What is the carrying capacity of the Earth?

well our food production seems to have no limit, at least if you're not in an irrigable part of the world.

Energy demand is actually falling, and with fracking we seem to have at least 100 years left of oil. And renewables are advancing at a rate to make us energy secure for a very long time.

Fresh water seems to be a problem in many places.

Climate change seems to be benefiting on average.

And population levels in even third level countries appear to be leveling out.

The number is clearly above where we are right now. But I definitely hate these higher real estate prices, not owning real estate assets myself and being intrinsically short real estate.

There was a lecture from some population alarmist from CU Boulder awhile ago, like the 90 that now seems totally wrong. You don't hear much about overpopulation just like you don't about acid rain or peak oil.

You know, there are just infinitely many timelines and the one we are experiencing is just the one where everything more or less works out. Just enjoy it and keep working!

>>136000193
If technology advances proportionally to the population (so no communism or environmentalists) earth can support up to 50 billion or more. The key lies in the food production industry (advanced greenhouses) and hyperverticalisation of cities.

>>136000193

>Most population growth stats say the population will top out at 11 billion and then fall again.

That's accounting for current growth trends, but not taking in to account anti-aging medications that will inevitably spring up this century. Short of a massive war or extra-terrestrial natural disaster (not aliens, extra-terrestrial just means something from outside the regular functions of Earth), the population of Earth will continue to grow endlessly.

>>136000193
I was actually kinda curious about the world arable land versus yearly consumption per person in acres, and I found through googling that about 3.8 to 7 billion acres of arable land exist, and the average person needs about .5 to 1.5 acres worth of food per year. This doesn't include hypothetically agricultural use land that isn't technically arable land and land that is range for grazers. So arable land is about 1/3 of all hypothetically food producing area in the world. That gives us somewhere around 12-21 billion acres of land, with an average of around 1 acre per person consumption.
>tl,dr the world can feed 12-21 billion people maximum if all land is used for good production that can be

>>136000880
>If technology advances proportionally to the population (so no communism or environmentalists) earth can support up to 50 billion or more.
There are shortages in rare metals which are required for technical equipment. What happens if these shortages get worse?

There are problems with freshwater, with pollution.

Can Africa sustain a population density of that of England (in areas which are not desert)? Because that is where Africa is heading within the next 80 years.

England has to import food already.

>>136001687
>>tl,dr the world can feed 12-21 billion people maximum if all land is used for good production that can be
We still have vertical farming and veggie usage as well.

I doubt it is arable land which is the bottleneck. I'd say freshwater, rare earths, energy, pollution etc., those are bottlenecks.

File: takefootoffpedal.jpg (962KB, 4999x3488px) Image search: [Google]

962KB, 4999x3488px

If you want first world lifestyle for everyone maybe 3 billion, 4 billion at best if people consume less.
the green revolution was the biggest mistake in human history
you are deluded if you think we have enough resources for unlimited growth. we are pushing the earth system to its tipping point now, and most of the world consumes almost nothing. everyone wants an american lifestyle - for that to be realistic you'd need 7 planet earths.

>>136001687
This is with heavy input of industrial energy and fertilisers. You can't grow enough food for a year on that much land because eventually the soil will be destroyed. About 10 acres per person is the minimum for crop rotations and other necessary farming practises.

File: back-to-pol.jpg (35KB, 490x290px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 490x290px

>>136000193
>Is there any redpill
...not for you pill-popping /po/itards, no.

>>136000193
the models all suck and we can't possibly know

>>136000193
100 billion asians
or
80 billion whites
or
20 billion wogs in horrific living conditions.

Last two digits

>>136001785
>rare metal shortage
We need asteroid mining as soon as possible

>>136000637
We will run into water problems well before crops become a problem. But a large part of this is we're already overproducing food and water is strained because of that overproduction. With the amount we make and waste we can probably support a population of 20 billion. Water on the other hand would barely manage 9 or 10 billion without massive investments into desalination and water transport and treatment infrastructure.

>>136000193
>carrying capacity
biofags can't into "equilibrium"

>>136000193
Read:

An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus

The Limits to Growth by Club of Rome

Articles and books written by Sergey Kapitsa

Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis by Richard Lynn

TL;DR : By 2100, humanity is trapped in a Malthusian trap, average IQ will drop to 85, New Middle Ages and degradation.

Depends on how much leg room you think is acceptable

>>136005970

>20 billion wogs in horrific living conditions

even less, and even in the worst conditions.

I think no more than 3-4 billion, provided that they at least learn to maintain the infrastructure (not build!)