There appear to be some other reasoning to it otherwise other species who have also evolved with us in similar climatic conditions, should have also become like us. Let us try to look what make us different from those species. One is walking on 2 legs other more mental capabilty less physical. Thinner skin etc. I am not sure, it is also related to hormonal variation but getting hair on young age due to hormonal change can be bit indicative.Well it's hard to tell when an animal is already furry....In dogs, the foreskin itself is hairy.
It's just that human fur is very thin and spaced.
Humans living in cold climates would seem to need a need for staying warm, especially for the skull and genitals.
Why under-arm hair? I have no clue, but I'm sure there is an evolutionary need for retaining underarm hair.
Still we sell shaving equipment by the millions, especially to women.
Biological Energy Redistribution?
- Thread starter KUMAR5
- Start date
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Not necessarily. In a hospitable environment with an abundance of bio-chemical life (food), many ways can be employed successfully, as is evident in nature.
The secret lies in the temperature of the biosphere, which allowed for 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion bio-chemical reactions, in the oceans, on the surface, and in the air over a time-span of some 3-4
billion years.
Is it really so unthinkable that those enormous numbers of biochemical evolutionary processes over such enormous time spans, should not result in the incredible variety we find today (not including extinct species).
The gross bulk of insects on earth exceeds humans by400 lbs to 14 lbs per human.
We're Outnumbered
Author: Kathy Keatley Garvey
Published on: December 15, 2008
We’re outnumbered.
Plain as day. And they’re not going away.
The estimated ratio of insects to humans is 200 million to one, say Iowa State University entomologists Larry Pedigo and Marlin Rice in their newly published (sixth edition) textbook, Entomology and Pest Management. Rice is the 2009 president of the Entomological Society of America.
There's an average of 400 million insects per acre of land, they say.
400 million! Per acre.
http://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=877
Thanks. Wonderful information. We need to estimate our future in this and in modern environment. We shall need more immunity. I am bit suspicious if cancer is enabling it and can we be evolved of just composed only by cancer cells if current pace of odds progress and continue for long. Bit horrible. Today, cancer is not not so genetic disease but cam not be said for tomorrow.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
As I understand it CRISPR and some variations are effective in snipping DNA and inserting an "off" switch which prevents a virus from duplicating itself. Sounds very promising. They are also working on nano-bees, which actually seek out diseased cells and destroy them with bee venom, a highly effective cancer killer.
But there is a deeper more important natural law to consider; the law of the exponential function, which forbids unlimited steady growth of anything in limited spaces or resources. Thus any steady growth of something must eventually reach zero. How this is achieved is the greatest dilemma that faces mankind.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
How it is achieved in what? Human population? Cancer cells?
Your closing statement is ambiguous.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Let me give you a hint; The exponential function of steady 1% growth causes a doubling time of every 70 years. 7 billion @1% growth yields 14 billion in 70 years. Another 70 years and we get 28 billion. Another 70 years we have 56 billion, etc. Currently the world has an approximately 1% growth in population.
In just 210 years (3 generations) @ 1 % growth the earth's population would be 56 billion, unless something happens to reduce the growth rate, which will inevitably happen, either by Our choice or Nature will choose for us. Now do you see the dilemma?
Watch this excellent lecture by Professor Emeritus Albert Bartlett, it's not recent but the maths don't change.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Patronising hogwash, as Dave will know perfectly well how the exponential function behaves and because the growth rate in human population is not forecast, by those who study it, to be a simple exponential:-
https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/
Not that the median prediction of the range indicates a peak followed by a decline.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Precisely, when the exponential function creates too large numbers, growth rate will stop or decline.
This may demonstrate;
Limited supply can also do it. Yes some saturation point is always there. What I am thinking, is such reversal after attaining saturation. I feel it creation, maintenance & destruction all are nature's initiaion to keep universe fine tuned or in balance depending on prevailing condition. We can look all three.
Simple logic can be: If natural slecion support "survival of fittest than unfits will not survive. If we are decreasing fitness, obviously survival rate will decrease.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Do you really think that is the "logic" the UN used, in compiling the graph I linked to?
I feel, yes in indirect sense.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I didn't need a hint; I needed you to clarify your position. I know what population growth is.
But you are proferring a limited resource - presumably Earth.
I think our efforts towards spacefaring are on-track to have colonies before we run out of room here. So, I don't really see that as the pinnacle of human dilemmae.
People are living in poverty and starving and dying of disease (and always have been), and we're nowhere near Earth's capacity yet. They'e not dying because Earth is running out of resources - if that were true it would man they had the resources but now don't. They're dying because we don't have the infrastructure to get clean water and food to them.
We can try calculating: what should be population today by accounting constant or unresisted growth rate from our primitive state and what we actually are. I doubt constant increase in population always happened.
We can try calculating: what should be the population today by accounting constant or unresisted growth rate from our primitive state and what we actually are. I doubt constant increase in population always happened.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
That is the problem, very few people do or give it any thought at all.
I don't doubt your knowedge of mathematics, but when was the last time you gave serious consideration to the exponential function as it applies to life on earth?
In spite of all the death and disease and accidents, the human population is still growing at 1% per year, which means a doubling time of 70 years. This is not an abstraction, this is hard mathemathics.
As long as there is an exponential population growth, there will be an exponential increase in overcrowding and depletion of non-renewable resources.
To say, there is plenty time to do something about it is overly optimistic, IMO.
At the "current rate" of use recoverable oil will run out in about 40 years, and when we switch to coal the currently estimate of a few hundred years of recoverable coal will also decrease and be used at a much greater rate than at the "current rate", and increasing exponentially.
It is an inescapable problem and the irony is that everything we gconsider as good will make the problem worse, everything we consider bad will relieve the problem. That's the dilemma.
The human dilemma lies in the fact that at some point population growth must be reduced to zero growth.
Has anyone given serious thought to this? I can guarantee that few people have looked at this mathematical problem. One needs look only at the statements made by politicians. They have no clue!!!!
So we have a choice, we voluntarily reduce population growth (good luck with that) or nature will create condtions which will will reduce population growth, and that will not be a pleasant method.
But instead of trying to voluntarily reduce population growth, we are making increased efforts to keep people alive longer, thereby accercebating the problem.
So, it appears that we are not interested in keeping population growth down, which means we're letting nature choose. Of course this is already evident in man-assisted global warming and climate change.
As Bartlett demonstrated, at which point will we know that there is a serious problem with our use of natural non-renewable resources and the state of over population??
My guess is, that this will happen much too late.
The the earth will become a toxic hell, instead of that beautiful blue green ball that's floating around the sun.
Lately, have you seen any people needing to wear masks to filter the air we breathe? Go to Japan or China.
And this is about "air". When the oceans become so polluted that they can no longer support food sources or the food sources have become inedible from toxic chemicals, will we become vegetarians or hunt down every living animal. When entire swath's of the earth become uninhabitable what do you think will happen? Great migrations of billions of humans and animals will cause havoc with our "standard" way of ife.
This is the human dilemma we are faced with, if we continue on this path to self destruction. As to the concept of off-world colonies, how many people will you be able to export? The current net population growth today was 191,000 a minute ago, and counting.
http://www.worldometers.info/
Imagine having to transport 200,000 people and provide off-world shelter and food, each day? Do you really think this provides a solution?
The problem is global, not local. There is a difference.!
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
True enough. The question is if this was by choice or by global calamity.
And according to the count, the human population is growing at 1.1% per year, regardless.
Don't forget, we are looking at this long term and averages can be calculated with some precision.
And as our health care improves, our life spans are being artificially extended. The life span of early humans was perhaps 40-50 years. Today it is what, 70?
It is true, that the actual birth rate has fallen, mostly for economic reasons. So the biblical commandmend of "go forth and multiply", is no longer a good thing.
When China was a mostly rural economy, they recognized this and experimented with forced population control, but apparently this failed or was dropped due to its current financial glut from industrialization. Temporarily good for people, but bad for the global ecosphere, which affects us all.
Last edited:
Whether this growth rate constantly existed since our primative state?
Anyway, nothing to worry much nature and we are opting many many such things which can check the over population.