Fragile Balancers

Toxic overpopulation

Fragile Balancers

Population dynamics cut both ways

By Stephen L. Wilmeth

             A month ago our horse trough was a nasty mess. In the heat of midsummer, it yielded an algae bloom that I have not witnessed before.

            Early mornings would reveal relatively clear water, but by late afternoon the bloom was so heavy it appeared as scum fully covering the surface. I hated to drain the tank for several reasons. First, there is a lot of water there and, second, I didn’t want to deal with the fish in the trough in the cleaning process.

            In the end, the problem corrected itself, but for several days I worried about the near toxic condition that was created. I didn’t much so much about possible goldfish loss, but the catfish in the trough was another matter.

            Herd mentality

            About the time I read about the 364 meter core of ice harvested in Antarctica that revealed more evidence suggesting global warming and global cooling are normal variations of the same greater picture, there also appeared some evidence that herd influence affects … well, it affects the herd!

            The interpretation I took from the evidence was that humans tend to believe what their peers believe if certain conditions exist. Since that conclusion was suggested to be profound, I will hesitate from my first inclination to be cynical about the cost of such study conclusion and attempt to maintain a degree of civility. I’m objective … I promise!

            Remembering there is nothing new under the sun, a short trip to the ranch is in order.

Every rancher knows that a herd of weaned calves turned out on their own runs the risk of becoming a debacle. Without adult supervision, they will run, they will walk the fence lines, they will follow the leader, and they will create havoc at every point of vulnerability. The better alternative is to turn them out with several old cows. If those old cows are not overwhelmed by numbers, they will impart enough control into the system that order is more or less maintained. One of the most revealing sights in the outside world is to see an older dominant cow going to water with 40 head of weaned heifers lined out in single file following her. She has control.

            A similar situation exists with spoiled horses. There is nothing more profoundly moderating than to turn a spoiled horse out with a Shetland pony that has lived with horses in a herd condition. The first inclination is to worry about the smaller horse. In reality, the higher level of concern should be addressed to the out of control, larger horse. Order will be established very quickly, and the spoiled horse will discover it is best to possess some degree of social grace.

The worst case of a horse cut up in a fight we have ever had is when a paint horse was turned out with a mustang-Shetland cross our grandkids had. Through the gate they came with the paint near the end of the string of horses herded by that little horse. The paint looked like he had been in a knife fight, and … the pony was unscathed. Never again was the attitude of that paint horse so self centered. He discovered the argument on the other side of the story was valid.

            Kahan principles

            Yale professor, Dan Kahan, writes that human beings tend to filter out information that poses any risk that would drive a wedge between themselves and peers. In ranch parlance, I suspect that means people tend to become what dominates their surroundings. In the case of the weaner calves, they are wild getting wilder without the influence of those mature cows.

            Eventually, Professor Kahan believes the collective influence of that surrounding becomes the base of sustained values. That base embraces all things including prejudices and prevailing opinions.

            His work gets more interesting from that point. His descriptions could have been simplified with some common ranch vernacular, but he points out the social danger when there is insufficient density of differing views. In other words, without substantive and varying structural influences, the individual runs the risk of suppressing reasoning capability.

            When that happens, decisions are no longer made on facts, but are influenced and motivated by the structural base. Even highly regarded experts are disregarded if the cultural base stands in contrast to the point being made. Likewise, those people will draw different conclusions from the same evidence. There may be a common language, but the sides exist in parallel belief universes.

            Doesn’t that hit the bull’s eye in the battles we face? We are constantly perplexed in attempting to understand the logic expressed by progressives. It makes no sense to us while they seem to be united in agreement and intent.

            Dr. Kahan has highlighted a great dilemma. He offers no solution. The fact is there may be no easy solutions under the conditions and the polarized communities we have created.

            Toxic overpopulation

            It is interesting to pursue this thought process into a channel the progressives themselves have raised. Whether it is EarthFirst! literature or dominating public scoping inferences from the environmental cartels, the suggestion is being repeated constantly that the human population of this earth is now exceeding its ‘carrying capacity’. As a result, greater swaths of lands must be saved from human encroachment.

            Kahan points to the example of the huge body of humans who now believe nature has advanced to a permanent state of fragile balance based on population. Those who adhere to that logic automatically believe they are dependent on that balance and any change that remotely threatens it is inherently wrong. That contrasts sharply with those of us who believe humans are self sufficient and vital to changes needed to manage our surroundings.

            The study of global warming has consumed an investment of astounding proportions. It is so layered with progressive defenders its defense may shed some insight into the matter of toxicity emanating from their own fascination of carrying capacity.

            This discussion should start with an observation of farriers … horseshoers to you uninformed. The vindictiveness displayed by those practioners is a function of the demand for their services. When they are too busy to gripe they are neutral to the capability of their colleagues.

            If business is slow, there is not a more ruthless band of competitors. Their colleagues at that point are not only incompetent they are dangerous to the health and well being of all horses. Their criticism is toxic.

            When does the same point of professional toxicity exist within the ranks of the global warmers? At what point of redundancy should the facilities and faculties of those rabid theorists be examined for over population?

There is the science aspect. In toxicity studies, there is protocol for determining no effect levels as well as thresholds. Margins of safety and bioaccumulations also play into the process. The path to conclusions is logical and systematic.

There is also the aspect of scientist self preservation. When does actual versus perceived risk become blurred by career and peer influences? Most importantly, when is there the likelihood the liberal bastions become so toxic with over population of ideologues there is risk of system poisoning that threatens becoming septic.

Amidst that environment, the path to a healthy and dynamic broadened base of sustained values is irreparably impaired. The system cannot correct itself.

Track the toxicity

Our world doesn’t exist in a state of overpopulation. Sure, there are many of us who would much rather not live in the midst of all the humanity, but we surely wouldn’t pursue efforts to reduce it. That is not our duty nor is it our moral authority to even consider such judgment.

That is not the belief of a growing number of humans that fit the profile of ‘fragile balancers’. Those folks, who tend to vilify our existence and beliefs, make up a defined percentage of our population. What is their number? It isn’t half, but it could be more than forty percent of our society.

If there is validity in the expanded Kahan concepts, societal toxicity must emerge. Experience and science teaches that such toxicity emanates from uncontrolled concentrations of the source influence. Concentration of that source influence comes from overpopulation in some manner.

So, how do we resolve this no overpopulation and yet aspects of point source overpopulation? Hasn’t our logic suggested the overpopulation is coming from the very source that is claiming the rest of the world is overpopulated?

Congress has demonstrated it cannot fix this. It has proven its inability to act on behalf of the sovereign individual. Gnashing of teeth and endless words notwithstanding, Congress has demonstrated it ultimately acts consistently on behalf of the ‘fragile balancers’.

There is hope in a president who does and can lead, but … that is proving to be elusive.

Stephen L. Wilmeth is a rancher from southern New Mexico. “Indeed, the logic of overpopulated fragile balancers, especially their leadership, makes sense.”