Science and technology usually glean most of the credit, and they deserve their share. To answer the question, itвЂ™s first important to understand the basis of our success so far. If weвЂ™ve managed to stretch carrying capacity this much already, why canвЂ™t we do so ad infinitum? No previous society was able to support so many people at such a high level of amenity. As Nordhaus points out, population has grown dramatically (from less than a billion in 1800 to 7.6 billion today), and so has per capita consumption. Yes, it is beyond dispute that the modern industrial world has been able to temporarily expand EarthвЂ™s carrying capacity for our species. The core of NordhausвЂ™ case is that we are now living in a magical society that is immune to the ecological law of gravity. Yet in cases where societies depleted forests, fisheries, freshwater, or topsoil, the consequences were dire.Д«ut that was then. Granted, societies have failed for other reasons as well, including invasion, over-extension of empire, or natural climate change. Still, as archaeologists have affirmed, many past human societies consumed resources or polluted environments to the point of collapse. Nordhaus seems to think we are exceptions to the rules. The controversy deepens in applying the carrying capacity concept to humans. While exact population numbers are sometimes difficult to predict on the basis of the carrying capacity concept, it is nevertheless clear that, wherever habitat is degraded, creatures suffer and their numbers decline. Indeed, the concept of carrying capacity is useful in instance after instance-including modeling the population dynamics of nonhuman species, and in gauging the health of virtually any ecosystem, be it ocean, river, prairie, desert, or forest.

Few actual ecologists, however, would agree.

Endless space 2 overpopulation