4 ms·

Uh, the current growth rate is around 1% per year, and it's decreasing as countries enter the first world. That's a doubling every 70 years. See https://en.wiki

Uh, the current growth rate is around 1% per year, and it's decreasing as countries enter the first world. That's a doubling every 70 years. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth We've got a lot of efficiency left in terms of agriculture as well, so there isn't much reason to think reaching the carrying capacity of the planet is a particularly pressing issue. The amount of food that we already grow that we don't eat roughly 1/3 already, and the vast majority of land doesn't contribute to agriculture.

Retric 11y ago
I don't disagree with what your saying. The counter argument goes something like this. Let's double every 1,000 years for the next 1,000,000 years that sounds easy. Let's see that's only 7billion * 2^1,000 or err ~7 * 10 ^ 310 people. Hmm, there are only ~10^83 atoms in the observable universe. I guess they must be really tiny people. So, yea it's not a problem in right now and probably not for a long time yet. But, as soon as you start doubling something has to give.
- lotharbot 11y ago
  population doesn't keep doubling over and over again. It follows a logistic curve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function ). Human population probably reached the midpoint of the curve around 1980 (http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil_files/image004.gif http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil_files/image... ) and is expected to become fairly level between 9 and 13 billion (http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/ http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/ select Population -> Total Population -> WORLD)
  - superuser2 11y ago
    Yes, it follows a logistic curve because it hits carrying capacity. The top of that curve is not a pleasant place.
    - clock_tower 11y ago
      In this case, population isn't close to carrying capacity, but is following that curve anyways.
    - lotharbot 11y ago
      The top of the curve can be unpleasant. It doesn't have to be. The worst is when population goes past carrying capacity and then crashes. That's when you get mass die-offs. Population can settle down at carrying capacity simply through reduced birth rates matching up with death rates. That's the situation we see in much of the western world, with better availability of birth control etc.
      - Retric 11y ago
        The top of the curve is unstable. A new plant virus destroys a major crop and suddenly billions starve.
        lotharbot 11y ago
        Every part of the curve faces that sort of instability. The number of crops actually growing isn't particularly higher than the number needed to sustain the population, and we can't just spin up enough food for billions of people even if we do have plenty of land to do it on. With humanity, "carrying capacity" is unlikely to be food-limited.
        Retric 11y ago
        The large number of overweight Americans is a huge pool of excess food and takes a lot of extra daily calories to maintain. As is the large number of livestock being produced and all that corn ethanol etc. The top of the curve removes that as we can't pay for the inefficiency's of livestock or the extra daily calories to be overweight and feed 50+ billion people.
        lotharbot 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Retric 11y ago

I don't disagree with what your saying. The counter argument goes something like this. Let's double every 1,000 years for the next 1,000,000 years that sounds easy. Let's see that's only 7billion * 2^1,000 or err ~7 * 10 ^ 310 people. Hmm, there are only ~10^83 atoms in the observable universe. I guess they must be really tiny people. So, yea it's not a problem in right now and probably not for a long time yet. But, as soon as you start doubling something has to give.

lotharbot 11y ago
population doesn't keep doubling over and over again. It follows a logistic curve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function ). Human population probably reached the midpoint of the curve around 1980 (http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil_files/image004.gif http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil_files/image... ) and is expected to become fairly level between 9 and 13 billion (http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/ http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/ select Population -> Total Population -> WORLD)
- superuser2 11y ago
  Yes, it follows a logistic curve because it hits carrying capacity. The top of that curve is not a pleasant place.
  - clock_tower 11y ago
    In this case, population isn't close to carrying capacity, but is following that curve anyways.
  - lotharbot 11y ago
    The top of the curve can be unpleasant. It doesn't have to be. The worst is when population goes past carrying capacity and then crashes. That's when you get mass die-offs. Population can settle down at carrying capacity simply through reduced birth rates matching up with death rates. That's the situation we see in much of the western world, with better availability of birth control etc.
    - Retric 11y ago
      The top of the curve is unstable. A new plant virus destroys a major crop and suddenly billions starve.
      - lotharbot 11y ago
        Every part of the curve faces that sort of instability. The number of crops actually growing isn't particularly higher than the number needed to sustain the population, and we can't just spin up enough food for billions of people even if we do have plenty of land to do it on. With humanity, "carrying capacity" is unlikely to be food-limited.
        Retric 11y ago
        The large number of overweight Americans is a huge pool of excess food and takes a lot of extra daily calories to maintain. As is the large number of livestock being produced and all that corn ethanol etc. The top of the curve removes that as we can't pay for the inefficiency's of livestock or the extra daily calories to be overweight and feed 50+ billion people.
        lotharbot 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]