Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan
Oh really ?? A 'demonstrated' fact is it ?? 
By all means please list the demonstration you reference... I'm not aware of an actual demonstration. |
Sure. It's proof by contradiction (
Proof by contradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ): if the current population level was sustainable, there would be no ongoing degradation of ecosystems. But ecosystems are degrading. For just a few instances (an exhaustive list is beyond my capabilities):
- Deforestation/desertification
- Extinction of large fauna (and many smaller)
- Topsoil loss
- Shrinking fresh water supplies
- Agricultural productivity propped up by petroleum-derived chemicals
Quote:
Especially with all the non-maximum things that are part of the current real world .. all of which would have to be removed to actually reach this 'demonstration' you claim :
#1> no meat eating humans... not even one
#2> no un-utilized space .. not even 1 square mm.
#3> not 1 extra joule per person than the minimum required to survive.
|
Perhaps we have different definitions of 'sustainable'. I suggest that your #1 and #3 are simply not sustainable, whatever the population level might be.
As for #2, there basically is no unutilized space on the surface of the planet (with a few small exceptions, such as fresh lava flows). When humans occupy some space, much of what lived there before is evicted. But we know that quite a bit of other life is necessary to keep the planet in a state that's survivable for humans, even if we don't know exactly what & how much. So the only way to prove your sort of 'sustainabilty' is to increase population levels until failure, a method that has the obvious flaw that you likely aren't going to recognize said failure until some time after it happens.