home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!dietz
- From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
- Newsgroups: sci.environment
- Subject: Re: population load question
- Message-ID: <1992Sep6.160027.11632@cs.rochester.edu>
- Date: 6 Sep 92 16:00:27 GMT
- Article-I.D.: cs.1992Sep6.160027.11632
- References: <1992Sep3.160709.11059@samba.oit.unc.edu> <1992Sep3.171421.5807@cs.rochester.edu> <1992Sep4.165811.9405@samba.oit.unc.edu>
- Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <1992Sep4.165811.9405@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
- >In article <1992Sep3.171421.5807@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
- >>In article <1992Sep3.160709.11059@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
-
- >>> Whatever the population carrying capacity turns out to be, we can say
- >>> with some certainty that it is less than the current 5+ billion. Certain
- >>> very visible events around the world in the last years have made it
- >>> clear.
- >>
- >>I hope you display more rigor in your physics than you do in this
- >>posting. For starters, define "carrying capacity".
- >
- >Carrying capacity, n. Number of people who can live in a sustainable way
- >in arable land areas of the earth's surface in reasonable comfort with
- >reasonable nutrition.
-
-
- Ah. With *what technology*? Only current technology? Technology of
- 1000 years ago? 1000 years from now? Your definition of "carrying
- capacity" is so imprecise as to be useless.
-
- As I said, I hope you display more rigor than this in your physics.
-
- Paul F. Dietz
- dietz@cs.rochester.edu
-