A thought provoking read.

>>The annual Earth Overshoot Day is set to occur on July 29 this year, three days earlier than last year.

That’s the day in 2019 when we will have used up all the resources that Earth’s natural systems can provide and replace in a year, according to the Global Footprint Network.

Or another way to think of it is like this: Let’s say we’ve got a certain amount of food that has to last us all year. We’ll have eaten all of it by July 29. Everything we’re eating after that, we’re taking from next year’s supply, and the year after and so on.

But it’s not just food we’re doing it with.<<

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-25/population-growth-world-overshoot-day/11320990

PermeateFree said:

A thought provoking read.

>>The annual Earth Overshoot Day is set to occur on July 29 this year, three days earlier than last year.

That’s the day in 2019 when we will have used up all the resources that Earth’s natural systems can provide and replace in a year, according to the Global Footprint Network.

Or another way to think of it is like this: Let’s say we’ve got a certain amount of food that has to last us all year. We’ll have eaten all of it by July 29. Everything we’re eating after that, we’re taking from next year’s supply, and the year after and so on.

But it’s not just food we’re doing it with.<<

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-25/population-growth-world-overshoot-day/11320990

did you notice the death rate increases as population increases

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

A thought provoking read.

>>The annual Earth Overshoot Day is set to occur on July 29 this year, three days earlier than last year.

That’s the day in 2019 when we will have used up all the resources that Earth’s natural systems can provide and replace in a year, according to the Global Footprint Network.

Or another way to think of it is like this: Let’s say we’ve got a certain amount of food that has to last us all year. We’ll have eaten all of it by July 29. Everything we’re eating after that, we’re taking from next year’s supply, and the year after and so on.

But it’s not just food we’re doing it with.<<

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-25/population-growth-world-overshoot-day/11320990

did you notice the death rate increases as population increases

No I didn’t. Ref? A graph would be appreciated.

Michael V said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

A thought provoking read.

>>The annual Earth Overshoot Day is set to occur on July 29 this year, three days earlier than last year.

That’s the day in 2019 when we will have used up all the resources that Earth’s natural systems can provide and replace in a year, according to the Global Footprint Network.

Or another way to think of it is like this: Let’s say we’ve got a certain amount of food that has to last us all year. We’ll have eaten all of it by July 29. Everything we’re eating after that, we’re taking from next year’s supply, and the year after and so on.

But it’s not just food we’re doing it with.<<

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-25/population-growth-world-overshoot-day/11320990

did you notice the death rate increases as population increases

No I didn’t. Ref? A graph would be appreciated.

per time it does

more people = more death

transition said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

did you notice the death rate increases as population increases

No I didn’t. Ref? A graph would be appreciated.

per time it does

more people = more death

it’s a trivial reality disguised by population growth

We seem to have this conversation every year.

dv said:

We seem to have this conversation every year.

Yeah, but last year nearly 40% of the population perished through starvation so this year should be better.

dv said:

We seem to have this conversation every year.

I was thinking humanity could take collective responsibility for the totality of natural death required to sustain their own kind(in numbers), seen from rate per time, rather than just the idealized aspects of growth.

it’s good science, measuring things per time, and there’s even a worthy angle for the moral faculties.

so, I thought I could bypass, make a giant leap, not mention overpopulation, assume it doesn’t exist, or isn’t known and has dependencies on factors unknown, or that can’t be adequately projected, to useful levels of certainty.

so, I put to permeate, how many people dying per second, or per day, is enough.

your electricity is measured in kw/h, you car’s speed in km/h, your bank interest similar per whatever, you get paid or charge per hour, a lot of things are referenced to light’s speed per year (or some fraction), you rent a room and pay per day, or week, you get the gist.

say if four people die a second (just a number to make a point) does it make any difference if it’s five per second?

transition said:

dv said:

We seem to have this conversation every year.

I was thinking humanity could take collective responsibility for the totality of natural death required to sustain their own kind(in numbers), seen from rate per time, rather than just the idealized aspects of growth.

it’s good science, measuring things per time, and there’s even a worthy angle for the moral faculties.

so, I thought I could bypass, make a giant leap, not mention overpopulation, assume it doesn’t exist, or isn’t known and has dependencies on factors unknown, or that can’t be adequately projected, to useful levels of certainty.

so, I put to permeate, how many people dying per second, or per day, is enough.

your electricity is measured in kw/h, you car’s speed in km/h, your bank interest similar per whatever, you get paid or charge per hour, a lot of things are referenced to light’s speed per year (or some fraction), you rent a room and pay per day, or week, you get the gist.

say if four people die a second (just a number to make a point) does it make any difference if it’s five per second?

Do you really think the death rate is not taken into consideration and you are the only person to think of it? You must have a very poor opinion about scientific analysis.

dv said:

We seem to have this conversation every year.

But have you now got a more realistic appreciation of the situation, as last year you were completely off the chart?

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

dv said:

We seem to have this conversation every year.

I was thinking humanity could take collective responsibility for the totality of natural death required to sustain their own kind(in numbers), seen from rate per time, rather than just the idealized aspects of growth.

it’s good science, measuring things per time, and there’s even a worthy angle for the moral faculties.

so, I thought I could bypass, make a giant leap, not mention overpopulation, assume it doesn’t exist, or isn’t known and has dependencies on factors unknown, or that can’t be adequately projected, to useful levels of certainty.

so, I put to permeate, how many people dying per second, or per day, is enough.

your electricity is measured in kw/h, you car’s speed in km/h, your bank interest similar per whatever, you get paid or charge per hour, a lot of things are referenced to light’s speed per year (or some fraction), you rent a room and pay per day, or week, you get the gist.

say if four people die a second (just a number to make a point) does it make any difference if it’s five per second?

Do you really think the death rate is not taken into consideration and you are the only person to think of it? You must have a very poor opinion about scientific analysis.

call it psychology, or social psychology, consider the possibility that population growth obscures the necessity of death to make everything work.

it’s one of the reasons religion exists, to distract from the brutish reality life is built on death.

dv said:

We seem to have this conversation every year.

Agree, but what did i say last year? I think it was something about cryogenic ovum storage.

Let’s change the question. How much animal biomass can Earth sustain?

The oceans seem to have very low animal biomass at present, there’s less life there than in the desert. In past times such as the Cambrian it used to support a much larger biomass. Devonian, too.

On land, the present biomass is much smaller than it was during the early Carboniferous.

Have a look at this graph. Earth’s eras with highest biomass tend to correspond to those with highest atmospheric CO2. The formation of coal during the carboniferous sucked so much CO2 out of the atmosphere that the Earth’s temperature plummeted.

For numbers on the axes see https://geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif. The plateau average global temperature is 25 degrees C. The peak CO2 in the atmosphere is 7000 ppm.

To be fair I imagine we should try to determine when a person becomes a burden to the planet and consumes large amounts of resources.
Many babies are born each day but do they have a huge impact compared to the fully grown people I imagine not, less so anyway

Also what don’t we eat that we should, alternative food that could even be pests and better eradicated.

Plus we need to seriously start to switch from meat to vegetables and create vegetable meat that looks, tastes, has the same texture, etc that it is trying to replace. If you had a steak made from vegetables that you couldn’t tell wasn’t meat bar laboratory testing would you make the switch, especially if it was cheaper. I noticed the substitutes we have now are much cheaper if not costlier.

If we took into the equation wastage from everywhere and added it back into the picture as another resource (in reality you can’t do 100% but I wonder just how much could be reused) how much would it change.

This is interesting, and relevent.

“Here, we assemble the overall biomass composition of the biosphere, establishing a census of the ≈550 gigatons of carbon (Gt C) of biomass distributed among all of the kingdoms of life. We find that the kingdoms of life concentrate at different locations on the planet; plants (≈450 Gt C, the dominant kingdom) are primarily terrestrial, whereas animals (≈2 Gt C) are mainly marine, and bacteria (≈70 Gt C) and archaea (≈7 Gt C) are predominantly located in deep subsurface environments. We show that terrestrial biomass is about two orders of magnitude higher than marine biomass and estimate a total of ≈6 Gt C of marine biota”.

From https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506

So, humans at 0.06 Gt C and livestock at 0.1 Gt C totally dominate the mammals. Wild mammals only account for 0.007 Gt C.

If we were to set a limit of sustainable human biomass to a max of 10% of mammal biomass, then that’s only 28% of the current human population and we passed that back in the year 1965.

On the other hand, if we set a limit of sustainable human biomass to a max of 10% of animal biomass, then that’s 330% of the current human population, and we’re sheduled to pass that … never, according to the United Nations. World population growth is decreasing sufficiently rapidly that we’ll never get beyond about 170% of our present population.

If we learn to eat coal, drink desalinated urine and live in a space no larger than a Hong Kong apartment, then there’s no real limit to the sustainable human population on Earth. Forget vegan, we’re talking lithan here.