Can the earth sustain all the people who live on it?

[ObnoxiousCynic]

@Liteninbolt

If the world could get on the same page as the US agriculturally, I don’t see why not. Third world countries would have a better chance if the despotic leaders in those areas think more of their people rather than power and wealth.

You forget that most of the world’s water is in the Northern Hemisphere of the planet.

( Atleast that’s what I heard on the NOVA television program.)

[ObnoxiousCynic]

I actually heard that there are expiriments to clone animals in order to grow food consumption to meet a increasingly larger population. ( How about that for science fiction that is currently being thought up to someday be a reality?)

[MagsJ (Surya Loka)]

Governments should develope programmes to sustain it’s country’s populations, as they aren’t doing anything to curb the number of pregnancies of those with lesser means of sustaining their offspring.

[Liteninbolt]

@ObnoxiousCynic

@Liteninbolt

If the world could get on the same page as the US agriculturally, I don’t see why not. Third world countries would have a better chance if the despotic leaders in those areas think more of their people rather than power and wealth.

You forget that most of the world’s water is in the Northern Hemisphere of the planet.

( Atleast that’s what I heard on the NOVA television program.)

Infrastructure and education would help develop water technologies. The continent of Africa has so many warlords with their own agendas for making money fast, most of the areas they occupy will never get a foothold in the agricultural field. I’ve often wondered how many resources are being held in stasis due to the control of those power mongers.

[felix_dakat]

Carrying Capacity refers to the largest population that can be maintained indefinitely by a given environment. Human carrying capacity is dynamic and uncertain.

Human influence on the planet has increased faster than human population. Nevertheless, human population more than quadrupled from 1860 to 1991. Human use of inanimate energy increased from 1 billion to 93 billion megawatt hours/year.

Human population is now at 6 billion, and will double in 43 years if we continue to grow at a rate of 1.6% per year.Less developed countries are growing at a rate of 1.9% per year. Developed countries are growing at a rate of 0.3-0.4% per year. Total fertility rate in less developed countries is 4.2 children per woman. Total fertility rate in developed countries such as Italy, Germany and Spain is 1.2 to 1.3 children per woman.

Unless fertility in less developed countries falls substantially and increases in some developed countries, global fertility could exceed or fall below that assumed by the UN. The main question is how many humans can the earth support? Can earth support the people projected for 2050 i. e. 7.8 to 12.5 billion?

Human carrying capacity depends on natural constraints, which are not fully understood. How many people the earth can support depends on individual and collective choices and these choices will change with time and so will the number of people.

Still, there are signs that we are close to the carrying capacity. Fossil fuels are projected to be exhausted by 2076 is one. That species are going extinct at a rate estimated at 4000 a year is another. The rate of change of the composition of the atmosphere (global warming) is a third.

[ObnoxiousCynic]

@felix dakat

Carrying Capacity refers to the largest population that can be maintained indefinitely by a given environment. Human carrying capacity is dynamic and uncertain.

Human influence on the planet has increased faster than human population. Nevertheless, human population more than quadrupled from 1860 to 1991. Human use of inanimate energy increased from 1 billion to 93 billion megawatt hours/year.

Human population is now at 6 billion, and will double in 43 years if we continue to grow at a rate of 1.6% per year.Less developed countries are growing at a rate of 1.9% per year. Developed countries are growing at a rate of 0.3-0.4% per year. Total fertility rate in less developed countries is 4.2 children per woman. Total fertility rate in developed countries such as Italy, Germany and Spain is 1.2 to 1.3 children per woman.

Unless fertility in less developed countries falls substantially and increases in some developed countries, global fertility could exceed or fall below that assumed by the UN. The main question is how many humans can the earth support? Can earth support the people projected for 2050 i. e. 7.8 to 12.5 billion?

Human carrying capacity depends on natural constraints, which are not fully understood. How many people the earth can support depends on individual and collective choices and these choices will change with time and so will the number of people.

Still, there are signs that we are close to the carrying capacity. Fossil fuels are projected to be exhausted by 2076 is one. That species are going extinct at a rate estimated at 4000 a year is another. The rate of change of the composition of the atmosphere (global warming) is a third.

Human carrying capacity depends on natural constraints, which are not fully understood.

Which are fully denied because today’s academics and philosophical circles would have us believe that there are none.

[ObnoxiousCynic]

@Liteninbolt

@ObnoxiousCynic

@Liteninbolt

If the world could get on the same page as the US agriculturally, I don’t see why not. Third world countries would have a better chance if the despotic leaders in those areas think more of their people rather than power and wealth.

You forget that most of the world’s water is in the Northern Hemisphere of the planet.

( Atleast that’s what I heard on the NOVA television program.)

Infrastructure and education would help develop water technologies. The continent of Africa has so many warlords with their own agendas for making money fast, most of the areas they occupy will never get a foothold in the agricultural field. I’ve often wondered how many resources are being held in stasis due to the control of those power mongers.

It’s not just the continent of Africa that has problems with water shortages. There is the middle east and parts of the asian steppes that deal with a growing water shortage.

( Parts of South America, Austrailia, and even parts of the south western part of the united states.)

( I’m sure there are more places with water shortages than what I have listed.)

Infrastructure and education would help develop water technologies

They can only do so much. You have to have water in order to use it as a resource.

I’ve often wondered how many resources are being held in stasis due to the control of those power mongers.

Quite alot I’d imagine.

This is the reason why you will see warlords in Africa living in a mansion with two imported mercedes benz while the rest of their people live in mud bricked flats.

[felix_dakat]

Which are fully denied because today’s academics and philosophical circles would have us believe that there are none.

I don’t get your meaning OC.

Anyway, for a while I have been thinking about how the economic goal of a “growth economy” leads to an unsustainable depletion of resources. Today I came across this @ earthsky.org:

Earthsky spoke with Herman Daly, a professor at the University of Maryland and one the founders of a field of academic research called ecological economics – the study of how human economies and natural ecosystems interact.

Herman Daly: We live in a growth economy. But unfortunately, economy is part of a larger system – the Earth ecosystem, which does not grow.

For decades, Daly has advocated a transition to what’s called a steady state economy, in which both human population and physical wealth are relatively stable.Herman Daly: It’s an economy in which the path of progress is not bigger, not more and more stuff. It’s an economy in which

the path of progress is to get better, to design better things.

He said that, over time, it’s not possible to consume more materials, energy, or wealth than one planet can provide.
Herman Daly: The problem is that we’ve reached the point at which the value of what we’re displacing and sacrificing in order to grow is greater than value of the extra stuff we get from growth.

He said measures of economic growth don’t factor in the costs of growth.
Herman Daly: We just count production and consumption. There’s no account that talks about things which are lost from growth. We need to count the costs of growth, and stop growing when the costs of growth become greater than the benefits.
For example, Daly said, fossil fuels power our economic growth. But the emissions from fossil fuels contribute to climate change, and that’s leading to dangerous consequences for ecosystems. Daly described the advantages of a steady state economy as having more time for leisure and personal relationships, which he believes cultivate happiness, not the consumption of things.
Herman Daly: It’s a feedback from the larger system. It’s telling us, wait a minute, slow down. You’re growing too big.
Daly is credited with popularizing the idea of the steady state economy in his 1973 book, Towards a Steady State Economy.

Herman Daly: A steady state economy is an idea that goes back to classical economists. It’s not a new idea. It means constant population, and constant stock of physical goods.

He admitted that this idea goes against the grain of the prevailing global economic policy.
Herman Daly: All of the policies that are currently being talked about are how to get the economy growing again. You know, grow, grow, grow. I would say, we need to adapt to lower levels of consumption.
Written by Lindsay Patterson

I maintain that a steady state economy is a philospohically sound goal for individuals and society as a whole.

[ObnoxiousCynic]

@felix dakat

Which are fully denied because today’s academics and philosophical circles would have us believe that there are none.

I don’t get your meaning OC.

Anyway, for a while I have been thinking about how the economic goal of a “growth economy” leads to an unsustainable depletion of resources. Today I came across this @ earthsky.org:

Earthsky spoke with Herman Daly, a professor at the University of Maryland and one the founders of a field of academic research called ecological economics – the study of how human economies and natural ecosystems interact.

Herman Daly: We live in a growth economy. But unfortunately, economy is part of a larger system – the Earth ecosystem, which does not grow.

For decades, Daly has advocated a transition to what’s called a steady state economy, in which both human population and physical wealth are relatively stable.Herman Daly: It’s an economy in which the path of progress is not bigger, not more and more stuff. It’s an economy in which

the path of progress is to get better, to design better things.

He said that, over time, it’s not possible to consume more materials, energy, or wealth than one planet can provide.
Herman Daly: The problem is that we’ve reached the point at which the value of what we’re displacing and sacrificing in order to grow is greater than value of the extra stuff we get from growth.

He said measures of economic growth don’t factor in the costs of growth.
Herman Daly: We just count production and consumption. There’s no account that talks about things which are lost from growth. We need to count the costs of growth, and stop growing when the costs of growth become greater than the benefits.
For example, Daly said, fossil fuels power our economic growth. But the emissions from fossil fuels contribute to climate change, and that’s leading to dangerous consequences for ecosystems. Daly described the advantages of a steady state economy as having more time for leisure and personal relationships, which he believes cultivate happiness, not the consumption of things.
Herman Daly: It’s a feedback from the larger system. It’s telling us, wait a minute, slow down. You’re growing too big.
Daly is credited with popularizing the idea of the steady state economy in his 1973 book, Towards a Steady State Economy.

Herman Daly: A steady state economy is an idea that goes back to classical economists. It’s not a new idea. It means constant population, and constant stock of physical goods.

He admitted that this idea goes against the grain of the prevailing global economic policy.
Herman Daly: All of the policies that are currently being talked about are how to get the economy growing again. You know, grow, grow, grow. I would say, we need to adapt to lower levels of consumption.
Written by Lindsay Patterson

I maintain that a steady state economy is a philospohically sound goal for individuals and society as a whole.

I don’t get your meaning OC.

Anyway, for a while I have been thinking about how the economic goal of a “growth economy” leads to an unsustainable depletion of resources. Today I came across this @ earthsky.org:

The science and philosophical community would have us believe that all human behavior is natural therefore overpopulation is natural where there is no unnatural and with there being no unnatural there are no limits that define existence especially when it concerns human beings.

[felix_dakat]

The science and philosophical community would have us believe that all human behavior is natural therefore overpopulation is natural where there is no unnatural and with there being no unnatural there are no limits that define existence especially when it concerns human beings.

The survival and the demise of the human species would both be natural states of affairs. But it’s also natural to want to survive.

[ObnoxiousCynic]

@felix dakat

The science and philosophical community would have us believe that all human behavior is natural therefore overpopulation is natural where there is no unnatural and with there being no unnatural there are no limits that define existence especially when it concerns human beings.

The survival and the demise of the human species would both be natural states of affairs. But it’s also natural to want to survive.

The point I was trying to make is that some would say that it is unnatural that we have let our specie reach the mass numbers as it exists today but since science and philosophical communities have defined there to be no such thing as unnaturalness they have defined human beings to have no limitations giving humanity an excuse to define itself to have no limits at all.

[felix_dakat]

@ObnoxiousCynic

@felix dakat

The science and philosophical community would have us believe that all human behavior is natural therefore overpopulation is natural where there is no unnatural and with there being no unnatural there are no limits that define existence especially when it concerns human beings.

The survival and the demise of the human species would both be natural states of affairs. But it’s also natural to want to survive.

The point I was trying to make is that some would say that it is unnatural that we have let our specie reach the mass numbers as it exists today but since science and philosophical communities have defined there to be no such thing as unnaturalness they have defined human beings to have no limitations giving humanity an excuse to define itself to have no limits at all.

Maybe some have, but carrying capacity is a concept of ecological science that makes it clear that humans like every other species does have limits. If we don’t impose some self restraint on a global scale we will find out what those limits are and it ain’t gonna be pretty.