safety of new medicines, etc.
It had been decided to continue to feed these rats rather than destroy them. Mostly out of curiosity, apparently. What happens when a mammalian species runs out of not food, but space? They didn’t know what to expect, but there were certainly some surprises.
As space became more scarce, they began to fight over it, of course.
But they also began to kill the younger generation. Mostly offspring of others, but as time went on there were more and more instances of quarrels leading to deaths, cannibalism and other strange, destructive behavior. Not really recognizable as a need for space, but a result of such a need.
I don’t know how that all concluded, but it’s worrisome to compare the directions that it was taking with what’s happening worldwide right now. We do have some areas where the human population is starving, but more, I believe, with food in plenty, but wasteful use of it. Not much effort to share the excess with the starving, I’m afraid.
Historically, several times through the ages, as population became too dense, there have been catastrophic events. Sometimes war, famine, disease — leprosy, smallpox ...
Archaeologists find evidence of highly developed civilizations on nearly every continent and the ruins of their skills in the sciences, architecture, agriculture, astronomy, medicine, yes, even flight.
What happened to these advanced cultures?
It’s quite possible that enough humans developed resistance to specific diseases such as leprosy to cause the survivors to almost overlook leprosy as a major threat. The disease may have left alive only those who were born with this resistance. These produced the next generation, who carried problems of their own, of course.
The humans, like any other mammals, change with the survival of the fittest and the whole human race changes a little bit with each generation. Hopefully, to the better. Probably that’s still anybody’s guess. But Mother Nature is a strict teacher.
See you down the road.
Author and columnist Don Coldsmith lives in Emporia.
create (anonymous) says...
Getting back to the actual lab rats for a moment -- this is why I have always been against those who trap squirrels in town and take them out to the country where they will live happily ever after. The country squirrels don't care for the intrusion and the competition for space/food. So much for happily ever after.
January 9, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
The arguments presented here are reflective of the science as it was understood forty years ago. Today, we know that "fittest" often means something entirely different than "viability", as an example. It may mean "attractiveness" as in a bigger tail which might also lead to extinction as it attracts ever better predators.
The original point, though, is that we are overpopulated, and we are. While arguments still rage on this question, it strikes most people who are informed (scientifically) as obvious. Our human presence has become terribly destructive to the planet and other lifeforms. Biological diversity decreases by the hour and, as it does so, decreases general viability.
The end result is catastrophe. That has always been the case with overpopulation by a single species within a contained environment (such as Earth). Our intellect is no protection from this.
Perhaps, in trying to solve Global Warming, we may also begin to glimpse the tragedy of our excessive numbers. Hopefully, better education, personal empowerment of the powerless as economies improve, and a major reality check will change our attitudes.
CAF
January 14, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )