No, we exceeded carrying capacity in the 1800's, but then, instead of = rolling over like the dodo, we innovated and increased the carrying = capacity.
Pray tell, what is "OUR current standard of living?" The Earth could = easily sustain the current human population (we may argue that it is, = since population is growing world-wide!). The problem is not a shortage = of resources. The problems are current waste of resources, along with = misdistribution, excess consumption by some, corruption, and = selfishness, et al. Anyway, if we are just like any other biological organism (as so many = aver), it'll all be taken care of. If we exceed our carrying capacity, = we'll experience decimation like so many E.coli colonies on a petri = dish. No problem. Get it while the gettings good. =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Neil K Dawe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 11:38 AM Subject: Re: The satisfaction of not being a parent ...I think the point is that there are 6.6 billion of us here now when=20 > there should really only be around 2 billion (best guesstimate at our=20 > current standard of living with just distribution of resources) = assuming=20 > we want to be sustainable. >=20 > We exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth back in the late = 1980s,=20 > based on EFA, which is extremely conservative (e.g., it doesn't = factor=20 > in the needs of other creatures) and at our current growth rate of=20 > around 1.2% we'll double our current population in less than 60 years=20 > appropriating or liquidating more ecosystems and further increasing = the=20 > loss of biodiversity and the life supporting ecosystem services. >=20 > On our current path, we won't have to worry about where 'everyone' = will=20 > find 'others' as there likely won't be many (any?) of us around. >=20 > Neil
