As populations grow they typically survive by what means are available to them. In America a common example of this might be the use of an automobile or electricity. Now in context of resource use a standard would take a certain amount or X resources to execute itself in time with stability. What happens though when the population grows? Can you make more out of what exists or do you require more? Personally I think its both but then here comes my question.

Do you think a roof exists in which human populations can live? What I mean by this is say tomorrow everything we possibly could do to be green was emplaced. I mean say we use materials science to generate the most efficient material for a variety of applications that is as green as is physically allowed. To add to this we use pure solar energy, even going as far as to harvest such from space. Say we even allow for zones of ecological stability to become grandfathered in for what we can. Like the rainforest in south America becomes protected permanently. I do not see how such could work in the simple reality of growing human populations. I think such physically is common sense, in that for every person to have a civil and lawful life as any government would like for instance, it requires a certain level of resources. So basically I do not think our species can persist in time if breeding and population growth remains unchecked.

So in the other light of normal reality now. You not only have your growing population, which historically only continues to grow. This then means resource requirements continue to grow. This also means overall ecological impact continues to grow. This means more ecological stress and change in factors both abiotic such as greenhouse gas concentrations, and biotic example being extinction. So the more we change the natural world around us the more we change how it impacts life. Every massive ecological change in the earths history coincides with mass extinction. The development if you will of our specie is directly tied to this like all other life one way or another.

So here is the scenario basically. Ecological change in the form of global warming for instance triggers for lack of better words extinction rates to jump up and a overall a dramatic change in the ecological landscape. Going from the reality of how things like this work this change will not in any way have to be reversible in the first place, and in another in terms of time, it can take say hundreds of thousands of years in one simple example for conditions to become favorable again for us in the first place. Life itself will persist in some forms, it has for over a billion years. The reality though is it does not have to for every specie, and that is what extinction is overall. How this will play out basically will be resources and inhabitable terrain slowly starting to deteriorate. This will put more and more of a burden on all levels of economy globally. This in turn will have other effects of which one possible future involves massive global instability in regards to international relations, in a future certain not to be able to support such levels of human population density.

So here are the questions for debate.

1: Do you agree that the earth can not support an infinite number of people? I mean at some point would not all drinking water be walking around as people?

2: Do you think that causing extinction to life is beneficial to people, why or why not?

3: Do you think changing to global ecology is beneficial to people, why or why not?

4: Do you think in a world of dwindling ability to support human life as we know it, that such a future would be a peaceful one globally for humanity?

Bonus question.

How do we avoid such a dark but certainly possible future?

Your entire premise is flawed. Malthus said similar things and was as dead wrong as you are. The fact is that as countries become more prosperous their population growth rate goes to 0. The US has been at 0 for decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus

Two years ago, I read an article that espoused the theory of Spaceship Earth. This is a popular concept among environmentalists and population theorists. Many believe that eventually the Earth will not be able to sustain the growing population of countries and that our future will be determined by conflict over ever more scarce resources. On the face of it, it appears to be a very rational and logical theory as resources are limited. The problem, however, is practical. This theory has existed for nearly 50 years. People have been predicting when we have reached the tipping point in population for decades and they have never been right. Theorists predict the disappearance of valuable resources and the warring over the existing ones...but this has not happened. Alarmism is rampant with this theory which discredits its contributions. The common solution for population growth is massive government intervention in both the economic and social spheres of individual lives. This statist solution that many advocate are trying to inflict changes on society where there may be little cause for concern (as evidence by the past). In a sense, the alarmists have cried wolf so many times about population growth that its difficult to take their doomsday scenarios seriously anymore.

1: Do you agree that the earth can not support an infinite number of people? I mean at some point would not all drinking water be walking around as people?

No I do not agree. Humanity is special because of its ability to adapt. They have been able to persevere through very rough times including war, plagues, and natural disasters. Some resources may indeed dry up eventually, but this would only be important if you assume that no new innovation will offset the loss of that resource...which is a stretch.

2: Do you think that causing extinction to life is beneficial to people, why or why not?

It isn't beneficial and it isnt negative. It is what it is. Species were going extinct long before mankind walked the Earth. Humanity's affect on the earth's species is pretty insignificant in the billion years that the earth has existed.

3: Do you think changing to global ecology is beneficial to people, why or why not?

Again, it has nothing to do with being beneficial or not. It just is and people will have to adapt. Maybe the change in ecology will create a host of new inventions that improve life?

4: Do you think in a world of dwindling ability to support human life as we know it, that such a future would be a peaceful one globally for humanity?

This question is based on a number of assumptions. Again we are not taking into account the unknown. Mankind has lived and adapted through history through its innovative ability to create new technologies and create new techniques. It is why we have lasted this long.

How do we avoid such a dark but certainly possible future?

By not overreacting to alarmist contentions about the state of the earth. Whenever I hear talk about the "save the planet" idea, I always think back to a George Carlin skit: George Carlin: Saving the Planet. Mr. Carlin can comment on the issue way better than I can.

There are some very good studies -- many by the UN even -- that have shown that as countries begin to industrialize the population boom begins to slow and then end. The biggest reason is that women begin to get personal freedom and the ability to judge for themselves on whether to have children or not. Without the necessity to have large families to maintain the family and as life gets easier to live -- work is no longer sustenence geared but begins to switch to accumulation of personal wealth/prosperity -- women begin to break free from male dominated control structures and more importantly they get the opportunity to free themselves from restrictive traditions that have been maintained and enforced more by necessity than any actual support or cherished belief of those traditions.
best way to explain; if you no longer need the provider you don't HAVE to submit to their whims and decrees. Economic freedom begins to allow women to have independence.

The downside of this will be some knucklehead yammering on endlessly about the a dire Culture War and how it has demolished cherished traditions.

Your dark future simply will not happen. As we get advancements in many forms of tech things like water consumption can be solved. The oceans are huge and very drinkable once the salt is removed. Even though genetically modified foods have a bad rap right now they are clearly the way ahead and will be utilized more and more.

http://www.npg.org/popfacts.htm

Oh I could wax so eloquent about this, but I'll single this one out for a dreadful lambasting.

Do you know the energy cost of desalinization? Do you know the energy cost of maintaining crops for a large populations?

A population's stability in the modern age doesn't depend on natural resources anymore, It's all energy. Oil, for now. Fissile materials, possibly, in the future. Beyond that? who knows? Maybe energy pacts with dark gods from the abyss, supported by TechnoCore Magiscience. The fact remains. Energy is the base, precious commodity that we need.

And its running out! Haven't you seen the news recently? The oil reserves are shrinking. Which ones? All of them. In an estimated half-century, all the oil will be gone.

Nuclear power? I scoff. Hah. Hah! Fissile materials are oil for the future. Nuclear power will run down, just like oil. And what then? Hydrogen? Electrolyzed from water. How? coal.

You see the problem?

The human technology gradient for technology has been failry steep in every area but one; energy. And unless we find a reliable source, and soon, then our friend Gordo is right. To paraphrase (liberally.) we are royally +++++++

Now energy on a quantum level is one thing which ties into nuclear power but the question is not about survival in that sense. Survivability is a possibility that humans can achieve. The reality or question I am trying to put forward is simply how many people can the earth as an overall ecology support in relation to human populations. There is a maximum I would think from the simple reality that a finite amount of oxygen exists on the earth that has to be at some point really in phase space to be honest. Gibbs may have brought about the idea of free energy but what that really means I think is grossly misunderstood at large.

So on one side you have the big emotional spouts, then on the other you have more and more pollution collecting up in the foodchain for instance in the oceans with the diatom populations, then you subsequently have the impact this holds trophically on say blue whales for instance which population counts have dropped to a mere 3% of what they were... Though of course the reason for this is magical. Though I am sure people will enjoy eating poison really.

So what you have basically is large scale ecological change. Now natural selection being what it is this means the environment that supports and for lack of better words offers up the reality for life to adapt to is changing. So what this means is just that. IF Americas economy for instance had to take over the role of the honey bee the cost of that yearly would be the same budget as required for say a war like Iraq...

That’s just the pollination effect by bees. This does not account for anything else, a simple example as already brought up is drinking water. You see natural selection is a reality for life, its not philosophical, its not debatable. You adapt, survive in relation to the local ecology or you perish. So as we change what our cultures for instance have adapted to we change all the variables that impact survival at a biological level, because the abiotic and biotic share an intrinsic relationship you cannot overrule at this point.

Nuclear power I think along with solar will be the future, that and very green materials. None of this will not matter though if we simply overpopulate ourselves. We will become a giant locus spawn, its not dark, or emo, or sad, its simply the reality of life. It happens everyday, and will continue to do so. People are not at a point in which they can take control of such a reality either, we can only at this point try to adapt. I mean if I need a perfect example, economy is a perfect example. Why do you think people use computers, do you think computers exist with no natural reason? It took a short period of time even combined with death tolls for human populations to boom, I know studies are conducted that show human populations should level out but in terms of count over time of people all they are doing is growing.

I don't have a ton of time, but water isn't a problem for the majority of the world. It's the idea that it's not potable.
http://whyfiles.org/131fresh_water/2.html

This article says that about 16% of the world doesn't have adequate water, but it doesn't say that it has no water at all.

What they need is proper sanitation, adequate filtering, etc.

Also, is desalination so impractical?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination


I think the issue in the world comes down to one major issue. Environmentalists in the world are predominantly viewed as kooks who have a "sky is falling" mentality, and non-environmentalists are "right wing" capitalists out for just a dollar.

There has to be middle ground. Sure- alternative fuels need to replace oil (and other fossil fuels). Places like Dallas (with more wind than Chicago) are ideal for wind generated energy, or even considering our sunshine in the summer, why not solar energy? Well- because fossil energy is where the money is right now.

In rural north Texas, you will see some of these implements, particularly on ranches or farms. However, why not on the top of tall buildings?

I think there needs to be an economic benefit that is truly short-term to get even capitalists to build energy saving and alt energy sources. Our nation doesn't seem to care, and "tree hugging environmentalists" make the subject feel dirty and politicized at times (i.e. Global Warming and Al Gore winning the peace prize for junk science he didn't even invent). Get it?

Sure- we should recycle. People should consider water issues world wide (heck, just take a flight to Cancun... can't drink the water there either!). Is it about technology or about apathy? What can be done that would be financially beneficial and globally responsible?

On another note, how much should nations take their own responsibility? Many if not most nations in crises have been handed billions by Western Society, only to be in the same boat for decades. Is it the environment in crisis or a flawed culture?

Why do you have to make snide comments about gore and global warming? What purpose does it serve? Look, if you don’t like science that’s fine, but I am sure you also pick and choose what facts to support which is kind of disturbing really but that’s another point for another debate.

Lets try to look at the globe for instance and compare it to say a human body. Your body is composed of a gigantic multitude of cells, they are also differentiated, say cells in your hear, the cells that make up your nervous system, your liver. Now when these cells stop working in concert one of the effects of course could be death of the organism instantly, say if a small part of the cells in your heart start firing out of sequence for instance, or you can simply get cancer. Now lets say you have a global issue, like the environment. If people of the earth, for that’s a basic way of saying what they are, do not want to collectively work on issues as large as global warming, America on its own could be the bastion of living green and it would mean absolutely nothing really.

Now you can say western culture this, or eastern culture that, which is fine, but it does not really help the issue at all. Its sort of pathetic to say hey china wont be green exactly the way we want them so we should not have to be green. Well, Nazi Germany put millions of people to death in gas chambers should we also do that too? I mean they did what they wanted right, so obviously it was right right?

No of course not.

I mean if you want to make this political, lets talk about the millions of $$ in disingenuous reporting done by the same companies that happen to be primary shareholders in the GOP, I mean if we want to talk about junk, there exists all the corruption and lies you could want.

Of course you may realize none of this helps the debate at all. Also, as a side note, Gore stopped being a politician a long time ago.

A gaian? I thought that tired old branch of teleological pseud-science was all but gone in the modern age.

I jest, of course. The "planet as a global organism" theory, is becoming more and more believable by the day.


And that makes it inexhaustible?

Perhaps my last post was not clear enough; nuclear power is not a magical cure-all energy source. fissile materials constitute a sort of fuel, just as oil does. All fuels run out, in time.

Developed countries can desalinate their water fairly well, i admit. But the water problems of which Christopher spoke do not occur in developed countries.

It will never go away!

Really though it was just an analogy trying to show how the global community needs to respond to global warming instead of trying to use it as some political weapon.

Estimates of the Earth's human carrying capacity (loosely defined as the number of people the planet can support) range from fewer than 1 billion to more than 1 trillion. This enormous spread follows from widely varying concepts, methods, and assumptions. Most frequently, estimates fall between 4 billion and 16 billion. Counting the highest figure when an author gives a range of possibilities, the median estimate is 12 billion. Counting the lowest estimate when an author gives a range, the median estimate is 7.7 billion. The lowest and highest U.N. population projections for 2050 show that within the next century, the world's population could face exceedingly difficult choices in trading off human well-being and human numbers.
http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/malthus/ad882.htm