Deal has a point, although per bottleneck of the phosporus cycle, the theoretical limit of human population on Earth is with currently available resources, if I remember Asimov's published pontification on the matter back in the day, is about 10-11 billion. So, unless one can work a way around that limit, the OP question devolves into a hypothetical question of, absent feasible constraints on human population growith, how fast would that population have to grow to counteract global warming's effect on sea level. And be sure to include how rising global temperature expands the oceans absent any additional melting of land-based ice.Originally Posted by Deal
Fake news. We are close to peak population.
_____________________________________________
Learn that? I wrote that on the bus coming back from work while tired.
Last edited by GringoStar; 09-21-2017 at 02:59 AM.
Deal and you have a point that is based on the limits of food. I appreciate everyone trying to poke holes in my question, but it was really just a question. I am not saying I have the answer, clearly.Deal has a point, although per bottleneck of the phosporus cycle, the theoretical limit of human population on Earth is with currently available resources, if I remember Asimov's published pontification on the matter back in the day, is about 10-11 billion. So, unless one can work a way around that limit, the OP question devolves into a hypothetical question of, absent feasible constraints on human population growith, how fast would that population have to grow to counteract global warming's effect on sea level. And be sure to include how rising global temperature expands the oceans absent any additional melting of land-based ice.
Everyone is trying to prove me wrong, when just saying that peak population at 10B would probably be a limiting factor way before we saw the amount of people necessary to see a noticeable move to [drinkable] water levels.
The counter to that is apparently the increase in living populations in general on Earth, especially including insects.
Speaking of insects, if humans started eating them instead of meat, that 10B estimation of peak population would jump drastically.
OP's point is moot since we are all going to die on Sept. 23.
Last edited by herbertstemple; 09-21-2017 at 09:35 AM.
Save a Cow - Eat a Vegetarian, they're grass-fed.
I know.
"Winning is the most important thing in my life, after breathing. Breathing first, winning next."
George Steinbrenner
Gringo.
I thought your take was more of a zero sum thought. It was an interesting take.
The pessimism about the future & certain violence over water rights has more to do with how much water is consumed by each additional human - particularly in developing countries that want all the same toys we have.
Car
It takes an estimated 39,090 gallons of water to make a car. It's unclear if that includes the more 2,000 gallons used to make its tires--each tire takes 518 gallons to make.
Pair of Jeans
It takes around 1,800 gallons of water to grow enough cotton to produce just one pair of regular ol' blue jeans.
Cotton T-Shirt
Not as bad as jeans, it still takes a whopping 400 gallons of water to grow the cotton required for an ordinary cotton shirt.
Just too many damn humans. Nature and human stupidity will prolly correct the over population problem.
Perhaps as a first step in examining your question, someone could estimate the human population on earth needed to internally carry the water from melted land-based ice as well as the increased volume of the oceans due to projecte global warming under some projected global temp increases, along with projected years for those increases. That would set long-term benchmarks for population that could be used to back into the required growth rates to reach those target pop levels.Deal and you have a point that is based on the limits of food. I appreciate everyone trying to poke holes in my question, but it was really just a question. I am not saying I have the answer, clearly.
Everyone is trying to prove me wrong, when just saying that peak population at 10B would probably be a limiting factor way before we saw the amount of people necessary to see a noticeable move to [drinkable] water levels.
The counter to that is apparently the increase in living populations in general on Earth, especially including insects.
Speaking of insects, if humans started eating them instead of meat, that 10B estimation of peak population would jump drastically.
Then, examine the feasibility of those growth rates using various cultural changes, such as diets, procreation and family norms, living conditions, and government policies, as well as potential technologies.
_____________________________________________
and the almond growers will be the final nail
True and nice stats. My question really stemmed from wondering about the total amount of water on Earth and if it has changed at all within human existence. I know that clearly the amount of liquid water has increased, due to the melting of glaciers, etc., but I was wondering more about whether elements have traveled off or on the planet in any one direction, which led me to reading about exchanges in atmospheric layers.
Anyway, no argument here about humans using more water than we drink or consist of as a biomass. We have waterparks in deserts! Pre-internet and affordable cable, one of the biggest past-times for kids was just turning on a hose for the whole summer.
We need better ways of filtering, but clearly also better ways of making jeans.
I like the question in this google expert era.
ASAIK the water available to the planet hasn't changed. It's here or there but the same. How that affects humans is a different story.
The real question for us water hogs is would you like crickets with that?
I like the question in this google expert era.
ASAIK the water available to the planet hasn't changed. It's here or there but the same. How that affects humans is a different story.
The real question for us water hogs is would you like crickets with that?
Very true, although there are better options: https://criknutrition.com/pages/why-...protein-powder
You mean better options as in powdered?I like the question in this google expert era.
ASAIK the water available to the planet hasn't changed. It's here or there but the same. How that affects humans is a different story.
The real question for us water hogs is would you like crickets with that?
Very true, although there are better options: https://criknutrition.com/pages/why-...protein-powder
The crickets I know from childhood I wouldn't go near unless to burn with a magnifying glass. Even stepping on these guys was no treat as
their guts were green.
I've eaten all kinds of insects in SE Asia, but if I had to eat them on a regular basis, I would prefer the powder.You mean better options as in powdered?
The crickets I know from childhood I wouldn't go near unless to burn with a magnifying glass. Even stepping on these guys was no treat as
their guts were green.
If eating bugs for sustenance, you have to eat a ton of them per day.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote