Re: Earth's Carrying Capacity

From: Ian Stirling (root_at_mauve.demon.co.uk)
Date: 08/19/04 

Date: 19 Aug 2004 14:08:23 GMT

In sci.space.policy Peter Bruells <pb@ecce-terram.de> wrote:
> Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>> For example, with no technology (no rocks, fire, knives, clothes, farming)
>> humans can survive just fine.
>>
>> It's quite possible to get all the food you need by running it down, and then
>> a bunch of you grab it and rip it to shreds.
>>
>> 30 is an elder, and 60 would be practically methusalah.(sp?)
>
> Not quite.

I was referring to a group using absolutely no tools or any other implements.
(which makes little sense I admit, but some things done in the name of
god make as little sense. (I can't see how this would be stable over more
than a few generations, you'r going to get boys and girls running away)

>> Not many humans can survive this way, and only in some regions of
>> the planet.
>
> Actually, "no clothes" and "no tools" and "no fire" are normal for
> humans. Humans without these traits wouldn't be human. With the

You heartless monster, nudists are people too! :)

More seriously, I'd say that groups of humans without the ability to
discover and culturally pass down the knowledge of the the above are not
human.

A bird that is genetically programmed to throw snails at rocks is not
more human than a human that does not know how to extract the snail
from the shell, even a particularly stupid one that won't even try.

> possible exception of "clothes" all predate Homo Sapiens.
>
>> Add the use of rocks, and a pack of humans can pretty much do all
>> that a pack of hyenas can do. (human teeth can't crack bone easily)
<snip>
> However, farming increases work-per-calorie and descreases health and
> life expancy, as compared to nomadic hunter/gatherers in the same
> region. It's just that farming allows for more people and more people
> mean, that they can push groups with less people into unattractive
> regions.

Very true.
Life if you've not got any animals and are farming 16 hours a day to
support your family on marginal land is never going to be pleasant.

>> Animal husbandry, animal powered farming equipment, artificial
>> fertiliser, pesticides/biocontrolls/genetic enginnering/farming
>> machinery all add to carrying capacity, and can be used in
>> sustainable ways.
>
> Yep. Later in human culture, these things make us live longer.

Add in stuff that may be coming down the pipe in the next 50-200 years
(nanotechnology, mature genetic engineering) and you could pretty much make
food production a non-issue for 50 billion.

> However, we still have to work longer work weeks. And many, many

Have to work longer weeks to get what you 'need'.

It's perfectly possible to live in a 4m*4m*2m box with one window, lots of
insulation, and no need for heating.
Add a solar panel on the roof, a long-life fluorescant bulb, and a
Ni-FE battery to run them, and you've even got enough electricity
left over to run a radio, or a small LCD TV.

Costs perhaps $500 to build in quantity.

And a peasant living in a draughty shack and having to stockpile lots
of wood over winter would call it marvelous.

If you want a SUV, cutting edge medical care, ... then you need to work
longer.
If you'r in a western society it's usually hard to opt out though, as
the taxman will want his cut, even if you claim not to want the
government services, or that you are perfectly willing to pick through
the dump for stuff you want, and you promise not to sue.

(not to mention that bringing up children in such an enviroment would
be frowned on officially)

> people outside the industrialized world don't reap the benefits.

This is not a fundamental condition inherent to the technology though.
It may be fundamental to the human condition that we're always going
to favour our group over others though.

The hard bit is to get humans believing that they are part of a larger
group, rather than occasionally thinking that it would be a wonderfull
idea to go off and kill those that killed your great great grandfather.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: XP has no significant bugs that any significant number of users want fixed
    ... category and are unable to master technology much more sophisticated to use ... These hackers are potentially more dangerous in the sense that ... and our faces were pockmarked from all the rocks flying ... > holes that are not design flaws, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Re: Earths oldest rocks found in Quebec
    ... Excuse me. ... to dig for rocks? ... there is no technology to accurately date rocks. ... Assman, *you* are the fraud. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Earths oldest rocks found in Quebec
    ... enriched this group when s/he wrote: ... age of the rock AND roughly how long they have been around. ... to dig for rocks? ... there is no technology to accurately date rocks. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Earths oldest rocks found in Quebec
    ... enriched this group when s/he wrote: ... age of the rock AND roughly how long they have been around. ... to dig for rocks? ... there is no technology to accurately date rocks. ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast