|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#41
August 16th 04, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Gactimus wrote in message ...
How many people can the earth support? The Earth is currently stable at around 6~7 billions people (according to 'official' figure). All of those talk about ruined enviroment is only localized, due the fact that there's a small amount of places where things get too concentrated. This can be easily accomplished if spread ourself even more. As for the maximum capacity of the Earth population. Well... I don't know, why not we test it? We could calculate all we want, but the best way to see the maximum capacity is to reach the maximum capacity itself. God once said that Abram/Abraham's descendants would be like the stars in heaven and the sand of seashore, and currently most of Earth population are descendants of Abram/Abraham. The best way to see on how much one can do is to do it, and we currently are not at our full potential. It should be noted that if the Earth population reach a maximum, it will maintain at that level, and then if it's overpopulate, the population will automatically reduce itself. So... It's not like that the Earth will suddenly explode if the population reached maximum, and we currently not at a maximum. But, there are people that make sure that the Earth population will never reach a maximum, by applying some population control. Maybe these people are trying to make sure that Abraham's descendants never reach their full potential? Gactimus wrote: How many people can the earth support? "Ian St. John" wrote in message ... Bloated, wasteful Americans or semi starved African Pygmies? Actually, the average U.S.A.ns is no different than the average Africans. The people in charge are not looking for solutions to the woes of the world. They are looking for thier own advantage, Well... The people 'in charge' know that they need to maintain their own surrounding so that they can survive. So their own advantage is actually the surrounding own advantage. The actual problem is that currently the people in charge aren't really the ones in charge at all, but instead are just minions. (Red Walker) wrote in message . com... Given the current political and socio-economic arrangements, if you try to farm the surface of the oceans, you will probably be shot on suspicion of terrorism or drug dealing. Actually, by the current condition, you're more likely to be shot or arrested under the reason of endangering the enviroment, rather than terrorism and drug dealing. The U.S. doesn't have a few billion to waste on extravagances like sustainable agriculture or space-based energy extraction, but they can always scare up a few billion for a war. That's because the people that loaned the money to the U.S.A. government told the U.S.A. government to do a war. If the U.S.A. wanted to something nice, 'they' wouldn't loaned the money in the first place. How much financial debt does the U.S.A. got anyway? 
|
|
#42
August 16th 04, 09:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ian Stirling wrote in
: In sci.space.policy Thomas Palm wrote: It's quite possible to put the powerplant off earth. In theory, but it has never been demonstrated in practice, and the footprint for equipment to send it up and receive the energy would still be considerable. Nor did Biosphere II include all the factories needed to produce the stuff we use in our daily lives. As a measure of our footprint it is simply a lousy example. It's an estimate at a high number, possible some time in the future. Beaming hundreds of watts at earth from solar powered satellites has already been done. Going to terawatts is just a small matter of engineering. Today it is also a small matter of politics. People are going to get pretty nervous about satellites beaming down terawatts of power and their possible applications as weapons. (Supposedly the energy density used is too low, but what if the owner of the satellite makes some modifications...) Anyway, I fear the real limit to carrying capacity is human greed and stupidity, not any technological problem. As noted we really could produce enough food and resources today to feed everyone, that we does is no failure of technology and the solution is unlikely to be purely technological either.
|
|
#43
August 16th 04, 09:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gactimus" wrote in message ... How many people can the earth support? We could, all of us, stand on Zanzibar.
|
|
#44
August 16th 04, 09:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gactimus" wrote How many people can the earth support? All the responses so far assumed that food production remains dirt-farming and sea-hunting, and dependent on organic synthesis. Once you start converting hydrocarbons into foodstuffs, industrially, you free civilization from surface-scratching. You also doom most of the 'third world' to economic irrelevancy, so make sure your borders are secure. Even to germs. Besides, why force EARTH to support all future people?
|
|
#45
August 16th 04, 10:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 16 Aug 2004 19:46:37 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote: Going to terawatts is just a small matter Idiocy on its face. Tera-anything is no small matter.
|
|
#46
August 16th 04, 10:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:09:53 GMT, Thomas Palm
wrote: Going to terawatts is just a small matter of engineering. Today it is also a small matter of politics. People are going to get pretty nervous about satellites beaming down terawatts of power and their possible applications as weapons. OHHHH mommy, I want a killer death beam. Can I have one? Can I? Can I?
|
|
#47
August 16th 04, 10:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 16 Aug 2004 12:56:03 -0700, (EAC) wrote:
All of those talk about ruined enviroment is only localized, due the fact that there's a small amount of places where things get too concentrated. This can be easily accomplished if spread ourself even more. You take Death Valley, ok?
|
|
#49
August 16th 04, 10:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:44:21 GMT, "Jim Oberg"
wrote: "Gactimus" wrote in message ... How many people can the earth support? We could, all of us, stand on Zanzibar. You go first.
|
|
#50
August 16th 04, 10:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Read my comments below...
"Ian St. John" wrote in message ... 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. This is the first question to ask. The others are quality of life, technology, and how cooperative and altruistic the people are assumed to be. You can feed a LOT of people on pure spirulina, grown in the equatorial ocean deserts. But nobody would WANT to live. Best way to stabilise population is to make the individual lives comfortable ( and that means supporting everyone, with fair distribution of accumulated wealth, not just in the hands of a few, as well as renewable energy and high technology ) so that individual struggles for procration and security from large families are diminished. Concentration of population in a relatively few area ( arcologies would be nice for the aging populations ) so that everyone feels 'crowded' already, while maintaining proportions of pure wilderness barred from human settlement. both on land and in the oceans. This would ensure that populations never went over the carrying capacity of the planet, since the only hunting, fishing and farming would be in the remaining areas and the reservees would ensure that it never got large enough to start an extinction from harvesting pressures. But who'se dreaming? The people in charge are not looking for solutions to the woes of the world. They are looking for thier own advantage, so no amount of speculation will affect the reality of declining ecosystems and increases in poor populations. What exactly is a declining ecosystem? Be sure to define your terms. I found this (see below) at http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/global...epercapita.htm which is a better indicator of what is happening in the world today than your pesimistic statement. quote Global Poverty Down By Half Since 1981 But Progress Uneven As Economic Growth Eludes Many Countries The proportion of people living in extreme poverty (less than $1 a day) in developing countries dropped by almost half between 1981 and 2001, from 40 to 21 percent of global population, according to figures released today by the World Bank. ...snip... /quote
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
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 10:15 AM |
| Radioactive Potassium May Be Major Heat Source in Earth's Core | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | December 15th 03 05:42 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 |
Linear Mode
