[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment
In article <JMC.96Aug27081733@Steam.stanford.edu> jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
>From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
>Subject: Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment
>Date: 27 Aug 1996 15:17:33 GMT
>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/
I deleted Bionet.agroforestry from the list. IT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE
CROSSPOST FOR THIS DISCUSSION.
In response to the above:
1. Genetic and Resource simply referred to the two major areas that I
understood would limit population. They are necessarily vague. I do not
pretend that I can put forward a detailed argument in a Newsgroup post.
2. I don't want anyone to believe anything. If I had any studies in mind I
would have referred to them. I do not make unsupported claims of
supposed truth or fact. What you all think is your business.
3. I am not Ehrlich. I offered an opinion. I did not attempt to support or
justify it with facts. I at least make that distinction. Should I ever put
forward a coherent argument on the internet it will be phrased appropriately.
An assertion for John:
I assert that any discussion in this forum that masquerades as more than
opinion is purely the result of inflated egos.
BTW I still hold the OPINION that Joseph was about right re carrying capacity,
a term that was not defined by him, me or anyone else within the context of
this discussion.
Mark Hunt, Plant Science Department, University of Tasmania
"Let us never forget that man earned his living as a biologist long before he
became a mathematician", Skellam, J.G. (1969)
References: