Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Lee Everett

Human population - Overcrowded?

Recommended Posts

Doc Rikowski

 

Cities are overcrowded... Most of the planet is still empty.

 

This is true but we do need to maintain forests or we would all choke.

 

 

Of course yes. What I'm saying is that the countryside lost population.

It wouldn't be that bad if people would start to re-populate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

 

 

Cities are overcrowded... Most of the planet is still empty.

 

This is true but we do need to maintain forests or we would all choke.

 

 

Of course yes. What I'm saying is that the countryside lost population.

It wouldn't be that bad if people would start to re-populate it.

 

 

It wouldn't bad but I don't see many practical reasons of why one would want to live in the countryside. I think basic agrarian life is outdated and nowadays it's mostly attractive to people who have moral or societal grievances with living in cities. I live in one of the most densely populated countries in the world and we still have a large area of countryside, but you can't easily go and live a simple life there as you can in some other countries. Most of the land is owned by farmers who operate in a very industrial manner. A relatively small farm costs hundreds of thousands of euros. Farms here are huge businesses and you can't really compete with them if you're just a simple farmer. So you can't really just go and buy a farm on a loan, hoping to pay it back by selling some of your extra produce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Why does countryside and city have to been a binary choice? Never understood that idea. There's a fair bit of middle ground between the two. Garden cities being the primary example that springs to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Very true man.

Also, most research I've seen seems to be based on current levels of technology (future technological advances are impossible to accurately predict and factor in). I'm sure that even that 14 billion threshhold can be easily overcome when technological advances allow for more efficient use of resources, discovery of new resources, and generally better resource management.

Other side of the coin: technological advancement can also mean a rise in population. We're set to level off at 14 billion if there's no game-changing advancements in medical science. Or even political changes that drastically alter peoples' life expectancy, such as less war and societal violence (which we- touch wood- are trending towards) and a removal of political conditions that create deprivation; remember, most of those starving African children we see on TV are dying because of conflict, we have enough food for them, we have enough planes to fly it to them, and we have the political will to accomplish this.

 

We can't say with confidence that the Earth can sustain our population for the foreseeable future, because we don't know what our population will be in fifty years. We need space colonies, is what I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

Why does countryside and city have to been a binary choice? Never understood that idea. There's a fair bit of middle ground between the two. Garden cities being the primary example that springs to mind.

 

It's not a clear dichotomy but most people clearly live in one or the other. I'm not sure what garden cities are, but if they're cities where food is being grown on roofs and such, I would still call that a city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. House

Sorry bro, Malthus already thought of this outcome a few hundred years ago. You're trying though, so keep it up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

 

Why does countryside and city have to been a binary choice? Never understood that idea. There's a fair bit of middle ground between the two. Garden cities being the primary example that springs to mind.

It's not a clear dichotomy but most people clearly live in one or the other. I'm not sure what garden cities are, but if they're cities where food is being grown on roofs and such, I would still call that a city.

They're urban areas with a lower population density due to extensive greenbelt land between residential, commercial and industrial developments. So you effectively have small pockets of woodland and arable land inside the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

I think there are many "middle grounds" between city and countryside.

My brother lives in Tuscany, in the countryside near Scansano, a very small medieval town famous for wine and olive oil.

He's not a farmer but he owns a bit of land and does produce olive oil.

He's a sea captain or skipper if you prefer, he works mostly in the private yachting business and all things boats/sea related.

His work has nothing to do with the area he chose to live (countryside near small town).

 

What I mean is that we can live in the countryside and have a job non related to the countryside.

There are so many jobs that with today's technology could be performed from home rather than in an office.

Cities could be less crowded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

I think we call that middle ground "villages", lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil weasel

Not to worry. As population grow mama nature compensates. Either a major virus, weather catastrophe, or homosexuality will reduce the population. It has happened before it will happen again. The wheel of time turns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D- Ice

 

 

Cities are overcrowded... Most of the planet is still empty.

 

This is true but we do need to maintain forests or we would all choke.

 

 

Of course yes. What I'm saying is that the countryside lost population.

It wouldn't be that bad if people would start to re-populate it.

 

Why does countryside and city have to been a binary choice? Never understood that idea. There's a fair bit of middle ground between the two. Garden cities being the primary example that springs to mind.

Coincidentally, I was just reading about urban planning several days ago.

The Garden City Movement was a fantastic solution to the terrible living condiditions of industrial-age urban squalor. Personally, I believe the best furture solution is a movement that was inspired by, and grew out of, the Garden City Movement (explained later on in the post).

 

Today, with better transportation, we are seeing the rise of Urban Sprawl, in most countries outside Europe especially. This involves the creation of massive suburbs surrounding cities were most people live. The big problem with those is that as they grow, they grow outwards, resulting in longer and longer commutes for people. Even though now, most small and medium businesses have moved to the suburbs too, as well as many large businesses, it still results in long commutes due to the spread out nature of the sprawl. People without private transport are also placed at a massive disadvantage. There are also problems of the land not being used efficiently, high transport costs, and pollution, amongst other problems (Wikipedia section). I've seen this type of development first hand over several years - while travelling from a town (Ba'qouba) to a nearby city (Baghdad), I noticed less and less countryside in between, until now they are connected by near-continuous suburbs in one large urban sprawl.

Some places started taking measures to prevent uncontrolled sprawl development with green belt policies - the UK being the first to implement such policies in the industrial age.

 

Personally, I think the best solution is to actually increase population density with the compact city concept. Though the concept is strongly based on transit-oriented development, it can just as easily be fitted to private tranportation too. The thing I like is the multi-nodal city design, with each node consisting of mixed-use residential, commercial and business premises within walking distance from a transportation hub - whether a public transit station and/or large multi-story car-park that people can leave their cars in. Trees can be grow inside and between these nodes to make the whole place more pleasant.

The biggest disadvantage though is that people will have to give up living in houses to living in appartments.

 

Other side of the coin: technological advancement can also mean a rise in population.

Very true. I guess population growth is relative to technological advancement. Looking back at history, human population plateaued several times, before certain advancements allowed it to boom again. I can't see much reason to believe we aren't seeing the same now.

 

We're set to level off at 14 billion if there's no game-changing advancements in medical science. Or even political changes that drastically alter peoples' life expectancy, such as less war and societal violence (which we- touch wood- are trending towards) and a removal of political conditions that create deprivation; remember, most of those starving African children we see on TV are dying because of conflict, we have enough food for them, we have enough planes to fly it to them, and we have the political will to accomplish this.

I completely agree here too. Though I think what you say also holds true for all other branches of science, not just medicine. Rampant corruption by leaders in many economically less-developed ("Third World") nations and lack of stability means that sectors like agriculture, industry, and services are left under-developed to the detriment of the population.

Sorry of this cynicism, but if history has taught us anything, it's that war is a part of human nature that will never be completely done away with - though there are times of more or less peace. I also hope we are trending towards more peaceful times, but I'm not entirely convinced with what's happening in the Middle-East.

 

We can't say with confidence that the Earth can sustain our population for the foreseeable future, because we don't know what our population will be in fifty years. We need space colonies, is what I'm saying.

Something similar to the multi-nodal cities I talk about above seemed to work fine in Tropico 4: Modern Times. Therefore, I believe the best solution would be to install me as a totalitarian dictator of Earth, and in no time, all those starving Africans will be living in modern, sustainable cities with access to gourmet food, and better entertainment than scaring flies drink water from your dying baby's eyes.

Edited by D- Ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

Not to worry. As population grow mama nature compensates. Either a major virus, weather catastrophe, or homosexuality will reduce the population. It has happened before it will happen again. The wheel of time turns.

 

Or genocide. It seems that has been the preferred solution so far.

 

Eventually we'll get over all of that though and we'll live to be much older and the planet will get really full, so we'll colonize outer space. You're right that nature does compensate a little bit, but it hasn't really been enough. Humanity grew to an unnaturally high population a long time ago, and population growth has only been increasing. Our numbers doubled in 50 years. Let that sink in. Doubled in one generation. Nature can't stop us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

If people like Elon Musk succeed in lowering the cost to outer space, then we're on the verge of another revolution much like the 50's and 60's where scientific advancements led to that population growth spike. If we're able to move a bit of our industrial sector to outer space (no pollution btw!) then we can start manufacturing a good chunk of our finished products "up there". Combine that with colonies on the moon, or beyond, and GM crops and BOOM we should be good for another couple of hundred years. Forget this Garden City and think big, like a garden planet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil weasel

 

Not to worry. As population grow mama nature compensates. Either a major virus, weather catastrophe, or homosexuality will reduce the population. It has happened before it will happen again. The wheel of time turns.

Or genocide. It seems that has been the preferred solution so far.

 

Good idea, we should start now!.

BUT, I would rather see euthanasia of the general [superfluous] population, rather than exterminating a particular race, or religion.

 

Dalek.gif

Edited by lil weasel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

 

Overpopulation depends more on how we live, rather than the total number of people on the planet. The resource and energy consumption contrasts between a person living in a highly developed country like the U.S. and a person living in an undeveloped country like Niger are vast. The planet can sustain considerably more people living a basic agrarian existence than it can sustain urban city dwellers with high energy and resource consumption needs.

 

So basically how many people we can cram onto this planet depends on how greedy and needy those people are.

 

This is not really true. We can support more city dwellers than people living a basic agrarian existance. If we were to divide all the land on earth fairly between the existing population, there would not be enough room for everybody to have a plot of land big enough to sustain themselves. We need advanced food production to support many people, not billions of individuals with primitive means of food production. It needs to be efficient, much more efficient than anybody could achieve with a simple agrarian lifestyle. You can produce so much more on the same land area with advanced technology.

 

The first part of your post is spot on though.

 

Yh you're right. What I was basically trying to say was that a country like the US is not a sustainable model. But I worded it so badly and f*cked myself in the ass and then began speaking out of it. I actually study this sort of thing as well, I'm doing a geography masters degree lel. The going joke is that all it will get you is a job at McDonald's, which in my case I'll probably be lucky to get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

 

 

Overpopulation depends more on how we live, rather than the total number of people on the planet. The resource and energy consumption contrasts between a person living in a highly developed country like the U.S. and a person living in an undeveloped country like Niger are vast. The planet can sustain considerably more people living a basic agrarian existence than it can sustain urban city dwellers with high energy and resource consumption needs.

 

So basically how many people we can cram onto this planet depends on how greedy and needy those people are.

 

This is not really true. We can support more city dwellers than people living a basic agrarian existance. If we were to divide all the land on earth fairly between the existing population, there would not be enough room for everybody to have a plot of land big enough to sustain themselves. We need advanced food production to support many people, not billions of individuals with primitive means of food production. It needs to be efficient, much more efficient than anybody could achieve with a simple agrarian lifestyle. You can produce so much more on the same land area with advanced technology.

 

The first part of your post is spot on though.

 

Yh you're right. What I was basically trying to say was that a country like the US is not a sustainable model. But I worded it so badly and f*cked myself in the ass and then began speaking out of it. I actually study this sort of thing as well, I'm doing a geography masters degree lel. The going joke is that all it will get you is a job at McDonald's, which in my case I'll probably be lucky to get.

 

 

No worries. I just recently got a bachelors degree is sociology and topics like these were also prominent there. What kind of model do you mean when you say the US model is unsustainable? The economic model? In that case I would agree, especially now when the industrial age seems to be coming to an end. I think soon nearly all unskilled labor will be done by machines and we will see massive unemployement among the lower classes. I think there will be a growing gap between those who own and control the means of production, and those who (used to) work for them. I have a fairly Marxist view on capitalism. I do think capitalism is a very productive system and it can do a lot for humanity but if left completely uncontrolled, it leads to exploitation and collective irrationality. I do see the future brightly because I think we will deal with this and introduce a system where everyone is guaranteed basic living necessities. We will have to if half the population's jobs are replaced by robots, and when something has to be done it will be done.

 

Actually, after typing all of that I realized maybe you were talking about the US model in terms of spacial planning. If so, why do you think that is not sustainable?

 

 

Not to worry. As population grow mama nature compensates. Either a major virus, weather catastrophe, or homosexuality will reduce the population. It has happened before it will happen again. The wheel of time turns.

Or genocide. It seems that has been the preferred solution so far.

 

Good idea, we should start now!.

BUT, I would rather see euthanasia of the general [superfluous] population, rather than exterminating a particular race, or religion.

 

Dalek.gif

 

 

That's pretty inhumane. All we can really morally do is try to convince people not to have more than two children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil weasel

That's pretty inhumane. All we can really morally do is try to convince people not to have more than two children.

Make that One child. Morals are in this regard a tribal issue.

 

 

Parenting March 14, 2014:

My kids don’t care if there are starving children in Africa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DopeFresh

by 2200 we would probably be colonizing the moon.

 

2050 - 2100 first space elevator built

2100 - 2200 moon base construction

2200 - colonization

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Rabbit

The world itself is not over-populated, but certain areas of the world are, while some areas are left relatively empty. I live in a city center and I must say this place seems over-populated, even in my homes in smaller towns it seemed a little crowded, but when I go abroad, if I don't go in the peak of summer, the town I go to in Spain is practically dead.

it also depends on the resources used, some areas have a pretty dense population but not much in the way of resources to sustain them to the standard of life they live.

 

A TV show I am currently infatuated with centers in some ways on this very topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trip

The global population has doubled in my life time alone. That is kind of scary.

 

I honestly think we play a fine game of "balance" with mother nature and the planet. If we start to tip the scales where we have more life than resources to support it I believe mankind will evolve to become less fertile and/or the planet will act in disruptive ways to counter act the lack of balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ddyoung

Population growth is slowing. We're due to reach a plateau in the next few decades. The world as it stands isn't overpopulated; the theoretical maximum workable population from some of the research I've seen on the subject was about 14 billion people and AFAIK we are due to plateau around 12.

Even though that is the theoretical maximum, the realistic maximum will probably be different. Yes, population growth is slowing down, but the resources that are required to make our current population work are going to be long gone by the time we start seeing a decline in population. Oil will win out in the next 100 years, and unless we can harness renewable resources at exponentially bigger amounts than now, the human race is doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

We can already produce usable hydrocarbons from all sorts of things. We don't really need oil anymore; we only use it by default because of convenience and cost-effectiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

by 2200 we would probably be colonizing the moon.

 

2050 - 2100 first space elevator built

2100 - 2200 moon base construction

2200 - colonization

 

Problem is I don't think a lot of people would be happy to live on the moon. I wouldn't. There's absolutely nothing in there.

Living in a closed space base, even with all sort of comforts, it's not an ideal life. It is basically a prison.

And it would be much cheaper to build cities in huge deserts like the Sahara.

Edited by Doc Rikowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

 

That's pretty inhumane. All we can really morally do is try to convince people not to have more than two children.

Make that One child. Morals are in this regard a tribal issue.

 

Parenting March 14, 2014:

My kids don’t care if there are starving children in Africa

 

 

There's no moral difference between trying to convince (i.e. not force!) people to have one or two children I think. I do think moral are still important here. Why wouldn't they be?

 

 

by 2200 we would probably be colonizing the moon.

 

2050 - 2100 first space elevator built

2100 - 2200 moon base construction

2200 - colonization

 

Problem is I don't think a lot of people would be happy to live on the moon. I wouldn't. There's absolutely nothing in there.

Living in a closed space base, even with all sort of comforts, it's not an ideal life. It is basically a prison.

And it would be much cheaper to build cities in huge deserts like the Sahara.

 

 

That's probably true but Europeans probably felt the same way when they started to colonize America. Not a lot of people would be up for it, but you could certainly find enough people to go there and build it until it is more suitable for living there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Judicious 7

The human population isn't overcrowded. There are tons of places humans could go to and still have room left over. There are literally miles upon miles of farmland and space in rural areas of the world. Australia and the Midwest area of the US comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrilLe

I reckon that planet Earth is already under too much pressure, environtmentally speaking.

 

We keep on logging the forests before they even get to reproduce themselves. We keep on digging for minerals because the demand is high, and that particular demand will only rise as the world population increases.

 

Mother nature always tries to kill us, but we Sapiens always find a way to cheat her, saving lives that shouldn't be.

 

I honestly pray for a huge pandemic to happen. Something that will destroy the infrastructure of modern society, killing billions from the infection itself, then more when it's every man for himself in the post-apocalyptic world.

 

If scientists won't stop creating vaccines, someone has to create something unbreakable and spread it though biological terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Docfaustino

^ the f*ck is wrong with you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Scratch

Some of you watch too much Utopia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gtavstriker

Lol he wants resident evil to happen, so do I just for trying real life zombies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trip

Man is mans worst enemy, We f*cked with mother nature. We will have to deal with it.

 

We came up with ways to help man live longer. We came up with combatants to fight Darwin's law of natural selection.

 

Mother nature tried. Our health science got better and better. People started living past the age of 40. Mother nature fought back. Man fought back, Mother nature was up against the ropes and she had to do something...she developed peanut allergies . A few men died...yet man fought back.

 

I'm not sure if it is compassion or competition that makes mankind want to beat out mother nature. I like to think compassion, but if I had to put money on it...well...you know man by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.