The problem is that carrying capacity is likely to be significantly harmed
by the process of population collapse. While 1 to 2 bn may have been
possible before industrialisation, and surely something more might in
principle be possible with some form of low impact technology, the
transition will not be smooth and we cannot assume that pre-industrial
levels will be available. If we trigger mass extinction then to talk of any
population levels at all is fantasy.
On the other hand, Limits to Growth - the 30 Year Update argues that an 8
billion population is still conceivable, in a world within limits, though
the difficulty of making that transition should not be underestimated.
D
David Ballard
(00 44) (0) 5600 433801 - work
(00 44) (0) 1672 520561 - home
(00 44) (0) 7840 544226 - mobile
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Ward
Sent: 01 February 2006 13:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The Way Ahead . . .
it's a very good point, i think most estimates of long term sustainable
population size are around 2 billion tops. population size is a crisis in
itself.
if that is case how do we contract to that population? it's a very murky
area. some seem to believe ina Gaia'esque view that over-population will
bring about disease, famine and so on which will regulate the population and
return it to a 'safe' level.
|