4 ms·

> The planet and its resources has a finite carrying capacity. Given we have most of the world in need of developing to reach the levels we enjoy, I suspect we

> The planet and its resources has a finite carrying capacity. Given we have most of the world in need of developing to reach the levels we enjoy, I suspect we are far past that capacity already This argument has been made for hundreds of years, and for hundreds of years it's failed to pan out. Perhaps this time is different though. "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man." - Thomas Malthus (1798)

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Malthus was a while ago - what leads you to believe the planet now has an infinite capacity for humans?
- nickles 7y ago
  I should clarify I was responding to your assertion that the earth is far past capacity. ~10% of Earth’s land is occupied by humans. Not all of that is arable, but humans have successfully terraformed throughout history and conceivably will become more capable with technological advances. Malthus is not unique in his prognostications. Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb (1968) was more recent and predicted mass famine by the 1970s. Instead, we produce a massive surplus of food each year, although it’s not distributed adequately at present. This happened well after the Haber process (presumably the fossil fuel dividend you refer to) and occurred as a result of improved farming techniques, equipment, and crops. Thanks to technological developments in the fossil fuels sector (fracking, horizontal drilling, etc.), fears about running out of oil have largely subsided. Simultaneously, advances in renewable energy sources are rapidly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Already, some electric grids are struggling with capacity — not because of a shortage of energy, rather due to an excess of electricity produced by renewable sources. Although none of this points to an Earth beyond its carrying capacity, it also does not factor in further efficiency gains resulting from future technological progress. At the same time, we are attempting to develop the technology necessary to access extraterrestrial resources. Given that, even the finite resources available on Earth are not necessarily a limiting factor to growth.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Call it half of land area, not 10%. Of total land area circa 10% is developed, 10% arable and a shade over 25% permanent pasture for livestock[1], and a few other minor agricultural uses. Of the rest we have forests, permafrost, deserts, mountains, marsh, scrub and other marginal land. The best crop and pasture land is long gone. What's left with potential appear to be the places we need to not lose - rainforests and such. God help everyone if we are able or need to start farming former permafrost. Changing farming through mechanisation, artificial fertiliser and de-population of agriculture has been a steady march since WW2 (mostly). All leveraged on fossil fuel, and mostly a one-time dividend. Past capacity as the rest close the development gap (you can't just miss that out), based on all resource use, and associated pollution - environmental overshoot - not mere calories. Not just a baseless assertion as we are assessed to be 70% beyond the ecosystem's capacity to absorb[2] right now. We've been beyond it for years. We're on borrowed time even without more development. Overshoot day[3] has gained a fair bit of publicity in recent years, but there's plenty of different measures all pointing to the same trends and issues. With that level of accelerating overshoot, the planet can barely cope - the list of global scale and population related issues is huge. Yet coming en masse as a "surprise" is mostly to be expected given the growth curve. So there seems precious little headroom left, even if we do miraculously work to achieve zero carbon by 2050. Not expecting us to get anywhere near it any more though. Pretending population is just fine, or "growth is vital" as TFA claims is, whilst the globe does almost naff all to become sustainable is, frankly, nuts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Ecological_footprint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Ecological_f... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      Thank you. A lot of what you have said resonates and you have made your points eloquently and patiently.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Malthus was a while ago - what leads you to believe the planet now has an infinite capacity for humans?

nickles 7y ago
I should clarify I was responding to your assertion that the earth is far past capacity. ~10% of Earth’s land is occupied by humans. Not all of that is arable, but humans have successfully terraformed throughout history and conceivably will become more capable with technological advances. Malthus is not unique in his prognostications. Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb (1968) was more recent and predicted mass famine by the 1970s. Instead, we produce a massive surplus of food each year, although it’s not distributed adequately at present. This happened well after the Haber process (presumably the fossil fuel dividend you refer to) and occurred as a result of improved farming techniques, equipment, and crops. Thanks to technological developments in the fossil fuels sector (fracking, horizontal drilling, etc.), fears about running out of oil have largely subsided. Simultaneously, advances in renewable energy sources are rapidly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Already, some electric grids are struggling with capacity — not because of a shortage of energy, rather due to an excess of electricity produced by renewable sources. Although none of this points to an Earth beyond its carrying capacity, it also does not factor in further efficiency gains resulting from future technological progress. At the same time, we are attempting to develop the technology necessary to access extraterrestrial resources. Given that, even the finite resources available on Earth are not necessarily a limiting factor to growth.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Call it half of land area, not 10%. Of total land area circa 10% is developed, 10% arable and a shade over 25% permanent pasture for livestock[1], and a few other minor agricultural uses. Of the rest we have forests, permafrost, deserts, mountains, marsh, scrub and other marginal land. The best crop and pasture land is long gone. What's left with potential appear to be the places we need to not lose - rainforests and such. God help everyone if we are able or need to start farming former permafrost. Changing farming through mechanisation, artificial fertiliser and de-population of agriculture has been a steady march since WW2 (mostly). All leveraged on fossil fuel, and mostly a one-time dividend. Past capacity as the rest close the development gap (you can't just miss that out), based on all resource use, and associated pollution - environmental overshoot - not mere calories. Not just a baseless assertion as we are assessed to be 70% beyond the ecosystem's capacity to absorb[2] right now. We've been beyond it for years. We're on borrowed time even without more development. Overshoot day[3] has gained a fair bit of publicity in recent years, but there's plenty of different measures all pointing to the same trends and issues. With that level of accelerating overshoot, the planet can barely cope - the list of global scale and population related issues is huge. Yet coming en masse as a "surprise" is mostly to be expected given the growth curve. So there seems precious little headroom left, even if we do miraculously work to achieve zero carbon by 2050. Not expecting us to get anywhere near it any more though. Pretending population is just fine, or "growth is vital" as TFA claims is, whilst the globe does almost naff all to become sustainable is, frankly, nuts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Ecological_footprint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Ecological_f... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    Thank you. A lot of what you have said resonates and you have made your points eloquently and patiently.