Subject:
|
Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:11:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
230 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > Tom, let me see if I understand your reasoning for suggesting the 90%
> > female infertility rate.
>
> As Tom pointed out, I was the one who tossed that out originally. You did the
> math right and understand the reason. If you are controlling a population (of
> mamals, at least), the way to do so is to control the female reproduction.
> Good and bad people alike have been applying such techniqes to humans and
> livestock for thousands of years. I suspect that the reason polygyny is wildly
> more common historically than polyandry is that a single male can fertilize a
> staggeringly large number of females, but of course, a female can only be
> pregnant one at a time.
A suprisingly effective way to curtail population growth (at least in
iteroparous organisms) is to delay the age of first production. It's
also a lot nicer than forced sterilization.
-chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
