Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tele man
|
Good.
But a bit different from what I was referring to.
Fertility rate is only one factor of the overall total population growth rate ... for example if fertility dropped by 10% but life expectancy increased by 20% .. there would still be a net population increase in growth rate .. even with a reduced fertility rate.
Thankfully ... with all factors included... It is the actual total net population growth rate that has been declining sense the 1970s ... which can be seen just by looking at the total population amounts ... and then running the math to find out what the yearly % increase would have to be to get that ... as if it were number of $ in a bank account with interest instead of number of people... See attached example of that concept.
And the best part about that (to me) ... is that it is not significantly the result of global human intentional efforts ... as if the whole world were a police state on lock down ... nor is it the result of running into resource shortages ... some of the largest reductions in growth rates are happening in some of the countries with the most resources (1st world countries, still wasting lots of resources on luxury items).
- - - - - - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
You're still drawing examples from the unsustainable* factory farming model. Consider instead one where most of those 'meat calories' are spending most of their lives out being part of the ecosystem, until they are hunted or herded. Now we know that this is sustainable, since it's the way the world has been operating for many millions of years.
|
I'd say how we actually do it today ... gives valid numbers (that are not theory) on the unsustainable effects of those who insist on the luxury of meat easting ... just like those who insist on other very wasteful luxury items.
As for some other 'ideal' theoretical state ... sure ... I see three main options:
#1> We can fabricate a more 'natural' sustainable ecosystem where meat eating humans are not as damaging as they are today ... something like what you described .. which is not the max sustainable of all options for the system ... thus we would be trading less humans lives etc , for the luxury of meat eating ... if meat eating is really that important of a luxury item .. I have my doubts about meat eating being that valuable ??
#2> We fabricate a more 'natural' ecosystem ... but we are more net total system efficient than #1 above... because if there is even 1 animal that we would sustainably kill to eat it's meat ... apparently there is at least that 1 surplus animal ... those resources would instead be more efficiently used for feeding humans via plants ... instead of the 20:1 or 80:1 path through the animal for meat eating ... this option keeps the animals alive and in the eco system ... but is still more net total system resource efficient than meat eating humans.
#3> Completely actually maximized system resources for sustainable human population ... the Earth is terraformed and Geo-engineered by us for us .. As if it were a giant sphere shaped multi-generation space ship... humans reduced to virtual lives in a maxtrix like system ... This actually yields the highest possible sustainable number of total human population... as ugly of an option as it is.
- - - - -
Disclaimer (repeat):
As I've written many times previously before ... I do not myself want to ever reach a max sustainable human population ... I myself would prefer a low to zero impact more 'natural' system ... that is my own personal preference ... but I recognize that .. that a low or zero impact option ... is not the actual maximum sustainable system.