by Newfie » Tue 20 Aug 2013, 07:47:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mustang1919', 'I')t seems I can't edit my post so I'll just make another.
The safest, and most realistic, way to preserve civilization is to reduce consumption and reduce population. If population falls low enough, it may be possible to cluster people around localized energy sources like biofuels, hydro, geo, and biomass and maintain some level of industry. There may be a few centuries in there when things are messed up, but in the best case, population will eventually fall and level out at a comfortable point.
Yup, seems you have figured it out pretty well. I agree.
In temperate climes heat will be a problem.
The basic issue that humanity faces is controlling our population so that we have a reasonable ratio of available energy per person. Either that or you end up with Haiti.
I like to run thr equation backwards. Figure out how much renewable energy is available, then determine the energy needed to have a sufficient life style. Do a little math magic and you come up with a max sustainable population.
Or to ask the question yet another way...What is the OPTIMIMUM human population for Earth? Surely far below where we are, maybe around one billion. But the question spawns lots of other ideas about the value, and point, and quality of life. Interesting thought experiment. Good for Humanist, who claim to be the responsible type.