Thread: Overpopulation

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Originally Posted by buriramboy

The world isn't overpopulated and could sustain a lot more people, the problem is the distribution of resources and wealth as in some countries have more than they need and others can't sustain themselves.

Indeed....
Overpopulation, per se, is not the problem [or an issue].

The real problem lies towards a select segment of the population.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) you're referring to regions with high population growth such as Africa and parts of the middle-east.

Population growth with few job opportunities - leads problems.

So IMO, jobs and job opportunity is another issue in overpopulation, in addition to humans consuming too many resources.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

The entire population of the world could have 1000 sq ft and still fit inside Texas.

I've seen this statistic before, and I will assume it's true.

But this is a pretty hefty "could" Yes, they "could," but what about growing and harvesting food, earning incomes, and quality of life?

I don't think it would be too good.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Kill the super elite. All of them. Then continue to kill those that take their place distributing their wealth. Break up all the big companies as well. Take control of currencies away from bankers, owned by the super elite.

A good idea, pseudolus.

But what does this have to do with the rising world population?

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Originally Posted by barbaro

I've long thought the world has too many people now (7+ billion) that are consuming resources, need infrastructure, etc., etc.,

Headed for 11 billion by 2100 (or earlier).


World population may hit 11 billion by 2100

Washington (AFP) - The world population may grow larger than previously estimated, reaching 11 billion people by century's end, according to a UN-led analysis published Thursday.

That would mean two billion more people on Earth than expected by 2100, largely due to high birth rates in Africa, said the report in the US journal Science.

"The consensus over the past 20 years or so was that world population, which is currently around seven billion, would go up to nine billion and level off or probably decline," said co-author Adrian Raftery, professor of statistics and of sociology at the University of Washington.

"We found there's a 70 percent probability the world population will not stabilize this century," he added.

World population may hit 11 billion by 2100

That's a load of bullshit thought up by your sick government - fed to you - so you agree with global genocide.

1. I've never seen nor heard of the US government commenting or advocating any policies of world over-population.

2. I've seen the US government donate medicine and vaccines, however.

3. Also, note the source of this OP article. It's not the US govt. Please show this info you claim to have read or seen.

4. I have never explicitly stated nor implied that a world genocide was good, needed, or a solution to overpopulation.

I think it's about people having less children.


Where did you get all of this false information, Albert?

Originally Posted by barbaro

Originally Posted by pseudolus

The entire population of the world could have 1000 sq ft and still fit inside Texas.

I've seen this statistic before, and I will assume it's true.

But this is a pretty hefty "could" Yes, they "could," but what about growing and harvesting food, earning incomes, and quality of life?

I don't think it would be too good.

Seven billion times 1000 square feet...Is that 7,000,000,000,000 as in seven trillion square feet of land needed?...

Originally Posted by BaitongBoy

Originally Posted by barbaro

Originally Posted by pseudolus

The entire population of the world could have 1000 sq ft and still fit inside Texas.

I've seen this statistic before, and I will assume it's true.

But this is a pretty hefty "could" Yes, they "could," but what about growing and harvesting food, earning incomes, and quality of life?

I don't think it would be too good.

Seven billion times 1000 square feet...Is that 7,000,000,000,000 as in seven trillion square feet of land needed?...

Texas area = 267339 X (5280)^2 = 7,452,732,672,000 sq.ft.


But it really means nothing. build vertical and you could fit the population of the earth on Singapore. A 1000 sq feet cant sustain a person.

Originally Posted by Necron99

Originally Posted by BaitongBoy

Originally Posted by barbaro

Originally Posted by pseudolus

The entire population of the world could have 1000 sq ft and still fit inside Texas.

I've seen this statistic before, and I will assume it's true.

But this is a pretty hefty "could" Yes, they "could," but what about growing and harvesting food, earning incomes, and quality of life?

I don't think it would be too good.

Seven billion times 1000 square feet...Is that 7,000,000,000,000 as in seven trillion square feet of land needed?...

Texas area = 267339 X (5280)^2 = 7,452,732,672,000 sq.ft.


But it really means nothing. build vertical and you could fit the population of the earth on Singapore. A 1000 sq feet cant sustain a person.

It doesn't take a great deal more space to actually sustain a person though - maybe another 1000 sq ft each if the space was managed properly and used to sustain life as opposed to being given over to support the throwaway society nick nacks that the human race has been conned into being addicted to.

We [as a species] ain't all that special.

And we shouldn't going on as if we were.

Mother Nature probably has us on her "soon to be extinct list".
Nothing lost.

Originally Posted by thaimeme

We [as a species] ain't all that special.

And we shouldn't going on as if we were.

Mother Nature probably has us on her "soon to be extinct list".
Nothing lost.

Yes and no. Wouldn't be that amazing if as a species we became extinct in the next several hundred years, but to say as a species we aren't special is ridiculous. The journey we have taken as a species in the last 10 thousand years is astounding to say the least.

With the advances in space travel, "we" will ultimately be living outside this world, either on planets or ships like the giant terrariums that Timothy Leary floated around on...

That's a long way off. A lot of shit is gonna go down between now and then.

The planet might, in theory, be able to support a lot more people. But as expectations increase we need a lot more planet to support each person. Earth would be a much healthier environment for all species, not just the selfish homo sapiens (ironic name, that) if there were fewer people. Negative population growth would be no bad thing, other than for an economic system that privileges continuing consumer growth.
And to get 0 or negative population growth doesn't require a fascist "one child" policy like China. Until about 2 years ago Iran stabilised its population by simply withdrawing government subsidies and supports after the third child. This can be easily replicated in wealthy countries, and those countries that don't yet have any such subsidies would have to be helped along by the richer nations. A healthier less stressed planet would be the result, with benefits for many species other than ours. I know this is wild optimism, as species seems to prefer behaving like cannibalistic cockroaches. But I can dream on.

Originally Posted by Necron99

Sustain more, but at what level of comfort and convieniance?
It's been estimated that for a 2 car 4 bedroom house level of comfort the world can sustain indefinitely about 500 million.

The USA can't sustain that now? They have less than 500 mil. Brazil?

Originally Posted by beazalbob69

I for one don't think our species will ever reach 11 billion. The planet wont allow or sustain it. We have already fucked it up enough that we have trouble living.

Can you expand on that? I'm not sure what you think the planet can possibly do to prevent it. With modern medicine we're living for much longer and keeping on top of any viruses nature is throwing at us.

It's a very simple equation. The world will never get any bigger than it is, that's a given and the population is expanding rapidly. The OP talks about the year 2100, but what about 2200? What about 2600? There will have to come a time when we simply don't have enough space to live and will have to deal with the ever increasing health and crime problems that go with it.

Put a half full glass of water under a tap and turn the tap on. Even if the tap is only dripping, there will have to come a time in the future that it's full and over flowing. The glass isn't going to get any bigger nor is it capable of turning the tap off.

The only chance we have, is if we have the technology to colonise other planets before this happens, which I'm not convinced we will.

Originally Posted by beazalbob69

We do seem to operate more along the lines of a virus spreading through a host rather than most other species that are more in balance with their environs.

Bunch of cobblers and a romantic myth.

Nature is not a harmonious balance.

Nature is a fight to the death.

Humanity is the first species in history to develop the ability to consider the ecosystem objectively and consider and place a value on the welfare of other species.

Originally Posted by beazalbob69

I for one don't think our species will ever reach 11 billion. The planet wont allow or sustain it. We have already fucked it up enough that we have trouble living.

11 billion is nothing. We are already 2/3 of the way there

Go back in history to when the population of the earth was only 2/3 of what it is today, back, back in the mists of time all the way back to.... 1980!

The efficiency with which we use the earths resources is currently a tiny fraction of what it could be.

Increases in efficiency and technological advances in farming and energy production will allow the global population to increase 10 fold as the most conservative possible estimate without the slightest strain on resources.

Originally Posted by Troy

Time to start another World War. Failing that, let ebola out of the bag....

They tried that with AIDS, but it backfired...

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Originally Posted by Troy

Time to start another World War. Failing that, let ebola out of the bag....

They tried that with AIDS, but it backfired...

Are you serious in that belief?

Originally Posted by thaimeme

More senseless wars is what's needed. That'll sort out the crowding pompem.

Originally Posted by Looper

The most efficient solution would be to

Force 80% to accept homosexuality as the socially acceptable, approved form of relationship, none of this breeding lark.

Originally Posted by Looper

Tie very tight elastic bands round the ballbags of poor people and their balls will drop off in about 6 to 8 weeks.

Pig breeder eh?

Politicians know folks on here speak the truth.

Originally Posted by wasabi

Politicians know folks on here speak the truth.

Yes, a hundred different types of truth, but truth nonetheless.