Ideal Earth Population

[Perfection]

Quadrillions once we shed these inefficient bodies and live in a global supercomputer.

 

[Global Nexus]

"Ideal" by what standards? "Ideal" for my version of humanity's future would be at least 70 - 100 billion people on Earth alone, sustained in arcologies, undersea cities and seasteads, and underground cities, with several hundred billion more on off-world colonies...

But then, I'm one of those people who freaks out at the sight of a bee or wasp and would love having a future without those.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Because I--regardless of how silly it sounds to say it--believe that it would be awesome to have a world given almost entirely up to wildlife, a free and natural world, and even better, a world where humans can easily coexist with the environs and have plenty of space.

WE had that about 10,000 years ago. Then once we invented farming, we quickly out grew it.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

I thought that was mainly because women live longer than men and the population is ageing. So yes, we'll have more old women, but whatever turns you on mate

And mature women are getting more beautiful by the day...thanks to L’Oreal Paris’s skin care products...I’m happy with this arrangement… well because I’m wroth "it.

 

[Ramius75]

What we are having now, no more, no less. there can be need some re-distribution thou.

So that we can safely introduce the immotality project

 

[North King]

WE had that about 10,000 years ago. Then once we invented farming, we quickly out grew it.

"Grew" out of it?

More like we took it because if we didn't, our next door neighbors who did would overrun us.

 

[Global Nexus]

Doubt that's what he meant, North King. I think he meant grew, as in populations grew and we had to expand. It's kind of hard for our "neighbors" to get to us when the nearest star is light years away.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Doubt that's what he meant, North King. I think he meant grew, as in populations grew and we had to expand. It's kind of hard for our "neighbors" to get to us when the nearest star is light years away.

Yes thanks GN. I do not think that humans have either the temperment or the technology to maintain a low profile on an empty world, even if we could get back to that state.

 

[Atlas14]

There is too much traffic on the island in Maryland I live on now. Any more darn people would piss me off even more. Take your child that you barely pay any attention to who abuses every drug known to mankind and shove him.

On a lighter note, the ideal population would be 2 billion people total.

 

[Hirachi Dinavo]

Whoever figured that out must have been a REALLY sadistic statistician.

I heard someone calculated that if all the human bodies ever never decomposed, they would cover the Earth ten feet thick.

I think the population should be around or less than 2 billion because of resource depletion problems. We only can use what we have on the planet for fuel and products so we should stay well under the limit to make sure we don't use everything up and wipe ourselves out. I don't think living in space will ever work as an alternative to living on the surface unless we find other places to mine and somehow develop lightspeed travel.

 

[greekguy]

As long as we don't go past 10 billion we should be fine.

 

[Eli]

Environment, shmenvironment.

I cant understand this idyllic vision of a small, quiet, perfect world.

The only reason to "have a world given almost entirely up to wildlife" is aesthetic. It is a dream either by city people who watched the National Geographic channel too much and dont realize how much it would suck to live in a "natural" world, or by people who are familiar with these rigors and prefer them to the complexity of modern life.

The truth is that if we want to live longer, travel farther, learn more and enjoy life in all it's forms, we need to have as many people as possible adding their share to our technologic and cultural levels.

Of course that having 20 billion people when half of them are starving in godforsaken primitive villages or having 20 billion productive humans living an unsustainable life is only detrimental, but as soon as we overcome these limitations there should be no limit to population growth(with the exception of new limitations of course).

 

[Winner]

About 5 billion. Just look on the world and you'll se why:

USA - 300 million.
Europe - about 500 million.

Third World - 5 billion

In fact, those Third world countries are going poorer and poorer, because the same pie is divided between more and more people. They can't feed themselves now, but they keep reproducing. I simply cannot understand why someone who don't have enough food and water want to have 10 children...

 

[storealex]

There's more than enough humans already. 3.5 billion would be ideal in my world.

 

[Winner]

There's more than enough humans already. 3.5 billion would be ideal in my world.

It's very easy to achieve that

 

[HighlandWarrior]

children are awesome, that's why they want 10. I'd take 10, but i don't think the wife would go along with that, Lord willing I'll have 5

 

[amadeus]

There's some people we could do without.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Women already out number men, and in a few more decades the gap will get bigger.....bring on the multiple wives.

I thought that was mainly because women live longer than men and the population is ageing. So yes, we'll have more old women, but whatever turns you on mate

Actually, both of you are slightly off. More men are born than women, but men have this tendency to blow themselves up and get violently killed, meaning women survive longer in general. (There's a reason for that life expectancy gap, and I don't believe it's genetic...)

 

[Mathilda]

Actually, both of you are slightly off. More men are born than women, but men have this tendency to blow themselves up and get violently killed, meaning women survive longer in general. (There's a reason for that life expectancy gap, and I don't believe it's genetic...)

You're right on the difference in birth rate, but I don't agree with violent deaths being the main cause over all.
Sure, for young men they do indeed count for more deaths than young women, but at an older age women definately live longer than men.
Here's one statistic from USA for you:

In 1999, there were 20.2 million older women and 14.3 million older men, or a sex ratio of 141 women for every 100 men. The sex ratio increased with age, ranging from 118 for the 65-69 group to a high of 237 for persons 85 and over.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

but men have this tendency to blow themselves up and get violently killed, meaning women survive longer in general.

You see I get to sleep with their wives when they foolishly blow themselves up... hummm!