[IamIan]

Originally Posted by niky

I do agree that switching to a low meat diet will radically increase the amount of food we can put on the tables, giving us a buffer.

Yup... And that's good news.

Originally Posted by niky

mean that while we could farm a lot more, we can't assure that the farmers will make enough money to survive.

Could farm more ... Yup ... And that's good news.

As long as people can afford luxury non-essential items .. there is $ available for necessities (like food).

Originally Posted by niky

More energy efficient appliances. More energy efficient cars. Ever stop to think as to how it'll all work out when all those billions of former third world people get the same things?

Actually yes.

Turns out ... those 3rd world people will be able to .. and are .. skipping past some of the worst parts in the history of the early adopter 1st world countries.

For example .. they aren't entering in when Solar is $20/Watt ... they are coming in ... when solar is going down to $0.60/Watt .. They aren't coming in when vacuum tubes make computer enormously energy intensive .. they are coming in when we have tiny mW computers as powerful as 'supercomputers' used to be... etc.. etc.

This creates a overall less final damage by their growth into a modern society ... compared to the amount of damage the early adopter 1st world countries did in their historical growth into a modern society.

Originally Posted by niky

Who's talking about the first world?

I was

Even the 3rd world has a significantly increasing life expectancy ... even including all their problems and such. (see attached) ... psss it's more good news.

Originally Posted by niky

I suppose we could be chewing this over fifty years from now (those of us who are still ticking, that is), in a world that's not radically different from today's. Mankind has shown remarkable resilience in weathering dramatic change, like two trillion dollar economic collapses.

See you then.

Originally Posted by niky

I don't know. Nobody does.

Originally Posted by niky

I do agree that we can weather the change by adjusting lifestyles. Hell... look at the excesses in first world countries and middle class lifestyles... and we could cut a lot out of that to make adjustments.

It just isn't going to be much fun for those who've gotten used to nice things.

Agreed.

- - - - - - - -

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Sure. It's proof by contradiction (Proof by contradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ):

Nope.
That is not a demonstration.

Your own link says pretty much this much in the beginning sentence (notice the bold):

Originally Posted by YourWikipediaLink

In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof, and more specifically a form of indirect proof, that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by showing that the proposition's being false would imply a contradiction.

A "demonstrated fact" ... is not , pointing to a correlation that implies a indirect contradiction... besides , correlation is not causation.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

if the current population level was sustainable, there would be no ongoing degradation of ecosystems.

Nope... false conclusion... but .. instead of my longer explanation of my PoV ... perhaps it will be more constructive to just directly ask you.

2 questions:

#1> What do you think is the maximum sustainable carrying capacity number of humans for this entire planet Earth ?

#2> What is the real world data source that number is based on ?

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Perhaps we have different definitions of 'sustainable'.

That seems possible... and would explain some of the disagreement.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I suggest that your #1 and #3 are simply not sustainable, whatever the population level might be.

Do you have evidence to support your suggestion about #1 (no meat eating humans) ?

After all .. Just that one change could allow us to feed the current world's Human population (~7B) on the food producing space .. as if it were only a total population of roughly ~3B .. that's rather huge ... given that there are lots of vegetarian and vegan humans who have actually demonstrated being able to sustain that as a healthy life ... I would like to know what the evidence / facts you based this suggestion on are ??

Originally Posted by jamesqf

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).

Surface of the planet restriction .. is not a requirement for total planet sustainability limits ... bellow ground , under sea , in air , etc .. are still space that is part of this planet ... and much of that is not being utilized.

But ... Even the surface is not all being utilized as you claimed.
(Note: I don't want it all to be)

• Every mm of roof that is not harvesting solar energy is not being fully utilized.
• Every mm of road that is not a solar road .. is not being fully utilized.
• Vast stretches of the ocean .. are not being fully utilized.
• Vast areas of arctic North and South are not fully utilized.
• Vast areas of barren deserts are not fully utilized.
• Every vehicle that has an empty seat (5 seat with just 1 driver) is space that is not being fully utilized.
• Etc ... etc...