Will human population and economic activity exceed the Planets carrying capacity?

[DBT]

That is, of course, trivially true. What it also is is irrelevant.

It is not trivially true.

You need to keep better track of your own claims and statements -- they're the context of my responses, you know?

You said that 1.09% of 12 billion is more than 1.09% of 7 billion. It's trivially true because it follows from the definition of "percent"; or "%".

No help needed. My reference being related to the difference between the number of people being born....a figure larger than the population of some nation states.

There is nothing trivial about that. Nor is there anything trivial about population growth in recent times, as shown in the graph below.

It is also irrelevant because no one who's taken a look at actual data seriously suggests that we'll be having a 1.09% annual growth by the time we reach 12 billion, if indeed we ever reach 12 billion.

That's true, the growth rate is expected to fall to 0.9% by the end of the century, by which time the overall population figure will be far, far from trivial;

World population will therefore continue to grow in the 21st century, but at a much slower rate compared to the recent past. World population has doubled (100% increase) in 40 years from 1959 (3 billion) to 1999 (6 billion). It is now estimated that it will take another nearly 40 years to increase by another 50% to become 9 billion by 2037.

The latest world population projections indicate that world population will reach 10 billion persons in the year 2055 and 11 billion in the year 2088.

Plus, if this isn't bad enough, the problem of sustainability will only worsen with rising living standards and the effects of climate change, which are also far from trivial considerations.

 

[Jokodo]

You need to keep better track of your own claims and statements -- they're the context of my responses, you know?

You said that 1.09% of 12 billion is more than 1.09% of 7 billion. It's trivially true because it follows from the definition of "percent"; or "%".

No help needed. My reference being related to the difference between the number of people being born....a figure larger than the population of some nation states.

There is nothing trivial about that.

You clearly don't understand what "trivial" means in this context. Here's a dictionary definition: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/trivial. What I'm referring too is meaning 4.b: "(of a theorem, proof, or the like) simple, transparent, or immediately evident." The statement that 1.09% of 12 billion is more than 1.09% of of 7 billion meets that definition because it follows from the definition of "percent".

It is also irrelevant because no one who's taken a look at actual data seriously suggests that we'll be having a 1.09% annual growth by the time we reach 12 billion, if indeed we ever reach 12 billion.

That's true, the growth rate is expected to fall to 0.9% by the end of the century,

Expected by who? In the graph you posted in https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...rying-capacity&p=607757&viewfull=1#post607757, the growth towards the end of the 21st century is at most 0.2% per year: You can tell that directly from visual inspection of the graph allone: in the 40 years between 2055 and 2095, about 1 billion people are added -- even igoring that most of them are added in the first half of that period, that's an average of 25 million per year; with a base of 11-12 billion, thus certainly no more than 0.23%.

Another source you quoted states that the growth rate has dropped from 1.14% in 2016, to 1.12% in 2017, to 1.09% this year. That's a decline 0.025% per year. At this rate, you 0.9% should be reached by the mid 2020s -- not at the end of the century!

maybe you meant 0.09%? What's an order of magnitude among friends anyway?

 

[Jokodo]

The latest world population projections indicate that world population will reach 10 billion persons in the year 2055 and 11 billion in the year 2088.

I might have used your own figures in this very post (outdated as they seem to be). An increase from 10 to 11 billion over the 33 years from 2055 to 2088 is an average (again, ignoring that most of that increase is going to happen in the earlier part of that period) of 30.3 per year. Way lower than either the 84 million annual increase you quoted for today, or the 92 million of the late 90s, and way, way lower than either 1.09% or 0.9% of 11 billion.

 

[Jokodo]

I would say we should not only be saying that there are or will be too many Africans and certainly not focusing only on Africa and certainly not for racist or privileged reasons. During the thread, dozens of countries in all parts of the world including the 'west' have been cited or mentioned in relation to this. And outside the thread, many countries are being cited in the discussions, including 'western' ones.

Yes, often these days Africa gets cited, but that's because it's where the greatest increase is coming from, which is an objective reason to cite it.

Poverty is less and less the reason access to contraceptives are limited for Africans. The number one reason is cultural, ie religious. It's all the classic bullshit conservative reasons. Stuff like fear of unfaithfulness if it's allowed. Or even that it's the duty of a woman to have as many children as possible.

None of that is particular to Africa today. The same or very similar classic bullshit conservative reasons to have big families were commonplace in Iran 40 years ago or Sweden 80 years ago. It didn't stop them from undergoing the demographic transition.

It's hard to over-state how religious Africa has become of late. Since the 80'ies Pentacostals and Charismatic Christians have pretty much taken over, being over half the Christians in Africa. Or I'd like to call them... the loony Christians. The more sensible Christianity is increasingly marginalised. And I'm calling Catholicism "more sensible" Christianity, even though they to are opposed to contraceptives.

Catholicism and its stance on contraception - and what Catholics make of it - is actually a perfect example of the way real people will ignore their faith's indictions when it suits them. Among the countries with the world's lowest fertility rates, quite a bunch are deeply Catholic: All of Southern Europe and much of East Central Europe, Catholic countries like Italy, Malta, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Croatia or Slovakia, have extremely low fertility rates even by European standards matched only by a handful of countries in the Far East (Singapore, South Korea and the like).

I have a friend who is a family planning advocate in Ghana, and the amount of ridiculous (and retarded) bullshit she faces would be unbelievable if it in fact didn't happen.

Sure. Also, Ghana's fertility rate has declined, more or less steadily, from 7.0 to 4.0 over the last 45, with no indication that it will anything but continue to drop.

A big problem in Africa is old heads of families with dementia giving away what heritage there is to TV-pastors and mega-churches. It's just loony. And it's getting worse.

I'm sure it's been getting worse for the last 30 years too.

 

[DBT]

You clearly don't understand what "trivial" means in this context. Here's a dictionary definition: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/trivial. What I'm referring too is meaning 4.b: "(of a theorem, proof, or the like) simple, transparent, or immediately evident." The statement that 1.09% of 12 billion is more than 1.09% of of 7 billion meets that definition because it follows from the definition of "percent".

Sure, but I think that you, regardless of your usage of the word, are trivializing the problems that humans are facing in terms of population size, increasing consumption driven by rising living standards and climate change.

That was my point. I don't care about your use of the word trivial. It is irrelevant.

You are avoiding the central issues outlined above.

It matters not in the least if population growth falls from the current 1.09% to 0.9% by the end of the century because the problem is essentially related to increasing consumption in relation to population numbers and growth.

It hardly matters whether population grows, we will be reach unsustainable through rising consumption and climate change.

Expected by who? In the graph you posted in https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...rying-capacity&p=607757&viewfull=1#post607757, the growth towards the end of the 21st century is at most 0.2% per year: You can tell that directly from visual inspection of the graph allone: in the 40 years between 2055 and 2095, about 1 billion people are added -- even igoring that most of them are added in the first half of that period, that's an average of 25 million per year; with a base of 11-12 billion, thus certainly no more than 0.23%.

Another source you quoted states that the growth rate has dropped from 1.14% in 2016, to 1.12% in 2017, to 1.09% this year. That's a decline 0.025% per year. At this rate, you 0.9% should be reached by the mid 2020s -- not at the end of the century!

maybe you meant 0.09%? What's an order of magnitude among friends anyway?

No, I did not mean 0.09%. I posted a figure provided in the revised studies. The figures given are estimates, not absolute statements, not that it makes any difference. You are avoiding the central issue.

Just as an example, here we have 0.1%

''In order to study how the world population changes over time, it is useful to consider the rate of change rather than focusing only on the total population level. The following visualization presents the annual population growth rate superimposed over the total world population for the period 1750-2010, as well as projections up to 2100. This is the period in history when population growth changed most drastically. Before 1800, the world population growth rate was always well below 1%. Over the course of the first fifty years of the 20th century, however, annual growth increased to up to 2.1%—the highest annual growth rate in history, which was recorded in 1962. Since peaking, the growth rate has systematically been going down, with projections estimating an annual rate of 0.1% for 2100.

This means that while the world population quadrupled in the 20th century, it will not double in the 21st century.

 

[DBT]

The latest world population projections indicate that world population will reach 10 billion persons in the year 2055 and 11 billion in the year 2088.

I might have used your own figures in this very post (outdated as they seem to be). An increase from 10 to 11 billion over the 33 years from 2055 to 2088 is an average (again, ignoring that most of that increase is going to happen in the earlier part of that period) of 30.3 per year. Way lower than either the 84 million annual increase you quoted for today, or the 92 million of the late 90s, and way, way lower than either 1.09% or 0.9% of 11 billion.

There are no fixed figures. They are estimates based on studies and revisions. The rate of growth being higher in the revisions. None of this alters the fact that consumption is rising due to rising living standards, and that supplying the needs and wants of 8 billion consumers at a level of developed nations will become increasingly unsustainable....then add climate change to the equation. It's not a pretty picture.

 

[Jokodo]

You clearly don't understand what "trivial" means in this context. Here's a dictionary definition: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/trivial. What I'm referring too is meaning 4.b: "(of a theorem, proof, or the like) simple, transparent, or immediately evident." The statement that 1.09% of 12 billion is more than 1.09% of of 7 billion meets that definition because it follows from the definition of "percent".

Sure, but I think that you, regardless of your usage of the word, are trivializing the problems that humans are facing in terms of population size, increasing consumption driven by rising living standards and climate change.

I was not talking about any of that. I was talking about your trivial and irrelevant statement that 1.09% of 11 or 12 billions is more than 1.09% of 7 billions, intended to imply that the current absolute figure for population growth (84 million per year) can be expected to grow significantly. Which is not what any reasonable estimate suggests.

That was my point. I don't care about your use of the word trivial. It is irrelevant.

You are avoiding the central issues outlined above.

It matters not in the least if population growth falls from the current 1.09% to 0.9% by the end of the century because the problem is essentially related to increasing consumption in relation to population numbers and growth.

Of course reality matters in a discussion about reality. And you're as far as you ever were to providing reasoning for those "0.9% by the end of the century", which you just repeated.

It hardly matters whether population grows, we will be reach unsustainable through rising consumption and climate change.

Expected by who? In the graph you posted in https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...rying-capacity&p=607757&viewfull=1#post607757, the growth towards the end of the 21st century is at most 0.2% per year: You can tell that directly from visual inspection of the graph allone: in the 40 years between 2055 and 2095, about 1 billion people are added -- even igoring that most of them are added in the first half of that period, that's an average of 25 million per year; with a base of 11-12 billion, thus certainly no more than 0.23%.

Another source you quoted states that the growth rate has dropped from 1.14% in 2016, to 1.12% in 2017, to 1.09% this year. That's a decline 0.025% per year. At this rate, you 0.9% should be reached by the mid 2020s -- not at the end of the century!

maybe you meant 0.09%? What's an order of magnitude among friends anyway?

No, I did not mean 0.09%. I posted a figure provided in the revised studies. The figures given are estimates, not absolute statements, not that it makes any difference. You are avoiding the central issue.

Just as an example, here we have 0.1%

''In order to study how the world population changes over time, it is useful to consider the rate of change rather than focusing only on the total population level. The following visualization presents the annual population growth rate superimposed over the total world population for the period 1750-2010, as well as projections up to 2100. This is the period in history when population growth changed most drastically. Before 1800, the world population growth rate was always well below 1%. Over the course of the first fifty years of the 20th century, however, annual growth increased to up to 2.1%—the highest annual growth rate in history, which was recorded in 1962. Since peaking, the growth rate has systematically been going down, with projections estimating an annual rate of 0.1% for 2100.

This means that while the world population quadrupled in the 20th century, it will not double in the 21st century.

You really, really need to keep better track of your own statements. You just said 0.9% for 2100! You don't get to support that by citing an estimate that puts the growth rate at 0.1%. The two figures are an order of magnitude apart!

 

[DBT]

I was not talking about any of that. I was talking about your trivial and irrelevant statement that 1.09% of 11 or 12 billions is more than 1.09% of 7 billions, intended to imply that the current absolute figure for population growth (84 million per year) can be expected to grow significantly. Which is not what any reasonable estimate suggests.

I know exactly what you were talking about, including the semantics use of the word 'trivial.' But even though it was I who quoted the stats, I also pointed out the problems behind the stats; that it is not population growth alone that poses a threat, or consumption rate alone, or climate change alone, but a combination of these factors that will likely tip us from sustainability into unsustainable.

That is the point. You can quibble over the semantics of 'trivial' or whether population growth will be 0.009% or 0.9% or 0.1% at the end of the century, but all this is irrelevant.

The issue is population numbers in relation to rising consumption rates, and adding to this, climate change.

You really, really need to keep better track of your own statements. You just said 0.9% for 2100! You don't get to support that by citing an estimate that puts the growth rate at 0.1%. The two figures are an order of magnitude apart!

What I said was: there are several studies that offer their estimates for growth in the coming decades. I pointed out that the difference between one source citing 0.9% and another source putting it at 0.1% is trivial. It doesn't change anything.

Again, it was not I who came up with the stats, their projections or the trivial differences in percentage, but the authors of the articles and the studies they represent.

 

[Jokodo]

I was not talking about any of that. I was talking about your trivial and irrelevant statement that 1.09% of 11 or 12 billions is more than 1.09% of 7 billions, intended to imply that the current absolute figure for population growth (84 million per year) can be expected to grow significantly. Which is not what any reasonable estimate suggests.

I know exactly what you were talking about, including the semantics use of the word 'trivial.' But even though it was I who quoted the stats, I also pointed out the problems behind the stats; that it is not population growth alone that poses a threat, or consumption rate alone, or climate change alone, but a combination of these factors that will likely tip us from sustainability into unsustainable.

That is the point. You can quibble over the semantics of 'trivial' or whether population growth will be 0.009% or 0.9% or 0.1% at the end of the century, but all this is irrelevant.

You're coming dangerously close to "I don't care about evidence, my King James Bible says <xyz>".

The issue is population numbers in relation to rising consumption rates, and adding to this, climate change.

You really, really need to keep better track of your own statements. You just said 0.9% for 2100! You don't get to support that by citing an estimate that puts the growth rate at 0.1%. The two figures are an order of magnitude apart!

What I said was: there are several studies that offer their estimates for growth in the coming decades. I pointed out that the difference between one source citing 0.9% and another source putting it at 0.1% is trivial. It doesn't change anything.

Again, it was not I who came up with the stats, their projections or the trivial differences in percentage, but the authors of the articles and the studies they represent.

You have not quoted or referred to even a single source citing a 0.9% growth rate at the end of the century. It appears to be a number you pulled out from where the sun never shines. That, or a misunderstanding on your part.

If you think you have and I missed it, kindly post the link again!

And of course, it changes a lot. 0.9% growth rate means a doubling time of just over 77 years, while 0.1% means one close to 700 years.

 

[ruby sparks]

More quibbling over individual items instead of debating substance and underlying issues. The phrase 'deliberately not seeing the wood for the trees' seems pertinent, perhaps adding 'not even seeing the trees for the twigs'.

 

[Jokodo]

More quibbling over individual items instead of debating substance and underlying issues. The phrase 'deliberately not seeing the wood for the trees' seems pertinent, perhaps adding 'not even seeing the trees for the twigs'.

I would say misquantifying an alleged problem by an order of magnitude is a rather substantial slip.

Discussing and solving real issues requires understanding reality.

Would you trust a politician who demands a sales tax hike because allegedly the state has no money to fill ruts on the roads after it has been shown his figure for the state's current budget is off an order of magnitude?

 

[ruby sparks]

More quibbling over individual items instead of debating substance and underlying issues. The phrase 'deliberately not seeing the wood for the trees' seems pertinent, perhaps adding 'not even seeing the trees for the twigs'.

I would say misquantifying an alleged problem by an order of magnitude is a rather substantial slip.

Discussing and solving real issues requires understanding reality.

Would you trust a politician who demands a sales tax hike because allegedly the state has no money to fill ruts on the roads after it has been shown his figure for the state's current budget is off an order of magnitude?

I stick with what I said. Despite the limited validity of your points, you are basically nit-picking, endlessly. You are not showing much, other than that in some cases, a point is overstated by mistaken or incorrect use of this or that term or number. You are not generally contributing to the discussion of the serious issues or their potential solutions by doing that. Heckling and poking for flaws in other's cases has its useful limits, even if it is valid. It is also too darn easy and possibly lazy debating. At one point you said that DBT's overall case was effectively invalid because of such errors, and I said you would have a lot more work to do before that being warranted.

Your general approach could also be seen as somewhat denialist of the larger issues as a result, and the potential solutions, and there is enough of that in this thread already, imo.

 

[Jokodo]

More quibbling over individual items instead of debating substance and underlying issues. The phrase 'deliberately not seeing the wood for the trees' seems pertinent, perhaps adding 'not even seeing the trees for the twigs'.

I would say misquantifying an alleged problem by an order of magnitude is a rather substantial slip.

Discussing and solving real issues requires understanding reality.

Would you trust a politician who demands a sales tax hike because allegedly the state has no money to fill ruts on the roads after it has been shown his figure for the state's current budget is off an order of magnitude?

I stick with what I said. Despite the limited validity of your points, you are basically nit-picking, endlessly. You are not showing much, other than that in some cases, a point is overstated by mistaken or incorrect use of this or that term or number. You are not generally contributing to the discussion of the serious issues or their potential solutions by doing that. Heckling and poking for flaws in other's cases has its useful limits, even if it is valid. It is also too darn easy and possibly lazy debating.

I'll gladly take lazy over dishonest, thank you very much.

At one point you said that DBT's overall case was effectively invalid because of such errors, and I said you would have a lot more work to do before that being warranted.

Slip-ups happen to all of us. But these are not accidental slip-ups: These are symptoms of his blindness to the possibility of alternative views. He is so convinced that he's right that he'll take anything he can as confirmation, even if it's just a misunderstanding of a source that actually says the opposite -- and then fail to acknowledge that this is not in fact the story the data tell us even when it's pointed out in detail.

Your general approach could also be seen as somewhat denialist of the larger issues as a result, and the potential solutions, and there is enough of that in this thread already, imo.

And the sun could be seen as a planet, and the earth could be seen as flat.

 

[DBT]

I stick with what I said. Despite the limited validity of your points, you are basically nit-picking, endlessly. You are not showing much, other than that in some cases, a point is overstated by mistaken or incorrect use of this or that term or number. You are not generally contributing to the discussion of the serious issues or their potential solutions by doing that. Heckling and poking for flaws in other's cases has its useful limits, even if it is valid. It is also too darn easy and possibly lazy debating.

I'll gladly take lazy over dishonest, thank you very much.

Who is being dishonest? Do you have an example?

 

[DBT]

You have not quoted or referred to even a single source citing a 0.9% growth rate at the end of the century. It appears to be a number you pulled out from where the sun never shines. That, or a misunderstanding on your part.

If you think you have and I missed it, kindly post the link again!

And of course, it changes a lot. 0.9% growth rate means a doubling time of just over 77 years, while 0.1% means one close to 700 years.

Actually you are right. I appear to have misread the given figure for 2100, it was 0.09% not 0.9% as I said, My mistake.

''Annual growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at around 2%. The rate of increase has nearly halved since then, and will continue to decline in the coming years. It is estimated to reach 1% by 2023, less than 0.5% by 2052, and 0.25% in 2076 (a yearly addition of 27 million people to a population of 10.7 billion). In 2100, it should be only 0.09%''

A minor error that makes no difference to the central issue of long term sustainability in the face of increasing consumption related to rising living standards and the projected effects of climate change.

That being the issue, not percentage points of growth at the end of the century, which is hardly relevant.

Current Population is Three Times the Sustainable Level

''Global Footprint Network data shows that humanity uses the equivalent of 1.7 planet Earths to provide the renewable resources we use and absorb our waste.1 If all 7+ billion of us were to enjoy a European standard of living - which is about 60% the consumption of the average American - the Earth could sustainably support only about 2 billion people.

It is important to note that the depletion of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels, metals, and minerals that make a higher standard of living possible are not included in Global Footprint Network data. This includes all the tons of oil, coal, iron ore, copper, and hundreds of other minerals and metals that make modern life possible. Taking these non-renewable resources into account suggests 2 billion people living at a European standard of living may be the upper limit of a sustainable global population.The longer we continue consuming more resources than the Earth can sustainably provide, the less able the Earth can meet humanity's resource needs in the future - and the fewer people the planet can support - long-term.

Evidence of unsustainable resource use is all around us. Global aquifers are being pumped 3.5 times faster than rainfall can naturally recharge them.2 As they run dry hundreds of millions will suffer. Topsoil is being lost 10-40 times faster than it is formed.3 Feeding all 7+ billion of us will become increasingly difficult. Oceans are overfished, and a primary protein source for over 2 billion people is in jeopardy.4 Worldwide, we have lost over half the vertebrate species in the air, water, and land since 1970.5 How many more species can we lose and how many more ecosystems can we destroy before humanity’s own existence is threatened?''

World population estimates from 1800 to 2100, based on "high", "medium" and "low" United Nations projections in 2015 and UN historical estimates for pre-1950 data.

 

[DBT]

Another article;

Topic: World Population

''In demographics, the world population is the total number of humans currently living. As of August 2016, it was estimated at 7.4 billion. The United Nations estimates it will further increase to 11.2 billion in the year 2100. World population has experienced continuous growth since the end of the Great Famine of 1315–17 and the Black Death in 1350, when it was near 370 million. The highest population growth rates – global population increases above 1.8% per year – occurred between 1955-1975 peaking to 2.06% between 1965-1970. The growth rate has declined to 1.18% between 2010-2015 and is projected to decline to 0.13% by the year 2100. Total annual births were highest in the late 1980s at about 139 million, and are now expected to remain essentially constant at their 2011 level of 135 million, while deaths number 56 million per year and are expected to increase to 80 million per year by 2040. World population reached 7 billion on October 31, 2011 according to the United Nations Population Fund, and on March 12, 2012 according to the United States Census Bureau. The median age of the world's population was estimated to be 30.1 years in 2016, with the male median age estimated to be 29.4 years and female, 30.9 years. The 2012 UN projections show a continued increase in population in the near future with a steady decline in population growth rate; the global population is expected to reach between 8.3 and 10.9 billion by 2050. 2003 UN Population Division population projections for the year 2150 range between 3.2 and 24.8 billion. One of many independent mathematical models supports the lower estimate, while a 2014 estimate forecasts between 9.3 and 12.6 billion in 2100, and continued growth thereafter. Some analysts have questioned the sustainability of further world population growth, highlighting the growing pressures on the environment, global food supplies, and energy resources. Estimates on the total number of humans who have ever lived range in the order of 106 to 108 billion''

 

[ruby sparks]

I stick with what I said. Despite the limited validity of your points, you are basically nit-picking, endlessly. You are not showing much, other than that in some cases, a point is overstated by mistaken or incorrect use of this or that term or number. You are not generally contributing to the discussion of the serious issues or their potential solutions by doing that. Heckling and poking for flaws in other's cases has its useful limits, even if it is valid. It is also too darn easy and possibly lazy debating.

I'll gladly take lazy over dishonest, thank you very much.

At one point you said that DBT's overall case was effectively invalid because of such errors, and I said you would have a lot more work to do before that being warranted.

Slip-ups happen to all of us. But these are not accidental slip-ups: These are symptoms of his blindness to the possibility of alternative views. He is so convinced that he's right that he'll take anything he can as confirmation, even if it's just a misunderstanding of a source that actually says the opposite -- and then fail to acknowledge that this is not in fact the story the data tell us even when it's pointed out in detail.

Apart from 'winning the internet with gotchas' what is your broader argument? I don't see one. As I said, it is a big step (and one that you have not made) from catching someone out here and there and making a case that their 'story', their wider argument, is seriously flawed and yours isn't. It's intellectually lazy, however much personal satisfaction it gives you, to think that just because you trip someone else up over particular details that you get to contest their overall analysis or provide a better one.

Ditto for accusations of dishonesty, a cheap internet debating tool and one that you seem to favour now and again.

That said, I do agree that we should all be careful to rigorously examine stuff in order to get a correct view of things. There is a lot of stuff out there on the internet these days and it can be difficult to find material that is not unbiased or questionable in some way. In this sense it is good to be corrected, but making it the be all and end all is not warranted unless the bigger picture is awry.

 

[Jokodo]

A minor error that makes no difference to the central issue of long term sustainability in the face of increasing consumption related to rising living standards and the projected effects of climate change.

Those are indeed issues worth discussing. Whether it's worthwhile discussing it with you, however, is a different question.

It is a minor error alright. It's also a very obvious error. The fact that you so readily accepted and defended it shows your bias.

 

[ruby sparks]

It is a minor error alright. It's also a very obvious error. The fact that you so readily accepted and defended it shows your bias.

Sorry, which error are you talking about here?

Again with the allegations of bias and dishonesty. It's a cheap internet debating technique and not much else, if it is pretty much all you have to offer, and judging by this thread that's all it is. And most if not all of the errors have been acknowledged anyway. And you accept that they could be described as minor.

So come up with a general counter-case, if you have one? Or how about more often agreeing where you can, at least for balance and so that others know where you're coming from overall or in relation to the wider issues (and the OP question)?

Granted, we can agree that the specific term carrying capacity is troublesome when applied to humans and/or the earth as a whole.

 

[ruby sparks]

Current Population is Three Times the Sustainable Level
.

Maybe you weren't aware, but that site puts the prefix 'over' in front of 'population' and 'consumption'. That creates dangerous trigger words and will inevitably result in racism, cruelty and genocide.