Welcome to Gaia! ::


Llorin
Let's limit the area because to make it little easier. Is it possible to know the carrying capacity of a country knowing its characteristics ?
It depends. Each country has its own set of resources, but also external flows of resources and influences from the ecosystem, which doesn't care what country you are in.
Je Nique vos Merdiers
Llorin
Let's limit the area because to make it little easier. Is it possible to know the carrying capacity of a country knowing its characteristics ?
It depends. Each country has its own set of resources, but also external flows of resources and influences from the ecosystem, which doesn't care what country you are in.


I have a radical simple idea to begin with...
My guess is that the sun is the main factor to determine the carrying capacity of a zone. If there is sun, there are plants and then there are animals... Plants and animals contain calories -energy- which are used to maintain and move people.

Thermosolar or photovoltaic energy sources are a direct source energy from the sun, while solar, geothermal, tidal, wind, hydroelectric are indirect energy source.

Fossil fuels are fossilized solar energy source.
Llorin
Je Nique vos Merdiers
Llorin
Let's limit the area because to make it little easier. Is it possible to know the carrying capacity of a country knowing its characteristics ?
It depends. Each country has its own set of resources, but also external flows of resources and influences from the ecosystem, which doesn't care what country you are in.


I have a radical simple idea to begin with...
My guess is that the sun is the main factor to determine the carrying capacity of a zone. If there is sun, there are plants and then there are animals... Plants and animals contain calories -energy- which are used to maintain and move people.

Thermosolar or photovoltaic energy sources are a direct source energy from the sun, while solar, geothermal, tidal, wind, hydroelectric are indirect energy source.

Fossil fuels are fossilized solar energy source.


What about deserts? They get plenty of sun; moreso than most places since they don't have cloud cover.
Llorin
I was just wondering...

Have someone ever calculated the maximum number of people that can live with all their fulfilled basic needs?

I am sure that someone have calculated that or simulated, but I do not know where to find it.

And what limits its carrying capacity? food , water, health, space?

Let's limit the area because to make it little easier. Is it possible to know the carrying capacity of a country knowing its characteristics ?


More than as many as computers capable of virtual reality are able to contain.

Dangerous Lunatic

We've long-since established that our current number of people is having a patently negative effect on the environment on nearly every scale. Whatever our carrying capacity is, we've surpassed it; between the current number of people currently alive, how much they consume on a daily basis, and how much they'll consume over their entire lifetimes, the Earth cannot sustain us. It will for a time, but unless we prepare for a fundamental shift in our consumption habits, we're in for a very rude awakening.

Our little mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam is a lot smaller than people give it credit for.
Firstly, I haven't read all of the posts here so my apologies if I've overlooked anything that has already been said.

Your discussion around resources has over looked fresh water, which is most likely going to trigger the some kind of 'resources war' at some point in the next 100 years. Fresh water is a lot more scare than people realise. For example, in the UK if there is a period of drought lasting a couple of months there is a hosepipe ban (which we find quite humorous most of the time). The Aral Sea was depleted nearly entirely over a few decades due to rerouting of water for irrigation, seriously google image it, the rate of depletion is astonishing. But one of the main reasons water is going to be sticking point in international negotiations is because of the big industrializing countries such as India. Their big rivers, the Indus and the Ganges cross several countries and there is no law to say who can take how much from which stage of the river, so needless to say whoever is closest to the source can take as much as they want. And suppose they build a large dam upstream and restrict flow across international borders...it's a very delicate situation. Especially considering the huge population growth in that part of the world.

Also, It's late and my brain isn't doing well so I can't really construct a logical argument, so please sympathise with my ramblings.

Fanatical Zealot

OVAH 9000! scream

Adventuring Explorer

36,400 Points
  • Angelic Alliance 100
  • Nerd 50
  • Healer 50
This measurement sorta takes into account all our effects on the ecosystems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

Note though that the global carrying capacity already has been increased several times by improvements in technology and medicine; for instance the land presently known as Sweden had a carrying capacity in the ten thousands during the hunter-gatherer era, and a couple of million (2-3) during the agricultural era.

Artificial fertilizers have raised this limit today. It can be raised additionally if we make better use of the sun's energy.
Layra-chan
Llorin
Je Nique vos Merdiers
Llorin
Let's limit the area because to make it little easier. Is it possible to know the carrying capacity of a country knowing its characteristics ?
It depends. Each country has its own set of resources, but also external flows of resources and influences from the ecosystem, which doesn't care what country you are in.


I have a radical simple idea to begin with...
My guess is that the sun is the main factor to determine the carrying capacity of a zone. If there is sun, there are plants and then there are animals... Plants and animals contain calories -energy- which are used to maintain and move people.

Thermosolar or photovoltaic energy sources are a direct source energy from the sun, while solar, geothermal, tidal, wind, hydroelectric are indirect energy source.

Fossil fuels are fossilized solar energy source.


What about deserts? They get plenty of sun; moreso than most places since they don't have cloud cover.

Some place benefits from the sun in the deserts... I am sure of it.
iDraconequus
We've long-since established that our current number of people is having a patently negative effect on the environment on nearly every scale. Whatever our carrying capacity is, we've surpassed it; between the current number of people currently alive, how much they consume on a daily basis, and how much they'll consume over their entire lifetimes, the Earth cannot sustain us. It will for a time, but unless we prepare for a fundamental shift in our consumption habits, we're in for a very rude awakening.

Our little mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam is a lot smaller than people give it credit for.


when did you surpass our carrying capacity?
Was it when homo sapiens did begin to existence or it was much latter?
Llorin
Layra-chan
Llorin
Je Nique vos Merdiers
Llorin
Let's limit the area because to make it little easier. Is it possible to know the carrying capacity of a country knowing its characteristics ?
It depends. Each country has its own set of resources, but also external flows of resources and influences from the ecosystem, which doesn't care what country you are in.


I have a radical simple idea to begin with...
My guess is that the sun is the main factor to determine the carrying capacity of a zone. If there is sun, there are plants and then there are animals... Plants and animals contain calories -energy- which are used to maintain and move people.

Thermosolar or photovoltaic energy sources are a direct source energy from the sun, while solar, geothermal, tidal, wind, hydroelectric are indirect energy source.

Fossil fuels are fossilized solar energy source.


What about deserts? They get plenty of sun; moreso than most places since they don't have cloud cover.

Some place benefits from the sun in the deserts... I am sure of it.

Some deserts support life, but given that flora in the desert tends to be sparse, if diverse, indicates that while some sun is better than no sun at all, except for those bizarre fungi that don't require light at all, a lot of sun in the absence of things like water or soil quality is not that great at supporting life compared to, say, a forest in a cloudy but moist part of the world. Plants require quite a bit more than sun, and the level of sun that deserts get tends to be detrimental to animal health.
Layra-chan
Llorin
Layra-chan
Llorin
Je Nique vos Merdiers
Llorin
Let's limit the area because to make it little easier. Is it possible to know the carrying capacity of a country knowing its characteristics ?
It depends. Each country has its own set of resources, but also external flows of resources and influences from the ecosystem, which doesn't care what country you are in.


I have a radical simple idea to begin with...
My guess is that the sun is the main factor to determine the carrying capacity of a zone. If there is sun, there are plants and then there are animals... Plants and animals contain calories -energy- which are used to maintain and move people.

Thermosolar or photovoltaic energy sources are a direct source energy from the sun, while solar, geothermal, tidal, wind, hydroelectric are indirect energy source.

Fossil fuels are fossilized solar energy source.


What about deserts? They get plenty of sun; moreso than most places since they don't have cloud cover.

Some place benefits from the sun in the deserts... I am sure of it.

Some deserts support life, but given that flora in the desert tends to be sparse, if diverse, indicates that while some sun is better than no sun at all, except for those bizarre fungi that don't require light at all, a lot of sun in the absence of things like water or soil quality is not that great at supporting life compared to, say, a forest in a cloudy but moist part of the world. Plants require quite a bit more than sun, and the level of sun that deserts get tends to be detrimental to animal health.


I think instead of trying to use the sun's energy, it's more advantageous to use the decrease in the earth's entropy due to the sun.

Too bad I suck at thermo.

Dangerous Lunatic

Llorin
iDraconequus
We've long-since established that our current number of people is having a patently negative effect on the environment on nearly every scale. Whatever our carrying capacity is, we've surpassed it; between the current number of people currently alive, how much they consume on a daily basis, and how much they'll consume over their entire lifetimes, the Earth cannot sustain us. It will for a time, but unless we prepare for a fundamental shift in our consumption habits, we're in for a very rude awakening.

Our little mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam is a lot smaller than people give it credit for.


when did you surpass our carrying capacity?
Was it when homo sapiens did begin to existence or it was much latter?
The short answer to your question is: we don't really know. It could have already happened, it might not have happened yet, it could be occurring as we speak. We do not know for sure.

It depends on the total amount of consumption of every human being on Earth. There are two kinds of ecological overshoot: population, and consumption. If everybody on Earth consumed less than they do, we could sustain a higher population. If the population of Earth were lower, we could all consume more without having an immediate negative effect on the environment.

If everyone in the world lived as the average American does, we would need more than one planet Earth to sustain our consumption for any appreciable human timescale. In fact, we would need somewhere on the order of five planet Earths to sustain a population our size with a consumption level equivalent to the average modern US citizen.

Current estimates of our population and its total consumption say that today, humanity uses the equivalent of 1.5 planet Earths to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste. This means it now takes the Earth one year and six months to regenerate what we use in a year.

Obviously, this paradigm is unsustainable. If humanity does not change its course, the Earth will ultimately turn on us. Soil will fail, taking crops with it. Transportation will grind to a halt and power grids will go offline as fossile fuels run dry. The general quality of air and water around the globe will decrease due to deforestation and carbon emissions. Weather would become more violent, and seasons more varied. Ecosystems will collapse. The extinction rate would skyrocket as whole sections of the continents became desolate and devoid of macroscopic life. And don't even get me started on all the geological activity we're going to cause if we keep emptying whole caverns of oil beneath the crust.

It's not a question of if, but a question of when. If the whole of humankind does not change its thinking, if we do not change the fundamental way we live and what we strive for, nature will rid herself of us and rebuild in our absence. If you've ever seen TV series such as "Life After People", that should give you an idea of what could be.

Dangerous Lunatic

Vannak
I think instead of trying to use the sun's energy, it's more advantageous to use the decrease in the earth's entropy due to the sun.

Too bad I suck at thermo.

Your statement doesn't even make sense.
iDraconequus
Vannak
I think instead of trying to use the sun's energy, it's more advantageous to use the decrease in the earth's entropy due to the sun.

Too bad I suck at thermo.

Your statement doesn't even make sense.
What makes you say that?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum