Reply #44: Thats a far cry from debunking Malthus [View All]

[bhikkhu]

I have been reading the Cornell University study on human population, which estimates that the resources of the planet can sustainably support 2 billion, perhaps. They also estimate that the longer the population remains over two billion, the more degraded the natural resource base becomes, and the lower resulting sustainable figure becomes. There are several constraints, fresh water being one of them. It seems the human species utilizes 50% of the planet's fresh water resources (thats from a UN report last year).

I have also been reading ASPO on peak oil quite a bit, which blows even the Cornell study out of the water. The human population growth curve mirrors the energy production curve, and the abundance of fossil fuel production has provides the resources to sustain the current population. The best guesses for the beginning of a net decline in fossil fuel production are this decade. Lacking a cheap, abundant and reliable source of energy, the human population may collapse in this century. From previous models of resource depletion (the middle east 1400 to 400 b.c., for instance) intercultural warfare generally results in depopulation as resources diminish.

I am not immune to your argument, having recently completed several college course on social stratification, the philosophy of worldviews and environmental values, cultural anthropology, etc. But for the most part I suspect they are unhinged from the realities of our time. There are not enough resources to go around. Everybody can't live in an 1800 sf house with central heat and air. Everybody can't drive a luxury automobile. Whether the arguments I started with here are valid or not I am undecided. I would like to see more facts. But I think it is very clear that if the footprint on the earth made by the small population of the US were mimicked worldwide (and I don't think it is possible in any case, based on resource availability), the result would be disastrous.