> 11.2 billion and still climbing by 2100.
They really don't think any physical constraints are going to get in the way of that? There are only so many fish in the ocean.
They really don't think any physical constraints are going to get in the way of that? There are only so many fish in the ocean.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ef1/254c1b7626ae1c70f0718c...
With enough energy you are not constrained by resource limitations.
For example irrigate the desert with desalinated water.
It's a really big planet, you could fit a lot of people on it - and animals as well.
It's all about energy.
And domestic bees are brought in hives to many crops that are.
BUT there are some fairly important practical issues around unequal access to resources: some places have too much water and some don't have enough. Those kind of problems may lead to war, but probably won't stop population growth (short of it going large-scale nuclear or biological).
India will probably manage to, but some African countries probably won't. It's going to be quite bad for some unfortunate people living in these countries...
We can pack in more people but not if we hope to raise the living conditions of all those people. IMO those billions more are mainly going to be living hand-to-mouth in shanty towns. Whole countries living like that have little to lose by going to war to gain resources ...