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.
Overpopulation is a myth that has been perpetuated for centuries, and like every other myth, when we pass a landmark and nothing happens, the doomsayers just move the date up.
We have plenty of space to fit everyone, and plenty of resources. The problem is with the logistics of distribution and efficiency with the systems we already have, not the fact there are too many people.
Just take an abstract example from the state of Texas.
Texas = 261,914 miles squared total land excluding lakes and rivers.
This for those of you on the metric system = 7,301,743,257,600 feet.
If the world's population was moved to Texas, each person would have 1123ft2 to him/herself.
If the world population peaks at 12 billion in the next century as is predicted, then each person would have 608ft2 in Texas.
Again efficiency not population size is the problem.
Man kind will, in a time of need, always prevail. Always. I definitely agree that there is a carrying capacity, that part is obvious, just the exact number itself, not so much. I believe before the human race can reach the max, the world would already have run out of resources for us. At that point, we move on. Where to? No idea.
Resource consumption is not a zero sum game. If some serious money was invested into recycling to make it a viable long term alternative to needless mining of more and more resources, then we could sustain a very large ppopulation in relative comfort and luxury.
I am currently trying to find a lecture I saw a long time ago, given by US economist and former head of federal reserve Alan Greenspan on this very question. Can every country become a first world country. The conclusion he came up with, is that the biggest problem we face is energy, since recycling alloys takes a lot of it. However, once we master the energy problem (nuclear fusion perhaps?) then the sky is the limit.
As for food and water, the solutions are simple. With regard to food, we simply need to eat less meat, since planting crops, growing them, then feeding said crops to animals gives us far less food per amount of resources used to produce said food. If we cut down meat consumption it would be incredibly easy to feed the world's population.
Fresh water is a little trickier, however if we assume energy is not a problem in the future, then the energy high process of desalination becomes the solution. The waters in the sea are practically infinite, and are continually topped up by the water cycle. Thus the water problem is solved.
@ Firefly a UN scientist said that the solution to beat world hunger is eating insects. Quite a few scientists believe that larvae, crickets and worms are rich in proteins and minerals that are essential to the human body.
brilliant if it happens but WHY IS NO ONE MAKING CHEAP SOLAR PANELS. you could power this world ten times over with solar panels.
True, but they aren't particularly good at producing energy. You would need a hell of a lot of them to work, and they wouldn't necessarily work in all countries. Nuclear fusion on the other hand could produce massive amounts of energy. Essentially, the power of the sun within a nuclear power station. You would only need one reactor for each country provided the distribution infrastructure was in place.
True, but they aren't particularly good at producing energy. You would need a hell of a lot of them to work, and they wouldn't necessarily work in all countries.
Installing solar panels on every flat roof (flat roofs=already available space) would already contribute a non-negligeable part to electricity production. Well, at least where they work..
@ Firefly a UN scientist said that the solution to beat world hunger is eating insects. Quite a few scientists believe that larvae, crickets and worms are rich in proteins and minerals that are essential to the human body.
Yummy, larvae.. I think it could work very well, we still would need other food but significantly less than now.
I also saw a small news report on the situation in India yesterday. Due to lack of safe storage capacity, like silos (they store it in sacks, stacked on each other, and the first sacks who get there are the last sacks who go away), a lot of the crop is rotten before it can be distributed, which leads to the apparent paradoxon of india being one of the top wheat or whatever cereal producer but has a very high rate of malnutrition and starving people. If they could store all their crops without it rottening there would already be a lot les hunger on the world.
If they could store all their crops without it rottening there would already be a lot les hunger on the world.
It's also because it costs a lot more to distribute the food amongst the population than it does to let it rot. Due to India's reliance on subsidised farming, there is sadly no sign of this system correcting tiself in the near future. It's all detailed in this article.
Nuclear fusion on the other hand could produce massive amounts of energy
Nuclear fusion would be great to have but it sounds extremely difficult to develop. In order to force the molecules together one would have to have high pressure and temperature conditions similar to that of stars (which is why it works for the sun). The conditions seem impossible to generate, though I have heard several rumors of "cold fusion" which would allow for a lower temp.
Nuclear fusion would be great to have but it sounds extremely difficult to develop. In order to force the molecules together one would have to have high pressure and temperature conditions similar to that of stars (which is why it works for the sun). The conditions seem impossible to generate, though I have heard several rumors of "cold fusion" which would allow for a lower temp.
The only really practical way we have now to recreate fusion is through particle accelerators, such as the LHC in Cern. The problem with this as an energy source is that it draws entirely too much energy, and due to the necessities in construction it doesn't allow for a continuous feed of matter into the collision, thus negating any long term benefits as a power source.
As far as "cold fusion", the rumors have been around for a very long time, however none of the information leading to the plausibility of such a reaction have netted anything worthwhile. Our technology just simply isn't at a stage yet where either of these seem like immediately viable options.
The conditions seem impossible to generate, though I have heard several rumors of "cold fusion" which would allow for a lower temp.
As I understand if suitably large magnetic fields could be generated, cold fusion would be fairly easy. The problem is generating large enough magnetic fields to confine the reaction.
