I've been going with the variously proposed 500 million (though one friend thinks that's inadequate for the technological society we need to get into space, I disagree with the goal of needing that in any time in which it couldn't be developed better by smaller population).
But that's cornucopian compared to other estimates I've been hearing. This author comes up with 35 million by two methods of estimation, and 10 million by another, favoring 35 million as our best (largest) sustainable.
It's pointed out that even before the use of fossil fuels, humans were causing deforestation and extinctions locally.
Anyway, almost regardless of numbers, if the best sustainable is so small we're not going to get there without some kind of collapse. He suggests (but underlines, he does not predict) that we could "tumble" down in decade long stretches of slow collapse. That sounds overoptimistic to me. There will be big large collapses, though likely not just one. I predict.
Anyway, he says it's hopeless to achieve such a goal politically. The best we can do is be helpful to those around us.
I can hardly argue with that, but sometimes I still do (I argue for my two couples per child rule).
No comments:
Post a Comment