talkpolitics | What is Earth's true 'carrying capacity', in human terms?

When the deer on Vancouver Island got to dangerously high levels, Conservationists re introduced a wolf pack back into the ecology. The deer stopped eating themselves out of house and home and returned to a level of population that their island home could support. Maybe Planet Earth is over run with people, and you have to be cruel to be kind and somehow start to 'thin the Human herd'?

In some African nations, women are regularly attacked and killed by crocodiles. But people accept this as inevitable in the same way that Western people accept road traffic accidents as just an inevitable fact of life.
Neither predators nor accidents have a significant affect on population levels.

In spite of famines, plagues and other natural disasters, human populations continue to steadily rise.
The real brake on human population levels is contraception, most widely practised in the (underpopulated) West.
The UN estimate once that Earth could support 12 billion people; Conservatives in the past have tried to prioritise jobs, income and education towards white men men and regard even white women as somehow 'more expendable' or 'surplus to requirements' - so what is Earth's true carrying capacity, and how do we arrange to meet it?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

reduce a number by 50% that is doubling and you get same number.
The failure is that we have goals to reduce consumption by just 10% (and having trouble achieving that) and the number of consumers are growing faster then just double.

i still dont see what you have against the idea of reduce/reuse/recycle

you can say its not reducing enough, but it is the correct word for what you want us to do, is it not?

Not reducing enough? Reducing by 95% would be awesome. But who really wants to reduce consumption but that much? I really enjoy my carbon emitting lifestyle. I like flying to Europe, cranking the AC and eating greenhouse tomatos. As do the Al Gore and Dr Suzuki types.

Current goals of just 10% have their net outputs of tomorrow still more then today's current. These are half assed solutions. We cannot have our cake and eat it to.

If current emmisions levels are detrimental to the health of the planet, we need to reduce enough allow for global growth in both population and cultural advancements. (FYI, Chinese car sales increase almost at exponential rates... 67% in 2009. Bicycle sales have come way down, when they've been traditionally very strong) We require HUGE reductions.

Huge reductions will not fly in political, economical or social circles. Nobody wants to reduce to the point that's necessary. We like the huge energy consuming hospitals. We like food, water and other goods to be delivered fresh, clean and cheap. Unless we can have zero fossil energy consumption we're going to have to shut down all art, all sport, all heritage and all leisure. As if people would agree to this!

But I think we could save the planet by simply using birthcontrol. A vascetomy is cheap and effective means to reduce pollution output, thereby retaining some resemblence of current lifestyles, extending peak oil schedules and still being responsible.

so, bottom line:

you do want us to reduce/reuse/recycle

you just want us to do it in greater quantity than we want to do it

ergo, i dont understand your objection to the mantra
i do understand your objection to our quantity of reduction

What is Earth's true 'carrying capacity', in human terms?

Re: Actually, the real brake is energy.

Re: Actually, the real brake is energy.

Re: Actually, the real brake is energy.

Re: Actually, the real brake is energy.