Somehow I don’t see an assertion made by a sundial manufacturer without any particular basis as being valid. The only other link to that article is ‘Green Wedge’ alliance, a political green lobby. Not exactly credible and unbiased is it?
The estimate extrapolates from past and/or current conditions with no regard for the fact that despite current population the amount of agricultural land globally is shrinking, while conservation reserves and forests are growing. It’s a common enough mistake. The world’s resource supply is basically only limited by the effort humans put into obtaining them. Ignoring this fact is completely invalid.
Did you actually read that article?
That figure is based entirely and totally on an assumption that “current depletion of fossil fuel reserves has continued to completion. No fossil fuels are left, except possibly for a small stock, priced high, and used for limited durable uses such as new plastic production and for some pharmaceuticals. “
If there is one thing that every economist seems to agree on, it is that this assumption is totally baseless. This sort of thing just doesn’t happen. As fossil fuel reserves increase in price due to increased accessibility, alternatives will be found. It’s happening now, with a shift to nuclear, solar and hydro power.
The article gives no reason why it makes such a silly assumption, it justs assumes it. And the population level you quoted is entirely dependant on that erroneous assumption.
Then the estmate totally ignores the fact that third world nations contirbute 90% of the world’s population growth. It is somehow assuming that if we all lived at Mexican levels we would all be reprodcuing at Nigerian levels. They totally ignore the fact that the birth rate in Mexico is plummeting precisely because of Mexico’s high standard of living.
Too many by what standards? Too many to acheive what? What exactly do you mean by too many?
Too many to support the number badgers currently living there? Yes?
Too many to support the species and keep the ecosystem functioning as it does? No.
No we couldn’t. A cap is never defined in that way. Many animals and plants go through massive and dramatic boom and bust cycles. The population during peak periods is well beyond the maximum perpetually sustainable. It would be silly to say that virtually every species on the planet is living at numbers beyond its cap.
Look, lets get this straight. A population cap is a human concept. It’s imposed by peope. Are you using population cap to refer to sustainable carrying capacity? I suspect that you are.
No it won’t.
To begin with there is absolutely no evidence that 9 billion or even 30 billion would be over-utilising resources. When the world population was 4 billion people were claiming that 6 billion would be over utilising resources. In fact we are now producing more food for less land with less pollution than we were then. The reference you quoted above relies on the completely invalid assumption that all fossil fuel reserves would be consumed. No one knows at what level human population will be overutilising resources, but it will almost certainly be well beyond 20 billion.
Even if we make the erroneous assumption that 9 billion were over utilising resources, your assertion above is still wrong. When marmots hit a population density of say 10 individual/ha they are at a level where they are overutilising resources. Plants can no longer propagate efficiently. They deal with this by population control. The population falls and the plants recover. The marmot population is in no way beyond the population cap. In fact if they didn’t adopt this strategy the populations would probably not be viable. Your definition of population cp is useless if operating beneath the cap entails extinction.
The same is true of humans. Population will plateau at C9 billion within the next 50 years and then decline dramatically. Within 200 years population will be at 6 billion again. Temporary overutilisation of resources is normal for all species on this planet: plant, animal and protist. Provided the over utilisation is temporary then the system absorbs it. This is precisely what happens with humans. We have long generation times and so take longer to reach our desired levels. But by no stretch are we operating beyond the population cap.
Not quite. Just because a copy of the article happened to be on a sundial manufacturers site does not mean it was written by said manufacturer. The paper, if you bothered to read the second line, was written by “Ross McCluney*, for the Audubon Society’s Population Internet List Server”. The article (not research paper, I know) was based heavily on Joel Cohen’s excellent and fairly unbiased book “How many people can the Earth Support”. Will post quotes when I get my copy back, if you like.
Well, since it is only a copy of the article, and not the original, I’m not surprised you didn’t find a wide range of links. You wouldn’t be implying that the number or quality of link to a piece of information determines the accuracy of that information, would you?
Huh? Cite for the growing forest thing please. (where exactly are they tearing down housing developments and planting forests? Or have they started planting trees instead of corn in Iowa.) You must be thinking of cropland abandonment (land is no longer to sustain grazing or farming), which is a much different concept than simply deciding not to use land because we don’t need it. That does exist and it points to a very serious problem, topsoil erosion (see below).
Mao used this exact theory to attempt to increase agricultural production in China. His theory was that if you only put more work into the fields and planted twice as many seeds, production would double. I hope you know your history well enough that I don’t have to tell you how this theory worked in the real world. (hint, very poorly)
Lets take oil for example. Oil is a non-renewable resource. There is a finite amount of oil on this planet. If you continue to convert oil into waste gases and heat, you will, at some point in the future, run out. If you have a glass of water, and you keep taking sips, you will eventually run out of water. Now, notice that I said OIL and not ENERGY. Energy can be renewable (as we are constantly absorbing massive amounts of it), but oil is not.
Plus, your statement could be factual if and only if the world had an infinite supply of resources, both renewable and non-renewable. I trust we don’t need to define infinity and how the earth is not infinite.
Did you? You ignore the content of everything previous, as well as everything in the books referenced and mistake the clarification of one additional assumption for the content and reasoning behind the conclusion, as well as the additional assumptions at the top of the article.
The reason any and all valid sustainable population cap studies have to assume disuse of fossil fuels is that they are a non-renewable resource. Your point about never completely using up fossil fuels is meaningless. If reserves are drained to the point where oil is $5000 a barrel, and we are forced to find other sources of energy, then the resource is effectively used up. If no one can afford to buy gas, then it doesn’t matter that we still have 20,000 barrels left up pumped. The expense renders the energy potential completely useless.
Of course it does. It is, in fact, assuming zero growth rates. The whole point is: where could the population stabilize, and what would the world be like at that point?
First of all, you were the one who said boom and bust cycles were caused by over-utilization of resources. Using too many resources is exactly what over-utilization means. Don’t try to attack the definition of your own term. I’m using it in the same overall context as you did, just with a human example.
It’s amazing how well your arguments shore up my conclusion. I am indeed using pop cap to refer to sustainable carrying capacity (or maximum perpetually sustainable, as you put it). I believe this is a commonly accepted definition. In the above statement, you repeat my point that the population during peak periods is above the population cap (“maximum perpetually sustainable”), yet you continue to insist that for some mysterious reason the human population will break pattern and peak well below the maximum sustainable carrying capacity.
Talk about a baseless claim. If no one knows, how in the hell can you of all people say that it will be over 20 billion? Unless you can provide some documentation that would support this apparently random number, I suggest you not repeat it.
Indeed, our ability to squeeze more out of the land has improved (tripled since 1950, in fact, although grain productivity has gone back down 9% in the past ten years), but at what cost? Topsoil loss is the single biggest danger to agricultural productivity. (read more about it at here, if you like http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/se1.html ) As topsoil is lost, crop productivity goes down drastically. (see chart http://pnwsteep.wsu.edu/tillagehandbook/chapter1/010285.htm ) No amount of genetic engineering or fertilizer can compensate for this. Right now, the global average topsoil depth on cropland is 11 inches. 100 years ago that was more like 18-20 inches. If we dip below 6 inches, (and we are heading there at more than 2% a year) then we will be really screwed. Almost nothing grows in less than 6 inches of topsoil.
I’m starting to get really curious what you think a population cap actually is. What is “it’s imposed by people” supposed to mean?
I don’t even know where to start with this. Your first sentence is going fine. Marmots, acres, got it. Then the plants can no longer propagate. Why not? Are the marmots harvesting the seeds and hiding them? Is their merry bounding trampling the earth to the point that the root structure is damaged? Do they have little marmot weed whackers? Population control? Right, they run out of food. Then a section of the population either starves, or gets sick and dies. With the marmot population diminished, the food supply will return. Now, the marmots were undoubtedly above the sustainable population for the food supply, which is why the population control came into effect. Unless you define population cap as the physical space the marmot takes up (3in X 14in) and dividing 10 ha by .29 square feet per marmot, then the marmots DID reach the population cap, which is why the population peaked and declined.
I’m really tired, Blake, so I’ll just do a quick run-through.
I do object to the destruction of species no matter who the perpetrator is.
I see human activites as damaging because they do damage nonhuman species (and even humans in some cases), to a degree unreachable by most other species. Poisoned water does damage fish and other aquatic creatures. Poisoned air does damage air-breathing animals. I’m really trying to see what the confusion is here, I really am.
I admit that nonhuman species also cause damage. The main two points here are:
Humans are capable of avoiding damage. Most species aren’t.
Humans cause far greater amounts of damage than other species.
About the buffaloes: Yes, populations go through boom and bust periods. But the buffalo species survives, as does the grass.
The early mammals sweated and urinated the liquids they’d drunk, just like we do today. They didn’t poison the water. The mammals died, providing food for insects.
Human interference to prevent extinction would be better than human interference causing extinction. I’ve never said that anything done by a human is automatically evil. I’m afraid you’re going to have to spell out the contradiction you see.
About dinosaurs and potential species: We know what exists but not what might be. Yes, the extinction of a few million species might turn out to be the greatest thing that ever happened. I’m not willing to take the chance.
About the factory: you said that because we had a factory (that polluted the waters), we didn’t have to mine guano. That sounds like making the choice “mine guano” or “pollute the water”.
I would be OK with the factory you describe.
Elephants causing pain to weevils is bad, but possibly necessary. I refer to the two numbered points above.
What word would you like me to use instead of “steal”? You pick.
I’ve already explained that humans act as invaders, but aren’t invaders. My original post wasn’t intended as an utterly correct-in-every-detail basis for a debate, it was meant to get my point across. I apologize for that.
About the strawman: it appears to me that anything that happens inside an ecosystem is fine with you. Pollution, deforestation, are all just humans doing exactly what we evolved to do. Have I misunderstood your position?
About the ad hominem: here’s the quote:
It seems to me that you are valuing such human luxuries as electricity above nonhuman survival. If I’ve misunderstood, please point out how.
I look forward to seeing a quot attributed to an actual work, hopefully not based on baseless assumptions of exhausted fuel supplies.
No, I’m saying that if the only sources of an article are at best unreliable, and the article has serious errors such as a a major baseless assumption, then that determines the accuracy.
http://www.forestinformation.com/beta/dnd_arch_details.asp?ID=13
“data series of annual figures available from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization shows that global forest cover has in fact increased, to 30.89 percent in 1994 from 30.04 percent of global land cover in 1950.”
A bit of both. Some cities and towns in Asia have been abandoned in favour of forest. But most of the growth comes from forest recovery in North America and Asia.
Please desist form the strawman tactic of telling me what I mean. At least until you are in possession of the facts. As I have shown, this is not abandonment of land. It is deliberate production of forests. As the environmental lobby group Planetark itself admits “much of the growth has been in temperate forests in North America and Europe”. See http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17604/story.htm
Uh huh. And Hitler believed in reincarnation, which proves that ll people who believe in reincarnation are evil. I can’t even be bothered looking up the name of this ‘guilt be association’ fallacy.
Yes Mao believed that production could be increased with effort. Yes his methods failed. That of course proves that production can’t be increased with effort. Oh hang on. It doesn’t prove any such thing.
Absolute nonsense. Fossil oil is non-renewable. Oil can and has been produced form plant material. Oil is only hydrocarbons. It’s a doddle to produce hydrocarbons form carbohydrates.
The Earth certainly has essentially limitless supplies of energy. Between Nuclear and solar we have sufficient energy to meet all our needs
There are no meaningful non-renewable material resources that I can think of except for living specie. Pretty much everything can be manufactured by humans with sufficient effort.
And as I have pointed out, this is simply not true, and is not an assumption made by any economist, chemist or engineer.
As a result any study relying on that assumption can be immediately discounted.
Perhaps you could point out whee in that study alternative energy sources have been factored in? Do yo really believe that people will still be using fossil fuel derived gas at those prices? Even now alternative are being produced. O why does it matter what the cost of fossil fuel gas is?
This is yet another reason why the projection is so seriously flawed as to make it worthless. It extrapolates form current lifestyles without making any attempt to acknowledge the fact that very time a commodity supply has increased, an alternative has been found.
Why exactly do you believe that people won’t find an alternative to fossil fuels? If you believe that they will find an alternative, please explain why you believe a finite supply of fossil fuels requires a finite human population limit?
Umm, I was answering a specific question. I wasn’t attacking anything. I don’t know quite what the purpose of the question was, you haven’t taken it anywhere.
Where have I ever said that? That is an out and out strawman.
Please either quote where I said that human population w ill peak below the maximum sustainable carrying capacity, or else withdraw the statement and apologise.
Again, that’s a strawman. I never said that it will be over 20 billion. I said that it will almost certainly be over 20 billion.
The experts can say that because we know that at 6 billion we can produce 50% more food than the planet requires, while at the same time decreasing the amount of agricultural land required to produce that food, increase forest cover and decrease pollution. All this is achieved while we adopt wasteful practices like grain feeding beef cattle. Using these figures and others they can come p with figures on the potential amount of food the planet can produce. Pretty simple really.
Have I ever failed to produce a reference yet? I’ll repeat my requests for the cites you have failed to provide at the end of the post to give you an opportunity to either provide them or retract your statements.
Can I suggest that you look at the reference you yourself provided? It says 20 billion people are sustainable based on the baseless assumptions that fossil fuels are all consumed and no alternative fuel sources can be found. Given that those two assumptions are baseless what do you think is likely?
Now look at http://www.independent.org/tii/news/960300Semmons.html
Most of those familiar with the “carrying capacity” concept agree that given the current level of technology the sustainable human population figure is in the 30 to 40 billion range.
Given that the peak is almost certainly going to be well below 15 billion, and thereafter a rapid fall, I don’t think it’s a big issue, do you?
Just that. Population cap is a term used by urban planners, not ecologists. It means the population density allowed in a specific administrative area.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Yes.
Fortunately humans have other options available to them. So it wouldn’t matter what the cause of the population decline was in animals. Humans can achieve it via other birth control methods.
However marmots actually practice population control in the form of enforced abortions. No marmot actually dies. This is why I used them as an example.
No they weren’t. There was always sufficient for every marmot. The plants just weren’t reproducing. If that population had been sustained for 20 or 30 years there may have been a problem, but it never is sustained. Similarly maybe we would have problems at >20 billion people if it were sustained for 500 years, but it won’t be. It will peak at 9 billion and decline rapidly, just like marmots.
You have a right to object to anything you like. However that in no way supports your assertion that humans are not in harmony with the ecosystem. Nor does it support your assertion that humans no longer replenish the resources they use while other species do replenish the resources they use. Nor does it support your assertion that humans are damaging the ecosystem. Nor does it prove that human actions are negative.
That in no way supports your assertion that humans are not in harmony with the ecosystem. Nor does it support your assertion that humans no longer replenish the resources they use while other species do replenish the resources they use. Nor does it support your assertion that humans are damaging the ecosystem.
The confusion comes from the fact that you have forgotten what point you are trying to make. I asked you to provide evidence for your assertion humans are not in harmony with the ecosystem. You said that the fact that humans cause damage proves that we are not in harmony with the ecosystem.
No one dispute that humans cause damage to other species. All species do that.
How exactly does this in any way support your bold assertion that humans are not in harmony with the ecosytsem? How does it support your assertion that humans are damaging the ecosystem.
No argument there.
That in no way supports your assertion that humans are not in harmony with the ecosystem. Nor does it support your assertion that humans no longer replenish the resources they use while other species do replenish the resources they use. Nor does it support your assertion that humans are damaging the ecosystem.
That admission in no way supports your assertion that as humans currently live, we cannot continue indefinitely as a species. That was the statement I asked you to support.
Which in no way supports your assertion that the early mammals replenished the resources they used. I ask again, please provide a cite that shows that these early mammals replenished the water they drank. Please provide a cite showing that an early mammal replenished the dragonflies or other insects they ate.
You stated once replenished the resources that they used, but that we no longer do so. If by replenish you simply mean that the minerals and other nutrients in there bodies are cycled, then please provide evidence that the minerals in human bodies today are cycled less than they were in times past.
Saving the dinosaurs would result in an ecosystem vastly altered form what would have occurred had they naturally died out. Numerous individuals and species that would have lived would become extinct You claim that causing changes to the ecosystem and causing the deaths of species and individuals s inherently wrong/. And at the same time you claim that saving the dinosaurs would be right. That is a contradiction.
It can sound like whatever you lie That isn’t what it says. I would thank you to stick to what I actually say rather than interpreting it in a way that sound like it to you.
So are you now withdrawing form the position that activities are bad simply because they cause pain and/or death?
Any word that is accurate and not emotive ad totally misrepresentative as ‘steal’ is.
‘Use’ would probably work well. Utilise. ‘Construct from’? Anything you like, but please don’t suggest that using something one owns and has a right to use is theft.
Well no, you haven’t. That’s the problem. At least three times you have used emotive terms, not as simile or metaphor, but as fact. You claimed that we stole, now you say tha we don’t. You said that we invaded, now you say that is a simile. You said that we were sucking the planet dry. Now you claim that s a metaphor.
Please. If you are using an emotive word as a metaphor then make that clear. Use of emotive terms is pretty poor form in a debate anyway, but the least you can do when you use emotive terms is to make it clear whether they are meant to be taken literally. If they are simply metaphorical hyperbole then I can simply discount them by pointing out that the analogy is invalid, as I have done with your theft reference.
Now we are getting somewhere. You could have simply stated that you have absolutely no basis for your assertion that humans aren’t in harmony with the ecosystem if that is the case. You could have sais that it was all baseless dramatic hyperbole if that was the case and we could have taken it from there. Instead we have degenerated into this hijack.
Would you like to make those clarifications now, or are you still going to try tpo defend your assertions?
See the thing I that telling people they are selfish based on nothing but emotive rhetoric is a bit rude. In GD it’s also not really acceptable. Nor is making any other baseless claim as fact. If you have no logical argument or facts to support your assertion that humans are not in harmony with the ecosystem, or your assertion that humans no longer replenish the resources they use while other species do replenish the resources they use, or your assertion that humans are damaging the ecosystem, well then you should probably not make those assertions in GD.
Ye, you have completely misunderstood me. There is a world of difference between saying that an action is ethically wrong and saying that the same action is somehow out of harmony with ecosystem processes. Our ethics do not, by and large, stem from ecosystem processes, and ecosystem processes certainly do not stem form our ethics.
Because I never said anything even remotely like that. I pointed out a demonstrable fact: In order to stop pollution tomorrow I would need to plunge humanity into a dark age with no medicine, electricity, libraries or even agriculture. Medicine and electricity and libraries are not human luxuries. They are essential for keeping children alive, or for performing operations to heal the elderly, or to produce the heat to prevent healthy young adults freezing to death.
Are you saying that medicine and not freezing to death are human luxuries?
If so then please explain how life and health are luxuries.
If not then please withdraw your strawman statement.
Look ** Priceguy**. simple question. Do you in fact have any logical arguments or facts to support your assertion that humans are not in harmony with the ecosystem? If so please build a cogent chain of reasoning. Please don’t post obvious facts like ‘humans have two legs’ as though that somehow proves that we are not in harmony with the system which we are creating a much as any other species. Construct an argument. Reason from those facts. State what premises you are working form to define ‘harmony’.
If you can’t do that then then perhaps you would declare exactly what your assertion was.
I haven’t read all the posts. I just wanted to make sure I advised that anyone thinking of having kids to make sure they have a nice habitat ready for them…nice house with a yard and basement (in cold weather places) so they have room to play and be themselves. It sucks not being able to afford it once you have them like I do. Also, make sure you have enough money to put away for their education either monthly or yearly.
I just had my 3rd child…after having my tubes tied, and lost my job. Now I have no way of ever getting a place for them to really be able to play safely. My husband doesn’t make a ton of money, so we really needed my income. Now we can’t save even for one college education! My kids are gonna have to face the bitter reality of either no education or horribly large student loans that will eat at their income for years and years after, making them unable to buy a home or car…whatever.
Just a reality check, that I’m living in!!
Otherwise, you’re lucky enough to live in a wonderful country where there are no people blowing themselves up in market places everyday, and there’s clean water, good food, etc. It’s really not that bad!
They will also get a high school education, that helps. In some countries many kids are beggars from toddlerhood and never learn to read or write. I saw a picture recently of an 8 year old that cuts gashes into himself to get more money from people when he goes out and begs. In India children are sold to factories and work 14 hour days to pay off the debt for the money their family got for them.
Blake, I apologize for my poorly-worded first post. I didn’t sit down and think each word through, which appears to be the basis for our entire discussion. I wanted to get some mental images through rather than provide a word-for-word perfect description of my position. I therefore withdraw any assertion I’ve made that included the word “harmony”.
I did, however, say earlier that humans aren’t invaders, but acting as invaders. That’s not a recent change of position on my part.
About the dinosaurs: I do think that causing the deaths of species is inherently wrong. That’s why I would have objected to the death of the dinosaurs, had I been around at the time to object to it. I may be thick, but I still cannot see the contradiction.
About the factory: you did, in fact, say that since we have the fertiliser factory we don’t have to mine guano. If that’s not a binary either-or situation, you’ve forgotten a variable somewhere.
“Use”, “utilise” or “construct from” does not accurately describe what your brother is doing to you in the computer example, nor does it describe what humans are doing with Earth’s resources. I’m going to need another word if you won’t let me use “steal”.
Yes, medicine and heat are luxuries, when you look at it from a nonhuman point of view. Other animals do not have them, and other animals are hurt by the pollution that we create while maintaining our medicine and heat.
Finally, about the replenishment of resources. I’m going to take the rain forests as an example and make a few statements. As soon as you disagree with one, let me know.
Humans are every day causing the rain forests to shrink.
The rain forests replenish atmospheric oxygen.
The rain forests are the greatest replenisher of atmospheric oxygen on Earth, and in fact essential to keep the atmosphere oxygen levels up.
Many Earth species require oxygen to survive.
If humans continue indefinitely to cause the rain forests to shrink, they will one day be gone.
Without rain forests, atmosphere oxygen levels will drop, thus making the atmosphere unbreathable for many species.
Without breathable atmosphere, species relying on that will die.
Do you disagree with any of this, and if so, at what point do we part, and why do you disagree?
First of all, some problems with cites. http://www.forestinformation.com/be...tails.asp?ID=13 is a lobbying group for over 200 wood products associations. ( http://www.forestinformation.com/beta/about_who.asp ) Now, normally, the wood products industry is about as fair and unbiased as they come, considering they have absolutely no profit motive for painting a rosy picture. In this case, however, we have evidence that their motives might not be pure. The first, is that they link to the FAO (food and agriculture organization for the UN http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=101&langId=1 ). Unfortunately, the FAO does not paint quite the pretty picture when you look at things globally. Yes, the forested area of North America is growing, however, globally, we still have a net loss of 9.4 million hectares a year. Over the past ten years, we have also had a net loss.
Another big problem with the Forest Information website is their heavy use of quotes from Bjorn Lumborg’s Skeptical Environmentalist. I wont get into the details of why this statistician is completely unqualified to write his book, but Scientific American has an excellent critique here http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000&pageNumber=1&catID=2
And this (http://www.independent.org/tii/news/960300Semmons.html). Nothing about the methods used to come up with the 30-40 billion number. A research paper, or book would be a little more useful.
Mao theories failed because he failed to take into account enough factors. He failed to understand the impact of planting seeds twice as close together. He also failed to take into account the loss of structural integrity that occurs when you have backyard foundries smelting doorknobs just to meet production quotas. The fundamental factor you have failed to take into account is topsoil loss.
This was not meant to be “guilt by association”. This was supposed to be an example of someone who failed miserably when he thought that resources were limited only by human effort.
Forgive my exchange of the terms oil and fossil oil. They are indeed not the same. Brevity encouraged me to use the shortened form, which has alternate incarnations. Oil can be made synthetically as well. Please replace any occurrences of “oil” with “fossil fuels”. What’s a “doddle”?
Well, you just said that “Fossil oil is non-renewable”, so perhaps you could be a little more clear about why a valid study of sustainable population capacity would be based on non-sustainable energy resources? Or perhaps provide a cite for such a study?
Both true. Important factor you are missing though. Nuclear energy is tremendously more expensive that coal. The only reason states with nuclear plants don’t have energy prices through the roof is federal subsidies. In the US, no new nuclear plants have been ordered for the next 25 years, even though we really need the megawatts. Solar is also still very expensive. If we convert all fossil fuel based power generation to Nuclear and Solar, costs will soar. Since people only have so much money, if costs go way up, consumption will go down. Energy consumption going down (except that from effeciency increases) is essentially lowered standard of living. Also, we still have a very big problem with the disposal of radioactive waste. Maybe we can ship it to Canada.
You do realize that a resource is defined not by whether it will grow back, but whether we are depleting the global supply of that resource faster than is being replenished. Fossil fuels, in the strictest sense of the term, are renewable. However, the recovery time is extremely long.
Drinking Water – We are polluting water faster than we are cleaning it up. We are also pumping out groundwater reserves much faster than rain can fill them back up (this is a big problem in my home state of Texas).
Clean Air – Less pollution still equals pollution. We are dumping more crap into the air than natural filtration processes are able to remove.
Fish – We are depleting fish populations much faster than they can breed. Added bonus comes In the form of positive feedback. Fish population goes down, prices go up, fishing becomes more lucrative, fisherman buy more boats to chase the few fish left.
Topsoil – This is my single biggest concern for the food supply. I hope you have something optimistic to say about the topic because I would love to not worry about this one. Erosion is real. Topsoil is being lost at a disturbing rate. Positive feedback applies to this resource as well. If grain prices go up, more people will squeeze the land for maximum yield, speeding the erosion process.
Too easy. First you say “To begin with there is absolutely no evidence that 9 billion or even 30 billion would be over-utilising resources”. Then, you say “Population will plateau at C9 billion” “then decline dramatically”. In another post, you say “the peak is almost certainly going to be well below 15 billion”. In yet another post, you say “it will almost certainly be well beyond 20 billion” (referring to over utilizing resources)
So, even with the 6 billion person gap in your peaks, you still say it will peak below your quoted carrying capacities of 20-40 billion. Keep in mind, I think you are completely wrong, but you did say it.
The difference being margin of error? Is there a number you are more certain of? Again, I ask for a research paper or article behind these numbers.
Hmmm, end of post, no request. Probably just forgot.
Yes, the term “population cap” (originally population capacity) is used by urban planners. It is an estimate of how many people a city can sustain at a certain standard of living. Above the population cap for a city services start to degrade. Traffic gets bad, housing prices go way up, infrastructure is stressed, etc… The term is perfectly usable in a larger scale, even if ecologists do not use it, often preferring “sustainable carrying capacity” or the even more straightforward “how many people can the earth support”. An estimate of how many people the world can sustain at a certain standard of living. This number is variable depending on average standard of living. It must take into effect standard of living and state such or the number is useless.
Ok, diminishing food supply (even if they aren’t starving yet). Animals start to die. (sorry, fetal death is still death) Food supply returns. Now, baby marmots are seen as competition for a limited and dwindling food supply, so their parents kill them off before they have a chance to become real competitors. Parents kill em, starvation kills em, they still die. Mother nature at her most elegant.
I will be out of town for a week, so you have plenty of time to do research. The thing I am most concerned with, however, are topsoil loss and why the human population would go through a bust cycle if there were no over utilization of recourses (disease and natural disaster excepted). Or, alternately, how one could over utilize resources and still be below the sustainable carrying capacity. Please, try to use known factors and technologies only and don’t assume we will just invent our way out of trouble.
[quote]
you did, in fact, say that since we have the fertiliser factory we don’t have to mine guano. If that’s not a binary either-or situation, you’ve forgotten a variable somewhere.
[quote]
Not at all. You are attempting to utilise a false dichotomy. I said that *If[/I} we had a factory that could remove the necessity for mining, and that would in turn save lives then Such a factory would be good by your own standard of good. That is not in any way binary. We could have any combination of those factors.
We could have a factory that didn’t couldn’t remove the necessity for mining, and that would then be bad.
We could not have a factory and not remove the necessity for mining, and that would then be bad.
We could not have a factory and still remove the necessity for mining, and that would then be good.
You stated that pollution was inherently evil. No matter what the benefits of the source of the pollution it was irreconcilably evil.
I was pointing out the simplicity of your assertion by providing an example of where pollution was good. The only binary either/or position was yours, ith your assertion that we can have pollution or we can have good but we can’t have pollution and still be good.
That’s OK, find one you like. Utilise describes the situation perfectly.
Oh for Pete’s sake ** Priceguy**. I grow really tired of your incorrect application of emotive words. Now you are doing it with luxury.
The standard definition of luxury: Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort. The by products or otherwise of obtaining that thing do nor enter into the definition at any point. do not By no stretch of the imagination is electricity a luxury for a person living in the arctic. Nor is medicine a luxury too a person dying of a massive infection. From my POV, your POV or an animal’s POV those things are essential to maintaining life.
To suggest that they are luxuries because a third party doesn’t need them is a ridiculous misapplication of the word. By that definition everything is a luxury. The grass a buffalo eats is a luxury because a reindeer doesn’t need that grass. The oxygen a tree consumes is a luxury because an archaeobacterium doesn’t need that oxygen. If you can describe one resource used by any species that isn’t a luxury by your definition I’ll swallow it. Any resource at all that meets your criterion of being had by all species.
If you can’t do that then please just concede the point graciously.
Cite. And from a scientific standpoint, not just one web page that repeats the same assertion.
Not even close to being true. Rainforests don’t replenish atmospheric oxygen. Rainforests are carbon neutral and hence oxygen neutral. In fact most studies show that rainforests are a net carbon source and hence a net oxygen consumer.
I’ve told you what I don’t agree with. But for the sake of argument let’s assume that I swallow it.
So what? How does the fact that species die without rainforests in any way prove your assertion that primitive mammals replenished resources?
I ask for the third time, please provide a cite that shows that these early mammals replenished the water they drank. Please provide a cite showing that an early mammal replenished the dragonflies or other insects they ate.
You stated that humans once replenished the resources that they used, but that we no longer do so. If by replenish you simply mean that the minerals and other nutrients in there bodies are cycled, then please provide evidence that the minerals in human bodies today are cycled less than they were in times past.
If you can’t support these assertions then can you please withdraw them.
But I am not quoting them. I am quoting the FAO report that they reference. You will note that even Planetark, which is a major environmental group, accept the FAO figure that global forest cover is increasing base don the same figures.
Who said anything about the last 10 years? The longest data series we have says that forest cover is increasing. Why look at the last 10 years rather than the longer data series? If you want to look at the ultra short term how about we look at the last 18 months, which shows an increase again?
Global forest cover reached it’s lowest point since 1955 in 1993. It was an atypical series of years due to a number of factors. Why did you decide on the last 10 years? Over any other time period at all you would have found an increase.
Care to explain this statement, with a cite? How can forest cover have increased despite a net loss?
Yes, I’ve read it. However I have also read Lomborg’s reply. You can read it here ( http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/ ). I will gladly debate you on any points that you feel have not been adequately addressed or any flaws you believe exist in Lomborg’s work. Simply saying that a popular newsstand magazine has published opinions doesn’t in any way invalidate the science or the logic. If you believe such problems exist then present them. Otherwise my references stand.
Scientific American did not give Lomborg any opportunity to respond to his critics, even though they gave him a copy of the editorial before it went to press. They said they would give Lomborg one page in a future edition to reply to 11 pages of full-on attack. Lomborg’s response was to publish the text of the Scientific American article on his own website and to intersperse it with a detailed response to every point raised by his critics. Scientific American then threatened to sue Lomborg over copyright. In response to my complaint Scientific American wrote “This is an infringement of our copyright and interferes with our business of selling the article.” Does Scientific American really think that they will lose readership because Lomborg has posted a response to a publication that is already off the newsstands? I believe they acted out of political motivation and are purposefully stifling Lomborg’s efforts to defend himself.
Scientific American’s critique is not scientifically valid simply because the publisher of the hypothesis that Lomborg’s work is flawed will not allow anyone to publish anything falsifying the hypothesis.
Oh I see. So since Jon Denver failed when he thought that jet flight was possible, that proves that safe jet flight is not possible?
What exactly is your point here?
Then I now have to ask you to explain your reference. Given that oil supplies are limitless, why exactly would human population be limited by exhaustion of fossil oil?
Your reference says that working o assumption of fossil oil supply exhaustion the Earth has a carrying capacity of 20 billion at Mexico living standards.
Why? What is the significance of fossil oil? Why is it deemed to be limiting?
OED
doddle, n.3
colloq.
Something that is easy or requires little effort; a ‘walk-over’; (see also quot. 1937).
That is my question to you.
You provided a reference that extrapolated sustainable population capacity based on fossil oil reserves. A non sustainable energy resource. Can you explain about why a valid study of sustainable population capacity would be based on non-sustainable energy resources? Or are you saying that the reference you provided is not valid, just as I have already asserted?
I’m not missing it, I am ignoring it. You asserted that this planet did not have an infinite supply of energy resource. I pointed out that energy resources are not limited and hence your entire chain of reasoning, which was based entirely on the premise of limited resources, is invalid.
Cite?
A resource is defined however one cares to define it. Until we agree otherwise I am using OED definitions and defining resource as “A means of supplying some want or deficiency; a stock or reserve upon which one can draw when necessary.” A resource is defined by whether it is a means of supplying a want or deficiency. Growing back or otherwise don’t enter into it… If you want to define it some other way you’d better have a good reason, because to this point I have been working with standard definitions.
You are now being disingenuous.
I never at any stage said that 9 billion is below the maximum sustainable carrying capacity. Do not misquote separate lines of argument form separate posts. Either provide a quote of where I said that human population ‘will’, not ‘could’ but *WILL[/] peak below maximum sustainable carrying capacity. Or else withdraw the assertion and apologise.
I never said that. I never said anything that. I said that you have presented no evidence to the contrary. I said that peak sustainable capacity is probably as high as 40 billion and that numerous authorities believe this. I will cheerfully provide references to the UN and other bodies showing that population will level off at C9 billion within 100 years. That is all that I have said.
Now either provide a quote form me asserting that human population will peak below maximum sustainable carrying capacity, or else withdraw the misattributed assertion.
If you can not keep up, and if you can not remember what is being said in response to what (and it appears that you can’t) then ask for clarification, but do not verbal me. More importantly do not disingenuously cobble together a strawman argument from a dozen different posts over 3 days.
There is no number in science that anyone is ever certain of. This is even more true when extrapolating future events. This is why I say ‘may be’ and ‘probably is’ whereas you simply say ‘is’ and ‘will be’ and ‘must be’.
Very important distinctions. I acknowledge uncertainties where necessary.
But you haven’t been using the term ‘population cap’ it in that manner. That is where you are running into problems. You have been saying that when the population cap is reached the population will decline. Not that the standard of living will drop, but that ‘we will be forced to deal with declining population’. You also said you were using population cap as “the maximum sustainable population given existing resources”. That’s what caused this semantic argument remember? You have been using ‘population cap’ as synonomous with ‘carrying capacity’. I ran with that until such time as it became too confusing and then pointed out that the term isn’t used in ecology and is imposed by people, not the environment. You replied with ‘What is “it’s imposed by people” supposed to mean?”
Are we clear now? Population cap is an artificial concept. Use it when referring to human imposed limits if you wish, but don’t assume that it has anything to do with carrying capacity.
Cite?
If you can find one I suggest you post it in the abortion thread.
You can be concerned about whetever you like. You still haven’t provided any evidence or logical reasoning to support your assertions that humans are mot in harmony with nature.
So am I.
What makes you think humans would go through a bust cycle if there were no over utilization of recourses? For that matter what makes you humans will ever go through a bust cycle ?
Again, I would like to know this too.
Are these some kinds of riddles?
Are you trying to be funny?
What is your point here?
Yes, I did. The references I have asked for that you have failed to provide:
“Give us one reference in support of your assertion that as humans currently live, we cannot continue indefinitely as a species.”
“Cite.
How did this mammal replenish the waters that it drank. How did it replenish the insects that it ate? Again, this appears to be baseless assertion, but I will withhold judgement pending your reference for this fact.”
“Cite!
Every single projection says that world population will peak at C9billion within a century. This will be well below the population cap for the Earth.
Please provide any evidence to support this assertion.”
Direct questions you have failed to address adequately:
“So you object to the destruction of species perpetrated by any other species do you?”
“Are you now saying that you see the utilisation of any resources as being destructive? In that case do you believe that no species is at harmony with nature?”
“How does an beaver’s natural processes replenish the trees the kill? How does a finch’s natural processes replenish the seeds they eat? This doesn’t make any sense.”
“Why is condemning billions of species to non-existence by preserving dinosaurs acceptable, but condemning species to extinction abhorrent?”
“And again, you have failed to answer the question. You have told us what you believe you standard of a cars to be, and what purpose it serves. We can agree on that because a car has a creator who can tell us why she created that vehicle.
But you have yet to tell us what your basis is for deciding what the * raison d’etre* of an ecosystem should be.”
“If a factory unavoidably pollutes 50’ of one small stream and kills 500 fish, and yet produces medicine that saves 5 million humans and 500 million other fish do you still consider that evil? You have implied that you do.”
“Are you renouncing your previous stance that it is the causation of pain that defines bad? Are you saying that it is the causation of extinction that is your standard for bad? If not what is the relevance of asking about extinction?”
“Now can you please answer the question. How have humans forcibly entered the ecosystem?”
“That’s a lot of unaddressed issues ** tastycorn**. I get the impression that you are getting confused as to exactly what your position is and what you are trying to defend. You construct an argument, and when it is falsified you continue on with the same line of reasoning based on erroneous premises established in that argument.
For example you tried to argue that if the peak level of a population is utilising resources in a manner which is unstainable then the population must be above the carrying capacity. I showed that marmots populations often reach levels which utilise resources in a manner which is unsustainable, without ever reaching carrying capacity. Despite showing you this you have attempted to continue on with the same line of reasoning. Unfortunately any reasoning based on that flawed premise is also flawed.
First, I will try to reply to your questions before my flight leaves, however, I must insist that you make another attempt with your last post. You seem to be confusing Priceguy with me, as well as using a formatting technique that renders the post almost unintelligible.
I also need a clear definition of the terms you would like to use.
What does “maximum sustainable carrying capacity” mean? What does “carrying capacity” mean? What does “population capacity” mean? What does “bust period” mean? What does “population cap” mean? How is a “population cap” derived? How, if it is a human concept, is it enforced?
I’m getting kind of tired of this thread and all the negativity that’s been expressed here. I know I should read all the replies to be fair but I’m going to reply now anyway.
I think that just because there are some personal rewards gained by having children this doesn’t make it an entirely selfish act. There are personal rewards involved in everything we do but that doesn’t mean they’re not worth doing/ not laudable in spite of this. What about charity workers/ adoptive parents or enviromental activists etc. they enjoy what they do but others benefit too. Hence it’s a worthwhile undertaking.
I don’t have children of my own. I think I would like to in the future if I am lucky enough to be able to but I know plenty of great parents and I, for one, am grateful to my parents for all the many unselfish acts they have performed and still perform for me and for my brothers and sisters and my 2 nieces.
Maybe you, tastycorn, should think about what your parents did for you before you start knocking parents the world over.
Oh, now this is just getting ridiculous. I did not misquote you once. Do you really think this style of debate will hold up? That you can just throw out numbers willy nilly without documentation to back them up and think we wont hold you to them because you said “will almost certainly be” instead of “will”? You were not making the argument that peak is below capacity, but that doesn’t matter.
Premise A: Population peak will almost certainly be 9billion
Premise B: Maximum sustainable capacity will almost certainly be above 20 billion
Argument: A < B
Result: True
Now, this is very simple logic. Is A < B? You have stated both A and B, even though you qualified B with an “almost certainly”. It doesn’t matter if you were not trying to prove the argument, if you proved both the premises, and the argument follows logically from those premises, then the conclusion is valid regardless of intention.
Well, the FAO reports deal pretty exclusively with the last ten years. The FAO report(s) pretty clearly state “Thus the net global change in forest area between 1990 and 2000 was estimated as -9.4 million hectares per year:” (http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=101&langId=1 2000 assessment, main findings) I think I know where the quote on the Forest Information site came from. (unless you can find a direct quote on the original site) There is a report on the site from 1948. On that report are forestation estimates. I’m guessing that some creative individual took the numbers from 1948 and compared them to the numbers from 2000. Well, the problem is, satellite photography had not been invented yet, and thermal aerial imaging was still in its infancy. The margin of error between on the ground surveys and satellite based thermal imaging is WAY bigger than the measured difference. You can’t do a direct comparison and have it be accurate to two decimal places (as the quote references). Let me guess, you read this in Skeptical Environmentalist? Sounds like something Bjorn would come up with.
You tell me. Doesn’t seem to follow from the information on the FAO site. Perhaps you have a better cite?
Uhhh, no. Scientific American considers Bjorn a crackpot. Why should they let Bjorn ramble on incoherently on their dime? They didn’t try to stop him from self publishing a rebuke, they tried to stop him form republishing the original article. Valid use of copyright law.
I thought this was really obvious, but I will try to use small words. You can not base a [sustainable] capacity using [depleting] resources. The study was not based on the use of fossil oil reserves, it was based on the disuse of fossil oil reserves. Why? Because if you base it on a non-renewable resource, then it isn’t sustainable.
No, it isn’t. A resource is either renewable or non-renewable based on whether we use it up faster than it can replenish.
When I was in elementary school, we never heard a word about the environment. However, we were taught about the damage that was done when rabbits were introduced into Australia. I believe that there is a fence built specifically to keep them from taking over the whole country/island/continent.
Having made that statement, I believe that this thread has been hijacked with all of the talk about the environment. The subject is whether or not to have a child.
My wife and I had our first child at the ages of 28/27 and our next at 31/30. I said that was enough and used some of the arguments about the need to control population. We then became foster parents and eventually adopted 3 more children. Looking back there were hard times, but the sum total is that I don’t regret bringing children into this world or adopting children that others brought into this world. It is something that I am happy I did; something that made me a better person; and something I would do again.
tastycorn jokingly talked about killing himself, but that was not really the point. More to the point is does he believe that his parents made the wrong decision when they brought him into this world. :rolleyes: [sup]I would guess not.[/sup]
Although I am sympathetic to drabble’s statement I do not think it is totally realistic. My wife and I were not sure of being able to support our first two. Our first adoption surely was not based on any financial abilities. Then came the time at the age of 42 with three children to support that we decided to adopt twins. I have always maintained that if you wait until you can afford to have children, you will never have any.
[sup]Yesterday, my wife read me an article from Suzie Orman stating that a couple should put funding their retirement ahead of providing for the education of their children.[/sup]
Tell you what, Blake. Since I, if this is true, have been falsely informed for my entire life, if you provide a cite for this (and explain, for my education, where the oxygen does come from if not from the rainforests), you can consider this discussion won. You can even put it in your sig.
For reference and to bring the thread back from Hijack Hell, the statements I’m sticking to are:
Humans cause damage, more so than other species.
Looking at history and humanity’s track record, I can’t see this changing.
Tell you what, Blake. Since I, if this is true, have been falsely informed for my entire life, if you provide a cite for this (and explain, for my education, where the oxygen does come from if not from the rainforests), you can consider this discussion won. You can even put it in your sig.
For reference and to bring the thread back from Hijack Hell, the statements I’m sticking to are:
Humans cause damage, more so than other species.
Looking at history and humanity’s track record, I can’t see this changing.
So, tastycorn, you want everyone in the world to give up their dreams of having a family because the world is too crowded for your taste. Now who’s being selfish?
Priceguy - No hope in better education, eh? (Not that I’m expecting perfection, just improvement.) And should “good people” should be punished (disallowed having children) for the actions of “bad people”?
Ok, I’m oversimplifying and being very optimistic. I agree that human tech/power is outpacing human wisdom. However, we are creatures of the mind and are capable of learning & adapting.
How about a compromise from no-kids to a zero-growth model (1 or 2 kids per couple)? This seems to be a trend anyway as societies become better off.
breed breed breed…cover the earth with 10,000 layers of humans, crowded together with no room to move. Apparently this is what some of you want, assuming the “carrying capacity” can be raised to allow it. Maybe you can get fusion technology, then not even the amount of carbon on the planet will be a barrier anymore.
Because of course anyone who doesn’t favour human extinction doubtless wants unlimited overpopulation. :rolleyes:
Phobos:
Sounds reasonable to me. Countries in the ‘developed’ world do follow this model already, and those countries that don’t tend to have a much higher infant mortality rate and shorter lifespan (which, mathematically, means that they use less resources per person).
This is slightly off-topic - but then so is most of this thread: I once wrote a short story set in a future where overpopulation was a severe enough problem that the governments of most Western countries had to take action. Rather than enact draconian sterilisation and licenced-reproduction laws, they took advantage of a recent development in reproductive technology: multiparental fertilisation, where a healthy embryo is created from more than two parents. Thus the citizens, if they wished to do so, could pass on their genetic heritage, but the population decreased. It created a fascinating society. In my head, anyway…
This seems to be a trend anyway as societies become better off.