Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack
you think enabling the population to bubble further is "good news".
|
Incorrect .. I made no such claim .. and I do not think that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack
That the human animal will not press everything else out of existence, that is the bad news.
|
That we will not is bad news ??
You want the human animal to press everything else out of existence ???
I'll have to disagree with you on that ... I know I don't want that ... that would be good news if we don't press everything else out ... but , if the resulting system were sustainable , it would be relevant to the issue being discussed about maximum sustainable global human population... if the maxtrix style system is sustainable .. no matter how much I may not want it ... that does not prevent it from being a sustainable system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack
That you believe every bit of data and turn it into "news". It is completely disingenuous.
|
Incorrect.
I made no such claim .. I do not believe every bit of data .. and not ever bit of data is 'news'.
Sense none of that applies to me , what I think , or what I've claimed .. I also don't see how 'disingenuous' could be correctly being used either.
- - - - - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
My guess is somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 million.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
I don't think there are any real world data sources of the sort you want.
|
I was asking what evidence the number you come up with is based on .. what evidence did you use to come to the 500 Million number ??? why didn't you go with 500,000 or 5 Billion ... etc ... you picked a number ... what is the data that choice is based on?
FYI ... if those 500Million humans are ~90% calories from meat eaters ... your 500Million are consuming more planetary resources than 13 Billion 100% vegan plant eater humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
So, as I noted earlier, ecosystems are gradually failing all over the place, which IMHO strongly suggest that we're well into the error half of trial & error.
|
Under that logic the failing/changing ecosystem of the dinosaurs was the fault of too many humans on the planet ... even though there were ZERO humans on the planet at that time.
The conclusion is not valid based on the listed premise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Note that I'm not saying that it's not theoretically possible to feed a population this way, I'm saying that people will not do it.
|
Except the word maximum does not carry with it the restriction of ( likely , easy , etc ) ... Maximum is the Maximum .. ie as in there would be no possible way to organize the system in order to achieve anything more than the maximum ... because the maximum is ... the maximum.
I'm not saying we want to go to the maximum ... I'm saying it is useful to be honest with what the actual maximum is .. that doesn't include every possible luxury ... it's the maximum.
If meat carried with it it's actual cost ... ie being 34x the $ of planet calories .. we would be a very low meat eating species ... as the total number of humans continue to grow ... this horribly low efficiency luxury item is not needed for survival.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Every mm^2 of roof (or road, parking lot, etc) displaces the plant & animal life that was fully utilizing that mm^2 before humans built on it.
|
I agree ... but it is not relevant to the question of utilization for the human population.
Either that roof (and every roof) is being fully utilized ... harvesting solar energy , etc ... or it is not ... and if it is not ... than the space is only partially being utilized... thus the we are not fully utilizing all the space we could be.
Given that there are many roofs that are thus only being partially utilized ... their is still more potential utilization of that space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Yes, they are utilized by fish, whales, plankton, etc.
Fully utilized by caribou, musk ox, polar bears, penguins, &c.
Fully utilized by sagebrush, cactus, jackrabbits, coyotes, sage grouse, &c.
|
I agree with the concept .. and personally I am also an advocate for low/zero impact ... but that is not what is being discussed here.
The question was about utilization of the space for the purpose of maximum sustainable human population... think of a purpose built multi-generation space ship traveling out into the stars ... then scale it up to the size of the entire planet Earth.
I notice you dodged the point about subterranean going lower .. building higher up ... as also not being currently fully utilized space on the planet... those only partially utilized spaces on the planet count.
Unless it is impossible for humans to sustainably survive without the musk ox ... what it needs is not relevant to the issue being discussed... I'm not anti- musk ox .. but zero/low impact is not what the question was.