Slashdot Mirror
Have We Reached Maximum Sustainable Population Size?
Hugh Pickens writes "Pulitzer prize winning writer Thomas Friedman writes that in few years we may be looking back at the first decade of the 21st century — when food prices spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all — and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? 'We're currently caught in two loops,' writes Friedman. 'One is that more population growth and more global warming together are pushing up food prices; rising food prices cause political instability in the Middle East, which leads to higher oil prices, which leads to higher food prices, which leads to more instability.' According to the Global Footprint Network we are currently growing at a rate that is using up the Earth's resources far faster than they can be sustainably replenished, so we are eating into the future. Right now, global growth is using about 1.5 Earths. 'Having only one planet makes this a rather significant problem,' says Paul Gilding. 'We either allow collapse to overtake us or develop a new sustainable economic model. We will choose the latter. We may be slow, but we're not stupid.'"
He has a 9.6 million dollar, 11,400 square foot home.
Oh and his wife used to own a company developing mall properties, those high square foot, poorly insulated buildings surrounded by heat absorbing asphalt.
We either allow collapse to overtake us or develop a new sustainable economic model. We will choose the latter.
I wish I could be as sure. Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed does a nice job of documenting societies that, when faced with the same choice, picked collapse. Granted, they didn't have Jared Diamond's book to read beforehand, but neither did they have our capacity for self-immolation.
As P. J. O'Rourke once pointed out that (at the time of writing), Freemont, CA has the same population density as Bangladesh, yet NGO's aren't sending swarms of people there to try and convince the residents to stop having families.
Fretting about overpopulation is just the politically correct way to be racist. Far too many of you; not enough of me.
It's meaningless to ask if we have reached maximum sustainable population size unless you also specify what standard of living you are talking about. I can recall reading about 20 years ago that we had already passed the point where it was possible to give everyone on Earth the same standard of living as the average American.
But standard of living really is a proxy for resource consumption and not a very good one because as technology advances it can produce more from less. Eventually you reach a wall though. Pick a resource utilization number and multiply by population. Is it greater than the available resources? If yes then we have passed the sustainable population. OTOH divide available resources by population and you have the allowed resource utilization to maintain that population.
Of course that all becomes more complicated when you treat resources as finite.
Of course that all becomes more complicated when you try to factor in the effects of growing technological capabilities.
Of course that all becomes more complicated when you try to factor in the effects of human nature.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
Wait, no. The Midwest produces more crops today then it ever did. Something's wrong here...
The land used in corporate farming is now an inert substrate which is being used to grow crops hydroponically using fertilizers and pesticides derived from oil.
Also, get back to me about what the midwest produces later in the season.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
>>Imagine a test tube filled with sugar and water. It represents all the resources and space on earth. Or just think of the earth, it works either way.
>>Now place one bacteria in the test tube.
Now replace the bacteria with farmo-bacteria that actively cultivate new food sources. Your analogy begins to fail.
Now replace the farmo-bacteria with birth-control-farmo-bacteria that can limit their population growth. Your analogy then totally fails.
>>The depth of your wrongness is staggering.
The fact that you support Malthus's error even after he was proven wrong over hundreds of years is even more staggering. Malthus was an idiot, you're a fucking moron.
Food prices have not been growing "as the result of global warming" as TFA says. They've been growing due to idiot policies try are using our food supply for fuel - corn ethanol being the biggest culprit. Which even China has banned as being detrimental to human health and happiness. China.
Well, I guess indirectly it is AGW causing the problem, but as the result of shortsighted fucktards like yourself that can't think anything through all the way. The Law of Unintended Consequences always tends to bite hippie policies in the ass, but since their "sustainable" lifestyle is mainly subsidized by their parents, they don't ever feel the pain.