Can Humans Change Their Carrying Capacity On Earth?

[Plenoptic 0]

OK, so every animal on this planet has it's own carrying capacity on Earth. There is only enough resources on the Earth to support enough animals/people. There is also the competition and the food chains that control the population of animals. Like we eat deer and cow and pigs and what not, but if we weren't around, there would be more right? To learn more about the carrying capacity of a species on Earth then:

search:carrying capacity define:carrying capacity

 

We started talking about this in environmental science today at school. Can we, as humans, change our carrying capacity on Earth? Now I'm going to say yes, but only to a certain point really. I mean I'm not going to fight for it til death, I can see why we may not be able to but I'll put some reasons why we can, and some of why we can't.

 

Why I say we can change our carrying capacity on Earth

1. We have the capability to clone more food if necessary and with more advances in technology we will be able to do more and more to synthetically produce food. (whether it's moral or not)

2. If we run out of space for houses, we can start to build up and we'll have apartments in 30 story buildings instead of houses. We can then destroy some of the houses to use for land for natural resources.

3. We can really rid ourselves of any predator of our own so we will be the dominant species on Earth.

 

Why we may not be able to change our carrying capacity on Earth

1. Major pollution problems can build up and cause disease, but with advances in medicine we can heal the problem but we may also lose all sources of the medicine which goes back to being able to maybe synthetically make things in the future. Plus our bodies adjust to harmful things so in future generations it will not affect them.

2. Can it really be said that we are changing our carrying capacity or would it be considered destiny or something of that sort.

 

I'll add to this list as I can think more about it. I can't really remember all the points we brought up.

[9block 0]

Well, we are slowly progressing to reduce emissions... and therefore pollution may be a problem in the past in the future. Hopefully. As for our food and natural resources, we will continue to plunder. However, there are solutions and efforts being made.As for suggestions to help...Restrictions on land would help develoing. Governments setting aside areas for agriculture and areas for wild - and insuring they stay that way will help out. This will force developers to build in concentrated areas. (I realize some government's are doing this... an area near my cottage has put a ban on land, not allowing any more cottages to be built on the area)As for housing types... obviously condos and apartments are the way to go... but who wants to raise a family in an apartment. No many people.. this is why housing costs in major cities is very high.There are too many topics that intertwine with this subject, its hard to get down. I'm pretty sure with a little bit of research you could easily write pages and pages on this topic.

[truefusion 3]

...but if we weren't around, there would be more right?

Only 'cause we usually want more than what we need. The demand is high, but the supply is low.

 

Why I say we can change our carrying capacity on Earth

1. We have the capability to clone more food if necessary and with more advances in technology we will be able to do more and more to synthetically produce food. (whether it's moral or not)

 

...

 

3. We can really rid ourselves of any predator of our own so we will be the dominant species on Earth.

[1]Synthetically? If i'm not mistaken, even third-world countries' food is healthier than ours (even though they may not have as much as we do).

[3]Aren't we already on the top of the food chain? What then is considered our predator besides our own selves?

 

Why we may not be able to change our carrying capacity on Earth

1. Major pollution problems can build up and cause disease, [1:2]but with advances in medicine we can heal the problem but we may also lose all sources of the medicine which goes back to being able to maybe synthetically make things in the future. [1:3]Plus our bodies adjust to harmful things so in future generations it will not affect them.

[1]You mean more than what we already have?

[1:2]Hmm? We haven't even been able to cure many things with our current medicine, even though we are "so close to the cure"—and look how far in our technology we are.

[1:3] So we should be forced to consider these harmful thing in our own diets?

[Plenoptic 0]

I am not saying this is really the right way to go or anything, but is it possible that we can really and if so how? Life would be harsh I think having 50 story apartment buildings. I understand that food outside of our country is healthier but if we start to mass produce apartments and what not across the world. For being on top of the food chain, we are with our weapons and what not but without our weapons, other then maybe sticks or our fists, then really we are defensless. But yes we are on top of the food chain with our resources. I can also understand the problems with medicine, but at the moment it isn't what kills the population like back a few hundred years when it was a miracle if children were to survive their first 5 years, or for someone to make it past the age of 50. We are still advancing in medicine and in technology which is why I think it'd be possible. As for [1:3], what I meant was, if we were to start changing the world completely and build up instead of out, and have areas for mass agricultural production, when the pollution and disease problem builds up more, our bodies start to adjust to it to fight it away. It'll become part of our daily lives so our bodies will learn to fight it off and start the immune making process.

[truefusion 3]

I am not saying this is really the right way to go or anything, but is it possible that we can really and if so how?

There appears to be only one way: help others. Currently, people are mostly about taking care of only themselves, "What doesn't concern me, i don't deal with." By the definition of "carrying capacity", if a group of people are going to survive an unfavorable moment in life, they have to be willing to work together. Merely packing them up in one area isn't going to do much if they aren't willing to work together.

 

As for [1:3], what I meant was, if we were to start changing the world completely and build up instead of out, and have areas for mass agricultural production, when the pollution and disease problem builds up more, our bodies start to adjust to it to fight it away. It'll become part of our daily lives so our bodies will learn to fight it off and start the immune making process.

That's only in theory, but, in my opinion, it fails before it can even be tested. For we can't even fight away certain diseases that we have today, how much less when new diseases appear and the previous ones become stronger! I'd say, the population will die off before it even gets a chance to "fight it off"—or at least a lot of people will end up getting sick to the point of death.

[9block 0]

perhaps the advance of medicine has/will cause more problems in the long run.With no medicine, the population would be balanced... For example; racoons don;t use medicine. If they are sick, they either die or survive (Survival of the fittest). This controls the racoon population.However with medicine, we are playing with the natural course that is supposed to occur. We are stopping natural deaths from occurring. Is this have any better morals then cloning? Either way, we are affecting the natural course that is supposed to take place.

[Plenoptic 0]

I guess in theory it would work out but in real time, it wouldn't really happen. If new problems arise that start to kill the population off a little bit at a time, it will occur even faster because of the concentrated areas. I guess that also means that the problems will limit the populations just as much as the problems we have do today. So either way something will happen that will limit the population because of "limiting factors" that make the "carrying capacity" what it is. I guess the thought of us having more power than other animals made me feel it was possible, but really we are like everything else.

[TikiPrincess 0]

I remember discussing this in my human geography class. According to Thomas Malthus' theory of exponential growth, he believed that the human race would exceed it's carrying capacity and the ability to sustain itself as early as the 1800s. With the rate of births far surpassing the rate of deaths, we would exhaust our food supply. However, due to advances in medicine, science, agriculture, and industry, most industrialized countries produce much more than is actually needed, and I think science will continue to advance to provide us with enough resources. We are nowhere near a food shortage, though many Americans are malnourished despite being obese.The natural predator of humans really is other humans. While we stand less of a chance out in the wild, man has the ability to fashion tools and possibly defeat an animal if faced with the situation. It's not easy, but possible, and a person in top form can usually outwit most animals. Humankind has a rather nasty tendency to turn on itself, though. Wars and greed cause much more damage to the population than wild animals. Population control legislation and education is also key to maintaining the population. Few countries will go to the extremes that China has with it's one-child policy, but studies have shown that education can largely affect the growth rate of a population. Women who are pursuing a degree are less likely to want to start a family, and women with careers are more likely to wait longer between pregnancies and thus, less children.There's also the idea of darwinism and natural selection. Those who have adapted to their surroundings are more likely to procreate and survive. Humans are notorious for their ability to adapt or alter their surroundings as well as adapt to them. Scientists are starting to learn how to manipulate DNA, so perhaps we'll begin to see genetic mutations that allow people to live in arctic climates or below the ocean's surface.Honestly, I'm more fearful of the economic implosion rather than a population one.