- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Do You Believe in the Theory of Carry Capacity?
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:09 pm
A quick definition:
UNDERSTANDING CARRYING CAPACITY:
"Human population, now over 7 billion, cannot continue to grow indefinitely. There are limits to the life-sustaining resources earth can provide us. In other words, there is a carrying capacity for human life on our planet. Carrying capacity is the maximum number of a species an environment can support indefinitely. Every species has a carrying capacity, even humans. However, it is very difficult for ecologists to calculate human carrying capacity. Humans are a complex species. We do not reproduce, consume resources, and interact with our living environment uniformly. Carrying capacity estimates involve making predictions about future trends in demography, resource availability, technological advances and economic development."
Curious on OT opinions.
UNDERSTANDING CARRYING CAPACITY:
"Human population, now over 7 billion, cannot continue to grow indefinitely. There are limits to the life-sustaining resources earth can provide us. In other words, there is a carrying capacity for human life on our planet. Carrying capacity is the maximum number of a species an environment can support indefinitely. Every species has a carrying capacity, even humans. However, it is very difficult for ecologists to calculate human carrying capacity. Humans are a complex species. We do not reproduce, consume resources, and interact with our living environment uniformly. Carrying capacity estimates involve making predictions about future trends in demography, resource availability, technological advances and economic development."
Curious on OT opinions.
This post was edited on 7/16/20 at 4:29 pm
26
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:10 pm to Porkchop Express
There was a thread here a few days ago with an article/study that projects the world's population to take a nosedive over the next few decades.
This post was edited on 7/16/20 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:12 pm to Porkchop Express
The question shouldn't be "how many people can survive on earth" but "how many people can truly live on earth".
We may already be past the latter.
We may already be past the latter.
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:14 pm to Porkchop Express
quote:
However, it is very difficult for ecologists to calculate human carrying capacity. Humans are a complex species. We do not reproduce, consume resources, and interact with our living environment uniformly. Carrying capacity estimates involve making predictions about future trends in demography, resource availability, technological advances and economic development."
IOW they don't know and can only offer WAGs. Same as the Covid modelers, global warming alarmists, and market forecasters. Most offer the most dire prediction they can as far into the future as they can. that way when they are wrong, no one will remember. Its all conjecture.
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:14 pm to Porkchop Express
From the title I thought this would be a thread on how many rounds, and what size mags my pew pews needed.
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:15 pm to Porkchop Express
Of course the concept is correct. But we are nowhere close to that on this planet, where we inhabit a small fraction of the land.
Sure, some places are densely populated and those locales may be near their capacity.
But the planet as a whole? Not even close.
Sure, some places are densely populated and those locales may be near their capacity.
But the planet as a whole? Not even close.
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:15 pm to Porkchop Express
Absolutely. Usually two spare 15 rd mags.
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:15 pm to Porkchop Express
What do you mean "believe?"
Carrying capacity is absolutely a thing and it is very easy to observe on local scales.
Carrying capacity is absolutely a thing and it is very easy to observe on local scales.
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:16 pm to Porkchop Express
I'm 100% in the Malthusian camp. Once the fossil fuels are gone, we're not going to be able to feed much more than a billion IMO.
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:17 pm to Porkchop Express
Read The Wizard and the Prophet.
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:20 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
I'm 100% in the Malthusian camp. Once the fossil fuels are gone, we're not going to be able to feed much more than a billion IMO.
We are propping up a large portion of the planet that would have died out long ago if not for our false support.
Those people would be gone. But developed nations will be fine.
I'm not convinced fossil fuels will ever die out, but assuming they do, it will be far enough in the future that other technologies will have become invented and mainstreamed.
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:20 pm to Porkchop Express
Is the issue carrying capacity... or consumption capacity?
This post was edited on 7/16/20 at 2:21 pm
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:28 pm to Porkchop Express
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:31 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
Exactly, the first time I flew in an airplane I realized how much of the country is uninhabited. Also isn’t there that thing about how the whole world’s population live (semi comfortably) in the state of Texas?
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:32 pm to Porkchop Express
quote:
Human population, now over 7 billion
Not sure if it's true, but I've read that without chemical fertilizers, the earth could support about 2 billion people.
If one technology greatly increased capacity, who's to say another won't do the same thing?
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:32 pm to blueridgeTiger
There are parts of the world that bypassed the point of crisis decades ago. But they are either propped by developed nations (Africa), or have enough money to prop themselves up (China).
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:33 pm to sabes que
quote:
Also isn’t there that thing about how the whole world’s population live (semi comfortably) in the state of Texas?
Supposedly, at the density of Manhattan, the entire Earth's population could fit in Texas.
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:35 pm to Porkchop Express
Carrying capacity assumes that mankind has no ability to innovate nor expand to more than one planet for acquiring resources. Many times has mankind, through invention and innovation, greatly raised the carrying capacity of the earth.
In addition, The rate of population increase Is leveling off in the developing world while populations are declining in the developed world. The developing world will catch that trend in another generation or two. That means population will soon not be rapidly expanding beyond mankind’s ability to adjust. Malthusean crisis is a myth.
In addition, The rate of population increase Is leveling off in the developing world while populations are declining in the developed world. The developing world will catch that trend in another generation or two. That means population will soon not be rapidly expanding beyond mankind’s ability to adjust. Malthusean crisis is a myth.
This post was edited on 7/16/20 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:36 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
We are propping up a large portion of the planet that would have died out long ago if not for our false support
As I once heard a comedian say:
Don’t feed the people in Africa. They don’t need food, they need U Hauls. You know why? Because they live in a fricking desert! It’s sand! Move away from that shite to someplace where food grows and things that you can eat live. You know what else they don’t have in the desert? Water! You need that shite too.
Posted on 7/16/20 at 2:39 pm to Porkchop Express
Sure, there is carrying capacity but it is much higher than most people believe. Humans are adaptable and when something becomes in demand they find a way to supply it.
I've met Paul Ehrlich - author of The Population Bomb which made a stir in the 1960's. Nice enough guy but he was completely wrong in his book. "It predicted worldwide famine in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth."
Fortunately we know how to make fertilizer, something he overlooked. Without fertilizer production there would be mass starvation. But we adapted and will continue to do so.
I've met Paul Ehrlich - author of The Population Bomb which made a stir in the 1960's. Nice enough guy but he was completely wrong in his book. "It predicted worldwide famine in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth."
Fortunately we know how to make fertilizer, something he overlooked. Without fertilizer production there would be mass starvation. But we adapted and will continue to do so.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News