Earth's Carrying Capacity

How many people can the earth support?

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:52:32 -0400, Gactimus wrote:

How many people can the earth support?

Are you talking midgets or basketball players?

Gactimus wrote:
How many people can the earth support?

Bloated, wasteful Americans or semi starved African Pygmies?

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.

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

On 16 Aug 2004 14:35:53 -0700, (Fred K.) wrote:

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

Ohhhh, I am so glad those people making less than $1 a day are now
making $1,01 a day. I was worried about their poverty, but not any
more. thanks for the concscience lobotomy. Now where do I sign up as a
Repug voter?

Want to talk about backshooters? George Bush buddy Sun Myung Moon gave
nuclear weapons submarine sea-launch technology to North Korea in
1994.
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Nukes.html


http://home.earthlink.net/~zkkatz/page76.html

Sun Myung Moon owns WASHINGTON TIMES NEWSPAPER

Here's a guy the Republicans don't want us to know about.

The Reverend Sun Myung Moon, head of the Unification Church and a
self-declared Messiah from South Korea, is a major behind-the-scenes
GOP player. His organization owns The Washington Times, the
right-wing newspaper Ronald Reagan once called his favorite. Moon
said he has pumped over $1 billion into the paper since the Church
bought it in 1982. Those poor Moonies had to sell a lot of flowers!
http://home.earthlink.net/~zkkatz/page18.html

Most folks recognize Moon as a dangerous cult leader who has
recruited, brainwashed, and enslaved thousands of unsuspecting
students from college campuses since the 1970s.

They also remember the mass weddings he conducted at Yankee and RFK
stadiums where thousands of couples were brought together. Critics
say church officials arranged the marriages to circumvent American
immigration laws.

Moon controls a multibillion dollar tax-free business empire. In the
mid-1980s, he served a year in prison for tax evasion. A lesser
known fact is that his business operations have competed for, and
received, government contracts worth millions of dollars. No
ordinary commercial operation can compete with a Moonie shop because
you can't beat the low cost of slave labor.

Moon says he's the only person in the world who knows all the secrets
of God. Well, isn't he smart? He says he's been the Messiah ever
since he ran into Jesus in Korea in 1936. He says Jesus asked him to
take over the mission -- the one Moon says Jesus screwed up because He
didn't get married.

Moon continues his lifelong pursuit of recognition -- to be crowned
the new world Messiah. But he has often complained, "look, I'm doing
my best to be the Messiah. You try to be the Messiah." Look,
Moonpie -- Jesus never bitched about it, so clam up!

Moon came to the U.S. in the early 1970s. His organization is said
to be not religious, but political. It has connections to South
Korean intelligence operations designed to bolster the U.S. commitment
to Seoul in case North Korea invades. His clout in Washington
increased substantially during the Reagan administration because both
Reagan and Moon are rabid anti-Communists.

He has given millions of dollars to a number of Republicans. Paid
speakers at his Family Federation for World Peace have included George
Bush, William Bennett, Jack Kemp, and Ralph Reed. In the early
1990s, his organization funneled millions to Jerry Falwell's Liberty
University when it was facing staggering debts.
http://home.earthlink.net/~zkkatz/page19.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~zkkatz/page31.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~zkkatz/page53.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~zkkatz/page75.html

And Moon has strange ideas about sex. He's been married four times,
but his followers say the first three marriages were not consummated
and thus do not count.

Moon once told a conference that misunderstandings about male and
female sex organs have led to confusion. He said his theology
dictates that the husband owns his wife's sex organs, and vice versa.
So if my wife wants to castrate me, that's her right?

And where does he stand on family values? In 1998, his
daughter-in-law, Nansook Hong, told 60 Minutes that Moon had cheated
on his wife and fathered an illegitimate son. She said he called it
"providential affairs." That Moon's got a fancy word for everything,
especially when he's been doing something naughty.

Nansook also told of a brutal beating she got from her
drug-and-alcohol-addicted husband when she was pregnant. Moon and
his wife blamed her, saying it was her fate to suffer. Her fate?
Well, screw that! So Nansook fled Moon's high-security compound in
Tarrytown, New York, along with her five children.

Moon also has an estranged daughter, Un-Jin. She supports her
sister-in-law's story.

And this guy says he's the new Messiah. Yeah, right.

: Psalm 110
: Moon once told a conference that misunderstandings about male and
: female sex organs have led to confusion. He said his theology
: dictates that the husband owns his wife's sex organs, and vice versa.
: So if my wife wants to castrate me, that's her right?

Oh heavens no. You have an easement that would prevent that.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

Fred K. wrote:
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. ;-

Flattery will get you.. well a hearing...

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.

Technology was a different issue. The one above was purely on well fed and
genetically large people or semi starved midgets. That is assuming that
calories are the limiting factor and all others are kept the same.



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.

Both words are well defiend in the dictinoary. "declining" is a an
adjective. Ecosystem is a noun.


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.

GDP is a fairly crude measure of poverty. A person making $10k/year in New
York City is probably 'poorer' than a farmer in Zimbabwe who uses cash only
for a few luxuries and metal tools.

"Ian St. John" wrote in message ...
Fred K. wrote:
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?



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.

Both words are well defiend in the dictinoary. "declining" is a an
adjective. Ecosystem is a noun.

They are well defined in the dictionary but they are mostly
meaningless in the context of what you are trying to communicate.
Ecosystem is defined as:

The interacting system of a biological community and its nonliving
environment.
by www.cabq.gov/aes/glossary.html

So what exactly is declining? (The Earth's mass = biomass + nonbiomass
= roughly constant) How is that connected to the "people in charge";
and who are they exactly?




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.

GDP is a fairly crude measure of poverty. A person making $10k/year in New
York City is probably 'poorer' than a farmer in Zimbabwe who uses cash only
for a few luxuries and metal tools.

Quite possibly depending on how you measure poverty.

I don't think your orginal assessment that poor populations are
increasing is a fair statement of the world situation. My point is
that the general trend across the world (with some local exceptions)
is toward more wealth, even among poor populations.

Fred K. wrote:
"Ian St. John" wrote in message
...
Fred K. wrote:
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?



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.

Both words are well defiend in the dictinoary. "declining" is a an
adjective. Ecosystem is a noun.

They are well defined in the dictionary but they are mostly
meaningless in the context of what you are trying to communicate.

There are no meaningless words. Only meaningless minds who cannot understand
them.

Ecosystem is defined as:

The interacting system of a biological community and its nonliving
environment.
by www.cabq.gov/aes/glossary.html

So what exactly is declining?

The primary characteristic ( that you seem to have overlooked for your
'weight scale' approach) is 'interacting system'. The quality and variety of
that interaction is declining as we continue to throw monkey wrenchs in at
random.

(The Earth's mass = biomass + nonbiomass
= roughly constant) How is that connected to the "people in charge";
and who are they exactly?

The ones with the monkey wrenches. There are a variety of monkey wrenches,
from clearcutting to fishing licenses, to .. which is why you cannot
identify them except as the people who make the decisions ( the people in
charge).





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.

GDP is a fairly crude measure of poverty. A person making $10k/year
in New York City is probably 'poorer' than a farmer in Zimbabwe who
uses cash only for a few luxuries and metal tools.

Quite possibly depending on how you measure poverty.

That was my point. Even in the U.S., comparing poor families with the same
income may have radically different levels of 'poorness' depending on
whether they own their own home, their location, how much they can tap into
the gray market for day to day necessities, etc.



I don't think your orginal assessment that poor populations are
increasing is a fair statement of the world situation.

It is a fact of life. One measure has been the 'wage parity' gap showing how
the lower levels of society are increasing being 'left out' of the wealth
generation. Another is taxation levels which are moving away from the
corporation and weatlhy to put the burden on the lower levels of society.
Generally state and local taxes are sufficiently 'anti-progressive' so as to
counter the progressive taxation of the federal level.
http://www.ctj.org/html/whopay.htm

Just looking at the fact that welfare, minimum wage, and other relevant
measures have been 'frozen' for decades while inflation reduces their levels
in real dollars shows how the problem is being 'covered up' deliberately.
The income levels that defined 'poor' in the thirties to fifties when such
things were first established, work out to about 30% of the real needs in
the current decade.

..

My point is
that the general trend across the world (with some local exceptions)
is toward more wealth, even among poor populations.

In sci.space.policy Fred K. wrote:
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.

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

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++