A very interesting article. He points into the mirror in order to prove that his background is also 'over there.' I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to post the essay in Spirituality, as well.
The mouse parable was good, but overpopulation was mentioned here on another thread and I was amazed that a lot of people on this site were of the opinion that it was no big deal. One of the resident genius's opined that the earth could EASILY sustain a population of ONE HUNDRED BILLION with no problem.
Can't remember who it was, I think he was either from Holland or Indonesia.
Here's a graph that might help them change their mind:
Originally posted by Sam The Sham The mouse parable was good, but overpopulation was mentioned here on another thread and I was amazed that a lot of people on this site were of the opinion that it was no big deal. One of the resident genius's opined that the earth could EASILY sustain a population of ONE HUNDRED BILLION with no problem.
Can't remember who it was, I think he was either ...[text shortened]... p them change their mind:
That's a pretty graph. But I think the postulation was more along the lines of the sustainability of a healthy life based upon both the needs for the same as well as the overabundance of resources (properly managed) available on the surface of the earth.
Originally posted by Sam The Sham The mouse parable was good, but overpopulation was mentioned here on another thread and I was amazed that a lot of people on this site were of the opinion that it was no big deal.
The mouse parable suggests that we will behave like mice when we run out of land. Since humans frequently run out of land, it should be relatively easy to give real life examples regarding what actually happens.
Does anyone have examples that suggest we do act like mice in such cases?
One of the resident genius's opined that the earth could EASILY sustain a population of ONE HUNDRED BILLION with no problem.
Can't remember who it was, I think he was either from Holland or Indonesia. I am of the opinion that the earth can sustain more than it currently does, but I do not have any maximum figures in mind.
Here's a graph that might help them change their mind:
http://www.humanecology.com.au/Images/World_Population_Graph.jpg How does that graph in any way suggest that the earth cannot support a given population?
Originally posted by twhitehead How does that graph in any way suggest that the earth cannot support a given population?
The graph simply shows the incredible growth curve in the last century and what we may expect in years to come . Nothing was said about it being a graph that showed how many people the Earth can support, why would you even ask that?
Originally posted by Sam The Sham The graph simply shows the incredible growth curve in the last century and what we may expect in years to come . Nothing was said about it being a graph that showed how many people the Earth can support, why would you even ask that?
Well I read a report saying humans are already using up more than 50% of the Earths' resources. I will try to find the link to that. If so, we could only provide for about 10 or 12 billion max because we will have used up 100% of the Earths' resources by that time, every new mouth to feed would take that food from someone else.
Originally posted by Sam The Sham The graph simply shows the incredible growth curve in the last century and what we may expect in years to come . Nothing was said about it being a graph that showed how many people the Earth can support, why would you even ask that?
Because you said:
Here's a graph that might help them change their mind: and this was with regards to people who claim the earth can hold a given population (that you dispute).
So I ask again, what relevance does the graph have to the total supportable population of the earth? If not, then why should anyone change their minds?
And by the way, why does the graph show a marked increase in population growth in the future? Who made the projection and based on what?
Originally posted by sonhouse Well I read a report saying humans are already using up more than 50% of the Earths' resources.
And the US is using about half of that. So if the population growth is in third world countries there is no problem. 🙂
It is a complex question, as our current methods of farming and consuming leave much to be desired, but how much greater efficiency could be attained is unknown.
What I do know is that Zambia is very underpopulated and could easily support double its current population. Whether we want that is another matter entirely.
Originally posted by twhitehead And the US is using about half of that. So if the population growth is in third world countries there is no problem. 🙂
It is a complex question, as our current methods of farming and consuming leave much to be desired, but how much greater efficiency could be attained is unknown.
What I do know is that Zambia is very underpopulated and could easily support double its current population. Whether we want that is another matter entirely.
With a country the size of Texas and a population of 12 million, twice as many births as deaths, Zambia may have a population of 20 million or more by mid-century, so it doesn't look like you have much to worry about in underpopulation. It sounds like Aids is the worse medical problem there. I see recent work being done that may eradicate that terrible curse in maybe ten or twenty years.
Mouse Parable by Chris Langen, anyone know him?
23 Jun '10 05:331 edit
Back to Top