Comment Carrying Capacity (Score 1) 172
Otherwise called Ecological footprint
I have always hoped, at least, that a significant number of slashdoters were imbued with a bit of earth respect, and earth sense.
It may well be that I have been wrong.
A goodly proportion of Mongolian yak herders, and Angolan mamas' concerned about the education of their kids will instinctively know the concept of carrying capacity. From when they were hunters, from the production of their yaks, from the very vigour of the kids.
Any rancher with a brain knows that a piece of land is best grazed with a critical eye on the most sensitive sites on it. The sensitive sites are like the proverbial Canaries in the mineshaft. It is true liberties can be taken in this regard, but ultimately nature catches up.
The ground will only put up with a certain amount of mistreatment before it begins a negative feedback loop in direct response.
So what really ticks me is that most, not all, of the comments on this topic, on
Me here in Canada, you there in Usa, and you in Germany are going to have to cut that ecological footprint 5% per year until it is down to 25% of what it is right now. Figure it out, what will that really mean? Do you doubt that what I suggest is true?
At the same time it is not fair, or just, to promote what is clearly an unsustainable expectation among the less historicaly favoured peoples of the world.
YES, I have lived with kerosene lanterns for decades of my life, and no my kids were never inept enough to sustain any consequential injury, relied on solar panels, butchered horses for jerky, you name it.....
I am too disturbed to continue at this time, but I would like to say that over the past, say a year, my estimation of the survival intelligence value afforded by