X-Message-Number: 23786 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:25:28 -0800 From: James Swayze <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #23777 - #23783 -- carrying capacity References: <> >Message #23778 >Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:12:34 -0500 (EST) >From: Charles Platt <> >Subject: population >References: <> > > > <snip> >The median of all estimates was between 8 and 12 billion (not >a precise number, because many "experts" in this field >suggest a probable range rather than a specific figure--again >indicating uncertainty). > > I would say with the advent of raising cities to the sky as the Japanese necessarily are developing rather than continuing to eat up arable and wildlife habitat land the carrying capacity could range far higher. However, I must also consider the downside of overcrowding on social psyche. I understand there were experiments of overcrowding on small mammals and it wasn't pretty. Perhaps we're seeing these effects in the Middle East even now. Still if enough thoughtful planning is put into new human habitats to make them pleasant and feel less crowded we should do fine until we have the capability to live off world/Earth. >Cohen himself figures the population limit by looking at >resources for which there is no substitute, and #1 on his >list is water for agriculture. If about 9000 cubic kilometers >of fresh water are globally available per year, "the optimal >population to be supported by irrigated agriculture is below >five billion people." > >Of course even this estimate, derived by someone who has >spent a large part of his life studying population and >evaluating statistics, could be invalidated very quickly if a >new energy source (for instance) enabled vast desalinization >projects. > > Why are new energy sources needed? Why couldn't wind, wave, geothermal and solar, to mention but a few clean renewable sources, be used to power the desalination and pumping? Put these sources, the equipment such as wind generators, etc. right on the pipes themselves if needed to reduce transmission losses. The Dutch have been doing so mechanically for ages. I'm of the opinion nothing exotic is needed, just the will to do it. The problem right now is politics and entrenched corporate interests. For example we find that fish are showing up with increased mercury, an effect of wide use of coal burning for electricity production. The current administration's answer is not to reduce coal use but to suppress the science that reflects negatively on their policies and gut the EPA. This is probably done, in my opinion, to deflect attention aimed at reducing our dependence on oil that leaves us vulnerable to unfriendly foreign interests but enriches the pockets of this admin's financial supporters and favorite special interest group. We should long ago have put emphasis on renewable energy sources and extremely abundant ones such as Hydrogen. Only special interest pressure and the strangle hold of big oil has prevented it and in this I blame all previous and present administrations. For it to be possible for us to return from cryosuspension the civilized world must not only still exist it must progress. These are uncertain with current energy policies. James -- Member: Cryonics Institute of Michigan http://www.cryonics.org The Immortalist Society http://www.cryonics.org/info.html The Society for Venturism http://www.venturist.org Immortality Institute http://www.imminst.org Methuselah Foundation http://www.methuselahfoundation.org Methuselah Mouse Prize http://www.methuselahmouse.org [Give $$$ for life!] Marijuana Policy Project http://www.mpp.org American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org Nat. Resources Defense Council http://www.nrdc.org Act For Change http://www.actforchange.org People for American Way http://www.pfaw.org MY WEBSITE: http://www.davidpascal.com/swayze/ Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23786