k in population biology has a very specific meaning: carrying capacity.
And in the case of most organisms, "carrying capacity" has a very specific meaning too: it's the maximum population size that an environment can sustain indefinitely with the biotic and abiotic conditions and resources that characterize it.
But what does carrying capacity mean in the context of humans?
In other words, how many people can the Earth support? This question quickly becomes extraordinarily complex because humans are not like most animals; we can support ourselves because we are not completely dependent upon our immediate surroundings. Of course, at the end of the day, we do depend upon the resources of the environment, but we have evolved so far beyond other organisms that we are able to innovate with these resources so that the land that could support 10 humans centuries ago can now support 100 humans. We have established trade routes that allow the surpluses of one region to support human life in other regions.
For example, consider this: in the Midwest, enormous fields of crops can be cultivated. However, the region cannot support a proportionally enormous immediate population because it lacks other resources. For our purposes, let's say "water" is a limiting resource in the Midwest. Similarly, other regions have their own, different surpluses and limiters. But by trading, both regions can support more people - and along the West and East coasts, many, many more people can be supported.
Thus, our k-value is partially dependent on world trade. In theory, globalization can support more people than localization. But there's much more - factors such as environmental degradation, inter-state war, and poverty have to be considered. Each raises its own questions: will we continue to damage the environment? Will this significantly reduce the carrying capacity of humans on Earth? What standard of living do we want to uphold?
Most estimates say the human population will reach 9 billion by 2050. The overwhelming majority of these people will live in abject poverty. In this context, does it even mean anything to say that the earth "can support" 9 billion people? Many scientists agree with this logic and proclaim that we have already surpassed our carrying capacity and therefore need to reverse population growth in order to fix the world's biggest problems with lasting solutions. Others disagree, saying our technological advance will allow several more billions of people to live on Earth sustainably.
I think that it is naive to believe we can reverse population growth in the next century, so we have to plan everything around a 9-billion-person world. We have to fix our societal problems within that context. Simultaneously, we must utilize all the population-control strategies we have to keep the human population below 9 billion.
And in the case of most organisms, "carrying capacity" has a very specific meaning too: it's the maximum population size that an environment can sustain indefinitely with the biotic and abiotic conditions and resources that characterize it.
But what does carrying capacity mean in the context of humans?
In other words, how many people can the Earth support? This question quickly becomes extraordinarily complex because humans are not like most animals; we can support ourselves because we are not completely dependent upon our immediate surroundings. Of course, at the end of the day, we do depend upon the resources of the environment, but we have evolved so far beyond other organisms that we are able to innovate with these resources so that the land that could support 10 humans centuries ago can now support 100 humans. We have established trade routes that allow the surpluses of one region to support human life in other regions.
For example, consider this: in the Midwest, enormous fields of crops can be cultivated. However, the region cannot support a proportionally enormous immediate population because it lacks other resources. For our purposes, let's say "water" is a limiting resource in the Midwest. Similarly, other regions have their own, different surpluses and limiters. But by trading, both regions can support more people - and along the West and East coasts, many, many more people can be supported.
Thus, our k-value is partially dependent on world trade. In theory, globalization can support more people than localization. But there's much more - factors such as environmental degradation, inter-state war, and poverty have to be considered. Each raises its own questions: will we continue to damage the environment? Will this significantly reduce the carrying capacity of humans on Earth? What standard of living do we want to uphold?
Most estimates say the human population will reach 9 billion by 2050. The overwhelming majority of these people will live in abject poverty. In this context, does it even mean anything to say that the earth "can support" 9 billion people? Many scientists agree with this logic and proclaim that we have already surpassed our carrying capacity and therefore need to reverse population growth in order to fix the world's biggest problems with lasting solutions. Others disagree, saying our technological advance will allow several more billions of people to live on Earth sustainably.
I think that it is naive to believe we can reverse population growth in the next century, so we have to plan everything around a 9-billion-person world. We have to fix our societal problems within that context. Simultaneously, we must utilize all the population-control strategies we have to keep the human population below 9 billion.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.