5 ms·
Have heard this before 8 billion would be too much. I've learned human population is always in an equilibrium with the technological ability to provide for them
by dominicl 6y ago
Have heard this before 8 billion would be too much. I've learned human population is always in an equilibrium with the technological ability to provide for them. So agriculture innovation leads to further population growths. What hard limit are we running into? Why not further innovation and 16 billion?
- mytailorisrich 6y agoWe are not in equilibrium as the climate and environmental situation makes absolutely plain.
- lnsru 6y agoMaybe climate is in absolute equilibrium. Warmer climate opens new areas for living. Just look at the globe - there are much more land in the north than on equator.
- chrisco255 6y agoYes but despite the rhetoric about runaway warmth, northern Canada and Russia remain fairly inhospitable.
- killtimeatwork 6y agoI suspect it's a matter of time. However, from what I've read most of the soil in Siberia is very poor for farming, so I guess there won't be much food production coming from there even if the climate becomes warmer...
- kijin 6y agoIf you really want to, soil quality can be fixed with heavy machinery and chemical fertilizers. But the new, warmer climate isn't particularly stable yet, so it's probably not wise to pour too much resources into that mega-project at this time.
- chrisco255 6y agoDon't bet on it. We're still in an ice age and a glacial period will return before Canada and Russia become tropical paradise.
- esarbe 6y agoWell, it's not. In equilibrium, that is. Whatever you mean by it - it's not. What makes you think that these countries will let in the desperate fugitives? No, that won't happen.
- mytailorisrich 6y agoDestroying the environment in order to expand our use of resources is not an equilibrium. We've never been in equilibrium. We've continuously expanded at the expense of other species. It's just that now the limit of this expansion has become very visible
- esarbe 6y agoYeah, no. There's no equilibrium. What we are currently doing is predatory ecosystem exploitation where we destroy our own life support system for the short gain. All that loss of habitats and of biodiversity? That's going come back to bite use hard and it's not waiting for the far future. This shit is happening within the next 25 years. To think that we are in any kind of equilibrium is to delude yourself.
- viraptor 6y agoLong term equilibrium for the species is not a great concept for us right now. At some point we'll run into an ecological problem wiping out most of the corn in the US for a year. That could be a potato famine level event, but we'll regrow in a few decades... equilibrium kept, but it doesn't help those who starved.