In biology last week, we were talking about carrying capacities (i.e. how many organisms of one species can populate an area at one time), and I was wondering if the human population had a carrying capacity.
Yes, we do have a carrying capacity. Even though we are a societal creature and have basic instincts to work and help together, there will be a point in which we cannot contain everyone at once. When this happens, the population will lower a bit. If society just can't meet the needs of the extremely high population, the competition will get rough. Those that cannot compete will not survive. This will contribute to the decreasing population. Soon, however, we will be in stable conditions, but only after the population goes back to being stable.
Absolutely there is a carrying capacity. The difficulty with determining what that number is lies in the fact that the consumption of resources varies so widely by region and culture.
The broadest estimates put that capacity somewhere between 2 million and 40 million people. As consumption goes up, the capacity goes down. For instance, middle-class Americans, on average, consume ~3.3 times the needed resources, while in underdeveloped areas of the world that number drops below 1.
Another issue which makes an exact estimate difficult is that we have the capacity and technology to increase the carrying capacity of our resources, such as crops and livestock, which in turn increases our carrying capacity. However in so doing we have created new issued, such as desertification and deforestation, which counteract that increase.
Unless we find that 'happy medium' in which we are increasing the capacity of our resources while having a minimal negative effect on the environment and some of our other resources, we will never be able to reach our maximum carrying capacity.
I wonder is there is any way to return nutrients to soil that's been farmed out. That could prevent rapid deforestation.
We do return nutrients to the soil, mostly through fertilizers and vitamins, but mostly by crop rotation. Most crops use specific minerals in the soil for food, and deposit new nutrients as a result. By rotating crops you can use the same land continuously without forcing it fallow.
The main issue with deforestation is the rapid consumption of wood products, limited designated logging land, and the logging and mining going on world wide, especially in areas like the rainforests of South America. What we need is alternative resources which are more easily renewed and have many of the same benefits.
I knew about things such as crop rotation and stair farming. But they take time, and in many places even crop rotation doesn't work. I was referring to something that consistently renewed all resources and minerals in the land.
What we need is alternative resources which are more easily renewed and have many of the same benefits.
I guess that means plastic is out. So we need something that is similar to plastic, but doesn't rely oil products, and breaks down easily in natural environments. Why is wood still used so consistently in furniture isn't plastic cheaper and in some cases stronger?
What we need is alternative resources which are more easily renewed and have many of the same benefits.
Genetically modified material, or-if it can be achieved- living material that would restore itself. Create a cell with extremely hard properties to mimic plastic that can further clean itself. Or maybe create water inside the bottle via chemical reactions.
So we need something that is similar to plastic, but doesn't rely oil products, and breaks down easily in natural environments.
Actually we've begun making new plastics out of plant materials. I've only given the information a cursory glance, but it looks rather promising.
Why is wood still used so consistently in furniture isn't plastic cheaper and in some cases stronger?
Not necessarily, and wood lasts much longer, is more aesthetically pleasing, and requires much less manufacturing and processing to create items from it.
I've heard of VF for a while now, and it seems like a great idea. Some issues arise, though, with the circulation of gases. We require plants to filter out the CO2 in the atmosphere and make breathable oxygen for us. One necessity in such a system as VF would be an extensive ventilation network, and preferably a system by which the floors could be rotated out into sunlight or something similar to increase the exposure of the plants to the UV rays they need for photosynthesis, as well as exposing them more to our atmospheric air as opposed to a highly filtered product in the buildings.
Some issues arise, though, with the circulation of gases.
Good point, one idea pertaining to this would simply be to make the farm itself a produce store and a restaurant, which with an extensive ventilation system would help to provide the plants with CO2 as well as us humans with O2.
Good point, one idea pertaining to this would simply be to make the farm itself a produce store and a restaurant, which with an extensive ventilation system would help to provide the plants with CO2 as well as us humans with O2.
It still wouldn't be proportional, and it would have an overall detrimental effect to the atmosphere if, as the population grew, we increased, or even kept the same our CO2 emissions yet decreased the amount of flora with access to open air circulation throughout the atmosphere.
I'm sure there are ways around this, and I would hope that they have been thought of, although I didn't see much mention of such things on the site. Perhaps as this becomes a more viable option such things will be addressed in detail.
It still wouldn't be proportional, and it would have an overall detrimental effect to the atmosphere if, as the population grew, we increased, or even kept the same our CO2 emissions yet decreased the amount of flora with access to open air circulation throughout the atmosphere.
Ah, you meant overall sorry I thought you were referring to the vertical farm itself. I did a paper on this a while back but I can't remember a lot of details on gas exchange, perhaps simply a massive ventilation system would work as you suggested.
Perhaps as this becomes a more viable option such things will be addressed in detail.
I would assume, more viable than Biosphere 2 at least..
For instance, middle-class Americans, on average, consume ~3.3 times the needed resources, while in underdeveloped areas of the world that number drops below 1.
I'm going to ask a lot of questions about this so hear me out. What is defined as the needed resources of a human? Are needed resources just basic biological needs or are resources that contribute to our safety needed resources? Are needed resources measured in weight, category, or anything else?
It depends on size as in height, and weight. Those with tall, muscular bodies will need more energy to function properly than those smaller than them. I'm not sure how it works for those who are obese.
Of course it does. It is raised by technology, but one is set nonetheless. The better technology we have, the higher our carrying capacity. Now would be a good time to talk about genetically engineered plants, if the discussion has not already started.
What is defined as the needed resources of a human? Are needed resources just basic biological needs or are resources that contribute to our safety needed resources? Are needed resources measured in weight, category, or anything else?
They are typically defined as air, food, water, and shelter/territory. These are simply the basic needs of humans for survival and at least some measure of security. As far as measurement, it depends on what you are measuring. Air would be O2 as well as atmospheric pressure, water would be measured in gallons of fresh water, food in pounds per person per diem, and shelter in either acreage or square footage most commonly.
