There's an article at the discovery channel website that describes a paper claiming that the sustainable number of humans is only 6 million -- 1000 times less than the current 6 billion.
But this is clearly ridiculous. A few hundred years ago, there were 30 to 60 million buffalo in North America alone. Buffalo are bigger than us, so clearly North America could sustain at least 30 million humans, not even counting the other continents. We might have to start eating grass, though.
Also, consider that a large percentage of the population of China and India is rural and engaged in subsistence farming. They've been feeding themselves for quite a while, using only local resources. So what reason is there to think that they can't continue to do so? Collectively, those two countries alone have 2.2 billion people. Suppose that only 5% of that is sustainable. That's still 100 million people.
Therefore it seems to me to be a relatively conservative estimate that the world can sustain at least 300 million people, assuming we're all vegetarian, and we kill off all other animals that might compete with us. We might be 20 times overpopulated, but certainly not 1000 times.
I'll file this study in the same category as the flawed ecstasy study where 20% of the subjects died due to heat stroke.
Posted on December 10, 2003 11:23 AM
More science articles
Let me attempt a curious connection back to language design by linking to an essay on sustainable development by none other than John McCarthy, the father of LISP.
-K
Posted by: Kaushik at December 11, 2003 01:36 AMAre you mad when did you see a buffalo driving a car, building houses buy tv and video equipment. infact the Buffalo from my Knowledge doesnt produce loads of rubbish everyday apart from the odd shit.
You need to think again mate It obvious look at what is happening in the world - I would agree that the planet could and probably hold alot more humans - but the cost to the environment - well look at the fact that because of too many humans other species are being wiped off the planet. Never mind the global warming due to humans messing with the environment. The fact of the matter is we have to reduce the human population for the good of all creatures on the planet earth. But I have a feeling its too late already.
But that doesnt mean we shouldnt try and reduce the human population so trying to stop the continued resources depletion.
There are too many humans and when oil peaks we are in for a big DIE-OFF because we will have no more cheap oil to run the tractors and make the pesticides. Stupid humans.
Posted by: Roxy at September 22, 2005 02:44 PMThere ARE too many humans on this planet. referring the moronic buffalo comparison, a man produces 100 pounds of non-biodegradeable waste per year, consumes 1000 gallons of fossil fuel per year. Man destroys the environment, creates thousands of different unnatural poisons, and reproduces irresponsibly. Overpopulation means there will be less of everything for those living.
Less food, fewer jobs, less water, less room, more pollution, and increasing misery.
a man ... consumes 1000 gallons of fossil fuel per year
You're confusing "human" with "average U.S. citizen". Please note the part where I said "we might all have to start eating grass". It should be clear that I was envisioning significant lifestyle changes in order to make our lifestyle sustainable. My point was that if we are willing to change our lifestyle, we can sustain a lot more people than a mere 6 million.
Modern estimates of the size of the Native American population before the arrival of Columbus are between 10 and 100 million, just for North and South America. Although one could dispute how sustainable most of those civilizations actually were, they certainly didn't consume 1000 gallons of fossil fuel per year.
Posted by: Kim at January 12, 2006 10:12 AMHumans are a virus and needs to be controlled. There are too many of us. We are conciously destroying the environment we live in and we dont give a damn, all because the rich want to get richer. There are too many damn cars! we rely too heavily on fossil fuels and we are not doing enough to look for and use other alternatives.
Posted by: Adam at December 18, 2006 10:29 PMI finished the book 1491 the other day. It's a book about what the Americas were like before Columbus. It made an interesting point, saying that the huge herds of buffalo may have been a new phenomenon, caused by the death of around 90% of the Native American population. Previously the native people had kept the herds limited to much smaller numbers.
If this idea is true, then the 30-60 million estimate might be off by a factor of, oh I don't know, maybe five. Rerunning the estimate above, using the most conservative possible interpretation, that means that the world can sustain at least 60 million people. Again, that's a lot more than the estimate of only 6 million.
1491 is a good book, by the way; I recommend it.
Posted by: Kim at December 22, 2006 09:23 AMSure, we are too many humans. The problem is how to reduce our numbers.
I honestly can't think of any fair way of doing this, we could stop treating people in hospitals, make new birth laws controlling how many children you can have ( Which would take alot of time before we see any major change ), Encourage wars (yay, global suffering), Move to a new planet(probably destroying that one too though).
There are probably loads of other ways, but i simply can't think of a good solution..
Posted by: Gustaf at April 13, 2007 02:28 AMAs I se it there are no resonable way of lowering the amount of humans in the world without it going terribly wrong, as in mass riots when richer people can (buy their way out) so to speak. The only thing i can se is that humanity will be decimatead sooner or later by som manner of self inflictead cataclysm or disease. (or something in that manner)
Posted by: Jonas at September 20, 2007 06:40 AMdefect eye human [url=http://wpzt9.247ihost.com/eye-defect.html] defect eye human [/url] clash westway to the world [url=http://avss7.247ihost.com/clash-world.html] clash westway to the world [/url] community discrimination european gender law [url=http://kuipy.247ihost.com/discrimination.html] community discrimination european gender law [/url] j d auto salvage [url=http://shbea.247ihost.com/auto-salvage.html] j d auto salvage [/url] alcohol health problem related [url=http://wqqdd.247ihost.com/alcohol-problem.html] alcohol health problem related [/url] moving nyc self storage [url=http://tzvwt.247ihost.com/self-moving.html] moving nyc self storage [/url] connect laptop pc wireless [url=http://acouj.247ihost.com/laptop-pc.html] connect laptop pc wireless [/url] baking muffin pan top [url=http://gywf8.247ihost.com/baking-muffin.html] baking muffin pan top [/url] airport cologne germany [url=http://wnevg.247ihost.com/cologne-germany.html] airport cologne germany [/url] breed british bulldogs sale [url=http://omxrh.247ihost.com/british-bulldogs.html] breed british bulldogs sale [/url]
Posted by: Bbbvgoybv at October 25, 2007 01:13 PMyou are a total moron. that buffalo comparison was fucking retarded "oh theyre bigger than us so thats ridiculous" are you kidding me? what do you think these facts are saying, that if there are too many humans we'll be squished together?
Posted by: wow at June 17, 2008 01:24 PMIf we were all vegetarian plant species would die off....
I see you have a thing beneath the comment form that asks to prove that you're human. Maybe you should prove it yourself?
fuck all of you let the rich get more richer and let this damn planet and all its stupide humans die off
Posted by: simon at August 30, 2008 06:19 PM