This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What are our true global economics?
I recently saw an estimate that human population is currently consuming 1.5 times the carrying capacity of the Earth.
This suggests that the resources we use - the plants and animals and energy required to keep us alive are generated by the planet ecology.
It suggests that the system, if left to itself, has a capital represented by sunshine, air, water, plants and animals.
It suggests that the carrying capacity for humans is like the "interest" on the global "capital"
The inference is that we are harvesting more than the interest and are well into the capital - harvesting at an exponential growth rate.
In other words, having eaten everything on the farm, we are now eating the farm. And there will be no more "interest" becasue there will be no more capital.
Like our global bank account is in free-fall.
One dimension of the assertion is that, by mass, the nitrogen in human beings is 1.5 the available nitrogen in the at-rest ecology.
Questions:
Firstly, is this a valid assertion?
Are Earth resources truly finite as assumed?
Are the available resources measurable? If so - who has a good set of data we can use for modelling?
Secondly, if resources are finite and measured - and we are consuming capital exponentially - what are our options?
What lattitude do we have for increasing carrying capacity?
How far can carrying capacity be pushed?
Can we survive in a no-growth, or contracting economic model?
What are the options for population modification?
How long do we have?
These questions are not formulated to "troll" world views. I am asking questions that a lot of people should have rational answers for.
Please reply in the spirit of the questions. Data would be good, as well as well considered models that can be tested.
Also welcome are weblinks that have rational foundations - no ratbag theory please.
Closing Statement from Mitch SMith
OK.
I have digested available metrics and known models.
Like everyone else, I am finding that the non-linear factors render the numbers functionally useless. The modeling methods themselves seem to yield more information - but all models admit to not representing any comprehensive claim.
However, one thing is clear - the window of opportunity for business-as-usual closed sometime mid 1900's, the balance of carrying capacity against draw-down of fossil energy is well under way - capital is definitely being exponentially consumed and has a terminal point at around 2050 - at which point all life on planet earth will cease.
But this assumes business as usual based on what we think we know - as it turns out, we know very little.
So .. in this scenario - ignorance is bliss.
I the analogy of our common understanding, we are screwing the planet and the value it represents. So .. to stay within the things we understand - are we rape/murdering the panet - Or are we mating with it?
This distincion is the critical facto determining if a single human will occupy the universe past 2050.
2050 is a conservative estimate - I would recommend you start answering it now.
It might be too late for you, but you might have children.
If you value hope ..
Remember - hope is not required in the universe outside of your own skull.
What you do is important - to you.
I couldn't care less. _ I've made my choice.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Barry Palmer 50+
This is obvious, of course Earth resources are finite. Isaac Asimov once wrote that phosphorous would be the limiting resource for humans.
Are the available resources measurable?
Measurable, maybe. They certainly have not been accurately measured.
IMO, there is good reason to think that we are consuming the Earth's capital, but there are no credible measurements to support this idea. "Resources" is a general term that cannot be measured. We could possibly measure each resource, but we still would not know which resource will be the limiting resource. Humans are clever and can find ways to substitute for a particular resource.
The current debate between the pessimists that are convinced that we must reduce our consumption, and the optimists that believe innovation will allow us all to consume all we want, is unrealistic. Neither side is seeing the whole picture. Both sides believe they know more than they actually do. We do not have the data. We cannot know the future.
edward long 100+
Mitch SMith 50+
I just watched a documentary where one guy said that all the earth's crust has been assayed to fine detail, and another who sid that the Arabs keep artificially quoting inflated oil reserve estimates. That does not equate, and someone's fibbing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiXlBMMUx4Q
I also saw Lord Monkton assure me that there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming .. but then I saw Potholer54's in-depth analysis of Monkton's deliberate lies. http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?feature=results_main
My own brother points me to websites denying climate change while I have to research the websites industry backing and lack of peer-reviewed research - put it in his face, and he still believes what his church tells him.
Then there's this stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPhvDO9Eezs
And a lot of seemingly loony-tunes stuff about aliens ..
Personally, I think we took 2 major wrong turns: 1. Agriculture, and 2. Eating meat. I think we are not hunter gatherers at all - we are gatherers. There is some evidence for this, but still not what I'd call a slam-dunk.
I'll welcome any source that proffers verifiable estimates.
I am a bit worried that no one has been able to do so yet.