(October 11, 2018 at 6:27 am)Khemikal Wrote: That you can find malthusian nuts on the internet who are experts in something is entirely unsurprising to me. It doesn't change the fact that the basis for the position is non factual.
Actually the population expert I mentioned was interviewed in a David Attenborough DVD I watched with my wife. BBC and all that.
Sorry, but your position on population is non-factual.
"Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce, just as Malthus argued more than 200 years ago. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. 'If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people,' [eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward] Wilson wrote. The 3.5 billion acres would produce approximately 2 billion tons of grains annually, he explained. That's enough to feed 10 billion vegetarians, but would only feed 2.5 billion U.S. omnivores, because so much vegetation is dedicated to livestock and poultry in the United States. So 10 billion people is the uppermost population limit where food is concerned. Because it's extremely unlikely that everyone will agree to stop eating meat, Wilson thinks the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth based on food resources will most likely fall short of 10 billion."
https://www.livescience.com/16493-people...pport.html
Now I can credit such limits might be stretched based on your proposals, but I think it's simply foolish to believe that population can be unlimited.
