Carrying capacity is defined as how many organisms can survive sustainably in a certain region without destroying the resources. There are many limiting factors, such as shelter, abundance of food and water, predation, and many different factors can be the constraint that will determine the human carrying capacity. Human carrying capacity is the amount of people that can live on earth without destroying its future. Given the rapid population growth of Earth and our current failure to meet the simple basic needs of most of the world’s population, the human carrying capacity has become a serious concern. Earth could support a lot more people living a simple country lifestyle than an American suburban one. One degree that has been developed to evaluate carrying capacity on Earth is the ecological footprint, which shows each person individual share.
Both human carrying capacity and sustainable development can relate closely because they refer to necessity to live off interest instead of capital. If we kill off forests faster than they can grow back, then we need to increase agriculture until it drains the soil of fertility and make wasteful use of the non-renewable resources, and we can increase the number of people that can live on Earth, but we are also decreasing the capability to support humans in the future. The development in the west was partly a success from lessening some non-renewable resources and importing cheap commodities.
It is hard to estimate the total carrying capacity of Earth since the technology available, the current standard of living, and the use of resources differs around the world. Currently the richest 1/5th of the worlds population uses about 4/5ths of the worlds available resources, so the remaining popu...
... middle of paper ...
...p change the world. But if I were to have to pick one factor then I would say put a restriction on resources per country to help lower the standards of certain lifestyles in order to help raise the standards of others. If we were to start this trail of restricting certain resources in January 2014, then the goal to have everything balanced back out would be about December 2014. I would give this trial about one year in order to work out any problems or difficulties if needed, to get the countries to get use to the new restrictions, and to also see how each country reacts to these restrictions throughout all seasons and changes. This is just one way in which we could try and take control of this problem, as there are many other ways with the other limiting factors. The main goal is to get the population to understand and conform to surviving on less instead of more.
Humans are damaging the planet to live comfortably, we must change the way food is distributed worldwide, support local farmers and switch to a healthier diet in order to stop global warming. The current global has been getting better for us humans over the years, from eating bread and eggs 3 times a day in the XV century, now we can eat better than the kings of those times, however the much of the food in not healthy and the global food system still fails in getting food to every individual in the planet and in addition it contributes to the destruction of our world. Ms. Anna Lappe explains how the food system contributes to around 1/3 of the global warming issue in her essay “The Climate Crisis at the End of Our Fork”, while a group of Plos one explains the issues about the export and import of food growth over the last 50 years in the
As small mobile groups of hunter-gatherers adopted a sedentary lifestyle, they mastered both agriculture and animal domestication. These small settled groups quickly evolved into cities and towns that encompassed the entire globe. Today the estimated population of the world is over 6.2 million people.1 As the population has grown, it has had several deleterious effects on the Earth. These include climate changes, the spread of diseases, declining food production, deforestation, and environment pollution (particularly air pollution). As people have become more conscious of these harmful effects, they have begun to devise strategies to combat this problem. Among the suggested responses include a switch to renewable energy, a call for zero population growth, and adopting sustainable agricultural practices.
All of these are consequences of one question deep at the heart of the quest for sustainable human existence; the question of the maximum capacity supportable by the planet Earth. As is true of a good deal of the puzzles plaguing our time, little consensus is to be found surrounding this topic.
In many of the developing countries perhaps, another factor that they relate to population is poverty. If the number of population is high then there is the existence of poverty which ultimately leads to resource scarcity. But this is barely true, studies shows that there is no direct link between population growth and poverty. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States concluded in its 1986 report, titled Population Growth and Economic Development as cited by Jan (2003) that it is misleading to equate poverty with population growth per se. It found that the claim that population growth led to resource exhaustion was mistaken and it pointed out that to a great extent environmental problems could be resolved by appropriate government policies designed to correct market failure. This study was later confirmed by the Independent Inquiry Report in to Population and Development (IIRPD) commissioned by the Australian Government in 1994. It acknowledged a positive correlation between population growth and sustainable development (Jan, 2003).
A personal ecological footprint, also known as an eco-footprint, is the demand that an individual person puts on the Earth’s natural resources; such as land, ocean, and the waste that the individual produces. A person’s consumption of the Earth’s resources and how that individual impacts the earth help to create a personal eco-footprint calculation. At http://myfootprint.org/, I calculated my personal ecological footprint and discovered my impact on the Earth’s resources and its ecosystem. The ecological footprint quiz results were that if everyone on the planet lived my lifestyle we would need 3.86 Earth’s to sustain the world’s population.
It is a known fact that the world population is increasing without bound; however, there is a debate if this increase is a good thing or if it will prove catastrophic. The article “The Tragedy of the Commons” by Garrett Hardin discusses how the ever-increasing world population will exhaust the world of its natural resources, and eliminate human’s capability of survival. On the other side of the argument is Julian L. Simon who wrote “More People, Greater Wealth, More Resources, Healthier Environment.” This article proposes the theory that with an increase in population, human’s quality of life is amplified. One particular issue that they both mention and have drastically different views on is the future of agriculture and human’s ability to sustain it.
Prevent dangerous climate change by phasing out fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas) and replacing them with clean renewable energy such as solar.
We can slowly stop world hunger, but it takes time. By donating food to a local organization, they will distribute the food out. Also, you can take food to people who need it, you don't have to go and buy a lot of food, just enough to last them a few days. On www.stophungernow.org, people who have donated money and food has already helped 73 countries
Overpopulation remains the biggest and toughest problem that needs to be solved because of the future consequence that it may produce such as lack of resources to feed the people. Today’s population rise could be traced from as early as the stone ages to as late as the industrialization era (Penfound, 1968). The population before Jesus Christ took 40,000 years to double with a 2% growth rate. In 1850, the human population was at one billion people and then rose to two billion just eighty years later in 1930. Three decades later in 1960, it reached three billion, and in 1975 it ballooned into four billion people (Howard, 1969). Paul R. Ehrlich, author of the book, “The population bomb” said in 1992 that the earth will be facing “the need to support at least twice its present population of humans whether the earth’s life support systems’ uncertainty of sustainability” (Daily and Ehrlich, 1992). He also projected that in 2025, the population of Earth will be at 8.5 billion, and eventually level off to 11.6 billion in 2150, based on “positive assumptions of contin...
Human population growth was relatively slow for most of human history. Within the past 500 years, however, the advances made in the industrial, transportation, economic, medical, and agricultural revolutions have helped foster an exponential, "J-shaped" rise in human population (Southwick, Figure 15.1, p. 160). The statistics associated with this type of growth are particularly striking: "Human beings took more than 3 million years to reach a population of 1 billion people...The second billion came in only 130 years, the third billion in 30 years, the fourth billion in 15 years, the fifth billion in 12 years..." (Southwick, p. 159). As human population has grown, there has been simultaneous growth within the industrial sector. Both of these increases have greatly contributed to environmental problems, such as natural resource depletion, ecosystem destruction, and global climate change. Also linked with the increasing human population are many social problems, such as poverty and disease. These issues need to be addressed by policy makers in the near future in order to ensure the survival and sustainability of human life.
One of the problems facing our world is population. It began about ten thousand years ago when the humans settled and began farming. The farming provides more food for the people thus making the population grow. Now we are about 6 billion in population and in a few years we will be around 10 to 11 billion. Therefore, our population will almost double in size. This means that we will need more food to support us. A study in 1986 by Peter Vitonesk, a Stanford biologist, showed that the humans are already consuming about 38.8 of what is possible for us to eat. Thus, if the population keeps increasing, the percentage will increase also, making us closer and closer to the biophysical limits. By studying the earth's capacity, Dr. Cornell, another biologist, believes that we are already crowded for this would. He believes that our world can only support two million people. Not only this, but population can cause complicated problems to the countries with very high population. These countries will need more schools to educate its people, they will need more hospitals and public health to take care of their people, and they will need more water and more soil for farming to feed all the people. In order to solve the population growth problem, the people should be educated. Once the people are educated they will be aware of the problems they ca...
Ellis, in Walker’s view, scientific evidence has shown that environment and anthropomorphic harm has been caused to overpopulation, calling Ellis’s view “nonsense.” Although the earth has limited resources, Ellis debates that “there is no such thing as carrying capacity.” All living beings on earth will be agonised as they die off due to erosion of natural resources, mainly food and water. Modern humans, however, are an exception to this, as they are innovative. Although Ellis’s predication states that, “humans have altered natural environments so as to increase the carrying capacity for our species,” Walker makes the claim that, “past performance does not guarantee future result.” Walker concludes by answering the question begged by Ellis in saying that; counteracting overpopulation is: “not just silly, it is dangerous
Though several people see large rapidly growing populations in developing regions as the primary culprit in environmental decline, we need to focus on the costly environmental outcomes of overconsumption among the gradually increasing populations of the developed nations. These differing emphases naturally point to fundamentally different solutions: slow population increase in less-developed nations or change destructive consumption and production patterns in the more-developed nations. This debate, however, assumes a one-step answer to the complex problems created by population pressures on the environment. Both population size and consumption ...
The reduction of the Earth's resources has been closely linked to the rise in human population. For many thousands of years people lived in relative harmony with their surroundings. Population sizes were small, and life-supporting tools were simple. Most of the energy needed for work was provided by the worker and animals. Since about 1650, however, the human population has increased dramatically. The problems of overcrowding multiply as an ever-increasing number of people are added to the world's population each year.
One of the most complex issues in the world today concerns human population. The number of people living off the earth’s resources and stressing its ecosystem has doubled in just forty years. In 1960 there were 3 billion of us; today there are 6 billion. We have no idea what maximum number of people the earth will support. Therefore, the very first question that comes into people’s mind is that are there enough food for all of us in the future? There is no answer for that. Food shortage has become a serious problem among many countries around the world. There are many different reasons why people are starving all over the world. The lack of economic justice and water shortages are just merely two examples out of them all.