• Bloginton Blakley
    58


    "Your arguments are nonsense. Human energy comes from consumed agricultural produce"

    Where does the produce come from?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    5.5k

    The produce is grown. But how does that take us outside the solar budget?
  • Bloginton Blakley
    58


    Are you familiar with the idea of carrying capacity?

    "The carrying capacity of a biological species in an environment is the maximum population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water, and other necessities available in the environment."

    So, would you agree that the Earth has a different carrying capacity if we adopt a hunter-gatherer lifestyle than an agrarian lifestyle?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    5.5k

    Your definition of 'carrying capacity' is according to 'species'. Are you saying that the hunter-gather is a different species than the agrian? Otherwise, as the same species the carrying capacity is the same.
  • Bloginton Blakley
    58
    You've already acknowledged that agriculture supports larger populations. Are you changing your mind?

    Hunter-gatherers need much more land to live on than farmers. Different methods produce different population sizes.

    I have no idea why you think a species change is necessary. We aren't dogs, we can chose different lifestyles and those decision have consequences.
  • Bloginton Blakley
    58
    Here's a vid:

    https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-history-of-human-population-growth-and-carrying-capacity.html

    You will note that carrying capacity changes over time as new methods are adopted.
  • unenlightened
    3.5k
    When we rather coolly refer to “real estate” or the “ownership of the means of production” we are actually talking about, at least philosophically, is the loss of unity between subjectivity and objectivity. The common air amid these hills was an aspect of the common land which were systematically stolen by a parcel of Parliamentary rogues. When Wordsworth thought of the common air or the common wind it was in association with this vast loss affecting not only England but the USA whose landmass was surveyed then divided into squares, after precisely targeted settler violence terrorized the indigenous inhabitants, to be sold also in the 1790s.
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/12/14/the-significance-of-the-common-wind/?fbclid=IwAR034iNIOldp-wE1AnNdKL5tPIm5y5wwXTRgQFHnORDdY-3pJp-7fAoi_ik
  • MrSpock
    9
    Unconditional basic income will cause capitalism to turn in a natural way into communism.
  • Marchesk
    2.5k
    our definition of 'carrying capacity' is according to 'species'. Are you saying that the hunter-gather is a different species than the agrian? Otherwise, as the same species the carrying capacity is the same.Metaphysician Undercover

    Nah, the carrying capacity changes as technology improves to support more of the same species (humans). A hunter-gatherer lifestyle would not support billions of people. We have billions of people now because modern civilization makes it possible. If the lights went out for good, our population would fall back to medieval times. (There's a fictional series of books that explores this.)

    Future progress may further increase the carrying capacity of Earth for humans.
  • boethius
    123
    Nah, the carrying capacity changes as technology improves to support more of the same species (humans). A hunter-gatherer lifestyle would not support billions of people. We have billions of people now because modern civilization makes it possible. If the lights went out for good, our population would fall back to medieval times. (There's a fictional series of books that explores this.)Marchesk

    This is not correct. The fact that technology (which I agree is a big factor) can increase carrying capacity, and technology is largely responsible for going from 1 billion to 7 billion people in a bit over a century, we are currently in ecological overshoot.

    I agree that we could use technology to be within ecological capacity for 7 to 10 billion people, but simply because we have the technology to do so doesn't imply it's actually the case.

    The longer we stay in overshoot, the worse the ecological consequences are and the harder it will be for 7 / 10 billion people to bring things into stability when we decide to make the effort, and at some point it's impossible and a large die-off will result regardless of our knowledge.

    Although science and technology is improving all the time, our ecological problems are getting worse all the time.

    It's simply ridiculous risk-mitigation strategy to assume technological improvements will outpace our problems.

    It's simply bad scientific literacy to place great faith in the science that provides us modern technologies but suddenly have zero faith in the part of our science that demonstrates severe ecosystem risks of our current setup. The choice between our current infrastructure and production cycles and medieval times is of course a false dichotomy: there's all sorts of ways for society to organize with modern scientific knowledge.

    If this misconstrues your position, please elaborate on it.
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.