Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
In fairness, let me ask you where you're getting your data from, as well.
|
Can you be more specific ?
I've listed several items .. they are not all from the same data source... Some I've already listed the sources of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IamIan
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.
|
I don't see how you conclude that. For a counter-example, a small population getting their meat from sustainable hunting & grazing has no effect on sustainability, a large vegetarian population supported by industrial agriculture is not. |
And for any size meat intensive eating population you pick .. that will consume more resources than a equal sized Vegetarian or Vegan Population.
Take the total amount of resources that small sustainable hunting population you referenced above consumes ... and that same total amount of resources could just as sustainably feed a larger population of Vegetarian / Vegans... because every 1 meat calorie requires several times that input plant calories.
I think the disconnect might be , because you might not realize how horribly less efficient that 1 meat calorie is... I've read at different times and different sources how the amount of input to output varies ... but one example is :
Link
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LinkAbove
The Pimentels calculate that fruits and vegetables require 2 calories input to yield 1 calorie of output while animal proteins require 20 to 80 calories of energy input for 1 calorie of energy output.
|
There are numerous other variations different studies looking at it from different angles and such ... the exact number changes a bit ... as we say on this forum YMMV ... but the over all concept is still very firm ... every 1 meat calorie output (for a meat eater to eat) ... requires several times that more calories input (as plant calories) to get it... it is horribly low efficiency.
13B is roughly 26x larger than 500M ... I was actually fairly pessimistic against the plant eaters in favor of the meat eaters ... I didn't go on the high side of 80:1 ... or even in the middle ... I went fairly on the low end at only 26:1 ... but by all means ... If you have a good source of information that shows the input vs output is far less ... let me know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Not so. Of course, major external events like asteroid impacts are really not included in sustainability. To use your spaceship example, it's the difference between quietly travelling between stars, and being attacked by the Klingons.
|
The point I was trying to make ... is that the basis (you listed) of you conclusion did not require humans to actually be involved at all to yet still have you put the blame on the number of humans... I was trying to point out that just because an ecosystem is degrading is not enough on it's own to make the leap you were making about the sustainability of the global human population... An Ecosystem can degrade for a wide variety of reasons .. the effects of a large human population is not the only potential cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
But we aren't talking about absolute maximum (or at least I'm not), we're talking about sustainable maximum; the number that could be carried, not for a generation or two, but indefinitely. So to get that number, we have to consider all the internal things that could go wrong.
|
Agreed.
But we are also not talking about low impact population ... or a zero impact population .. and a maximum does not include a requirement to keep luxury items like 5 MPG SUVs .. 10,000 Square foot houses .. meat eating .. etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Running out of time & energy is not 'dodging'. But since you ask, that has a little impact, but not much, since humans living in such spaces still need surface area for their life support systems.
|
I apologize than for my error in my claim about you... my bad ...
However I disagree.
There is a massive difference in the amount of total utilized space between a 1 story house with no basement ... and a 50 story tall building (or taller) that both have the same 2D earth surface area.
It isn't a question of if you need any surface area ... the question was about the maximum amount of sustainably utilized space... and I'll have to still say we are not at 100% max utilization of the entire planet ... even from a sustainability point of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
But that's the real question, isn't it? Do you KNOW with absolute, total certainty that humans can sustainably survive (again, not for a few generations, but for thousands) without the musk ox? How about all the other species in the Arctic ecosystem, or the oceans, or deserts? How many pieces can you pull out before the whole thing collapses?
|
No.
If they are honest no one knows with absolute total certainty ... not unless you want to leave evidence and just believe it on pure faith.
As for the musk ox ... you could make that same type of claim about anything ... are you absolute total certain that humans can sustainably survive without that 1 specific cow you killed for a burger ? ... it might have carried vitally import DNA to the future survival 1 million years from now ... or that the musk ox species isn't actually going to be an invasive species that destroys many entire ecosystems... better not leave the house (you aren't totally absolute certain) that you won't be hit my lightning or an asteroid , or die in car crash , or ... or ... or.
Absolute total certainty is about as useless as asking magic and wizards to cast spells to fix all our problems.