by MonteQuest » Tue 24 Jul 2007, 00:04:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HEADER_RACK', 'I') hate to jump in the middle of a discussion,but something struck me as being odd in what tony prep said. That there is enough arable land to feed the current population.
Wouldn't it matter more that there is enough arable land where it needs to be to support the current population levels?
Yes, but the bigger question is whether or not producing that much food
by any means is sustainable or even desirable.
As people just seem to refuse to grasp, carrying capacity isn't about just feeding people.
Carrying capacity is determined by the
least abundant necessity relative to per capita requirements.
You could have zero hunger with surplus food and still be in overshoot.
Look outside your window. There are 6.7 billion people on the planet. If we have exceed the carrying capacity of the earth, why aren't they dying off?
The definition of overshoot is when a population continues to grow beyond the carrying capacity fueled by a windfall of food/energy that causes a population bloom. For us, that windfall was fossil fuels.
Nature's feedback mechanisms are not immediate. The resultant overshoot degrades the real carrying capacity over time through environmental pollution, loss of biodiversity, habitat loss, loss of topsoil, potable water, and climate change.
Eventually, you reach a tipping point that triggers the collapse.
Peak oil may well be the tipping point and the "least abundant necessity" if climate change doesn't beat it to the punch with a demise of temperate climate in the food producing areas.
One of the rules of ecology is if you notice something is wrong, it is usually much too late to do anything about it.
Global climate change and a human die-off are two of these.
And die-off means the death rate will exceed the birth rate.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."