Pre-European aboriginal Australians lived on that continent for 50,000 years but only practiced very limited food production. They remained essentailly hunter-gatherers, with very low population growth. If left on their own, they may have developed food production.
As in North America, the arrival of humans in Australia was suspiciously coincidental to extintion of most large land mammals. So possibly they were not sustainable at first, but later arrived at an ecological equilibrium.
Another possible sustainable candidate is Japan, 1603-1867 (Edo Period).
The population remained almost steady at around 30 million for over 250 years.
Wet rice agriculture, soy beans and fishing were the staple means of survival. There was no immigration/emmigration, very little overseas trade, no wars and no epidemics. One could argue that with this population density, deforestation was bound to occur long term, a la Europe. But most of Japan is steep mountains, with much of the population residing in narrow flatish strips. Thus the forests survived in the mountains. Abundant rainfall and a temperate climate also meant the biomass could keep up to a greater extent.
Sustainability surely depends on whether the population can be supported long-term without depleting resources, and on how the society chooses to exploit or protect the resources available to it.
With the advent of birth control, famine is not, in principle, necessary. In developed countries, birth rates have plummeted. Birthrates in developing countries are falling but not nearly enough.
Famine (foodwise) would not be a problem if humans were willing to produce excessive food, and the foodstuffs reaching the end of their storage life turned into a storable energy
But that would take peopel not working to maximize their own personal 'universe', but have a working for a common good.
Alas, anytime there is a group of people, a few will work to screw the others over to benefit themselves, so I'm not hopful for a famine-free regulated envirnment.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
-->
“If kindness and comfort are, as I suspect, the results of an energy surplus, then, as the supply contracts, we could be expected to start fighting once again like cats in a sack.”
k Nation (Jim Kunstler)
GAIA Host Collective
As in North America, the arrival of humans in Australia was suspiciously coincidental to extintion of most large land mammals. So possibly they were not sustainable at first, but later arrived at an ecological equilibrium.
Another possible sustainable candidate is Japan, 1603-1867 (Edo Period).
The population remained almost steady at around 30 million for over 250 years.
Wet rice agriculture, soy beans and fishing were the staple means of survival. There was no immigration/emmigration, very little overseas trade, no wars and no epidemics. One could argue that with this population density, deforestation was bound to occur long term, a la Europe. But most of Japan is steep mountains, with much of the population residing in narrow flatish strips. Thus the forests survived in the mountains. Abundant rainfall and a temperate climate also meant the biomass could keep up to a greater extent.
Sustainability surely depends on whether the population can be supported long-term without depleting resources, and on how the society chooses to exploit or protect the resources available to it.