Re: Earth's Carrying Capacity
From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.ca)
Date: 08/16/04
- Next message: Thomas Palm: "Re: Earth's Carrying Capacity"
- Previous message: Ian St. John: "Re: Earth's Carrying Capacity"
- In reply to: Thomas Palm: "Re: Earth's Carrying Capacity"
- Next in thread: Thomas Palm: "Re: Earth's Carrying Capacity"
- Reply: Thomas Palm: "Re: Earth's Carrying Capacity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:24:53 -0400
Thomas Palm wrote:
> Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:4120b3ed$0$519$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net:
>
>> In sci.space.policy Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>>> How many people can the earth support?
>>
>> Multiply the population density of Biosphere II, which could probably
>> work at that population density, with the area of the earth, and you
>> get 200 billion.
>
> Biosphere II was never self-sufficient but relied heavily on energy
> import,
So does the world. But the energy 'imported' from the sun is much much
greater than all of our use put together, so it is not a limiting factor.
> and against the rules had to replace the atmosphere when CO2
> levels got too high.
Yes, due to changes in soil balance. This was unexpected but not a factor in
the food balance. The real point was that Biospherians found it hard to
produce enough to eat and exited quite a bit thinner than they went in.
- Next message: Thomas Palm: "Re: Earth's Carrying Capacity"
- Previous message: Ian St. John: "Re: Earth's Carrying Capacity"
- In reply to: Thomas Palm: "Re: Earth's Carrying Capacity"
- Next in thread: Thomas Palm: "Re: Earth's Carrying Capacity"
- Reply: Thomas Palm: "Re: Earth's Carrying Capacity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|