Quote of the Day
Researchers at Flinders University have concluded that the global human population surpassed Earth’s sustainable carrying capacity more than six decades ago, entering a prolonged period of ecological overshoot fueled by fossil energy and accelerating resource consumption. The peer-reviewed study, published in Environmental Research Letters, applied ecological growth models to more than 200 years of population records and found that a shift to a “negative demographic phase” began by 1962, roughly eight years before a measurable global biocapacity deficit emerged in 1970. The findings add quantitative weight to a growing body of evidence that civilization is operating well beyond the planet’s regenerative limits.
Everett Sloane
April 7, 2026
Study suggests humanity has exceeded Earth’s long-term carrying capacity
Now that Paul Ehrlich is gone and his book The Population Bomb has been proven dramatically wrong, of course someone else has to take up the cause. Genocidal tyrants everywhere can now use this as another excuse to murder tens of millions of people.
“Flinders University” sounds like something from the Flintstones. Why would anyone care about opinions from a supposed university that has never been heard of, making statements that are obvious nonsense?
If the carrying capacity of the earth had been exceeded for 60 years we obviously could not be alive now. Even by university standards that was quite a moronic press release to put out.
Indeed. That’s why they have been researching birth control vaccines for years.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4896557/ . You admit the tyrants and psychopaths in charge of so many things want us dead.
I’m sure it’s a total coincidence that sterility has been a side effect of many of the vaccine trials that the Gates Foundation and others have run in India and Africa over the years. (citations in “Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health” https://www.amazon.com/dp/1510766804 )
I’m also sure that said tyrants who want us dead and would never use fear to drive mass injections of everyone would be shocked to discover that the lipid nanoparticles target the ovaries and egg follicles https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12031016/ and https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/mrna-vaccines-linked-to-catastrophic for “normie-speak” summary, and https://gab.com/AndSoOnShow/posts/108728613166114465 for part of an interview with a highly published medical doc on the subject )
And I’m sure they’d never try to spin a population crash in any mainstream article as a good thing https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/09/11/dont-panic-about-the-global-fertility-crash to reduce the “noticing” and panic of people (while also decrying the labor shortage and need to import massive numbers of often- incompatible foreigners)
I know you don’t think that they would do any of that. And again, I hope you are right, or that their plans were foiled and while it will happen to some it won’t be anywhere near a majority of the vaxxed. But given ongoing elevated excess death rates, and the best estimate of covid-vax related deaths I’ve found to date : https://theethicalskeptic.com/2026/03/13/the-state-of-things-pandemic/ , I’m not particularly optimistic on that front. Again, I hope you are right, but we may not really know until (starting) in 2040 when the children of the vaxxed try to start families.
As has been often said, “you are the carbon they want to reduce.”
And I’m sure they’d never try to spin a population crash in any mainstream article as a good thing … to reduce the “noticing” and panic of people (while also decrying the labor shortage and need to import massive numbers of often- incompatible foreigners)
Assuming the “population time bomb” is real, who wants to tell those often-incompatible foreigners that maybe they shouldn’t have 12 kids?
Nobody?
Why not?
Humans are not potatos.
Yup. The analysis uses methods developed for nonhumans. Humans adapt and create technology to increase their food and energy supplies and improve sanitation, transportation, and living conditions to allow prosperity in crowded conditions.
I will accept the premise that the Earth has a finite “long-term carrying capacity” because resources are indeed finite.
However, all methodologies thus-far used in the attempt to determine exactly what that number is have been flawed to the point of uselessness.
Was Paul Ehrlich the one who basically said that the only Earth-sustainable lifestyle was the hunter-gatherer one, and ran his numbers based on that? That any cultivation/agriculture by humans pushes beyond the planet’s limits? Or was that someone else?
Starting from a principle of “There’s too many people” comes immediately the question “What are you going to do about it?”
For Norman Borlaug, the answer was to make more food on the farmland than could be produced with the farming techniques of Mathus’s day. Today, we call those old inadequately producing farming techniques “organic farming”.
For Marxists (socialists, communists, flavors of progressive, etc), there is no future improvement. How could there be? Nobody is incentivized to try, and if you do anything different, you’ll be punished for “wasting resources” on experimentation. (See: every complaint about a space program because that money could have been spent feeding the poor) So, the only solution is to have less people.
So, turn the question of “have less people” around and you get “which people do we keep”?
Obvious answer: the people who make food.
Then there are the people with adjacency: the people who move the food; the people that prepare the food; the people that guard the people making the food (every tyrant knows: pay your troops second, after the tax collectors); the people that make or fix the equipment to do all the previous. This more or less makes rational sense. Who are we missing?
Oh, yes, the people in charge that tell them to do those things, otherwise they wouldn’t be done. Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state, yessiree, bob!
Now, it is of critical importance that the people in charge stay in charge, otherwise those yokels that make the food won’t know what to do. So, the people in charge need a powerbase that they can make dependent upon them in order to provide the votes or the street mobs or unions or whatever underpins their power. And it can’t be the food-makers or the food-preparers or food-guarders or the tool-makers, because they already have what everyone wants.
Well, who is definitely at the bottom of the “people to keep” list? Non-productive people. Don’t make food, don’t make anything anyone wants to trade for food. From a purely rational point of view, if we’re in a survival situation, these are the ones you let go. Ah… but they do have something to trade: votes (or street power). They vote, they keep the people in charge in place along with their flunkies and functionaries, and the people in charge take the food from the food-makers and give it to the useless eaters. The useless eaters need the people in charge, and the people in charge need the useless eaters, and they both plunder the productive people. They give the system some sort of high-minded lofty name, like “Welfare state”. Don’t vote the right way, you don’t get the food, you truly useless eater.
You never, ever see these Malthusians propose to reduce the useless friction of the state, or to reduce the bread-and-circuses for the unproductive in an attempt to get the “limited food supply” rationalized with food demand according to how it improves the food supply.
Solely anecdotal, but I grew up during the 50s & 60s in the agricultural Midwest. When I drive around this same area now I see many acres of former farmland now laying fallow or has begun to return to woodlands. Some of these abandoned acres were farmed by my classmates’ families.
this make me believe that an awful lot more food could be produced if needed.
I see similar things around my childhood farm. Wheat, peas, lentils, oats, and barley were the crops. Now, it is mostly grass for seed and some hay.