Population - The Elephant in the Room

Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:07 am by ralfy

jetgraphics wrote:
Who defines carrying capacity?
Did the men who terraced mountainsides to increase "carrying capacity" make a mistake?
Did they not increase the food production capacity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraced_%28agriculture%29
Did the ancient Amazonians err when they engineered their lands via Terra Preta into croplands?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Os-ujelkgw
{Granted, the civilization was decimated by European diseases, and the lands reverted back to rain forest. But that didn't mean they didn't boost the carrying capacity.}

This might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

Are you that certain that humans can't double, quadruple or octuple "carrying capacity"?

They did, but oil was needed.

I believe that mankind will not only survive, but thrive, as the earth is re-engineered to "thicken" the life bearing volume.

Can be done with oil, but according to the IEA, we'll need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years to "thrive." Unfortunately, oil discoveries peaked in 1964.

Frankly, reducing population growth is certain to prevent the birth of many grandchildren. I have more faith in man's creative and innovative prowess.

Also, man's destructive and blind "prowess."

Coincidentally, the original story (1966) for "Soylent Green" presumed that 7 billion humans (in 1999) was the peak population that was too much.
(Make Room!Make Room!, by Harry Harrison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_Room!_Make_Room!).
No doubt, when humanity passes 14 billions, someone else will decry that that population is far too much, too.

Actually, 7 billion is beyond peak, as seen in the first link and various points above, and worse if you want the same population to "thrive." If, for example, "thrive" means following what the U.S. is doing in terms of oil consumption, then we'll need at least four more earths.

Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:43 am by allissun

jetgraphics wrote:...
Frankly, reducing population growth is certain to prevent the birth of many grandchildren. I have more faith in man's creative and innovative prowess.

...

It's called birth control.

Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:32 am by Picasso Moon

allissun wrote:
jetgraphics wrote:...
Frankly, reducing population growth is certain to prevent the birth of many grandchildren. I have more faith in man's creative and innovative prowess.

...

It's called birth control.

Yes, jetgraphics, all you got is BLIND "faith" in "progress." And 7 billion is indeed too many people, it's a level enabled only by fossil fuels. That well (one big well) is done.

Brennus wrote:
jetgraphics wrote:
I believe that mankind will not only survive, but thrive, as the earth is re-engineered to "thicken" the life bearing volume.

That is where your problem lies "you believe" !

+1000! Totally irrational belief in "progress" and "science," nothing more than an extrapolation of an anomaly, i.e. the last couple of hundred years of "development."

Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:16 am by mcgowanjm

Picasso Moon wrote:
jetgraphics wrote:
I believe that mankind will not only survive, but thrive, as the earth is re-engineered to "thicken" the life bearing volume.

That is where your problem lies "you believe" !

+1000! Totally irrational belief in "progress" and "science," nothing more than an extrapolation of an anomaly, i.e. the last couple of hundred years of "development."[/quote]

Worse, JG confuses 're-engineered'(Tech :twisted:

) with Energy.

And I see this at the Highest levels. The USSAEmpire gets more stupid by the hour now.

Once again....Jevon's Paradox...

Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:26 pm by UndercoverElephant

Jetgraphics,

Already lots of good answers...

jetgraphics wrote:
Picasso Moon wrote:7 billion is way too much pressure upon the ecosphere. Like it or not, there is such a thing as carrying capacity. "Expecting" (what you really mean is not "expect" but "assume" and "acquiesce to", if not indeed "insist upon") more than that is suicidal. I NOT SO HUMBLY REFUSE! Plowing ahead with attempts at such an increase would be the surest way to ensure that our grandchildren's children never get born.

Who defines carrying capacity?

Ecologists.

Did the men who terraced mountainsides to increase "carrying capacity" make a mistake?

They didn't increase the carrying capacity. All they did was make the best use of the capacity which already existed.

Did they not increase the food production capacity?

Not in this context, no. What they did was increase the amount of food available to their community by turning potential arable land into working arable land. All they did was re-arrange the resources which already existed, so they could be made best use of. They did not increase the net amount of natural resources, they just increased the amount available to their community.

Are you that certain that humans can't double, quadruple or octuple "carrying capacity"?

Humans could possibly double the current carrying capacity, but only by discovering of some source of limitless, cheap, clean energy.

I believe that mankind will not only survive, but thrive, as the earth is re-engineered to "thicken" the life bearing volume.

Then you are bonkers.

No doubt, when humanity passes 14 billions, someone else will decry that that population is far too much, too.

3 billion was too much.

Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:48 pm by allissun

Good post undercoverelephant, nice to see you drop in again!

I can understand the emotional idea of hoping for children and then grand-children and great-grandchildren, and so on....

I went through my own wanting to have a baby in my early-thirties. I always thought I would have 1 child, and possibly none. A little selfish, I used to think, because I liked reading and experiencing things that I thought might be difficult to do with a baby, toddler, child. I always thought I would have enough children that I, alone, could physically carry and run with if I had to. (pre-doomer-disposition? possibly :lol:

)

I didn't even really consider carrying capacity in the thought process, as I was not aware at the time.

Now sometimes I feel very bad for not having had the awareness. Not guilt that I have contributed in my own small way to messing with carrying capacity by adding my child and what she will extract from natural resources on the planet, but more-so, in fear for her well-being, because of resource limits, and how this will affect her.

Had I known what I know now, I would never have had child. That, to me, is almost like a selfish act in itself. I'm not judging, just being realistic.

But, of course, I wouldn't wish she wasn't here either, now that she is. My life is based around coming to terms with the fact that I have brought this human being into the world, and how I can do my best to protect her. That is my selfishness. It is all about her now, because of my lack of awareness, have I now caused a huge suffering to a child and future adult? Of course.

It is my responsibility, then, I think, to do my best to help to share this awareness of carrying capacity, and what it means to bring children into the world today. I'm rambling a little, of course, but I think it is so important to think about population increase in this way. It is very personal and it is also very important to limit the births of people across the planet. It's not fair to the babies and children to bring them into a world that cannot support them, and it is not fair to the planet to expect from her more than she can support.

There's my emotional rant. But it is based on logic too. Times are very challenging, for sure.

Sun Jan 22, 2012 3:51 pm by Picasso Moon

Excellent post, undercoverelephant. And GREAT "rant," allissun!!

Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:11 pm by Revi

The biggest population drops may come in the big cities. Rome dropped from over a million to less than 40,000 after the Western empire crashed. I'll bet a lot of the drop started when the dole stopped showing up. I don't know what will happen to a really big city, but it may be a bit like musical chairs when the food stops. There are going to be places that fare better when the music stops. If your daughter was working on a remote research farm it may be a good place to be for example. The carrying capacity of a small valley in the mountains won't diminish as much as that of a big city, nor as quickly. It may be have to be defensible, however.

Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:59 pm by UndercoverElephant

Revi wrote:The biggest population drops may come in the big cities. Rome dropped from over a million to less than 40,000 after the Western empire crashed. I'll bet a lot of the drop started when the dole stopped showing up. I don't know what will happen to a really big city, but it may be a bit like musical chairs when the food stops. There are going to be places that fare better when the music stops. If your daughter was working on a remote research farm it may be a good place to be for example. The carrying capacity of a small valley in the mountains won't diminish as much as that of a big city, nor as quickly. It may be have to be defensible, however.

It makes little sense to talk about the carrying capacity of cities. That is because right from the very beginning, cities were dependent upon sucking in resources from the surrounding rural areas. The carrying capacity was for the whole of the "empire" controlled by the city. In the modern world the situation is even more confusing, because nearly all of the resources consumed by cities are imported from elsewhere, much of it from distant parts of the world. Globalism means that "carrying capacity" only makes sense on a much larger scale than individual cities.

Population - The Elephant in the Room

Re: Population - The Elephant in the Room

Re: Population - The Elephant in the Room

Re: Population - The Elephant in the Room

Re: Population - The Elephant in the Room

Re: Population - The Elephant in the Room

Re: Population - The Elephant in the Room

Re: Population - The Elephant in the Room

Re: Population - The Elephant in the Room

Re: Population - The Elephant in the Room

Who is online