Narz
keeping it real
What would be the ideal number of human beings on this planet and why?
Ideal Earth Population
- Thread starter Narz
- Start date
RoddyVR
Veteran Board NESer
60-100 billion (ie atleast 10 times more then now)
because we can easily fit that many if we use the space we have well, and i see no reason to stop multiplying.
because we can easily fit that many if we use the space we have well, and i see no reason to stop multiplying.
We now use about 35% of the net product of photosynthesis. 100% is probably impossible to reach. 30% has been estimated as our long range-carrying capacity so we have already overshot. We have been liquidating our natural capital as if it were disposable income, and are nearing depletion of certain capital stocks, like oil, wood, soil, metals, fresh water, fish, and animals. This makes continued population and economic expansion difficult.
Continuous expansion is a fundamental tenet of economics. However, the laws of thermodynamics inform us that continuous expansion is impossible throughout an entire system. No matter how efficient our throughput is, you can't get an output equal to the input, let along greater than the input.
In the capitalist world, the word capital has taken on more and more uses. People talk about human capital, which is what labor accumulates through education and work experience. Human capital differs from the classic kind in that you can't inherit it, and it can only be rented, not bought or sold. The concept of natural capital actually resembles the traditional definition more than human capital. It can be owned and bequeathed, and divided into renewable and nonrenewable, marketed and unmarketed.
Manmade capital and natural capital are not substitutable. Put simply, you can't substitute more sawmills for fewer forests. If you're building a house, you can juggle the number of carpenters and power saws, which means they are substitutable, but you can't build a house with half the amount of lumber, regardless of how many carpenters and power saws you use.
There is a fallacy that if you improve manmade capital to use less natural capital, that is a substitution. Rather, that's efficiency. Capital is a quantity of input, and efficiency is the ratio of input to output. No matter how efficient capital is, it can't make something out of nothing.
Sources:
Sheffield, Charles; Limits of Capitalism: Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1994.
Ceresole, Peter and Lisa Nowell; Natural Resources: Landoll Inc, New York, 1996.
Continuous expansion is a fundamental tenet of economics. However, the laws of thermodynamics inform us that continuous expansion is impossible throughout an entire system. No matter how efficient our throughput is, you can't get an output equal to the input, let along greater than the input.
In the capitalist world, the word capital has taken on more and more uses. People talk about human capital, which is what labor accumulates through education and work experience. Human capital differs from the classic kind in that you can't inherit it, and it can only be rented, not bought or sold. The concept of natural capital actually resembles the traditional definition more than human capital. It can be owned and bequeathed, and divided into renewable and nonrenewable, marketed and unmarketed.
Manmade capital and natural capital are not substitutable. Put simply, you can't substitute more sawmills for fewer forests. If you're building a house, you can juggle the number of carpenters and power saws, which means they are substitutable, but you can't build a house with half the amount of lumber, regardless of how many carpenters and power saws you use.
There is a fallacy that if you improve manmade capital to use less natural capital, that is a substitution. Rather, that's efficiency. Capital is a quantity of input, and efficiency is the ratio of input to output. No matter how efficient capital is, it can't make something out of nothing.
Sources:
Sheffield, Charles; Limits of Capitalism: Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1994.
Ceresole, Peter and Lisa Nowell; Natural Resources: Landoll Inc, New York, 1996.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Well, with advancements in food production and engineering feets. Its possible that the world can support up to 10 billion. Possibly even more if we thought about orbital farm colonies.
Mathilda
Queen
What's possible and wha't ideal are hardly the same thing.
Why would full capacity be ideal?
Why would full capacity be ideal?
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
I'm sorry but I fail to understand the question.
The ideal earth population based on which criteria ?
The ideal earth population based on which criteria ?
Narz
keeping it real
My thoughts exactally. I think the ideal number for good quality of life for all would be around 100 million.Mathilda said:
Narz
keeping it real
Your opinion.Marla_Singer said:
What amount of humans do you think would best contribute to your quality of life (assuming we have equal or greater technological resources).
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Maybe 50 million, that will let people live in cities and leave much of the environment untouched for the most part.
A'AbarachAmadan
Deity
Well, I'm going to say ideal of under 10 billion for the following reasons:
1- as nations become prosperous they tend to have less children as has occured in Western society. Hence, if we made the rest of the world as prosperous as the West then we would probably see the same thing and steady the WW population. That's good enough reason to call it ideal.
2- I hate traffic and love nature, so I would like to see us stop expanding.
1- as nations become prosperous they tend to have less children as has occured in Western society. Hence, if we made the rest of the world as prosperous as the West then we would probably see the same thing and steady the WW population. That's good enough reason to call it ideal.
2- I hate traffic and love nature, so I would like to see us stop expanding.
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
1.1 - 3 Billion. Allows for a good build up in best areas without being overcrowded.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Sparta said:
Yeah, if by 'cities' you mean remote feudal villages with four-figure populations...
I don't see what's wrong with that.
hmmmm, with some look towards the future, and keeping an optimistic outlook, 7 billion to me could be a nice number; provided that human colonies are formed on other planets as well mind you, whom can also have large numbers of human population.
