Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on May 1, 2016
How many people can the Earth actually hold?
Earth may only be a tiny blip on the map relative to the entire universe, but for our purposes, it’s pretty darn big. Of course, the vast majority of earth – about 70% – is comprised of water. Taking that into account, the actual area of land on earth is estimated to be around 150 million square kilometers.
That being the case, Life Noggin recently set out to examine how many human beings the earth is capable of holding; not in a physical sense, but more in the sense of how many people can be sustained by the Earth’s finite resources. Today, the earth’s population checks in at about 7 billion, but that figure will only increase in the years ahead thanks to improvements in medicine and other health-positive factors. In fact, it’s estimated that the human population by the end of the century will be 10 billion strong.
Looking ahead, is there a point in time where the earth’s capacity to support mankind will be pushed to the limit? Will we always have enough food and water to keep everyone happy and healthy? If you’re pessimistically inclined to answer ‘no’, we can’t really fault you, especially given that the distribution of resources around the world today is extremely skewed already.
But even if we assume a more even distribution across the world, many experts believe that the situation here on Earth will start looking grave once the human population reaches the 9-10 billion mark.
One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth’s available resources. As Wilson pointed out in his book “The Future of Life”, “The constraints of the biosphere are fixed.”
Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce, just as Malthus argued more than 200 years ago. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there’s still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. “If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people,” Wilson wrote.
36 Comments on "How many people can the Earth actually hold?"
Davy on Sun, 1st May 2016 12:34 pm
Sloppy intellectually lazy work:
“that figure will only increase in the years ahead thanks to improvements in medicine and other health-positive factors. In fact, it’s estimated that the human population by the end of the century will be 10 billion strong…… But even if we assume a more even distribution across the world, many experts believe that the situation here on Earth will start looking grave once the human population reaches the 9-10 billion mark….If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people,” Wilson wrote…”
Who says such things? The status quo academic department that told you to write something optimistic so you did a spreadsheet goal seek to yield a magic number of 10BIL. It should be clear per the resource numbers 500MIL more looks more likely. That gives us 4 or 5 more years before death outnumber births and a population plateau is hit. Take oil supply and its inability to grow much more as a limiting factor. So many more limiting factor thresholds are near. The other being a failing economy and climate change. These articles are for consumptive purposes and do not reflect reality.
JuanP on Sun, 1st May 2016 1:54 pm
Florida Bay’s seagrass beds are dying, https://www.rt.com/usa/341197-florida-bay-hit-dying-seagrass/
JuanP on Sun, 1st May 2016 1:56 pm
Infected bees seek out medicinal flowers, https://www.rt.com/usa/314457-bees-medicinal-parasites-nectar/
onlooker on Sun, 1st May 2016 3:00 pm
What trash. Yeah right 10 billion. All signs are now pointing to an immense die-off of humans as we follow the animal kingdom. The 6th Mass extinction is happening and we are next in line. You can only cheat Nature for so long.
farmlad on Sun, 1st May 2016 3:41 pm
How many people can the Earth actually hold?
That all depends on how wastefull, destructive and stupid those people are.
If we would be willing to work within the laws of nature I feel the earth would have plenty recources for 8 billion humans and at least twice the animal and plant biomass that we have at the present. But the way we are treating our planet I doubt it can sustain 1/2 billion for even a single millenium.
peakyeast on Sun, 1st May 2016 3:44 pm
Only evil idiots would want everybody to become vegetarian in order to use the surpluss created by this inferior diet to put more people on earth.
Obviously its an inferior diet – it makes people into holy evil idiots – otherwise how come its always these types that wants more people by reducing everybodys life quality and doesnt care about other animals?
For every person I know that becomes a vegetarian I will BURN 1 kg of meat a week to charcoal on a boal. Hows that vegetarians – I declare you meat WAR !
😉
makati1 on Sun, 1st May 2016 6:04 pm
onlooker, 10 billion people IF resources were evenly distributed and not wasted. The food waste in the US alone would feed 100 million people. The end of cattle for beef eaters would add another 1 billion plus who could be fed with the grain and water wasted on this food fad.
Whether this 10 billion would be possible in the future is not likely, but for now and the immediate future, yes, 10 billion could have a decent life, IF resources were shared and not wasted.
makati1 on Sun, 1st May 2016 6:07 pm
peaky, you are part of the problem, not the solution. See my previous comment. You don’t have to be a vegetarian to give up beef. There would still be grazing animals and pigs, chickens, etc. You would just have to cut your meat use to occasionally, not everyday.
Davy on Sun, 1st May 2016 7:00 pm
10 billion people can not be feed in a peak oil dynamics world. 10 billion people cannot be fed with a decaying global economy. We have an order of magnitude population adjustment ahead with the lion share in Asia where most of the world population lives. Some chose to live in denial of the realities of overshoot but that does not change the math. And yes the west is going to suffer in its own ways with serious and similar reductions but the numbers are much less. Do the math.
theedrich on Mon, 2nd May 2016 3:41 am
The biospheric-capacity facts are diametrically opposed to the Western religions. Christianity insists that every sentient hominid, no matter how defective or criminal, be kept alive and comfy, no matter what the cost. Females in Allahland, even though having been genitally mutilated (a cute cultural practice among Mohammedans) tend to have as many children as possible. In places like the boonies of Afghanistan, women can each bring eight to ten or more children into the world. Many of these droppings then show up on the shores of Whiteland, where the politicians demand they be brought in and given every possible privilege and benefit; anything else would be “Nazi” or some such evil attribute. The Jews who bribe the politicians and the leftist rent-a-mobs maintain their control in this way.
As long as the wish for White racial extinction dominates the collective subconscious (controlled by the Jewbox), the expansion of the overloading darklings will continue until collapse. It does not matter what scientists or researchers conclude or point to. The religio-political slide into the abyss will dominate.
seen from sirius on Mon, 2nd May 2016 5:12 am
In a Soylent Green scenario humans could even be 20 billion, but seriously, apart from some religious fanatics, few people in his right mind would welcome such a scenario. So the sooner world population starts to stabilize, the better.
onlooker on Mon, 2nd May 2016 5:35 am
I am not so sure that is so far fetched or grim the idea of Soylent Green, after all even today, they ask us if we would like to donate organs after we die. So, I personally would not be completely opposed as our bodies become waste after we die so why not use them productively. I think future societies may consider that option.
Harquebus on Mon, 2nd May 2016 6:00 am
How many people can planet Earth sustain? Some of us will live long enough to find out and it ain’t anywhere close to 7 billion.
“Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food.” — Prof. Albert Bartlett.
JuanP on Mon, 2nd May 2016 8:02 am
Cannibalism is a fact of life with which I reconciled myself as a young boy. One of my uncle’s brother was eaten in the Andes when I was three years old after the plane carrying his rugby team crashed high in the mountains.
http://www.amazon.com/Alive-Survivors-Piers-Paul-Read/dp/038000321X
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive_(1993_film)
It hit very close to home for me as my uncle Guido was one of my favorite grownups, and I missed him badly. Throughout my childhood, we would pray in school every morning for our lost alumni’s souls, so I was not allowed to forget him. I was also raised, in part, by the survivors with whom I have a very close relationship to this day.
My family learnt to understand and forgive those that ate the bodies. The whole country did. I know that I will eat human flesh if I have to do it to stay alive and help and protect my loved ones. I made that decision when I was in first grade and I was six years old. I have never changed my mind about it. I expect many here would do the same, it is the logical thing to do. If the survivors hadn’t eaten the flesh of their dead friends and relatives, they would not have survived. I am grateful they survived. I lost an uncle, but gained a large extended family in that sad winter.
JuanP on Mon, 2nd May 2016 8:14 am
I was grateful that my uncle died instantly during the crash and didn’t suffer long. May they rest in peace. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Andes_flight_disaster
peakyeast on Mon, 2nd May 2016 8:22 am
@makati: You missed the point.. The point is that I hate these articles that want to degrade life quality in order to get more people squeezed onto the planet.
Its not a solution – it making things worse and worse.
I would have no problem with a meat free diet – but I put in ONE condition: A world wide 1 child per woman policy – and NO loopholes for the rich.
Otherwise its just a pseudo flaggelant position to be vegatarian – or a mental problem.
JuanP on Mon, 2nd May 2016 8:42 am
Russia becomes world’s largest Wheat exporter! http://russia-insider.com/en/russia-surpasses-us-canada-becomes-biggest-wheat-exporter/ri14173
Kenz300 on Mon, 2nd May 2016 8:52 am
Too many people demand too many resources……yet the worlds population grows by 80 million every year…..
How many charities are dealing with the same problems they were dealing with 10 or 20 years ago with no end in sight. Every problem is made worse by the worlds growing population. IF you can not provide for yourself you can not provide for a child.
Birth Control Permanent Methods: Learn About Effectiveness
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/birth_control_permanent_methods/article_em.htm
makati1 on Mon, 2nd May 2016 9:03 am
peaky, you speak as spoiled Westerner, not a decent human being. You have yours but you don’t want anyone to make you give some back or to cause you come down to their level. Greed is killing America and it deserves to die a painful death. It certainly has caused enough of them around the world these last 75 or so years.
If you have more than one child, kill the other(s) and live the life you expect others to live. Americans are such hypocrites.
Davy on Mon, 2nd May 2016 9:13 am
Bullshit Makati Bill, you are making excuses for people in Asia that cannot control their ability to procreate. There is no reason to keep the status quo going on both sides of the equation with population or overconsumption.
You have continually advocated larger populations as a cognitive dissonance response to the overshoot situation you have moved to. More people with adapted diets is just more failed thinking by people like you who are agenda driven.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 2nd May 2016 9:17 am
Ideally I believe one would fix the other. Poorer people with lower standards of living tend to have more children. When a basic education and some stability are provided to an individual they are more likely to choose a more humane bitch control, like a rubbaa, instead of the most common and miserable form of population control, famine and disease.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 2nd May 2016 9:18 am
common in many third world areas I should say.
makati1 on Mon, 2nd May 2016 9:42 am
If you make $10 per day (Ps laborer) and a condom cost $1 each but rice is only $ 0.70 kilo, what is your choice? If you made a net $80 today in the Us and a condom cost $8 each, but you need the $8 to feed your family, how many would you buy?
GregT on Mon, 2nd May 2016 9:43 am
Famine and disease are both nature’s ways of keeping our populations in check Practical. Modern education is teaching us that we are above nature, and that education requires a surplus in energy, and the energy that we have harnessed as a surplus, is in turn destroying nature. We have made great advances in modern medicine, mainly in hygiene and antibiotics, but both of those advances have allowed our populations to overshoot the Earth’s natural carrying capacity. This has been a relatively short phenomenon in the big scheme of things, and Nature will eventually even the playing field, so to speak. We are not above nature, as we are soon going to find out, the hard way.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 2nd May 2016 10:05 am
I understand those are natures laws and balances, but that is one reason that impoverished people breed more IMHO. I think when these people know they will likely loose several children, it can become important to their perceived stability of the family to procreate more, in some twisted logic sense. Similar to early settlers in the US, when there is work to do, and sick to care for, a large family was seen as important. When people do not receive an opportunity to move out of their current struggle than that struggle will just continue indefinitely.
peakyeast on Mon, 2nd May 2016 10:13 am
@mak: Perhaps I am spoiled – But it doesnt change the fact that making space for more humans by going vegetarian is just plain stupid.
As I said: With a world wide 1 child policy then it makes sense to vegetarian in order to be able to provide for all during the great depopulation period – If there is such a policy it must also provide a way for that to happen so it doesnt come down to rice vs condom – otherwise it doesnt make sense.
You dont sit in an office and declare such a policy and not provide the means if you want it in reality. I thought that was obvious, but obviously not.
GregT on Mon, 2nd May 2016 10:16 am
Practical,
My great-grand parents had eight children. Four survived to adulthood. One is still alive. They were all born in Canada. The opportunity to ‘move out of their struggle’ was provided by the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will likely cause the extinction of our species. The struggle that people lived here at the turn of the least century, is going to pale in comparison to the struggle that we are leaving behind for future generations. If there are any.
peakyeast on Mon, 2nd May 2016 10:17 am
@Practical: Perhaps education and high living standards lessens the amount of children – but those effects are known and has been calculated.
It will NOT be possible to do that before TSHTF. Actually a 1 child policy is probably also too late. Actually probably almost everything is too late at this point.
But I am arguing the vegetarian scenario and pretending it can do some difference. Just for the “fun” of it.
peakyeast on Mon, 2nd May 2016 10:19 am
when I say all: I also mean other species.
Robert Spoley on Mon, 2nd May 2016 10:21 am
You are all optimists. The human creature is a nasty, lying, cheating, hypocritical, selfish, greedy thing. That’s when it’s asleep. It’s worse when it’s awake. Everyone of them will do whatever it can to benefit themselves and their kin. Self discipline be damned. The problem has always been high birth rates that have been kept viable by western medicine, cheap energy and clever engineering. Obviously if birth rates soar and death rates plunge, the overwhelming surplus of people will degrade the entire system. Think commodities as in the current oil and gas surplus. The resulting failure rate is catastrophic. The human creature will undergo the same scenario with the huge population explosion now going on. Wake UP!!!
JuanP on Mon, 2nd May 2016 11:18 am
Famine and disease are nature’s way to control our population. War and infanticide are the human way. Take your pick.
We have passed Peak Education and Peak Prosperity. Counting on education and prosperity to reduce our fertility to reasonable levels is a pipe dream. If it didn’t happen in the last century, it never will.
As the global economy collapses we can expect fertility levels to go all the way up to the sky. I expect global fertility to start increasing in the short term future. This trend has already been going on in many countries for years and is clearly increasing.
Davy on Mon, 2nd May 2016 11:27 am
I am not sold on education and especially modern man’s version. I am sold on the knowledge of the type the Native American and equivalents in other regions used to survive. These peoples had a well honed education of their ecosystem. They had a culture subservient to that all important ecosystem. These cultures often times were spiritually far advanced to ours because they connected to nature instead of ours where we separate and exploit.
Our education today is about greed. It is about technology and how to take higher value resources and turn them into lower value ones and or touching resources and technologies that should never have been messed with.
I am all for a rebalance of population and consumption numbers. We can return to larger families within an environment of culling as needed. This is our future if extinction does not get us first.
peakyeast on Mon, 2nd May 2016 3:46 pm
I concur with both JuanP and Davy here. Both are good comments containing truth.
peakyeast on Mon, 2nd May 2016 3:57 pm
@mak: I think you forget something.
There is absolutely no chance of keeping any amount of other higher species alive -even with a vegetarian population.
Pollution, soil degradation and converting habitats to farmland will do that alone.
What is wrong with population happy vegetarians? Dont they see what is happening to the world?
Its not about feeding humans – its about having a diverse nature and having just a little empathy for other species and making space for them.
For that to happen we have to roll back a lot of farmland to whatever it was before and stop polluting.
That will only happen with a much smaller population – especielly since we wont have fossil fuels to enhance the soils with for much longer.
But you know this mak. I know you know it – so why are you population happy?
Davy on Mon, 2nd May 2016 4:17 pm
The world is not one big vegetable garden. It is a mosaic of many agricultural production potentials. It is the stupidity of people who think we should do extreme actions like having everyone eat vegetables that is the root of our problems.
Meat is a very efficient way of concentrating nutrition. A well run farm operation uses a combination of animals, plants, and the land to produce a nutrient cycle that efficiently turns solar power into life.
We must reduce industrial agriculture with its vast distribution needs, industrial processing, and large unhealthy monocultures yet, we can’t leave it immediately unless, that is, we want to start a die off. We are stuck with the horrible mess we made but we can begin the process of renewal. It is likely too late for many but for some this renewal will be a matter of life or death when SHTF.
makati1 on Mon, 2nd May 2016 6:34 pm
peaky, so why are you still alive? Because you spend all of your time trying to stay alive. I agree that the earth is not going to support billions more for very long, but who cares? The average life span of a human in the middle ages was about the late 30s. In prehistoric times it was even less. So what?
We are animals, Nothing more. Nothing less. But we have been told that we are more and that is the lie. We are just more intelligent monkeys that discovered energy sources that made us even more convinced that we were special. Mother Nature is laughing all the way to the next ecology after she wipes this one off the face of the earth.