4 ms·

Are you so sure? Surely the rest of planet was better off before the advent of agriculture, when density was very low. Increased human carrying capacity does n

by blix 6y ago

Are you so sure? Surely the rest of planet was better off before the advent of agriculture, when density was very low. Increased human carrying capacity does not necesarily mean increases for any other organism. I would think they would tend to be negatively correlated.

omegaworks 6y ago
Second-order effects of densification and development improve the prognosis of many organisms. Birthrate is lower in developed societies, at or below replacement level. Land use is lower in dense, urbanized societies. Overall, cities are better for everything on the planet. If we were hunting and gathering like we did before agriculture not only would we fail to support our current population by several orders of magnitude, we'd hunt and gather other organisms to extinction, just like we did with the mammoth and dodo.
- blix 6y ago
  Which developing countries are rural and sparse but use more land than, say, Germany, where humans use essentially every available piece of land? That hunter-gathering couldn't sustain the current population is not evidence that the planet would be worse off. Neither are birth rates. High population growth rates are a side effect of development, which is usually accompanied with both urbanization and ecological damage. It's a very common story. The dodo was killed off in the 1600s by urban, agricultural Europeans. You might want to revisit some of the data you used to come to your conclusion.
  - omegaworks 6y ago
    If the dodo was farmed, it wouldn't be extinct. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - blix 6y ago
      The vast majority of organisms cannot be profitably farmed. Are you suggesting a world devoid of all wildlife but with whole continents of corn and soybean monocultures would be "good for the planet"? Perhaps if your view of which species count is very narrow.

4 ms·

Are you so sure? Surely the rest of planet was better off before the advent of agriculture, when density was very low. Increased human carrying capacity does n

by blix 6y ago

omegaworks 6y ago
Second-order effects of densification and development improve the prognosis of many organisms. Birthrate is lower in developed societies, at or below replacement level. Land use is lower in dense, urbanized societies. Overall, cities are better for everything on the planet. If we were hunting and gathering like we did before agriculture not only would we fail to support our current population by several orders of magnitude, we'd hunt and gather other organisms to extinction, just like we did with the mammoth and dodo.
- blix 6y ago
  Which developing countries are rural and sparse but use more land than, say, Germany, where humans use essentially every available piece of land? That hunter-gathering couldn't sustain the current population is not evidence that the planet would be worse off. Neither are birth rates. High population growth rates are a side effect of development, which is usually accompanied with both urbanization and ecological damage. It's a very common story. The dodo was killed off in the 1600s by urban, agricultural Europeans. You might want to revisit some of the data you used to come to your conclusion.
  - omegaworks 6y ago
    If the dodo was farmed, it wouldn't be extinct. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - blix 6y ago
      The vast majority of organisms cannot be profitably farmed. Are you suggesting a world devoid of all wildlife but with whole continents of corn and soybean monocultures would be "good for the planet"? Perhaps if your view of which species count is very narrow.