Carrying Capacity? or Sustainability?

Karen McGinnis
Oct 3, 2021
5 min read

Carrying Capacity? Or Sustainability?

Scientists have determined that the earth can sustain AT A SUBSISTANCE LEVEL, 7 billion people!

We are currently (2021) at 7.6 billion people.

This means one of several things:

1) There are currently too many occupants on the earth.

2) We have exceeded the “carrying capacity “of the earth.

3) “Subsistence level” means different things to different people.

4) Something must change!

The goal was to reach a “high life satisfaction” level for 7 billion people. This has been predicted to bring about an ecological collapse. This assumes certain givens. It assumes everyone of the 7 billion people is seeking the same “life satisfaction” level and that existing means of achieving those levels of satisfaction are currently in existence and maintained.

Because these givens are not written in stone or verified in any way, the statement that the earth can sustain 7 billion people is under scrutiny. It is in a state of flux. As a result, the estimate of the carrying capacity of the earth is in question. Even the term “carrying capacity” itself was conceived in the era of steam ship transport. It was based on the capacity of ships to transport food, manufactured goods and people. The fuel usage was considered. The fuel used was coal to generate steam. Another factor that was part of the estimate of 7 billion people was a consideration that the human population would continue as it had been and that the rate of growth would continue.

The elements of these assumptions require examination and consideration:

Assumption 1) There are too many people on the earth.

This assumes that the “carrying capacity” figure of 7 billion is a static figure. It is based on static assumptions AT BEST! The number 7 billion could increase or decrease based on other factors.

Assumption 2) Substance level means the same thing to everyone.

Subsistence means something different to the person who has a net worth of 140 billion than it does to the person who has a net worth of less than zero. Assuming a population number based on a “subsistence level “is a faulty basis for determining anything.

Assumption 3) The term “carrying capacity” means the same thing to everyone, in every situation, and is relevant to today.

This is debatable. Originally as we have seen “carrying capacity “meant something situational relating to steam ships and the profit they might generate. Certainly, capitalism was at play in the 19th Century. We know that today, ships have changed, energy costs have changed, and variables are in place. The value of goods has changed, markets have changed. These changes don’t even begin to address available means of transport or the expectations of owners for return on investment. Because of all the variables, “carrying capacity” is not static, and may not be an appropriate term. It may not be relevant to today.

Assumption 4) Something must change.

In fact, things have changed and are constantly changing. Any observer of culture, society, current situations both locally and globally knows that nothing is as certain as change. Even what people WANT has changed. There are so many examples of change. One small example is the number of vegetarians vs. omnivores in each family. Even this small variation (change!) affects the “carrying capacity” of the food production, processing, transportation, and distribution systems.

Anther change that we see around us every day that directly affects “carrying capacity” is the definition of a “high life satisfaction” level. It used to be possible to reach “high life satisfaction” if one could occupy a 2- or 3-bedroom structure with your immediate family and that family was fed and clothed. While that remains an achievable goal, some see a 3,000 to 10,000 square foot residence with luxury accompaniments as the definition of “high life satisfaction.” For many in this world, clean water and some daily food are a desired reality and considered “high life satisfaction.”

Is it appropriate to propose a “carrying capacity” for the earth if it is meeting the needs of the high-end homeowner while at the same time the homeless refugee struggles to survive? Certainly, “carrying capacity” is a term that is thrown around loosely, and often without equity.

A big factor that plays into this discussion is the concept of over population. This is an area that requires scrutiny. Why do some couples reproduce prolifically while others barely even replace themselves. How do the elements of religion, contraception, infant and child mortality, economics and age incapacity play into this situation?

Observation alone tells us that a generation that required large families to survive often produce offspring who have small families and negative replacement numbers. Negative replacement numbers do not lead to over population.

Studies of animal and insect populations follow similar patterns despite the absence of an accompanying thought process. While the instinct to reproduce may exist, the accessibility of food, proliferation of predators and availability of suitable partners has a marked effect on the population. “Carrying capacity” is an instinctive attribute of a species.

Climate attribution science—what we call in the vernacular, climate change, has a marked affect on “carrying capacity.” Elements affected include the quality of breathable air, oxygen replacement by forests prone to fire and drought, soil depletion, and elimination of food due to an increase in suburban housing and the diminishment of agriculture. The care and maintenance of water supplies including our oceans, rivers and other resources is critical.

We share a planet which is a closed system. We must share the responsibility for it. Reaching a “high life satisfaction” level increases responsibility. Matter is not eliminated, as students of science learn. A high level of use brings with it a high level of responsibility. Without a balance between use and responsibility, there will be a perpetual imbalance. Climate change is a visible result of imbalance. Sadly, many not enjoying expanded levels of use must suffer the affects of this imbalance. Excesses in use in only one spot can result in absence of resources in another. Put in plain terms, gluttony in one location may result in starvation in another. Seeking balance goes a long way toward affecting change in “carrying capacity.”

We can see that the definition of “carrying capacity” based on an absence of change is dangerously outdated. Our current push for sustainability is more achievable. Sustainability takes into consideration the needs of the planet and the plants, animals and people on it. It allows for adjustments in demand, advancements in technology, and an understanding of resources. Instead of setting out arbitrary numbers and impossible limits, it presents a goal. It replaces the limits proposed by “carrying capacity” and opens a limitless but responsible future. It presents a new and reachable goal: Consume less, consume wisely, manage creatively and responsibly, and create sustainability.

____________________________________________________________________________________

"Othering"

Airport PTSD

How to Start Today

Carrying Capacity? or Sustainability?

Comments