by copious.abundance » Mon 31 Aug 2015, 19:34:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'A')ll the trend lines point towards collapse. Yet world civilization has never collapsed so right there deniers have sufficient basis to utter their claims. Along with the "anything" can happen argument. Yet if detailed analysis is pointing us doomers to make the argument that collapse is going to happen it is precisely because this analysis in an empirical and carefully studied way points to this conclusion. Can we say for certain NO, but we can say with a high degree of probability. So what is your basis for refuting us other than well nobody can know for sure and so far nothing too bad has happened?
No, we cannot even say anything of the kind with any degree of probability. We don't even know that "carrying capacity" is a viable concept. It's like the concept of "God." Now, there may be a God, and maybe there isn't. Religious people will tell you in no uncertain terms that they
know there is a God, but of course they're lying, because by definition, it's impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God, and thus, it's impossible to "know" that God exists. It's a matter of faith. It's possible they could be right, but it's also possible the entire concept is complete nonsense. There's no way to know. Adherents will cite all kinds of (what they perceive to be) "proof" that God exists, and atheists will counter with all kinds of (what they perceive to be) "proof" that God does not exist. You're basically toeing the line of the adherent - you cite "empirical evidence" ... but Erlich cited all kinds of "empirical evidence" in 1968 and Malthus cited all kinds of "empirical evidence" in 1798. So much for "empirical evidence!"
Even if carrying capacity is a legitimate concept, you can find estimates of its carrying capacity anywhere from 2 billion to 40 billion, which is such a wide range one has to wonder exactly how exact the science really is (answer: not very). Finally, there are legitimately possible futures in which nature is eliminated altogether and Earth becomes a machine planet populated by various kinds of robots and other artificial life forms (you'll have to read Ray Kurzweil and others like him, but no doubt you dismiss him offhand - too bad for you, because what if he's right?). I don't know whether that will happen or not, but I do consider it a legitimate possibility, and if it is, the whole notion of a "carrying capacity" for Earth will be something of a joke. If life is destined to evolve into creatures that need no oxygen, or air, or food ... only matter and energy ... then the only limiting factor for life (or should I say, "life") on the planet is the total amount of matter and energy on, or available to, the planet.