3 ms·
It's not even very interesting if the growth is logistically or exponentially. The point is: there is significant growth. And it doesn't stop until you reach th
by revelation 14y ago
It's not even very interesting if the growth is logistically or exponentially. The point is: there is significant growth. And it doesn't stop until you reach the limit of what the environment can carry. You say that number is projected to be 9-12 billion.
And then we run out of oil. What happens as the mortality skyrockets and humanity downsizes to the new carrying capacity?
- lotharbot 14y ago> "It's not even very interesting if the growth is logistically or exponentially." It very much matters which it is. It's the difference between stabilizing at 20% more population than we currently have and dealing with a little more overcrowding, and getting so crowded that we don't have toilets any more. Running out of oil is going to change American lifestyles significantly. I'm not convinced it's going to change global carrying capacity by very much, though. Do you have a credible model that says otherwise? I would like to see such a thing (in its fullest form.)
- zanny 14y agoI'm more concerned with rising mean global temperatures rendering areas surrounding the equator uninhabitable, when the average temperature gets up near 40c. You won't be able to grow crops anymore, and it will drive people away. If you move the human habitable zone away from the equator, you have less and less land, and even less flatland for ariable farming. So besides the slash and burn land quality loss, you are potentially losing degrees of latitude of ariable space.