Why do population questions get deleted? It%26#039;s pretty obvious, the connection between our human population and our earthly problems. Many, many people think so. Shouldn%26#039;t we explore this question?

Additional Details

4 months ago

For instance, how many people do you think the earth can support? I know the answer, it%26#039;s been calculated by scientists using a scientific method. I wanted to share this info, but alas, question deleted.

4 months ago

There are fundamental thermodynamic limits in the world, and we are approaching them now. It%26#039;s quite possible that we could overshoot these limits without realizing it. My personal belief, in line with studies already done, is that the line was crossed 30 years ago.

E.O. Wilson calculated the theoretical maximum carrying capacity at 14 billion. %26quot;We could live on boats and grow food in caves with artificial lights... and it will surely be a hellish place to live%26quot;.

Yes, current estimates put the plateau at 9+ billion. We%26#039;re at 6.5b and the cracks are showing. At 9b it won%26#039;t take long for things to unravel.


Can you link to a study showing where the 3 billion figure comes from? My understanding is the estimated - sustainable - limit is between 500 million and 2 billion.

4 months ago

The idea that we can engineer our way out of this and maintain our current extravagant (by global and historical standards) lifestyle and growth, with the same mindset that got us into this, is not just unsupportable wishful thinking, it%26#039;s a dangerous distraction. Every minute we waste, trying what has not worked already, makes our chance at recovery exponentially worse. Not only lost time, but lost biosphere and resources that, once destroyed, can never be recovered.

4 months ago

The commonly stated myth is – the entire world population could fit into the state of Texas (or some variation). If you do the calculations, or just consider it from common sense, it’s impossible. Not enough water. No way to remove waste. No way to replenish the soil without contaminating it. No way to logistically construct a society where everyone stays on 5 acres and can produce everything they need and recycle all their waste. Even if you could logistically put everyone into Texas, it would take the entire rest of the world and to produce the resources to support them, and the entire rest of the world as a sink big enough to absorb all their waste.

4 months ago

The eugenics / mass extinction argument is bombastic reactionary hyperbole in reaction to provocative %26quot;thought experiment%26quot; type statements from radical, frustrated environmentalists. Yes, if 90% of the human population just %26quot;disappeared%26quot; it would, in principle, make things easier for those left behind. But no one, other than a few crackpots (pause for the list to be posted) ever seriously suggested this. And if the underlying cause is not addressed the cycle will just start again.

Listen people, education and birth control is all that is needed. A very, very interesting thing happens when women are educated and empowered. They want to have less children. This could be our saving grace. The change in birth rates as societies move up the economic ladder is well documented around the world.

4 months ago

I agree it is painfully, frighteningly obvious, to anyone who has been educated and not blinded by dogma, that we live unsustainably. I will not rehash all the (proven, factual) doom and gloom stuff here. Not only do we need to live sustainably, we need to decide on a number (read %26quot;a societal framework that will enable us to maintain our population below the absolute number which is not sustainable%26quot;). It%26#039;s not going to be zero. It%26#039;s not going to be %26quot;unlimited%26quot;. We are doing %26quot;unlimited growth%26quot; now and it%26#039;s not working.

One thing is becoming abundantly clear to me also - it will not be pretty.

4 months ago

Jazzfan, thanks for taking the time to consider this.

The earth is not huge. It is finite. Population density is what is it is because we simply cannot occupy every square inch of the planet. Most areas are not suitable for habitation, unless you invoke massive energy intensive unsustainable schemes. Which is basically the blueprint for our current cities. If you extrapolate from everyone living in Texas to the rest of the world, you will approximate our current situation. It doesn’t matter if we put 6.5 billion people in Texas or spread them throughout the world, there are not enough resources to sustain them, and the world is not big enough to absorb our waste. Someone else calculated that if everyone alive today wanted to live with western style consumption patterns, we would need 4 more earths.

4 months ago

We can and have made several estimates of the carrying Capacity of the planet. It’s basic science. My God man, we’ve figured out the size and age of the observable universe, enumerating our little planet is a lesser problem. We have a land area. We have an ocean area. We have total solar input. We have the mass of photosynthetic biota and its
efficiency. There is an absolute fundamental thermodynamic limit, and it’s not “endless and unlimited”. E.O.Wilson, the preeminent natural scientist of our time has shown the absolute theoretical limit of what it would take to feed people (never mind being sustainable). And the answer is enough for 14 billion.

The CO2 comment shows a lack of knowledge. After initially going up, photosynthetic efficiency goes down as CO2 continues to rise, so there is a limit.

4 months ago

If you can’t see the cracks (polluted everything, everywhere including you and your body fat, aquifers going dry, ocean fisheries in decline and collapse, Sargasso Sea of plastic the size of the US in the mid Pacific) then it is because you don’t want to see them.

You are absolutely correct in that corruption, apathy and antipathy in and out of government is a big cause of many of our problems.

I maintain that the doom and gloom predictions from Malthus, Ehrlich and others were simply ahead of their time. We are seeing the beginning of the meltdown now. The price of everything is going to continue to rise indefinately, because we are approaching or have reached the fundamental limits of resources. The line between the haves and have-nots will just continue to move up the chart. The majority of world citizens have always been in the bottom half. Soon it will be everyone except the elite (however you wish to define them), and they will maintain the division by force.

4 months ago

I believe the correct figure for meat vs. vegan is that it takes 10x the resources. 10 units of grain to make 1 unit of meat. In other words, you could feed 10 people instead of one for the same input of resources.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the problem. Don’t feel bad, most people suffer under the same misconceptions. On top of this you have to add the %26#039;costs%26#039; of producing the machinery, fuel, medications etc needed to actually %26#039;process%26#039; the land to be able to grow livestock on it (housing, fencing etc), to grow the livestock, process the livestock and all it%26#039;s foodstuffs Report Abuse Growing and eating vegetation directly has costs too, but it shortcuts those in comment two above. Veg you are eating directly, from field to consumer to table. In other words not 10 but 17 Plus butchery losses, shrinkage, table losses, ADDITIONAL costs (above) in producing meat. Report Abuse thanks Bella