More Doom and Gloom

From the Columbus Dispatch on Tuesday:

Right now, Earth’s carrying capacity is thought to be somewhere in the range of 4 billion to 5 billion people.

There are 6.5 billion of us.

...

"If we were to replace our reliance on fossil fuels and instead grow fuel plants, that would require setting aside lots of land to produce ethanol," [Ohio State University ecologist Tom Waite*] said.

"We don’t have enough land worldwide to meet those demands."

Demand for food, fuel and materials already consumes more trees and crops than are being grown worldwide.

*Not to be confused with Tom Waits.

Comments

[Pete Geddes]

Assignment for professor Waite. Please discuss the ecological effects of an autarky with your students:

"An autarky is an economy that limits trade with the outside world, or an ecosystem not affected by influences from its outside, and relies entirely on its own resources. In the economic meaning, it is also referred to as a closed economy."

[John Whitehead]

If the earth's population is over carrying capacity, won't we start to die so the population falls back to carrying capacity?

[Dano]

If you ask EO Wilson what the earth's CC is, he'll tell you if it at the consumption levels of Japan or US, the number is 200M.

But anyway, Pete, I don't understand your point. What does it have to do with ecosystem carrying capacity?

John, our numbers will start to collapse when ecosystems lose their resilience, flip, and then our economy and society won't know how to act in the new regimes. Until then, ecosystems continue to absorb our stressors.

Best,

D

[Pete Geddes]

If you read the entire piece, professor Waite is clearly suggesting a return to the small is beautiful, consume only what you can find and manufacture locally, mantra. This is the path to poverty and ecological ruin.

[joshua corning]

I'm no professor but, how again do we consume more crops then are being produced?

[joshua corning]

John, our numbers will start to collapse when ecosystems lose their resilience, flip, and then our economy and society won't know how to act in the new regimes. Until then, ecosystems continue to absorb our stressors.

That is going to happen in 1980. Right?

[Dano]

Thank you Pete. I read the same piece you did and came away with a different conclusion.

Best,

D

[bird dog]

Why didn't he mention "nucular" energy? Heck, who wants to go backwards to using plants as fuel? Dumb.

[Steve Kenzie]

It's not a question of consuming more crops than are being produced, but rather of consuming more than are being sustainably produced.

With continued growth in population and/or consumption, it seems inevitable that eventually some aspect of the earth's carrying capacity will be exhausted and the world's population will either adjust its consumption habits or its size.

[joshua corning]

It's not a question of consuming more crops than are being produced, but rather of consuming more than are being sustainably produced.

That may or may not be what he meant...I was pointing out the stupidity of what he actually said.

[chris miller]

Where does that 4-5B number come from? 2B is what I've seen repeatedly. It clearly depends on the standard of living and that's something I'd like to see more about.

[derek Smith]

But if we burn more fossil fuels and pump more co2 into the atmosphere, it will stimulate greater plant growth, create more water efficient agriculture and extend the growing seasons in the higher latitudes thus producing potentially more food for the extra billions. Anyway, when the next glacial period hits it will savage the human population and most likely reduce it to a few hunred million.