THE COMING WAVE (An interview with Mother Abigail

MA: James, I believe that you paint the picture much too dark. It is true that this is a subject more suited to Hollywood than casual conversation. But it is not true that people would rather not know.

We must never put ourselves into a position where we believe that information should be filtered. The heart of science is that knowledge is shared. Even our conjectures, opinions, and observations are distributed.

The very soul of science has been tempered on ridicule and even persecution. The road to understanding our world is paved with open discussion.

So being challenged in ones belief is no roadblock to any true person of science. And if I may say so, it should never be an impediment to your profession as well.

J: Touche MA. I didn't mean any offense.

MA: I know that James.

J: It is just that I would like to go even farther into your observations but I fully intend to publish your comments on the Internet. And I do not care to diminish your reputation.

MA: Laughing - James my reputation?

J: Well you know what I mean.

MA: Child yes I do, and God bless you for caring but I am so far past such considerations that it seems a bit unnecessary.

These are the days in my life where I am much more concerned with God's opinion of my actions than of man's.

So perhaps we can agree to just have our little discussion and let others form their own opinion. OK

J: Good by me.

December 6th, 2010
Carson City, Nevada

As I reread last nights work I thought it might be helpful to find a chart illustrating MA's remarks on Thanksgiving.

"However, even with a flood of abortions, China's single child policy, Europe's low birth rate and other measures we are still on a very sharp curve.

No, we are very much in the same stew as our more furry friends."

Here is one chart I found from the U.S. Geological Survey:

It appears to contrast human growth and the growth in species extinction. It is indeed a sharp curve.

James

MA: What is it James that you would like to know?

J: MA, I have read some of your writing about the great apes, do you feel they are near extinction?

MA: Well the non-human great apes are not doing that well, but we humans are quite successful.

J: Are people great apes?

MA: Why yes James, didn’t you know that?

J: I am embarrassed to say no.

MA: All non-human great apes are endangered species. Actually there are very few breeding populations outside of captivity. James it is a sad story and it is not getting any better. Great apes or Hominidae not only include humans but chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans.

In Africa the “bushmeat” trade is wrecking havoc on the primate population in the wild, and the periodic outbreaks of Ebola are killing breeding adults also.

We have about 200,000 western gorillas and only about 6,000 eastern gorillas left. It is crunch time for their species and with the exception of those in captivity the prognosis is poor.

MA: James these are our closest relatives. This is not an abstract lesson in Biology - this is real and it very bad.

MA: If you really want to upset your apple cart of beliefs read about our other Great Ape relative the bonobo. They are the equivalent of your strange aunt that visits now and then.

Very sexual, female dominated and highly sensitive, these wonderful rare creatures live in the Congo and are extremely endangered. We lost some of them a few years ago to the common flu.

The adults are butchered and sold in markets along with some of our other primate relatives.

Primates, even in the wild, will occasionally eat their kin.

But, they are on the hot seat with pandas, tigers, leatherback turtles and the mountain gorillas - which I believe now number less than 750.

It is the times James, and we are not immune to this tragedy either.

MA: Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis, at one point in time, were in exactly the same situation as our mountain gorilla is now.

Their populations became isolated and their breeding numbers declined to the point where their species failed.

J: Well our numbers aren’t declining.

MA: No they are not. We have about 6.8 billion humans spread out over every ecosystem on earth and a few brave souls living off the earth in orbit.

We are, in fact, living in a human population explosion.

James tens of thousands of years passed before our species reached the one billion mark, around 1804, it then took only 130, 33, 15, 13 and 12 years to add each succeeding billion.

This accelerating rate of increase is what is meant by the term population explosion. Not that hard to see really.

We are expanding as a species at a faster and faster pace.

Which brings us to the math part of the question.

Would you like to take a break before we get into your favorite subject - she said laughing.

J: MA knows that I hate math.

December 8th, 2010
San Francisco, California
Balboa Street

Yesterday my energy level sucked. My writing was weak and so I boogied.

Drove to the Bay and it was 65 degrees, sunny and calm. Not a bad December day. Sat at the ocean deciding whether to drive on to the resort at Millbrae or stay at the beach.

The beach won. So I slept till 9:00 this morning and drove to the Internet cafe across from the Old Balboa theater.

While I showered and dressed I listened to San Francisco Jazz - one of many stations. I understand that SFO has many drawbacks but the music on the radio is not one of those. Great Jazz, Acid Rock and classical - and that should just about do it for most people.

It is raining to beat the band this morning (I know you're shocked) - drove down the beach to Balboa with that semi-french song about shooky shooky na na something just rocking the jeep. Put me in a great mood.

I love the rain. It is always a blessing, I supposed if you lived here or Seattle then you might not be so sanguine, but I am.

I would like to own an interest in the parking meters in this district. It is a quarter for 8 minuets. You need a sack of quarters to go to the movie or chill out in the bar.

So here I am. It is Wednesday morning the music in the cafe is too loud, my parking meter is subject to bankrupt me...... but I believe we are going to have a very good day on this thread.

We have nibbled at the salad, made the mandatory stab at the vegetables but now it is time to carve up the steak and get down to the meat.

And the meat is exceptionally well seasoned.

James

Thanksgiving Day
Carson City, Nevada
MA’s Study

MA: Settling into her big chair - Thanks for stoking the fire James it is getting cold outside. But it is beautiful don't you think?

J: Oh MA it is like something out of a photograph. Have you owned this house long?

MA: Most of my life.

J: I feel a bit like the “potted plant” in this interview, you have been so forthcoming that I seem reduced to just listening. However do please go on. Ma do we have to get into math?

MA: Well let's just see.

Would you agree that we are indeed in a human population explosion?

J: Seems clear to me.

MA: Then there are only two outcomes available. When we speak of population explosions within a species we normally resort to a bit of “geek speak” where we describe the two outcomes as either a “r-selected” species or “k-selected” species.

What this means, in simple terms, is that an “r-selected” species is one that reproduces quickly, has a short maturation time, breeds at a young age, has a short lifespan, produces many offspring quickly, has small offspring, has a high mortality rates for their young, and give little or no parental care.

The "K-selected species" usually live near the carrying capacity of their environment. Their numbers are controlled by the availability of resources.

In other words, they are a density dependent species.

The attributes of a K-selected species include a long maturation time, breeding relatively late in life, a long lifespan, producing relatively few offspring, large newborn offspring, low mortality rates of young, and extensive parental care.

With me so far?

MA: The main point of r/K selection theory is that evolutionary pressures tend to drive animals in one of these two directions — towards quickly reproducing animals whose specialty is to adopt as many niches as possible using simple strategies

Or slowly reproducing animals who are strong competitors in crowded niches and invest substantially in their offspring.

The quick summary of r/K selection theory can be thought of as “quality vs. quantity.”

J: Then we are obviously “K-selected” species?

MA: For the most part yes.

J: You said only two outcomes, what are they?

MA: Well in the “R-selected” species their populations explode, filling all the ecological niches they can endure and then they suddenly collapse with the glide ratio of a rock.

The “K-selected species” also explodes while food and habitat are abundant, and then they slow down as regulatory factors such as lower birth rate and reduced food availability come into play. The rate of population growth slows down to zero, and the population reaches a fairly stable level.

December 9th, 2010
San Francisco, California

The rain has cleared this morning. And it is a warm 61 degrees.

I understand that most animals will self-intoxicate, if given an opportunity, and that the need to party is a basic human drive that will often manifest itself at the oddest times - however I believe that the phrase:

"A double Patron and a short beer"

is one that should not be used lightly.

Anyway - didn't wake up until 10:00 this morning and, in all honesty, I have felt better.

Electing not to shave (just didn't have the motivation) I drove to the beach and then ended up here at Tully's on Sloat where I intend to recharge on caffeine.

Thanksgiving Day
Carson City, Nevada
MA’s Study

J: Are we leveling off?

MA: Yes and no James. No - we are still increasing the human population on earth but yes we are now slowing that rate of increase.

J: When did it start slowing down?

MA: Somewhere in the early 60’s we reached our peak of a 2.2% increase and then we began to moderate that rate of growth. We now have about a 1.14% rate of growth which translates to doubling in 61 years.

J: Has it been continually slowing?

MA: Yes James, starting in about 1400 we began to increase our population rate of growth until we maxed out and since that time we have been slowly moderating that rate of growth - over 40 years is a pretty good trend.

J: So if I understand correctly, because we are a “k-selected” species then we are modulating our population as we reach maximum penetration of the environment.

That sounds like good news, is it?

MA: Well, let’s take a look at a very simple equation that will help us decide the answer to that equation.

r = n - m

This simple equation means that the realized intrinsic rate of growth is measured by the difference between natality (birth rate) and mortality (death rate).

And obviously zero population growth is reached when r = 0, natality equals mortality, and the population size remains constant, even though individuals are being born and are dying.

MA: Are you with me so far?

J: I can understand that.

MA: It seems simple. To follow the perfect example of a perfect “k-selected” species - we would simply expand to the limits of our environment or as we often say - the habitat's carrying capacity - we would then modulate our birth rate to equal our death rate and live in the land of milk and honey.

But it is, as are many things in complicated systems, not that easy.

James, we now understand that there are both “k-selected” and “r-selected” traits in many populations. Our is riddled with such contradictions.

Let's start with a simple concept like rate of population growth.

While it is true that the overall human rate of increase is modulating - that is not true for all components of that set.

Most European countries have low growth rates. In the United Kingdom, the rate is 0.2%, in Germany it's 0.0%, and in France, 0.4%. Germany's zero rate of growth includes a natural increase of -0.2%, without immigration, Germany would be shrinking, like the Czech Republic.

The Czech Republic and some other European countries’ growth rate is actually negative (on average, women in the Czech Republic give birth to 1.2 children, which is below the number to yield zero population growth, approximately 2.1 children). The Czech Republic's natural growth rate of -0.1 can not be used to determine doubling time because the population is actually shrinking in size.

So in these numbers we have a very strong trait for “k-selection”.

But there is another current equally as strong - if not stronger.

Many Asian and African countries have high growth rates.

Afghanistan has a current growth rate of 4.8%, representing a doubling time of 14.5 years.

If Afghanistan's growth rate remained the same (which is very unlikely and the country's projected growth rate for 2025 is a mere 2.3%), then the population of 30 million would become 60 million in 2020, 120 million in 2035, 280 million in 2049, 560 million in 2064, and 1.12 billion in 2078.

This is a ridiculous expectation. But it is very much in line with a “r-selection” strategy.

J: MA I thought “k-selected” species also had rapid population expansion?

MA: Child I do believe you are paying attention. That is an excellent observation.

The answer is yes, of course “k-selected” species have periods of rapid population expansion. But the kicker is the conditions under which this occurs.

Do you remember the brief phrase I said summarized the k vs r selection?

J: Was it quantity vs quality?

MA: That is correct. But what it also means is that these two strategies are designed to function in different environments.

Your K species uses the rapid growth to take advantage of a stable environment with ample resources (colonization for example) while the R species responds to a disturbed environment by mass reproduction - obviously hoping that some members will survive the certain crash that always occurs.

So it is not just the growth rate but the environment that frames that growth that really defines which strategy is in play.

See the difference?

J: Yes.

MA: So we have in the “k-selected” species a stable environment that is density dependent. They produce few offspring with extra investment on the part of the parent, they have late maturation (again with much parental care) and they live long lives.

The “r-selected” species thrives in an unstable environment where there is density independence, they produce many offspring with limited parental investment, they have early maturation, and live short lives.

J: MA I don't understand are you saying we are not a “k-selected” species

MA: No James, we are both. Although some organisms are primarily r- or k-strategists, the majority of organisms fall between these two ecological extremes and may display traits of both.

For instance, trees have traits such as longevity and strong competitiveness that characterize them as K-strategists. In reproduction, however, trees typically produce thousands of offspring and disperse them widely, traits characteristic of r-strategists.

Similarly, reptiles such as sea turtles display both r- and K-traits: although large organisms with long lifespans (should they reach adulthood), they produce large numbers of unnurtured offspring.

R/K selection is a continuous spectrum not an absolute.

The concept of a continuous spectrum is paramount to all we are discussing and is often the largest stumbling block to those who try to understand complex systems.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.