If you ever get the chance to visit the Natural History Museum in New York (nearly as good as our one in London), they have (or had several years ago) a fascinating display, consisting of a world map, running through a timeline, with lights representing 50,000 human beings. It shows how human populations have grown and migrated over time. The fascinating thing is that until about a hundred years ago, the Earth's population was measured in millions, not billions. It has grown exponentially, and continues to do so. I have no doubt that we will successfully expand into areas that are not currently inhabited, such as deserts and frozen wastes.
Thomas Malthus said that man will forever live in poverty, as the means to sustain him will always grow at a slower rate than the human population. However, the problem is one of distribution, really. We have more than enough to feed the world's current population, but two thirds of the people go to bed hungry.
Earth's maximum sustainable population, given proper resource management, is a LOT more than the current population.
As for a solution, well, nature is pretty good at population management. Wars and diseases usually keep human numbers where they need to be.
2006-10-18 09:02:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
2
2006-10-18 08:58:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by TechChick 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The earth does not have a carrying capacity. If we had the energy source we could stack people high and wide and support thousands of times our current population. It is the amount of energy that would be the ultimate limit. Find the total energy output of the sun. Assume that we construct a Dyson sphere and catch ever single bit of the energy output. convert that energy directly into large calories. Assume a 1200 cal/day diet. Do the math then you have the theoretical max. This assumes that we find no other source of primary energy other than the sun. If we are able to tap some of the energies predicted by some of the wilder string theories then there is no limit to the possible population.
2006-10-18 09:05:08
·
answer #3
·
answered by oldhippypaul 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe that we have already reached the point where we are suffering a significant decline in the quality of life in order to sustain the excess population of the world. The solution is not to squeeze the planet's resources and stack the population but to limit people production. By not subsidising the production of children by non-contributors, population growth can be halted and even reversed.
2006-10-18 09:01:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Clive 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
According to the BBC website a couple weeks ago, the earth officially hit this mark not too long ago. This is the mark where we are officially consuming more than the earth can produce. This was agreed to by both US and European authorities. Check out the link below and you might still be able to find the story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/default.stm
2006-10-18 09:00:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by AeroMidwest82 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Whoever survives is what the earth carrying capacity will be. I be lieve a great number will nerver return to earth again becaus they will reside in a different place called hell.
I will let you do the estimate.
2006-10-18 11:01:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by goring 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is a hard question to answer. One of the reasons why Carrying Capicity has been increasing is because humans have found alternative ways to replace limited resources.
2006-10-19 04:31:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by BMW M5 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The entire population of the earth can live in three-bedroom houses in the state of Texas. Don't believe the morons who say the Earth is full already. They are just hate-America, anti-capitalism, anti-progress, socialist wackos. Forget them. There is no "problem."
2006-10-18 14:18:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by christopher s 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
The solution is technology and the limits of techology also limits the carrying capacity.
2006-10-18 08:58:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by JimZ 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
good question, but we have the solution to the problem, Bush.
2006-10-18 08:55:20
·
answer #10
·
answered by Max 5
·
2⤊
0⤋