Re: Earth's Carrying Capacity
From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.ca)
Date: 08/17/04
- Next message: Ian St. John: "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: Ian St. John: "Re: Earth's Carrying Capacity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:39:45 -0400
Thomas Palm wrote:
> Rand Simberg <newsgroups@transterrestrial.com> wrote in
> news:d74Uc.1419$3O3.369@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>> Thomas Palm wrote:
>>
>>>> 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, and against the rules had to replace the atmosphere when CO2
>>> levels got too high.
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with energy import. The earth wouldn't survive
>> for long without energy import.
>
> If you try to calculate the required "footprint" for humans it
> certainly is wrong to exclude the area needed for the powerplant.
No. Like all generalisations, this too is a failure. Solar power satellites
can supply power to a planet without taking local real estate. The rectenna
can be on the roof.
> It's like taking the population density of a major city and pretend
> you could extend it all over Earth without considering how cities are
> dependent on the surrounding countryside for raw materials and waste
> disposal.
Recycle. The first n stories will probably be used for greenhouse grow and
industrial occupation, the rest for residence. "Vertical integration' if you
will.
- Next message: Ian St. John: "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: Ian St. John: "Re: Earth's Carrying Capacity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|