What's the Least?

[sandy whitelinger]

Minimum? Plenty of food and fresh water, clothing, access to health care, a beach house, a high-end sports car or luxury sedan of your choice, 3 months of paid vacation a year, 1 robot maid, and a lifetime supply of cookie dough ice cream.

So, how many people can the world sustain at that level?

 

[Noaidi]

What I'm looking for someone to do is to quantify what the least is that an average human needs to survive. From there I think we can look at how to supply that according to the world's resources and come up with a figure that the world can support. Until then I'm not about to suggest that the world is overpopulated.

Are you taking into account the rest of the biota we share the planet with? The Earth could probably support many more people, but at the expense of natural habitats. Obviously by clearing a forest for agriculture, the number of humans supported in an area can be increased.
If we assume that the average human needs 'X' (whatever the value of X is calculated to be), is this under current conditions, or based on the assumption that we can / will expand further into Nature to accomodate more people? You're going to get very different numbers depending on the scenario.

 

[painted wolf]

When the world's population recently hit 7 billion the question arose, "Is that too many?" My thought is that the world is supporting that many so maybe not. But the question could arise that some people's living is just barely living. My question is what is the very least that you would feel is acceptable to justify existing?

The least we would ever want to go is 3,000 or so... just to maintain a healthy genepool.

But I don't think that's quite what you meant by the question. I would like to see at least half our current population as a goal.

The numbers you are looking for are summed up with the equation IPAT... I = P*A*T
I (Impact on environmental carrying capacity)
P (Population)
A (affluence/consumption)
T (technology)

One commonly used example is agriculture... agriculture in developed nations is set to begin declining as technology allowed us to extract groundwater faster than nature could replace it. By the time my son is my age, agricultural output is projected to shrink by at least 10% and at worst 35%. (depending on mitigating factors like continued drought in the southern and central states)

We can shift some food production back east, but will it be enough to keep a surplus for shipping around the world? I have no idea.

Here is a link you may find helpful... it shows resource consumption by nation and discusses some of the issues with consumption.
AAAS Atlas of Population and Environment

wa:do

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Are you taking into account the rest of the biota we share the planet with? The Earth could probably support many more people, but at the expense of natural habitats. Obviously by clearing a forest for agriculture, the number of humans supported in an area can be increased.
If we assume that the average human needs 'X' (whatever the value of X is calculated to be), is this under current conditions, or based on the assumption that we can / will expand further into Nature to accomodate more people? You're going to get very different numbers depending on the scenario.

How much more simply can I say this? What I'm looking for someone to do is to quantify what the least is that an average human needs to survive.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The least we would ever want to go is 3,000 or so... just to maintain a healthy genepool.

But I don't think that's quite what you meant by the question. I would like to see at least half our current population as a goal.

The numbers you are looking for are summed up with the equation IPAT... I = P*A*T
I (Impact on environmental carrying capacity)
P (Population)
A (affluence/consumption)
T (technology)

One commonly used example is agriculture... agriculture in developed nations is set to begin declining as technology allowed us to extract groundwater faster than nature could replace it. By the time my son is my age, agricultural output is projected to shrink by at least 10% and at worst 35%. (depending on mitigating factors like continued drought in the southern and central states)

We can shift some food production back east, but will it be enough to keep a surplus for shipping around the world? I have no idea.

Here is a link you may find helpful... it shows resource consumption by nation and discusses some of the issues with consumption.
AAAS Atlas of Population and Environment

wa:do

You're way ahead of the game. What I'm looking for someone to do is to quantify what the least is that an average human needs to survive.

Also you mentioned previously that a person would need enough food to be healthy. How healthy?

 

[waitasec]

What I'm looking for someone to do is to quantify what the least is that an average human needs to survive.

food...is the least of our human need...everything else is a want.

enough to last until you get sick or die of old age

 

[painted wolf]

You're way ahead of the game. What I'm looking for someone to do is to quantify what the least is that an average human needs to survive.

Define average...

Also you mentioned previously that a person would need enough food to be healthy. How healthy?

About 2000 calories a day with a good mix of protein, carbohydrate and essential nutrients. Unfortunately most of the world currently lives on much less.

wa:do

 

[Noaidi]

How much more simply can I say this? What I'm looking for someone to do is to quantify what the least is that an average human needs to survive.

I fully understand your question - no need to simplify it, thanks.

You are asking what is essentially an ecological question and, as a qualified, trained ecologist, I am trying to put your question into context.

A basic concept of ecology is the niche and there are two niches that can be described: the fundamental niche (what the organism requires in a competition-free scenario) and the realised niche (what resources an organism can actually make use of, given the availability of those resources and the presence of other organisms also requiring them).

Now, you are asking what are the minimum resource requirements of a human. The question is too simplistic (no offence). Are you asking about our fundamental niche (the ideal situation) or our realised niche (the reality)? If it is the realised niche, you have to take into account where that human lives, the other organisms it is in competition with, what resources are actually available, and so on. I keep giving you responses in terms of the wider environment and how the 'average human' you talk of has to fit in with that environment. Given the variety of ecosystems and habitats (and, therefore, the heterogeneity of resources) humans contend with, the question of minimum requirements becomes rather meaningless.

Yes, you could google minimum water intake per day, minimum calorific intake per day etc, but those data on their own tell us very little, as it doesn't account for the ecosystem that your 'average human' is located in.

Edit: this is your thread question, sandy. What is your view on it? What have you found out that we could use as a starting point?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So, how many people can the world sustain at that level?

How fast can they pump out robot maids?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

food...is the least of our human need...everything else is a want.

enough to last until you get sick or die of old age

How much food is the least amount one needs. Also in some environments, protection from the elements is more than a want.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Define average...

Define or quantify. Define...take 7 billion and... you get the picture. Quantify...I'll take a stab at it, 5'9', 130 lbs and stop ther because we are looking at dietary requirement for now.

About 2000 calories a day with a good mix of protein, carbohydrate and essential nutrients. Unfortunately most of the world currently lives on much less.

wa:do

Ok, now in our real world does everyone absolutely need to eat healthly or enough to survive well? Are we going to need medical care? Do we grow our own food and hunt for it or are we going to have farms and divisions of labor?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I fully understand your question - no need to simplify it, thanks.

You are asking what is essentially an ecological question and, as a qualified, trained ecologist, I am trying to put your question into context.

A basic concept of ecology is the niche and there are two niches that can be described: the fundamental niche (what the organism requires in a competition-free scenario) and the realised niche (what resources an organism can actually make use of, given the availability of those resources and the presence of other organisms also requiring them).

Now, you are asking what are the minimum resource requirements of a human. The question is too simplistic (no offence). Are you asking about our fundamental niche (the ideal situation) or our realised niche (the reality)? If it is the realised niche, you have to take into account where that human lives, the other organisms it is in competition with, what resources are actually available, and so on. I keep giving you responses in terms of the wider environment and how the 'average human' you talk of has to fit in with that environment. Given the variety of ecosystems and habitats (and, therefore, the heterogeneity of resources) humans contend with, the question of minimum requirements becomes rather meaningless.

Yes, you could google minimum water intake per day, minimum calorific intake per day etc, but those data on their own tell us very little, as it doesn't account for the ecosystem that your 'average human' is located in.

Edit: this is your thread question, sandy. What is your view on it? What have you found out that we could use as a starting point?

I'm looking at an idealized situation and since I'm lookng for an average then situational requirement are not required for now.

I haven't come up with and average yet. It's a basis for discussion and discovery for now and debate later. I'm also looking to understand how deeply people who say the world is overpopulated have really considered it and whether it's a resource problem or a behavior problem.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

How fast can they pump out robot maids?

Do you have a thing for Rosie?

 

[painted wolf]

Define or quantify. Define...take 7 billion and... you get the picture. Quantify...I'll take a stab at it, 5'9', 130 lbs and stop ther because we are looking at dietary requirement for now.
Ok, now in our real world does everyone absolutely need to eat healthly or enough to survive well?

Only if you want to be humane. I mean you can choose to deny some people enough food to be healthy and to just survive... but is that the kind of species you really think we should be?

Are we going to need medical care?

obviously. But a proper diet reduces the need for some types of medical intervention. Why wouldn't we want or need medical care?

Do we grow our own food and hunt for it or are we going to have farms and divisions of labor?

Obviously. Why wouldn't we? You can't feed a population of several million or a few billion otherwise.

wa:do

 

[Noaidi]

I'm looking at an idealized situation and since I'm lookng for an average then situational requirement are not required for now.

OK, Painted Wolf gave a figure of 2000 calories per day in terms of energy intake. To this, I'll add 50 litres of water per day, which covers drinking, washing and sanitation.

"Drinking, sanitation, and hygiene needs constitute the basic human survival needs for water. These minimum needs total about 50 liters (13.2 gallons) per person per day."
Survival Needs - human​

I'm also looking to understand how deeply people who say the world is overpopulated have really considered it and whether it's a resource problem or a behavior problem.

Yes, it has been considered to a great extent by many. The issue is a combination of resource distribution, uneven resource consumption and gross numbers of humans utilising these resources.

 

[painted wolf]

Yes, it has been considered to a great extent by many. The issue is a combination of resource distribution, uneven resource consumption and gross numbers of humans utilising these resources.

Exactly...

wa:do

 

[Thief]

Can't remember the source...
This planet has enough chemistry to support 9billion people.
That's it.
We will reach that number within my life time.

When I was just coming out of grade school...3billion people...
and two thirds of the population were considered...hungry.

Now we hear...7billion.

If I live to the age of my departed grandfather....12billion people.

And that will hold even as the death rate continues.
In the current flow....6billion people will die in my lifetime.

This holds as the population doubles in forty years....
and people live to be eighty.
I did check the average lifespan world wide.
Some countries more....some less...but still....

It gave me some consideration to life generally speaking.
The population doubled since I was in grade school...and will do so again..
before I die.

Technology has far outrun our ability to use what we know.
We will live long enough to have the answers....
and then fail to use them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Do you have a thing for Rosie?

You don't?

 

[waitasec]

How much food is the least amount one needs.

i believe that has been addressed by painted wolf...

Also in some environments, protection from the elements is more than a want.

then i would say, protection and food are both wants determined by level of degrees.

ultimately we want to survive.