Human population - Overcrowded?

[ChrilLe 4,312]

^ the f*ck is wrong with you

I'm just being realistic and ambitious.

[Zook 248]

 

^ the f*ck is wrong with you

I'm just being realistic and ambitious.

 

Wishing the death of billions is realistic and ambitious

[undertaker fan 351]

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.

Best solution i have ever seen of over-population!

[9i OTD 625]

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 comes to mind.

A lot of inland Australia is way too dry to inhabit. The most habitable areas are on the east coast and that's basically been taken.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Hocko1999_fgc

[TheSpectre 2,088]

The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and itd only have the population density of New York City.

 

This means it'll be a long ass time before we reach the point of over population.

 

Absolutely irrelevant, what is important is sustainability. The delicate management of finite resources and the proper recycling of water and other materials is what matters.

 

What I'm curious about is what our quality of life would be like once population growth plateaus and if all resources were to then be evenly-distributed. Unfortunately, I just can't envision that future scenario where we all have our fair share. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's even feasible for our current global population to live like citizens of a first world nation.

Edited January 16, 2015 by WhatsStrength

[Judicious 7 1,775]

 

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 comes to mind.

A lot of inland Australia is way too dry to inhabit. The most habitable areas are on the east coast and that's basically been taken.

Well, there are millions of miles in the United States that aren't inhabited (specifically the East Coast, the South, & The Midwest). All that green land and endless fields are great places to house people. Add irrigation and more roads, and you're golden.

[Clem Fandango 5,035]

What I'm curious about is what our quality of life would be like once population growth plateaus and if all resources were to then be evenly-distributed. Unfortunately, I just can't envision that future scenario where we all have our fair share. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's even feasible for our current global population to live like citizens of a first world nation.

 

Well, think of it this way: what do you and I actually own? A TV, a computer, an Xbox, a mobile phone, a pile of clothes, maybe a modest car? Giving that to everyone on the planet isn't unsustainable. What's unsustainable is this culture in the upper class of wearing an outfit once then throwing it away, having five cars and a house that's ten times bigger than what you would realistically want or need for practical reasons.

 

I don't know what portion of the Earth's resources are actually controlled by the Western middle class, but I imagine it's pretty small compared to governments and corporations who build spaceships, laser cannons and robots. Not to mention individuals who hoard money to the point that they're wealthier than entire countries. I could be wrong, but I'd wager that our lifestyle represents a very, very small amount of the resources controlled by our global civilisation.

[Gay Tony 4,857]

We certainly don't need more people.

 

Not that'd I'd ever want anything catastrophic to happen. But what's exactly wrong with having very few people, little to no competition over resources, with high quality of life?

Edited January 17, 2015 by mr toasterbutt

[TheSpectre 2,088]

 

What I'm curious about is what our quality of life would be like once population growth plateaus and if all resources were to then be evenly-distributed. Unfortunately, I just can't envision that future scenario where we all have our fair share. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's even feasible for our current global population to live like citizens of a first world nation.

 

Well, think of it this way: what do you and I actually own? A TV, a computer, an Xbox, a mobile phone, a pile of clothes, maybe a modest car? Giving that to everyone on the planet isn't unsustainable. What's unsustainable is this culture in the upper class of wearing an outfit once then throwing it away, having five cars and a house that's ten times bigger than what you would realistically want or need for practical reasons.

 

I don't know what portion of the Earth's resources are actually controlled by the Western middle class, but I imagine it's pretty small compared to governments and corporations who build spaceships, laser cannons and robots. Not to mention individuals who hoard money to the point that they're wealthier than entire countries. I could be wrong, but I'd wager that our lifestyle represents a very, very small amount of the resources controlled by our global civilisation.

 

 

That's an interesting point you make, I hadn't really thought about the impact of the super rich and their consumption of resources. I definitely don't think it would be fair to attach stigma of gluttony to the lion's share of the upper class, there are people who make a lot of money and then continue to live very modestly (which I've seen firsthand). Then there's also the common practice of philanthropy among the wealthy. Please, don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to be an apologist for the people who do indeed horde their cash and blow it on frivolous goods like jets, mansions, million dollar weddings, parties, and art pieces, I find that repugnant. I do, however, have a great deal of admiration and respect for those who start from humble beginnings, work hard, find success, and then give back to their fellow man.

[Revenge of the Donut 148]

Was watching a science video the other day that brought up the claim that if you stood every person alive side by side you could actually fit them all in a single area the size of Los Angeles, so if you spread people out properly if let's say: the population increased by a few billion, people could still live comfortably in terms of literal space, I imagine building homes and feeding/employing them would be a nightmare though, it also means an even more inexhaustible supply of fodder for corrupt rulers and the rich/powerful to exploit, which means life would probably feel even cheaper for the little people than it ever has before.

 

If things could be managed in the most efficient yet humane way possible I don't think in theory an increase would be too bad, but given the way problems like this are usually managed I think life would be pretty horrible for many in a lot of places, greed, inequity and corruption would see to that. That's just what I think.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Revenge of the Donut

[Xanbukka 72]

I once lived, not a five minute walk, to the "Georgia-Guide stone" Monument. Anyone ever actually read that thing? I did.....

 

I've read books, by people in very high places in society, that would love nothing more, then to throw a switch, and get rid of 80% of the human species, and they have more then enough money, think-tank groups, and social planners, to get people down on ground level, to debate, over the (owner's) worldly concerns...... funny how that happens.

 

I won't deny anyone, their concerns on the amount of people, resources, planet strain, etc. We have an amount of people here now, we've never had before. You add in their resource consumption, and you could debate, that a tipping point is somewhere, yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

What I keep in mind, are these truths. Humans can adapt, to almost any situation. Certain groups, above the reach of laws, courts, and governments, control EVERY resource we consume. Death, is no big stretch for governments, when you get on their bad side......... So, I'll end it with this. There have been many large scale die-offs on this planet before, either by mother nature, or democide..... So live your life, and enjoy it when, and while you can....

Edited January 17, 2015 by Xanbukka

[Tikhung 1,142]

Was watching a science video the other day that brought up the claim that if you stood every person alive side by side you could actually fit them all in a single area the size of Los Angeles, so if you spread people out properly if let's say: the population increased by a few billion, people could still live comfortably in terms of literal space, I imagine building homes and feeding/employing them would be a nightmare though, it also means an even more inexhaustible supply of fodder for corrupt rulers and the rich/powerful to exploit, which means life would probably feel even cheaper for the little people than it ever has before.

 

If things could be managed in the most efficient yet humane way possible I don't think in theory an increase would be too bad, but given the way problems like this are usually managed I think life would be pretty horrible for many in a lot of places, greed, inequity and corruption would see to that. That's just what I think.

 

Was that a Vsauce video?

 

Anyway, I think that If the parents think they could afford food for the kids then I don't see why not. However, there are still many ignorant people in third world countries(China, India, Vietnam etc.) and that would be a problem if they could not feed their children.

[Absurdity 660]

This is an economic dispute, as we currently have an economic system that demands constant production and constant harvesting of the earths resources. An obvious issue on a planet with finite resources, our current economic model is in no way the only way to live on the planet. Energies should be directed at economic alternatives, instead of towards hugely poisonous anti-human measures and sentiments to reduce populations.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Rusty Balls

[sivispacem 20,157]

Can you provide an example of an economic model where increased population does not lead to increased resource consumption, all else being equal? It's all very well claiming that it's the fault of the prevailing economic system, what's the alternative you're alluding to but saying nothing about?