• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Which limits are you thinking of? We’re past the carrying capacity on certain fronts, but that was never a “will collapse” thing as much as a “we’re going into debt” thing, and I think they were first calculated after we had passed them.

    There’s some ways in which we can stretch the Earth, but there’s some that are set in stone. Energy budget comes to mind; we only get so much sunlight, and even if we start doing fusion to sidestep the sun we only have so much ability to radiate waste heat. Energy use on Earth will have to plateau within the next few centuries.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Here’s one:

      “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Ehrlich said in an often-quoted 1970 Mademoiselle interview. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

      quoted from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-didnt-first-earth-days-predictions-come-true-its-complicated-180958820/

      World population in 1970 was 3.7 billion, and is 8.0 billion now. Ehrlich predicted that the carrying capacity of the planet had been met, and yet the population has more than doubled without the mass starvation his model predicted.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, they also thought birth rate would stay steady. It’s dropped like a rock instead.

        It is true that agriculture got better in that time. It probably will again. There’s no hard limit being suggested here, though.