MonteQuest wrote:You won't have to adjust your lifestyle all the way back to pre-industrial / pre-technological levels, just your consumption level. Quality of lifestyle could even rise.
I'm not sure I understand the difference. I am thinking 18th century technology levels, without modern sanitation, hi-tech health care, etc. Life was hard, and short.
MonteQuest wrote:If we are in overshoot, which all the signs and studies says we are, then the population will crash. If not now, then later. If later, then it will be worse. Energy alone cannot expand carrying capacity in a world governed by the "law of the minimum." It tells us that the carrying capacity for any given species is set by the necessity in least supply.
So if that necessity is not energy, but something else, then you're right. Well, except that the something else has to be something you can't get more of with more energy. As for "crash", it depends on your definition. Hitting an energy wall could result in a hard crash with lots of people dying to reduce the population over a very short time period. I'd rather delay such an event if possible; given a few hundred years the population could be managed down to something sustainable. So even a temporary energy fix of sufficient longevity could avoid what I would consider a crash.
MonteQuest wrote:Can we manage a fully artifical environment? That is awfully thin ice.
Anything not prohibited by the laws of physics is possible. That said, we have a
long way to go before we can presume to know as much about nano-scale processes and life processes as mother nature; I sure wouldn't want to bet the ranch on this. Plus, it doesn't sound desirable. The Earth is beautiful - I like her the way she is.