how many of each species

[Monz boldy asserted as fact:]

> There are now far more humans on earth than there have ever
> been of any one single species in history ... so to me this
> banding together to create a larger entity is a natural
> outcome of reproduction gone berserk.

Bzzzt - sorry wrong again. Off the top of my head I can
think of, er at least one million species that prove
this wrong. To begin with. Shall I list them?

Maybe reading too much of the nitwit journalist Sagan
to get these totally nonfactual ideas?

News Alert! Sagan is not a scientist; he was a
journalist. And a very poor one at that who is
completely ignorant of basic precepts of science.

But if people want to listen to pompous ignorant nitwit
fatheads like Sagan they are welcome to!

- Jeff

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
>
> [Monz boldy asserted as fact:]
>
> > There are now far more humans on earth than there have ever
> > been of any one single species in history ... so to me this
> > banding together to create a larger entity is a natural
> > outcome of reproduction gone berserk.
>

This world belongs to bacteria - not humans.

There are guessed to be 500 trillion, trillion kinds of bacteria on
Earth.

And what about the nematodes? May as well try to count the stars in
the sky as to try to count the number of these little bastards in a
handfull of soil.

We are but a minority in the BIGGER scheme of things. Usually the
only thing bigger than the bigger scheme is the hubris of modern man.

I put in my prediction for the survival of bacteria over us!

J

Jacky,

Boy are you right!

If survival of the fittest is indeed the truth of the
universe and driving mechanism of macroevolution, then
we are surely destined to evolve into bacteria --
there's more of these hardy creatures than just about
anything and they've been around a *long* time and will
contunie to be here long after we are all gone! All
hail the mighty bacterium!

- Jeff

[Jacky had said:]

> This world belongs to bacteria - not humans.

> There are guessed to be 500 trillion, trillion kinds of
> bacteria on Earth.

> And what about the nematodes? May as well try to count the
> stars in the sky as to try to count the number of these
> little bastards in a handfull of soil.

> We are but a minority in the BIGGER scheme of things. Usually
> the only thing bigger than the bigger scheme is the hubris of
> modern man.

> I put in my prediction for the survival of bacteria over us!

Gentlepersons-

We are bacteria. Bacteria evolves into us! And I'm sure Monzo means humans
are overpopulated right now at historic levels. best, Johnny Reinhard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In metatuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
And I'm sure Monzo means humans are overpopulated right now at
historic levels. best, Johnny Reinhard

It is predicted that in the next fifty years the population of human
beings will double.

This is when things will get really interesting.

Already the Earth Mother strains from our numbers now.

Ah - all in the name of "progress".

J

In a message dated 1/8/02 1:26:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jacky_ligon@... writes:

> It is predicted that in the next fifty years the population of human
> beings will double.
>
>

It won't be because of me. Alas, I have had no children. ; )

Johnny

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In metatuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 1/8/02 1:26:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> jacky_ligon@y... writes:
> > It is predicted that in the next fifty years the population of
human beings will double.

> It won't be because of me. Alas, I have had no children. ; )
>
> Johnny

This is the choice and path that I have also taken. And for reasons
relative to what we speak of here.

J

> From: jacky_ligon <jacky_ligon@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:39 AM
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: how many of each species
>
>
> --- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:13 PM
>
>
> > [Monz boldy asserted as fact:]
> >
> > > There are now far more humans on earth than there have ever
> > > been of any one single species in history ... so to me this
> > > banding together to create a larger entity is a natural
> > > outcome of reproduction gone berserk.
> >
>
> > Bzzzt - sorry wrong again. Off the top of my head I can
> > think of, er at least one million species that prove
> > this wrong. To begin with. Shall I list them?
>
>
> This world belongs to bacteria - not humans.
>
> There are guessed to be 500 trillion, trillion kinds of bacteria on
> Earth.
>
> And what about the nematodes? May as well try to count the stars in
> the sky as to try to count the number of these little bastards in a
> handfull of soil.
>
> We are but a minority in the BIGGER scheme of things. Usually the
> only thing bigger than the bigger scheme is the hubris of modern man.

Please read *carefully* what I wrote. Yes, there are trillions
upon trillions of "different *kinds* of bacteria on Earth".
Same goes for insects, fungi, nematodes, etc.

But look at only *one particular species*. AFAIK, there is
*no* other *single species* of life on Earth which numbers
over 6 billion, except _homo sapiens_ ... us!

But we really need a biology specialist to step in here and
give the real facts.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

>It is predicted that in the next fifty years the population of
>human beings will double.
>
>This is when things will get really interesting.
>
>Already the Earth Mother strains from our numbers now.

If she strains, she strains under our lifestyle, not our
absolute numbers.

Population _density_ is the important thing. It has to
stabilize at some point. We're left to ask if we would
like to try to choose this point.

>Ah - all in the name of "progress".

That's exactly what it's in the name of! Jonny is right;
we are bacteria. In 50 years, the power of societies of
intelligent beings will far outstrip the power of societies
of bateria, if it may not be said to do so already.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

> But look at only *one particular species*. AFAIK, there is
> *no* other *single species* of life on Earth which numbers
> over 6 billion, except _homo sapiens_ ... us!
>
> But we really need a biology specialist to step in here and
> give the real facts.

I'm no biology specialist, but I can tell you that you are definitely
not correct, Monz -- there are plenty of species, for example E.
coli, with far more than 6 billion living members.

However, there are two statements which _are_ true, and which may
have misled Monz into making the statement he did.

In 1987, Homo sapiens became the largest species on earth, in terms
of total biomass. In other words, if you grouped together all the
examples of each species, and weighed each species as a whole, Homo
sapiens would weigh the most.

Also, in 1990, Homo sapiens became the most numerous _mammalian_
species on earth, outnumbering even the rats.

Source:

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewnewsletter.asp?AuthorID=94&id=1210

>>But we really need a biology specialist to step in here and
>>give the real facts.
>
>I'm no biology specialist, but I can tell you that you are
>definitely not correct, Monz -- there are plenty of species,
>for example E. coli, with far more than 6 billion living members.

Ants are quite impressive.

A related matter is the number of Homo sapiens alive vs.
the number dead. Arthur C. Clarke claimed in the intro
to 2061 (I think) that the former is greater than the
latter, but this strikes me as unlikely.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:

> A related matter is the number of Homo sapiens alive vs.
> the number dead. Arthur C. Clarke claimed in the intro
> to 2061 (I think) that the former is greater than the
> latter, but this strikes me as unlikely.

By 2061, if exponential growth and increased life expectancy continue
their current trends, this almost certainly be true. I think the
number dead is around 15 billion.

>>A related matter is the number of Homo sapiens alive vs.
>>the number dead. Arthur C. Clarke claimed in the intro
>>to 2061 (I think) that the former is greater than the
>>latter, but this strikes me as unlikely.
>
>By 2061, if exponential growth and increased life expectancy
>continue their current trends, this almost certainly be true.
>I think the number dead is around 15 billion.

Maybe I should have said "preface". I believe he was
referring to real-life, present-day (then 1989, or so).

-Carl

--- In metatuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
> >>A related matter is the number of Homo sapiens alive vs.
> >>the number dead. Arthur C. Clarke claimed in the intro
> >>to 2061 (I think) that the former is greater than the
> >>latter, but this strikes me as unlikely.
> >
> >By 2061, if exponential growth and increased life expectancy
> >continue their current trends, this almost certainly be true.
> >I think the number dead is around 15 billion.
>
> Maybe I should have said "preface". I believe he was
> referring to real-life, present-day (then 1989, or so).

I understood that as your meaning . . . just saying he may not have
been that far off, after all.

> From: paulerlich <paul@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:30 PM
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: how many of each species
>
>
> However, there are two statements which _are_ true, and which may
> have misled Monz into making the statement he did.
>
> In 1987, Homo sapiens became the largest species on earth, in terms
> of total biomass. In other words, if you grouped together all the
> examples of each species, and weighed each species as a whole, Homo
> sapiens would weigh the most.
>
> Also, in 1990, Homo sapiens became the most numerous _mammalian_
> species on earth, outnumbering even the rats.
>
> Source:
>
> http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewnewsletter.asp?AuthorID=94&id=1210

Thanks for stepping in and clearing that up, Paul!

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com