Are we slowly reaching the carrying capacity for the human race on our earth?
>>16290640We only need another Green Revolution and bomb! Earth can now support trillions of people more.
>>16290646Imagine all the Einsteins we could have with trillions of people!
>>16290640enriching the atmosphere with additional CO2 increases carrying capacity. as it currently stands the calculated carrying capacity is estimated at something between half a trillion and trillion.
>>16290640Don't be racist OP. The only population growth now without immigration is sub-Saharan Africa.
>>16290640>human>raceHuman species.
>>16290640Carrying capacity is sort of a meme because there's always something new being invented. In the 1800s they were sure a billion people were about to starve to death because they were running out of bird poop islands to mine for fertilizer, and then the Haber Bosch process was invented.All the elements in starches and fats are extremely common, and it isn't unthinkable that someone could build a chemical reactor that can make calories out of air and electricity. If that's too eat zee bugs you can just use it as animal feed and then everyone can have a ribeye for the cost of a can of beansOn electricity, paving like 1% of America's farmland area in solar panels out in the desert would provide all their electricity. That's solar, the cheapest and shittiest non hydrocarbon method we have.On materials, I strongly suspect we'll see some unexpected and generally unseen impacts from space exploration. Basically, resources on Earth are concentrated as a result of life. Iron deposits are formed from the planetary algal blooms oxygenating the atmosphere for example. In space it is much more distributed, so mining on other bodies will require methods to squeeze every last element from a scoop of dirt. It may be that in the future, mining tailings are pure silicon dioxide, because every single useful atom has been sucked out.When you have precise control over atoms at the industrial scale, it isn't clear what could possibly run out of. My guess is your only scarcity would be peace and quiet, which opens a whole can of non /sci/ related worms
>>16290640>earth is the only planet in the uriverse!unintentionally truefunny how atheists claim certain things, but will reveal their beliefs to the contrary through impricit bias when unrelated things come upJesus is Lord
>>16290692I don't know why I bothered leaving a long a reply on this schizo board >>16290709
>>16290716are these schizos on the board with us now, anon?
>>16290718Yeah I literally linked to one in my post retard
>>16290646One of the most troubling things is how much faith IFLS! has in the ability of science to keep conjuring up additional green revolutions as needed. While there is a generally positive correlation between investing in scientific research and scientific discovery, it's never been a one-to-one relationship that produces discovery on a regular schedule like a widget factory. And there's a worrying trend of what's basically anti-science, the production of avalanches of poor or factually incorrect data due to the needs of academics looking to advance their careers rather than advancing science. This risks pushing the correlation between investment in science and genuine scientific discovery into the negative.
>>16290731It's worth pointing out the absurdity of still relying on plants at all. You can only increase the efficiency so much. These things need to self construct every year, maintain an immune system, only work when the sun is out during a specific season, etc. Producing calories with electricity directly is some absurd increase in productivity, like 100 times if you're using solar over the same area. With a few fission reactors you could produce all the Earth's food
>>16290640No, we are reaching the carrying capacity for CAPITALISM on our planet.
>>16290716Just because someone doesn't have faith in your religion doesn't make them a schizo. Your very first sentence is a statement of faith. Everything else is just babbling on about the wonders of your infallible religion. There's nothing scientific in your belief in Scientism.
>>16290743Unfortunately any alternative you can name that's actually been tested has a much lower carrying capacity, at least in the short to mid term. Long term something like primativism might indeed be better as it can only support small populations at any moment but doesn't degrade the environment long term. But usually people who rage about capitalism are communists who know good and well that every time communism has been put into large scale production, it has failed horribly and degraded the environment in terrible ways over very short periods of time. They just want to be lazy and get freebies during their lifespan. What happens after that is of no concern to the communist.
>>16290750All we have to do (yes, it's that simple) is consume less, at every level, individual and society.That way, we'll waste less, pollute less and destroy less.
not even close. papua new guinea can hold about 1 billion asians more. amazon like 10 billion new people. and russia? well, its kinda too cold but you manage to put another billion there for the warmest parts. canada? yes 5 billion there too just wait for global warming by 10 degrees
>>16290745There's no physics reason why any of that won't work, we're just waiting for the same economic forcing function that brought about the Haber Bosch process.>>16290755Extrapolate that out a little and you'll understand why competing systems have always led to the deaths of millions of their own people
>>16290640Eh, no. Even nearing it is sufficient to topple human civilization due to how complex things are, and we are nearing it apparently. That being said to all the farming revolution anons that confidently assert 500 billion coombrains can live on this planet:> what? what the fuck? do you idiots realize that our current human:non-human animal biomass ratio is fucked, and animals are going extinct left and right? We had giant ground sloths and cave bears and massive eagles, and that was prehistory. Now we can’t even get frogs to survive, and once they’re gone the food web will collapse in many places leading to more extinction
>>16290640Demographically, we seem to be approaching a near peak.>carrying capacityOh, we left that behind long ago, we're already on a mass extinction. As a species, we're absolutely trampling the habitat that feeds us.
>>16290731More "efficient" agricultural techniques are always at the cost of something.One such example is potash, we have access to fertilizer ... at the cost of chopping down pine forests.
>>16290646The first green revolution was already a mistake, look how fucking crowded this place is.
>>16290731>One of the most troubling things is how much faith IFLS! has in the ability of science to keep conjuring up additional green revolutions as needed. You know, this shit is all coming down crashing on us sooner or later. If one major supply chain breaks down, even if it is only tangentially linked to food production/agriculture, we're in for a big surprise.
The answer is clearly no. Just look at Africa.
>>16290640Earth can potentially support 100 billion people.https://akarlin.com/world-population/
>>16291167So human and cattle population has grown at the cost of wild animals and birds?
>>16290640no you can vertically integrate farming its just not as economical so earths carrying capacity is likely in the trillions or quadrillions
>>16290640cool it with the racism OP
>>16290640that's not what's going to happensee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population)
>>16291612>muh foodfood isnt going to be our limiting factor (at least not directly)its gonna be fossil fuels and resourcess like lithiumnitrates are also a big concern since vast majority of them are mined and reserves are quickly shrinking downand we really NEED nitrates for farmingso introduction of vertical farming wont matter in the slightest
>>16291869>muh resource scarcity lies
>>16291871>resources are infinite>accelerating exploatation rate is a spook
>>16290649You will drastically reduce carrying capacity when you get consistent wet bulb events at 35C. Can't do shit with uninhabitable land. More CO2 is a retarded idea.
>>16291893just build giant underground bunkers with solar powered ACproblem solved
>>16290649>>16291167You're blind if you can't see how the current human population is pressuring nature and ecosystems.>>16290692>a meme because there's always something new Magical thinking. Present civilization isn't 1/100th as advanced as you seem think it is. Do some research into farm yields and how they've increased historically, you'll learn there's a definite upper limit and that many modern agricultural practices are unsustainable.>When you have precise control over atoms at the industrial scaleMore science fiction magical thinking.
>>16290640Average quality of life goes down as population increases. Even if it's technically possible to hold 20 billion people on the planet, our lives would be so miserable it wouldn't be worth it. It would require us to go from social/gregarious animals to eusocial/colonial ones
>>16290755The issue is that a change like this would have to be forced, and the current global power structures that thrive on uncheckes consumption need to be eradicatedI'm talking scorched earth
>>16290640No. Capitalism/free market innovation keeps increasing the carrying capacity as a byproduct of human greed.Capitalism judo flips human greed into benefiting mankind.
>>16291920>You're blind if you can't see how the current human population is pressuring nature and ecosystems.I agree that humans compete against other ecosystems.I do not agree that other ecosystems are particularly important to humanity.I certainly disagree that their importance is enough to warrant infringing other's rights: You're free to buy property containing exotic ecosystems.
>>16291920>magical thinkingAll I'm talking about are machines that replicate what plants do, but more efficiently. That isn't magic. It isn't even scifi. Scaling it is just an engineering problem. The economic forcing functions that would cause this haven't even happened yet, I'm just saying that when they do there's a pretty clear path
>>16290640Yeah we'll top out around 10 billion
Human population is self correcting and the data supports that. >>16293372 Like he said we will top out at 10 billion and that's that. We'll all be just fine. I was part of a USAID college program run by the UN on how to feed 10 billion by 2050. I put in some good work, y'all should be eatin well. t. autistic horticulturalist
>>16290692>Resource scarcity? We'll just invent matter replicators from Star Trek!Anon, that's not how it goes. People in the Middle Ages didn't invent crop rotation just in time to save them. That farming technique was what the survivors of frequent famines adopted.The current security is an extreme outlier in human history and has lots of possible fault points. EROI, soil depletion, the oceans could turn or something else might go wrong.You can't say that the earthhas no max carrying capacity because somebody might invent a way to turn space dust into cherrie pie.
>>16293525This is why I don't want to have children
>>16293377>You'll all be eating well.>Hint: Bugs!
>>16290742It's not absurd if its the only way we have ya dingus.
>>16293525>matter replicators Chemical reactors and chemical treatment like we already have. Try reading the entire post instead of just skipping to the end.>People in the Middle Ages didn't invent crop rotation just in time to save them.A better analogy would be if the people in the middle ages had a state funded lab with a small garden they had implemented crop rotation in and then when famine was on the horizon their best minds decided to scale it up nation wide. >current security is an extreme outlier in human historyBecause we have science and the free market. Things are learned in a laboratory setting. When there is a demand, a company devotes resources towards it. Engineers solve the scaling problem. Resource scarcity just isn't a thing when you consider the economic forcing function. If you need more metal, you dig deeper. If you need more electricity you build more. If you need more water you desalinate.The only shortage is land and even then we may see a doubling of the land area occupied by humans this century if the space race continues as is. There's a logical case for general optimism. The Malthusian hypothesis is extremely outdated
>>16290692Yeah, the ultimate resource is not stuff you dig out of the ground, it's human inginuity. Although you could argue that the ratio of high IQ to low IQ people is the true 'carrying capacity' of the earth and that it's looking great.
>>16294389>Yeah, the ultimate resource isn’t stuff you dig out of the ground it’s human ingenuity, except the real carrying capacity of Earth is the IQ ratio which is looking amazing, obviously. got a real brain trust going on here.
>>162906408 billion is over the carrying capacity. Look at the streets of Bangladesh and India
>>16290640I wouldn't say slowly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07nFE8x-iyU
>>16290640yestechnically we do have more then enough food water and space for all the ppl on earth but its currently unevenly distributed and theres no quick fix for this that'll realistically happen, so yes
>>16294224>Chemical reactors and chemical treatment like we already have.My nigger, in your post you take for granted that 'something new' will be invented to solve resource scarcity. Scientific progress heading off upcoming resource scarcities only sort of holds true for the past two hundred years of human history. Even then there were lots of famines and scarcities all over the place. It is definitely true that we are using up a lot more resources than our planet naturally replenishes. Somebody might invent a breakthrough like the Haber Bosch process, but genius can not be relied upon to happen.>A better analogy would be if the people in the middle ages had a state funded lab with a small garden they had implemented crop rotation in and then when famine was on the horizon their best minds decided to scale it up nation wide. Implementing a new technique like crop rotation still takes time and resources. Even if a solution to a scarcity is known that solution can still be impossible to implement in time to stop a catastrophe from developing.>Resource scarcity just isn't a thing when you consider the economic forcing function. If you need more metal, you dig deeper. If you need more electricity you build more. If you need more water you desalinate.Lmao, what?>The only shortage is land and even then we may see a doubling of the land area occupied by humans this century if the space race continues as is.As I said, just pay somebody to invent matter replicators from Star Trek so you can eat.
>>16296542>>16294224Agreed, “economic forcing function” means slavery, dystopia and sooner or later apocalypse. We are not worker bees. We are humans. Even bees go on apocalyptic rampages. We will fuck up things if things get too bad, see the numerous revolutions of the 19th century. Good luck protecting your chemical reactors from corroding when everybody stopped producing anti-corrosion paint to revolt
>>16292063Solein
>>16290640Nah, we only need to eradicate vermin like leftoids, nigs and jews to make room for humans. There will be more than enough space to triple the human population.
>>16290640No>articifially selected/gmo 10' tall fast growing cows or corn>Sahara is being greened as we speak which will create mind boggling acres of arable land>more efficient farming practices being created everyday>Chinese greenhouse tech allowing people to grow foods through the winters of Canada with no external heat inputNot to mention people aren't eating bugs/onions or other matrix tier slop
>>16293377>I put in some good workthis is what spreadsheeters actually believe.
>>16290692add tech to the model than fag.
>>16296315Audio is left ear only. Not checking this before uploading implies the creator is a retard so there's no need to watch his video.
