[steam_cannon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', 'H')ypothetically, if the US suffered an economic collapse and could no longer buy oil, and then if that unbought oil went to China. That oil would increase China's carrying capacity. But with peak oil, the oil is just not there. So no one is getting a boost in carrying capacity.

[Lighthouse]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', 'M')aybe check their bibliographies... Or google for a bit more of their work and read more to answer that question. The full details of many studies are often in journals which charge for the article. Also you might be able to find some of these authors in the Journal indexes of your most local large city library, you may be able to find their full research.

[lakeweb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'L')ike their life depends on oil. Well, it hasn't, and it doesn't.

[LoneSnark]

I have to side with Lighthouse above about his suggestion that carrying capacity is heavily dependent upon living standards. On a modern marvels episode a few days ago on "corn" they made it quite clear that only a tiny fraction of the entire crop will ever be eaten as corn by humans (it was in the low single digits). Instead, it will go to factories and be turned into consumer goods (such as plastics), to chemical plants to make industrial chemicals, to processing plants to make high fructose corn syrup, and finally to farms to feed livestock. If we really want to calculate the absolute maximum carrying capacity then should not most of this corn be eaten as corn by humans (of course, making allowances for feeding draft animals or however they speculate)?

So, since I believe someone here as read these studies, answer a yes or no: did the carrying capacity model in question take into account this powered-down world? Or are they assuming today's living stadards must be maintained at the point of starvation?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', ' ')Leading pherogist's? Any evidence supporting this statement?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'I') have to side with Lighthouse above about his suggestion that carrying capacity is heavily dependent upon living standards... If we really want to calculate the absolute maximum carrying capacity then should not most of this corn be eaten as corn by humans (of course, making allowances for feeding draft animals or however they speculate)?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he case for a dramatic reduction in human numbers over the next 2 or 3 centuries is presented as a testable hypothesis. Even if the figures presented (eg. 10 billion before stabilisation and 2 to 3 billion for the optimum sustainable number) are both proved quite off target by subsequent research and events, the hypothesis still stands so long as the first figure exceeds the second. He hopes his hypothesis is wrong and that rapid slowing of growth and huge improvements in technology will result in earlier congruence between the two figures. But it is time that the burden of proof shifted to the 'cornucopian optimists'; they must show that the earth can withstand, without damage, another couple of centuries of growth in human numbers. In publishing his thesis with the support of others he hopes to make it easier for political and economic leaders to speak out on this matter without feeling they are committing political suicide.

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', 'S')till reading but not so sure if Montes assumptions are 100% accurate. As . . . I read . . . more I come to the conclusion [that] carrying capacity is in direct relationship with lifestyle. A wasteful lifestyle reduces the carrying capacity immensely, while we can expect a higher carrying capacity with a more careful use of resources.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', ' ')I think the assumption that wealthy, wasteful lifestyles are inherently far more harmful to carrying capacity than impoverished, frugal lifestyles should be questioned. Indeed, this is a myth that should be popped.

[KillTheHumans]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
http://www.ilea.org/leaf/richard2002.html

[Ludi]

I don't see the "1000 billion" anywhere in that chart of estimates.

[Lighthouse]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')My bad. Typo error. Pherologist. One who studies carrying capacity....

[yeahbut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')My bad. Typo error. Pherologist. One who studies carrying capacity....

[Lighthouse]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yeahbut', '
')
Dude, just google pherology. Behold- references to this term!

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', '
')So...carrying capacity is between 1-2 billion and 1,000 billion. EXCELLENT!! Now we can go back to worrying about something alot more certain, like peak oil!

A good read I would add, if completely useless for estimating what the carrying capacity of the planet might be.

[AWPrime]

Do these high estimates leave any energy/biomass for 'wild' nature?


If not, how do they think that they can keep the global ecosystem going?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', ' ')Sorry Monte but I can't find any reference to this term.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yeahbut', '
')
Dude, just google pherology. Behold- references to this term!

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AWPrime', 'D')o these high estimates leave any energy/biomass for 'wild' nature?

[MonteQuest]

Some articles from The Pherologist Newsletter:

http://www.population.org.au/media/pub/EPOC_SPA.pdf