 |
 |
It will depend I suppose on which species become extinct. I'm not a biologist, but I imagine that 95% of species could disappear without causing population problems--for humans. But if wheat or rice went then Hom. sap. sap. wd be in serious trouble. -----Original Message----- From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Ballard Sent: 01 February 2006 13:59 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The Way Ahead . . . 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.