A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Earth's Carrying Capacity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #331  
Old September 5th 04, 01:08 AM
charliew2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Anthony Frost wrote:
In message
Ian Stirling wrote:

In sci.space.policy Robert Carnegie

wrote: In article
m, Fred K. writes

Well, you might of hinted at this in your orginal statement.
"Quality" seems to me (baring and further clarification on your

part) as a subjective measure. I think the "Quality" is
improving now that we have elimiated smallpox and dodo birds.

AIUI, the dodo was doing fine until we picked on it, and,
conversely, it makes good eating. Either way, I don't see that

its
Made good eating.


Tasted disgusting but was easy to catch and lived at a point where any
"fresh" supplies were welcome. See also Kerguelen cabbage...

Anthony


Hey, there's good news and bad news.

Bad news - it tastes DISGUSTING.
Good news - there's all you can eat!


  #332  
Old September 5th 04, 05:27 AM
DESMODUS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The earths long term carry capacity for humans ids about 6M


  #333  
Old September 5th 04, 05:07 PM
Ian St. John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

DESMODUS wrote:
The earths long term carry capacity for humans ids about 6M


This 'fact' having been extracted from Mr. D's lower bowel and composed
primarily (80%+) of dead bacteria and porphyrins with some undigested fiber
content.


  #334  
Old September 10th 04, 04:17 PM
Walter Bushell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Robert Carnegie wrote:

In article , Sander
Vesik writes
In sci.space.policy Fred K. wrote:
Read my comments below...

"Ian St. John" wrote in message news:XzYTc.4

...
Gactimus wrote:
How many people can the earth support?

Bloated, wasteful Americans or semi starved African Pygmies?


Ian, you sound like a well educated and thoughtful person. ;-
I'm sure you understand that if the answer is Bloated Americans (with
all their technology, and capitalistic infrastructure) that you can
support many, many persons at a healther level than you can support
hunter gatherers.


You know that obesity is a medical condition and isn't exactly better for
the body than semi-starved?


But bloat control is more or less a problem of social
programming. It isn't a problem of resource non-availability.
One way or another, obesity is solvable. Individuals regularly
manage it. I did once, but lately it hasn't been working out so well,
body-mass-index-wise.

Robert Carnegie at home, at large


Ah, that's like the wag who said "Quitting smoking is easy, I've done it
hundreds of times."

--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
  #335  
Old September 10th 04, 04:19 PM
Walter Bushell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote ...
(John Schilling) wrote:

Except that cultural inheritance can be decoupled from biological. The
most blatant methods and examples involving adoption and compulsory
education, but even that isn't absolutely necessary. If a bunch of
unmarried, childless men and women in Hollywood produce every television
program watched and every video grame played by the fruit of your loins
from infancy through adulthood, then exactly whose descendents are we
really talking about?


That's only a valid question if the parents stand utterly silent and
absent from the child's entire life such that the child's only
cultural conditioning comes from said media.


Try Googling "Nanny wars".

There's a current hysteria among the "ordinary folk" who can afford live-in
help about their little darlings growing up speaking with a Guatemalan
accent.


What did they expect? I know they didn't look that far ahead. OTOH a
climate where you are a slacker if you only work 60 hours a week, or
find a part time job a McDoung's, doesn't leave a lot of time for child
care.

--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
  #336  
Old September 11th 04, 05:27 PM
Walter Bushell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Errol Cavit" wrote:

wrote in message
...

snip
There was a study a few years ago which showed that very early
North American inhabitants tended to harvest a certain plant by
tearing it up by the roots and taking it home, rather than by
picking the berries. Killing the plant, in other words. I
seem to recall reading in Nature that the resulting debate
was rather heated.

Even if we found no other evidence, we could date the
expansion of humans in the Pacific by dating the wave
of extinctions that accompanied us.

We have, in part. There are Polynesian rat bones in northern New Zealand
from first century AD (under the Taupo ash layer). We're fairly sure the
Polynesian's that brought them didn't settle in significant numbers (they
were probably explorers, per standard practice), because we would have found
evidence of species taking a big hit (again, per standard practice, as you
say).
At least the Maori did learn from experience (and by necessity), and put
cultural limitations on resource gathering when they hit their resource
crunch (centuries after settling - they are big islands).


What happens is that an equilibrium is reached, societies that consume
their resources don't survive, the "primitive" societies that we see
have reached an equilibrium, mostly.


Now for us, we are in a considerable bind looking for new resources.

--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
  #337  
Old September 11th 04, 05:31 PM
Walter Bushell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Mike Combs" wrote:

No, I'm afraid that phrase doesn't work either in terms of being
polite.

It is possible to be clever and occasionally even cutting or vicious
while still remaining polite, but crude words don't do it.
More than ten points for style in this case.


I started one of my stories with one character saying, "Bite me". The other
character responded with, "What? Why how rude!" So he went, "Sorry.
Please bite me, sir".


hey there was at least one alleged historical character whose message
was "Eat me.", And people still gather in groups to do just that.

--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
  #338  
Old September 11th 04, 05:55 PM
Walter Bushell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:
snip
Yep. The US-anti-hempness is really ... odd.

snip

Religious crusade^w jihad, don't cha know.

--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
  #339  
Old September 11th 04, 05:57 PM
Walter Bushell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:

Wim Lewis wrote:
In article ,
Ian St. John wrote:
Really? Can you explain why it is never used for clothing then?


Uh....? I have several items of linen clothing. I like it because it
lets air through more readily than cotton or silk; on a hot day, this
easily makes the difference between being comfortable or not. And it
would be boring if everything had the same cottony texture. I don't
think I'd like linen underwear, though.

I don't actually remember how expensive they were, but IIRC the
shirts were comparable to cotton shirts of the same general style
and quality in the same store.

I'm guessing that the expense of "fine linen tablecloths" has more to
do with the "fine" than with the "linen".


No, linen really is expensive. Cheap linen anything is
basically non-existent.

Anywho, Cotton's legendary "breathability" is overrated.
Modern synthetics like CoolMax, polypropylene, DryFIT,
polyester microfibers, etc. have superior performance at
decent price points. Synthetics are not as fashionable
though, I guess.


People remember the bad polyester. Yech, one hour in a poly shirt in
Honolulu.

--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
  #340  
Old September 11th 04, 11:08 PM
Robert Carnegie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Walter Bushell writes
In article ,
"Mike Combs" wrote:

No, I'm afraid that phrase doesn't work either in terms of being
polite.

It is possible to be clever and occasionally even cutting or

vicious
while still remaining polite, but crude words don't do it.
More than ten points for style in this case.


I started one of my stories with one character saying, "Bite me". The

other
character responded with, "What? Why how rude!" So he went, "Sorry.
Please bite me, sir".


hey there was at least one alleged historical character whose message
was "Eat me.", And people still gather in groups to do just that.


rec.arts.sf.written says on these occasions "ObSF" and cites a
well-known work in the genre. In this case... did we do it already?

Robert Carnegie at home, at large
--
I am fully aware I may regret this in the morning.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Radioactive Potassium May Be Major Heat Source in Earth's Core Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 20 December 21st 03 11:15 AM
Radioactive Potassium May Be Major Heat Source in Earth's Core Ron Baalke Science 0 December 15th 03 06:42 PM
Incontrovertible Evidence Cash Astronomy Misc 1 August 24th 03 07:22 PM
Incontrovertible Evidence Cash Amateur Astronomy 6 August 24th 03 07:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.