8 billion people

[timabe10]

8 billion people.
I think the world's population has grown too large.
We are competing for resources.　Too much population leads to “waste”. Too many people will slow the development of science and medicine.
There are no more resources left for mankind, and I don't think we need 8 billion people.

[timabe10]

9 billion people

[76561199829811770]

Humans: The price of eggs is too much!
Humans: Oh let me have 9 kids.

[Tazor]

There are enough resources for everyone.

Supermarkets throw about half their food straight into the trash. They rather burn it than give it away for free.

On the topic of electronics, cars, tools and other similar hardware, they are designed to fail now. It is deliberate. We still have communist stuff around here from 50 years ago that still works. But these newer capitalist made products are worthless hunks of junk that barely last over 1 year. Often times they are designed to be unrepairable like the iPhone's copyright protected parts.

Electricity is easy. Just build solar panels and wind turbines everywhere already. The ultra rich are hoarding inconceivable amounts of money and raw metals used in their construction.

Stop lying that there isn't enough on the planet. There is more than enough for 8 more billion people, if used properly.

[sfnhltb]

Just need to clean up after ourselves better, there is still plenty of space if we wanted more, and plenty of resources. Besides pretty much all projections see population starting to fall within a couple of decades as the remaining areas of the world get education, health care, reduced child mortality, etc., which result in declining birth rates, so it is only a temporary issue, the future issue will be persuading humanity not to die out by having less children every generation.

[76561199829811770]

Tazor a écrit :

Stop lying that there isn't enough on the planet. There is more than enough for 8 more billion people, if used properly.

Not all of us want to live in Kowloon.

[76561199829811770]

sfnhltb a écrit :

persuading humanity not to die out by having less children every generation.

The world will be fine without humans.

#StopHavingKids

[Q-T_3.14.exe]

Double it then tell us if it's crowded or not.

[C4Warr10r]

People were competing for resources when there were only a few million people on the planet, too. Why? Beyond basic biological competition, it's because you actually need MORE people to utilize any resources in the first place. People now enjoy more resources than they ever had before. Our poor live better than kings of a thousand years past, and I can attest to that, having been poor. No king or emperor had a motorized vehicle, or a portable communications device, or five-hundred channels of entertainment. It took a lot of people to create the economy which produced those machines.

The fact of the matter is that people find and/or create MORE resources than they consume, given half a chance, and Earth is a VERY big planet, relatively speaking. We haven't touched a billionth of the resources it contains, to say nothing of those we create or can harvest from the solar system. As it is now, the US alone could feed the entire world with its agricultural output. We just don't, because the governments of so many nations can't even manage to use free food.

May of these think along the lines you're suggesting, Duck. Staying in control is more important to them than utilizing resources for the well-being of the population, so they artificially limit what would otherwise be prosperous people. They withhold food and energy as a means of control when given those resources, and otherwise limit enterprise for the same reason. It's an understandable impetus, however selfish and short-sighted.

In reality, this planet alone can support a trillion people, easily, with relative luxury. We already have the technology and materials for that, along with the space and resources. Remember, we can vertically, too, not including orbital stations or sub-surface developments. The theoretical maximum human population of Earth is closer to seventy trillion, at which point we'd be producing more heat than the planet could ever radiate.

Do we want 70 trillion people on Earth? Probably not, because overcrowding is a problem for any form of life, but if we ever did have that many, it would still take them millions of years to go through all the resources contained in the Earth's crust, because very little actual mass is ever lost through heat and light radiation. Pretty much everything that has ever been used on Earth is still here, and our "waste" is just crap we can't be bothered with recycling because abundant resources are less energy-intensive to work than the garbage. That's with science we have right now, and have had for decades.

As for the assertion that too many people will slow the development of medicine, well, I don't even understand the premise. Some people, likely governments, thinking along the Malthusian lines you're presenting, might intentionally limit medicine, and they have before. But for everyone and everything else, necessity is the mother of invention. What makes you think people won't just develop more medicine, like they always have?

Truly, I have the complete opposite view of humanity, with regards to Malthusian thinking. People are miracle machines, constantly inventing solutions to every problem any form of life ever faced, as long as they are permitted to. The ONE major obstacle is overcoming the strictures of overly controlling people, and I don't mean religions or individual states and communities. Where those work well, they work well. I mean the globalist variety of controllers, who have a plan for all humanity, despite not understanding anything about it.

This species does pretty much what one would expect it to do, the instructions are even built into the model, but there are these mid-wits who think they know better than the manufacturers. Everyone already has resource consciousness. You, me, and the people who likely imparted their views to you. They merely presented their views to you with the idea of control that they never manage to execute well. I don't see humans that way. If I give you a problem, and you agree it's a problem, you'll fix it by yourself, no interference required. Or you'll find people who can fix the problem, no interference required. Or you'll utterly fail, and serve as example of what not to do, no interference required.

Ultimately, that's the story of humanity, with all of its miraculous accomplishments and terrible pitfalls. You can try to regulate the population of the planet, but I already know how that's going to work out, and I think you do, too. I could explain, for pages, what the biological imperative is, and how it came about, but you already know it's there. No sense in going directly against it, no matter how idiots might say their plans are "for the good of humanity". They obviously are not. They mean "the good of humanity as I see it, with me in charge". You're just one tiny scion of their belief, and you'd thoughtlessly deny life to trillions. Are you sure those are the people you want to listen to?

[Talby]

Is this why Dr. Kevorkian is so popular with this generation?

How about getting rid of the bulk corporate / industrial corruption and the processed food cartels once and for all, and promote local farmers for citizens and corporate and industry needs alike?

[Xero_Daxter]

A moment of silence for OP.

*bangs drums and blow a saxophone*

[76561199829811770]

Talby a écrit :

Is this why Dr. Kevorkian is so popular with this generation?

We need him to conduct his operation on everyone.

[76561198088409502]

the depravity of westerners being concerned about "overpopulation" as if their societies aren`t the ones who are destroying and have destroyed the environment with carbon emmissions and general destruction of the planet

europe and US combined have almost 50% of the emissions, not including the other "western" countries
despite that they dont even exceed 2billion people
and wealth in general is concentrated by the top 1%, so this notion that overpopulation is a problem only really seems to apply in lala land

its even funnier that the overpopulation propaganda garebage was pushed by people like bill gates, i wonder why lol

[De Hollandse Ezel]

the earth easely can handle 10 billion.

and whites are the only group that have declined in number since 1950.
-yet whats the ONLY reason where people complain about "cant have kids.. earth to full"
the ONLY region where that makes ZERO sence..

they have been breeding like rabbits in asia.. middle east and now africa...
all that growth from 1 to 8 billion people is NOT us.

and when the ♥♥♥♥ hits the fan and earths carry capacity halves to 5 billion due resources running out you BET it will become a battle which halve of global population will starve...

and if we don't get our numbers up as whites.. we stand no change and will be made to go extinct in a resource war and migration crisis caused by a population crisis we aint to blame for.

so we must get more white kids... stop importinn more migration so we can stand a better defence keeping the hordes of starving people out from, the overpopulated regions a century from now.

ofcourse I hope those in africa don't tripple in population as projected.. and those in middle east just opt to not have kids to cut their population back by 5/6th (as middle eastern population has went x6 way beyond carry capacity in their region)
would suffer a LOT of suffering.

but just in case they don't : europe must NOT feel pressed to take on this population surpluss from middle east and africa caused by THEIR breeding to much..
nor be guilted in dropping our own birthrates...
we must up our birthrate from 1.4 to 2.1- 2.3 in europe.. we have a very different problem than other regions in the world

[Phénomènes Mystiques]

There is no true total, but a guess on world population which some scientists say that the Earth can support up to 13 Billion humans sustainably (I personally say 11 Billion upon research).

Duck a écrit :

9 billion people

This could be correct.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

WinterSorrow a écrit :

There is no true total, but a guess on world population which some scientists say that the Earth can support up to 13 Billion humans sustainably (I personally say 11 Billion upon research). :csd2smile:

Duck a écrit :

9 billion people

This could be correct. :csdsmile:

with current technology.. yes.. but now presume that fossil fuels run out in 2060-2100
that the mined phosphate also runs out.
-> than you see that we will run out fertiliser.. as the non renewable resources for it run out.

that will force us back to a more sustainable farming method... as in in what the soil actually can provide..
and than the carry capacity of earth drops closer to 5-6 billion

for europe no problem.. europe basicly is ALL farmland.. and as stated our population was stagnant since 1950.
thus we can revert to the old methods and still eat.. we may eat a bit less meat... we may stop exporting food but we live..

but middle east.. has increased their population 6 fold... massively dependend on food imports.. without those coming they will starve!

africa.. has already 5 folded their pop since 1950.. and will likely tripple it again before 2100 (fastest growing continent)
it can BARELY feed it's currnet population thanks massive use of fertilisers.. but that production will halve... when fertiliser drop.. and with 3 times the pop.. they too face the 5/6 people will starve problem.

asia.. can go either way... they have had insane population growth.. but also lowest birthrates.. in some regions... they do have quite fertile soil.. but to them soil erosion and soil polution is a massive problem..
(most likely some in asia will starve about a third)

oceania.. exports a lot of food.. it can stop that and most likely survive like europe..

south america & mexico... again like asia already had a lot of popgrowth.. and while it can cut down rainforest to boost farm output.. without fertiliser that leeds to soil erosion...
so expect like asia a third to die there too..

north america... well the dustbowl will return.. and starvation will hit again.
the usa just has not as much farmland as europe has..
but by massively cutting meat consumption twothirds may survive..
(but you will get battle between the canadians.. who have already very little farmland due most land to high north.. and without fertiliser their growth season just is to short..

so basicly starvation everywhere.. with europe and oceania as two low populated regions..
oceania at least far off the region.. and still hot and unpleasant.. but europe be a fertile plain right in between all the starving locusts..
thats why we need to up our native birthrate..
there will be a massive resource war.. and we need loyal native european population not.. a third colum of migrants.. to be able to mount a defence when the hordes will come