[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment



In article <mhunt.18.000C424A@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au> mhunt@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au (Mark A. Hunt) writes:
    > 
    > In article <320CF7CA.53C2@vgernet.net> Joseph Zorzin <redoak@vgernet.net> writes:
    > >From: Joseph Zorzin <redoak@vgernet.net>
    > >Subject: Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment
    > >Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 16:57:46 -0400
    > 
    > >Hmmm.... I would suggest that the carrying capacity for homo sapiens on 
    > >this planet would be a few million, about what it was in the early 
    > >Paleolithic. I suspect not many will agree with me. <G>
    > 
    > I would agree with you. I thought about 25 million worldwide was probably a 
    > reasonable maximum figure, taking into account resource and genetic issues.

It is pompous nonsense to refer vaguely to "resource and genetic
issues".  Mark Hunt wants us to believe that he knows of some studies
that prove that.  Even Ehrlich now settles for 1.5 billion, not
offering much basis for the numbers.  Let's see if Mark Hunt will come
up with any definite assertions.

See my Web page http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ for
arguments that at least 15 billion can be supported indefinitely.
    
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/



Follow-Ups: References: