Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: How overpopulated is the planet, really? [View all]GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)19. Because my definition of "sustainability" is too strict to allow for technological renewables
Basically, anything but a hunter-forager puts too much indirect stress on the ecosystem in one way or another. For example, we would have to mine and refine the materials and then manufacture the equipment for renewable energy technology, regardless of where we put the resulting gear. And you have to grow food to feed the extra people that result from having the energy (resulting in habitat destruction) and give them some level of infrastructure (more impact) etc. etc.
Here's how I explained it in the FB comment thread:
Ever since agriculture began, we've been strip-mining the soil. That's where the extra energy to boost the population - as well as the initial planetary damage - first came from. If we'd stuck to doing it with oxen and sticks, it might have been tens of thousands of years before the negative effects became visible. But we didn't.
I use a very strict definition of sustainability - something like, "The ability of a species to survive in perpetuity without damaging the planetary ecosystem in the process." This principle applies to a species' own actions, but not to external forces like Milankovich cycles, asteroid impacts, plate tectonics, etc. In fact, in order to completely fulfill this definition, even my numbers could be too high by up to an order of magnitude.
I've traditionally used an estimate of 1 billion. Numbers like that require much shorter time horizons for planetary damage to become visible. Remember that 1 billion people was the world population in 1800. Were we "sustainable" in 1800 by any reasonable definition of the word?
The other, unstated implication of the analysis is that if we drop from 7 to 1 billion, we'll be in population free-fall. As a result, we will likely keep falling until we hit the bottom of Olduvai Gorge again. My numbers are an attempt to define that landing point.
I figure if I'm going to draw a line in the sand, I'm going to do it on behalf of the plant's entire ecosphere.
I use a very strict definition of sustainability - something like, "The ability of a species to survive in perpetuity without damaging the planetary ecosystem in the process." This principle applies to a species' own actions, but not to external forces like Milankovich cycles, asteroid impacts, plate tectonics, etc. In fact, in order to completely fulfill this definition, even my numbers could be too high by up to an order of magnitude.
I've traditionally used an estimate of 1 billion. Numbers like that require much shorter time horizons for planetary damage to become visible. Remember that 1 billion people was the world population in 1800. Were we "sustainable" in 1800 by any reasonable definition of the word?
The other, unstated implication of the analysis is that if we drop from 7 to 1 billion, we'll be in population free-fall. As a result, we will likely keep falling until we hit the bottom of Olduvai Gorge again. My numbers are an attempt to define that landing point.
I figure if I'm going to draw a line in the sand, I'm going to do it on behalf of the plant's entire ecosphere.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
38 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
This morning I did a little thought experiment on involuntary population decline
GliderGuider
Mar 2013
#20
I think that if you're right, you should take it up with the OP poster.
BlancheSplanchnik
Mar 2013
#34
Why is your upper limit "a non-energy-assisted society of hunter-forager-gardeners"?
Jim Lane
Mar 2013
#18
Because my definition of "sustainability" is too strict to allow for technological renewables
GliderGuider
Mar 2013
#19
Thanks for the clarification, but I disagree -- there should be some room for technology.
Jim Lane
Mar 2013
#31
So, even the Georgia Guidestones figure of "500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature", is high.
NYC_SKP
Mar 2013
#30
My assumption about the number that represents sustainability is just that - an assumption
GliderGuider
Mar 2013
#35