A look at planetary carrying capacity - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #1 06-07-2007, 09:39 AM

I thought you might find this interesting.

http://www.hydropole.ch/Hydropole/DB/Silent_Lie.pdf

dlssmith · #2 06-07-2007, 10:43 AM

There are a few assumptions in the article that weaken the whole thing. Namely that US population growth is a problem and that the US should lead the way in reducing it's population as a lesson for the rest of the world. Why should the US do this?

And anyway, there is negative population growth in some countries now, so any projections for growth are highly speculative.

Yes, we equate productivity with energy usage, and others accuse the US of having flagrantly wasteful lifestyles. Everyone in the world should live like I do. A home, a car, a job, food, etc. That so many in the world do not is not my fault. Nor is it the fault of the US. Because we have so much isn't the reason others have nothing.

Resources are finite. Resourcefulness is not.

Benzadmiral · #3 06-07-2007, 02:04 PM

Obviously we have too many flippin' people on the planet as a whole, and in America in particular. Just think of how your work commute has grown slower, your wait in lines longer. And just think how that vast oversupply of workers allows Big Business to dictate terms to its peons. ("You don't want this dirty, dangerous, 10-hour-a-day job, even though it doesn't pay enough even for a frugal and single person to live on, and you'd use up two hours every day commuting? Fine. Somebody else will. Next!")

If ya can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. And the earth is quickly getting to the point where the inhabitants can't feed 'em.

We need two signs, one poking up from each pole, large enough to be seen from space:

"Occupancy by more than 1 billion persons is dangerous and prohibited by law."

Mistress · #4 06-07-2007, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benzadmiral

Obviously we have too many flippin' people on the planet as a whole, and in America in particular. Just think of how your work commute has grown slower, your wait in lines longer. And just think how that vast oversupply of workers allows Big Business to dictate terms to its peons. ("You don't want this dirty, dangerous, 10-hour-a-day job, even though it doesn't pay enough even for a frugal and single person to live on, and you'd use up two hours every day commuting? Fine. Somebody else will. Next!")

If ya can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. And the earth is quickly getting to the point where the inhabitants can't feed 'em.

We need two signs, one poking up from each pole, large enough to be seen from space:

"Occupancy by more than 1 billion persons is dangerous and prohibited by law."

fertility clinics...

Benzadmiral · #5 06-07-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress

fertility clinics...

Yeah. Last thing we need. If your house is overrun with roaches, you don't want to help the little buggers breed, do you?

If having a kid is in your stars, it'd happen without in vitro fertilization. If you need IVF, it's a sign you should adopt, or should put that money into something else and go on with your life.

Fertility clinics are about as sensible as handing out salt pork to dehydrated people in a lifeboat.

dlssmith · #6 06-07-2007, 04:19 PM

People do seem to like to live in groups. Take New York, for instance. Why do people choose it? And, let's face it, it is a choice. I live where there is a similar climate and almost no traffic. It's actually very pleasant to get on the freeway here. You can really travel, even during rush hour.

Mistress · #7 06-07-2007, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benzadmiral

Yeah. Last thing we need. If your house is overrun with roaches, you don't want to help the little buggers breed, do you?

If having a kid is in your stars, it'd happen without in vitro fertilization. If you need IVF, it's a sign you should adopt, or should put that money into something else and go on with your life.

Fertility clinics are about as sensible as handing out salt pork to dehydrated people in a lifeboat.

Actually, I never considered it my duty to contribute to the gene pool...one of me is quite enough

Emmerich · #8 06-08-2007, 05:27 PM

Bogus arguments. You have crowding in aras of high concentration. In areas of low concentration you don't. Problem is distributing stuff when people are spread out.

There is plenty of food to feed the world, as there is plenty of energy. The problem is the people and the resources they need are in different locations and controlled by different groups that don't love each other.

You have to remember that people ARE a resource, they make things, they grow things and provide for other people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benzadmiral

Obviously we have too many flippin' people on the planet as a whole, and in America in particular. Just think of how your work commute has grown slower, your wait in lines longer. And just think how that vast oversupply of workers allows Big Business to dictate terms to its peons. ("You don't want this dirty, dangerous, 10-hour-a-day job, even though it doesn't pay enough even for a frugal and single person to live on, and you'd use up two hours every day commuting? Fine. Somebody else will. Next!")

If ya can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. And the earth is quickly getting to the point where the inhabitants can't feed 'em.

We need two signs, one poking up from each pole, large enough to be seen from space:

"Occupancy by more than 1 billion persons is dangerous and prohibited by law."

cmac2012 · #9 06-09-2007, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Bogus arguments. You have crowding in aras of high concentration. In areas of low concentration you don't. Problem is distributing stuff when people are spread out.

There is plenty of food to feed the world, as there is plenty of energy. The problem is the people and the resources they need are in different locations and controlled by different groups that don't love each other.

You have to remember that people ARE a resource, they make things, they grow things and provide for other people.

I think this is overly optimistic. We're losing as many species on average per year as took place in most of the previous species collapses. A sign of lowered fertility on the planet in general.

The oceans are in deep trouble and I see few signs of them being given a break in most parts of the world any time soon. And there is no escaping the coming fresh water crisis. Already starting.

Optimism is often a good thing but it has to be solidly founded.

Emmerich · #10 06-09-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I think this is overly optimistic. We're losing as many species on average per year as took place in most of the previous species collapses. A sign of lowered fertility on the planet in general.

The oceans are in deep trouble and I see few signs of them being given a break in most parts of the world any time soon. And there is no escaping the coming fresh water crisis. Already starting.

Optimism is often a good thing but it has to be solidly founded.

If you are talking pollution, that is partially dictated by population, more by HOW things are done than how often.

It is the concentration of population that creates scarce resources in those areas.

Loss of species is unrelated to our population, unless we eat them out of existence. They keep identifying new species. And you say species disappear faster now than before, well what caused that to happen before? Wasn't humans. It was nature.

The next ice age will wipe out a lot of species as did every other ice age. This should be an interesting time becasue humans will have to migrate a long way over time, and in that case, space might become tight. But that will be a LONG time from now, no telling what sort of technology will exist at that time.

cmac2012 · #11 06-09-2007, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benzadmiral

Obviously we have too many flippin' people on the planet as a whole, and in America in particular. Just think of how your work commute has grown slower, your wait in lines longer. And just think how that vast oversupply of workers allows Big Business to dictate terms to its peons. ("You don't want this dirty, dangerous, 10-hour-a-day job, even though it doesn't pay enough even for a frugal and single person to live on, and you'd use up two hours every day commuting? Fine. Somebody else will. Next!")

If ya can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. And the earth is quickly getting to the point where the inhabitants can't feed 'em.

We need two signs, one poking up from each pole, large enough to be seen from space:

"Occupancy by more than 1 billion persons is dangerous and prohibited by law."

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying but compared to China and India, we've got a lot of wide open spaces. Remember that Chinese general a few years back who was talking about how much he'd like to transfer a few hundred million Chinese to those open spaces?

It does seem crowded in our urban areas but that's cause we take up a lot more space per person -- highways, parking lots -- than lesser developed countries.

I'd like to see us reduce our population as well. However, we can observe now that 3rd world nations nearby with burgeoning populations will be only too happy to export laborers to do the work that we are no longer willing to do (reached the upper classes, we have). Those workers bring their fertility habits with them.

Designo_E320 · #12 06-09-2007, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlssmith

Namely that US population growth is a problem and that the US should lead the way in reducing it's population as a lesson for the rest of the world. Why should the US do this?

.

I agree, Why should the US do this? Why not India instead? They multiply like RUG-RATS and most of the population they produce is pretty useless. Make India to stop having a population explosion by making them get mandatory Vasectomies and Tubal Ligation. If I am not mistaken, the Government of India did exactly this to the Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians to control their population without these groups having any idea or a clue that they were getting sterilized! Muslims and Sikhs, and Christians collectively make up less than 2% of the population of India.

Dee8go · #13 06-07-2007, 03:39 PM

We passed a billion a long time ago.

Benzadmiral · #14 06-07-2007, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

We passed a billion a long time ago.

I know. Six billion now, I think? Five billion too many.