## [BIOLOGY] Individual count balance

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

### [BIOLOGY] Individual count balance

How can species balance its individual count with the environment?

We know what happens when mamals end up on island with no predators on it.
Mommy Rabbit: "Ok"
10 min later:
Daddy Rabbit: "Lets make little rabbits"
Mommy Rabbit:"Ok".
Repeat , till the grass area is over.
Result:
(*.*) + (*.*) = (*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*)

With a predators around:
Daddy Rabbit: "That eagle just took little Timmy away"
Mommy Rabbit: "Lets make another one".

(*.*) + (*.*) = (*.*)(*.*)

And predators count is basicly balanced by rabbits count.

(*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) = ( \ / )
(*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) = ( \ / )( \ / )( \ / )

So , we can have:
predators: ( \ / )( \ / )( \ / )
mamals(that eat grass):(*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*)
environment resourses ( grass not eaten, becouse we have 12 not 120 rabbits): /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\

I am having the idea, what the hell is going on with humans, using this model:

predators : NONE
humans:
environment: NONE

something is not right, becouse we still have environment, so what is the predator in this case ?

predators: CANCER, WAR, INFECTIONS, STARVATION
HUMANS:
environment: [] [] [] [] [] [] []

So after all, we should ask ourselvs two questions:

1. Can the human race be healthy, without sickness, without cancer, without wars?
2. Where did thouse "predators" came from? Is this developing itself after we reach some level of population, so it can fall, or it is created before, so we never reach it?

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

### Re: [BIOLOGY] Individual count balance

Another interesting moment, that we see in wild life:

If there are two different predators, like BIG cat species, and little cat species.
If resourses are tight. Like only (*.*)(*.*)(*.*)(*.*), the big cats will chase the little cats.

(same goes for non-predators. There is a theory , that there were once 2 monkey species at the time human developed. At the moment when the environment changed, the food on the threes become not enough for both of the species, so the large one cast away the little ones, making them walk on earth, with the increased risk of beeing eaten and lack of resourses, their intellect developed much faster so they became dominant later. I dont believe in this crap, but still wanted to tell the story, however, there are plenty of examples similar to this )

So , again, if we use the same model to humans (and the fact that we eat both animals and grass) , when will we start killing other predators, or animals that eat our grass.?

(Another example, for asia. Birds eating crops. Humans shooting the birds. Like whole trucks loaded with dead bodies of birds. So they dont eat the grass. The funny thing is the follow up: Next year - almost 0 grass. The damn birds eat not only the grass, but the insects too. So without their predator, insects go crazy.
Crazy like : . And no crops are left. )

PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

### Re: [BIOLOGY] Individual count balance

Just to check, you are aware that predator and prey numbers aren't static in relation to each other but kinda oscillate? (By oscillate I mean more prey=>more predators=>less prey=>predators starve=>more prey A) Just to be sure that everyone is on the same page, I ask because of things like this "(*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) = ( \ / )".

Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

### Re: [BIOLOGY] Individual count balance

Hmm. Since you're not using the phrase "carrying capacity" to refer to carrying capacity, I think you might ought to read the Wikipedia page on carrying capacity.

I don't think humans are special here beyond our ability, initially, to spread to an awful lot of niches, and later, to use industry to increase resource availability. Apex predators and some large herbivore species that aren't threatened by routine predation may not be predated upon, but they're still limited by carrying capacities. If we massively exceed ours, we'll presumably suffer a population crash and find ourselves roughly back in our spot.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

### Re: [BIOLOGY] Individual count balance

PeteP wrote:Just to check, you are aware that predator and prey numbers aren't static in relation to each other but kinda oscillate? (By oscillate I mean more prey=>more predators=>less prey=>predators starve=>more prey A) Just to be sure that everyone is on the same page, I ask because of things like this "(*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) = ( \ / )".

If you have 10 dogs. And each dog, eats every month 10 rabbits. (100 rabbits per month).
If the rabits you bring to them , drops to 90, what is more likely: (it is not a slight change, its whole 10%)

1. 9 dogs keep eating 10 rabits/month, 1 dog starves (your brain-fart logic for direct effect)
2. 10 dogs eat 9 rabbits/month.

As I see that you are kinda stupid, I will give you the answer:
A rabbit can eat for example 5kg grass this week, or 10 kg grass.
A dog can eath 6 rabbits and survive , or eath 10 rabbits and get stronger.

So slight changes in the environment as less food for rabbits, or a bit less rabbits, doesnt make a big difference anyway in the count of other elements in food chain.
As for :
(*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) = ( \ / )

I have no words to tell you, how general describing the situation this was.

I dont think, we are on the same page.
I am not even sure that you have the same book.

twinsen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:57 am UTC

### Re: [BIOLOGY] Individual count balance

Copper Bezel wrote:Hmm. Since you're not using the phrase "carrying capacity" to refer to carrying capacity, I think you might ought to read the Wikipedia page on carrying capacity.

I don't think humans are special here beyond our ability, initially, to spread to an awful lot of niches, and later, to use industry to increase resource availability. Apex predators and some large herbivore species that aren't threatened by routine predation may not be predated upon, but they're still limited by carrying capacities. If we massively exceed ours, we'll presumably suffer a population crash and find ourselves roughly back in our spot.

I am wondering, are you sure we will be "back on our spot"

Becouse if you have like:
Environment ( resources ): [] [] [] [] [] []
That now are enough for us.

If we over exceed , we will drain them to like:
Environment (resources): [] [

And then the population will crash, but how much, since [] [ , is not like [] [] [] [] [] []
to maintain our level now?

PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

### Re: [BIOLOGY] Individual count balance

There is no call for calling people names.
Especially as you seem unwilling to recognize the work in carrying capacity done over decades.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5528
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

### Re: [BIOLOGY] Individual count balance

I appreciate your fart joke. That is a good joke and I chuckled.

Would you like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%8 ... a_equation

If you can rephrase all questions in terms of differential equations instead of emoticons, it would help a lot.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

### Re: [BIOLOGY] Individual count balance

If he could rephrase the statement in terms of actual biology, that would help a lot.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

### Re: [BIOLOGY] Individual count balance

twinsen wrote:
PeteP wrote:Just to check, you are aware that predator and prey numbers aren't static in relation to each other but kinda oscillate? (By oscillate I mean more prey=>more predators=>less prey=>predators starve=>more prey A) Just to be sure that everyone is on the same page, I ask because of things like this "(*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) = ( \ / )".

If you have 10 dogs. And each dog, eats every month 10 rabbits. (100 rabbits per month).
If the rabits you bring to them , drops to 90, what is more likely: (it is not a slight change, its whole 10%)

1. 9 dogs keep eating 10 rabits/month, 1 dog starves (your brain-fart logic for direct effect)
2. 10 dogs eat 9 rabbits/month.

As I see that you are kinda stupid, I will give you the answer:
A rabbit can eat for example 5kg grass this week, or 10 kg grass.
A dog can eath 6 rabbits and survive , or eath 10 rabbits and get stronger.

So slight changes in the environment as less food for rabbits, or a bit less rabbits, doesnt make a big difference anyway in the count of other elements in food chain.
As for :
(*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) = ( \ / )

I have no words to tell you, how general describing the situation this was.

I dont think, we are on the same page.
I am not even sure that you have the same book.

You could have just said you didn't know. It's fine, you don't have to lash out. I'm not judging you. I know it can be embarrassing to be wrong, but doubling down and insulting people who bring it to your attention won't help.

doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5528
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

### Re: [BIOLOGY] Individual count balance

PeteP wrote: I'm not judging you.

Ah, you must not have read their other thread yet! I too was lulled into a fall sense of charity by reading this one first.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Mokele
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:18 pm UTC
Location: Atlanta, GA

### Re: [BIOLOGY] Individual count balance

twinsen wrote:I dont think, we are on the same page.
I am not even sure that you have the same book.

Given these posts, I have to ask if you've ever even read a book?
"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw" - J. Burns, Biograffiti

Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

### Re: [BIOLOGY] Individual count balance

Just because Gmal hasn't come to the same conclusion that I have doesn't mean he won't.

Locked until he has the opportunity.

gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26727
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

### Re: [BIOLOGY] Individual count balance

twinsen wrote:
PeteP wrote:Just to check, you are aware that predator and prey numbers aren't static in relation to each other but kinda oscillate? (By oscillate I mean more prey=>more predators=>less prey=>predators starve=>more prey A) Just to be sure that everyone is on the same page, I ask because of things like this "(*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) = ( \ / )".

I concur with Azrael's locking this thread.

In the future, twinsen, please don't call people stupid when they know more than you and are trying to help you understand something you are ignorant about.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)