[seclorum]

>The main failure of this article is that it assumes that social problems are outside biology and that they are easy to solve.

The main point of this article is that the archeological record proves that this is the case. 200,000 years of evidence suggests that, in spite of our superstitions, we humans are capable of managing our resources and replenishing the world from which we derive our sustenance.

Are you sure you're not just harboring a fixed superstition on the subject, which has just been challenged?

[twykke]

Can we all agree that the amount of humans which the Earth's (mass/surface area/volume/energy/environment/resources/what-have-you) can support is finite? Can we also agree that the ideal number of humans on Earth is somewhere between 0 and this finite limit?

In this case, I would simply argue that the ideal amount is somewhat lower than the amount of humans which would necessitate covering the entire Earth's landmass and oceans with a planet-sized city, obliterating all natural landforms and all species except those found in factory farms and zoos.

I guess what I am trying to say is, if we consider overpopulation not to be a problem, then we must believe that humans are wise enough to stop multiplying before Earth becomes a monoculture. This is the argument that I find hard to believe.

[lutusp]

> The main point of this article is that the archeological record proves that this is the case.

DO you know what they say on Wall Street? "Past performance is no guarantee of future returns"? The same rule applies to biology. The reason the future diverges from the past is because it's guaranteed to be different. As to human population growth, there's no basis for comparing the future to the past. But I will say this -- on at least one occasion in the past, humans were nearly wiped out by just one volcanic eruption:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck

Quote: "The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 10,000 individuals[3] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidences of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidences of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[4] and the relatively low level of genetic variation with humans."

Ten thousand humans. The only reason we survived as a species is because of chance, not destiny. And that event is easily seen in the genetic record -- it's very likely to be just one of many examples where we survived only by chance, on a planet where 90% of all species have been wiped out.

> Are you sure you're not just harboring a fixed superstition on the subject ...

I just quoted the scientific record. I can also describe the Logistic function, a scientific biological modeling tool that reliably predicts the future of species who try to exceed the carrying capacity of their environments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function

The curve is nearly flat at the left because there are too few organisms to sustain a higher growth rate.

The curve is nearly flat at the right because mass starvation results in too few surviving organisms to sustain a higher growth rate.

Welcome to natural selection, and to science.

[seclorum]

We managed to survive. We'll continue to manage to survive: if we manage.

Welcome to logical positivism. :P

[hannibal5]

Yes. I'm 100% sure. If you don't believe me go and look at how we are capable of managing our resources in Sahelin region.

[seclorum]

.. okay, fine: then you go and see how we've managed our resources in .. oh, lets just take - The Whole of Europe - and compare.

Just because some humans 'are stupid' doesn't mean all humans are. There is a lot of evidence that we, who choose to manage, will outlive those who choose to be stupid. 200,000 years of it, in fact.

(Stupidity might be contagious; the point is though: so is intelligence.)

[hannibal5]

Population growth in Europe (whole continent) has stopped and is currently in decline.

[seclorum]

A good sign that its being managed.