Overpopulation of human beings on planet Earth

[Loppan Torkel]

In Sweden there's talk about limiting the wolf population to under 200 wolves. That's how much room there is for them, according to some politicians.

1. If you were a superior being. Some sort of alien passing by. What number would you consider a reasonable population of humans on Earth would be?

2. What do you see as the most probable limiting factors of the human population on Earth are - as in: what will stave off a continued increase of humans in the future? Education/food/wars/government plans, some or all factors mentioned?

3. If food and wars will become major factors affecting the worlds population - will we also see a drop in education, making the world spiral even further into chaos?

4. Would you support government plans limiting your own nations growth to zero, including immigration, even if it means lowered living standards and increased unemployment?

 

[Birdjaguar]

If the number is less than 6 billion, a lot depends upon how quick a change is needed. Quick change will be rather messy and inconvenient for many. With the current rate of increase, I think that any slow method will only get harder since it will be slower than the speed of increase.

There are no good choices here.

 

[Ayatollah So]

1. As an alien looking down on humans I'd say, "Hey, these are persons! They can make their own decisions."

2. The most likely limiting factor* on human population in the next few centuries is lack of desire for lots of children. Which seems to be caused by wealth. The aging population you hear so much about isn't just in the highly industrialized countries anymore. *Caveat: barring robot apocalypse, anyway.

4. Let my people ... IN! In my nation's early history, one of the most respected leaders grumbled:

Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation…and as few of the English understand [their] Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain…Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it…I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling in our Elections, but now they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two Counties...In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious.

So said Ben Franklin of the Germans. Luckily, few listened and my (mostly German) ancestors made it here. I don't propose to turn-about with unfair play.

 

[innonimatu]

Swedish politicians seem to have too much time on their hands.

 

[History_Buff]

I'm entirely confident the Earth can support 10 billion people, with a comfortable standard of living. We westerners just need to give up our conspicuous consumption.

 

[Borachio]

Getting away from the motor car would help.

Personally, I can't wait to stop at home the whole time.

Commuter travel is a nightmare.

 

[Winner]

In Sweden there's talk about limiting the wolf population to under 200 wolves. That's how much room there is for them, according to some politicians.

That makes no sense - Sweden is very large in territory and small in (human) population, there is plenty of room for thousands of wolves.

1. If you were a superior being. Some sort of alien passing by. What number would you consider a reasonable population of humans on Earth would be?

2-3 billion maximum for optimal balance between the interests of humans and the natural environment.

2. What do you see as the most probable limiting factors of the human population on Earth are - as in: what will stave off a continued increase of humans in the future? Education/food/wars/government plans, some or all factors mentioned?

Lack of easily accessible natural resources to fuel agriculture and industry.

3. If food and wars will become major factors affecting the worlds population - will we also see a drop in education, making the world spiral even further into chaos?

That goes without saying.

4. Would you support government plans limiting your own nations growth to zero, including immigration, even if it means lowered living standards and increased unemployment?

Shouldn't it lead to increased employment and thus to increased living standards? In any case, my country experiences only very modest population growth and most of it goes to immigration. Population growth is low to none to negative in most developed countries. The problem is that before the rest of the world even has a chance to catch up, there will simply be too many people.

 

[Crezth]

2-3 billion maximum for optimal balance between the interests of humans and the natural environment.

Just a little over the population of the western world. How convenient.

 

[Borachio]

I believe the Romans went on about the problems of overpopulation. Then there was Malthus.

 

[uppi]

I believe the Romans went on about the problems of overpopulation. Then there was Malthus.

The population that can be supported is always a function of the technology level. 7 billion people is unthinkable with hunter-gatherer societies, but is (sort of) possible with industrial farming. So rather asking what is the maximum amount of people the earth can support, we should be asking what is the maximum amount of people the earth can support in the near future.

 

[JohnRM]

Probably 1.5 billion.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

From my environmental engineering professors and other experts I heard speak while I was a student at Georgia Tech, I get the impression that the world can support more than 12 billion humans (closer to 18 billion if we are willing to accept significant decreases in the standards of living) but that the total population will almost certainly level off on its own before it reaches that point. Our best estimates today have it stabilizing before life becomes really uncomfortable.



The Romans actually had more problems with underpopulation than overpopulation. The whole time they were an empire the lands within their borders experienced negative population growth. One of the major reasons why Christianity become dominant is because the christian opposition to abortion and infanticide made them one of the few demographics with positive population growth in a shrinking society.

 

[Crezth]

The earth can support trillions with a little imagination.

 

[civver_764]

We've got more than enough resources to feed and clothe and shelter every person in the world many times over. It's just a matter of getting our priorites straight.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

Again, the problem is not so much with overpopulation, but with overconsumption. No, you don't need a McMansion for a family of 3. No, you don't need a SUV. No, you don't need to eat nothing but steak and bacon.

Notice how the people always complaining about overpopulation are from the first world. And naturally, the target populations they want to cull off (politely! They'd never be so crass to advocate simple genocide!) are from the third world.

A first worlder complaining about the Africans and Indians and Chinese taking all the resources is an immensely fat man gorging himself on food, and complaining about starving people taking all the gruel.

 

[SouthernKing]

Yeah, the Earth can easily fit twice as many people as there are now. It can probably fit less than a billion if everyone lived like American suburbia.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

Note that there is only a weak correlation between resource consumption and health/quality of life!

 

[Phrossack]

I think a population of one to three billion is enough. And no, I'm not suggesting that only 3rd-worlders are the problem. If anything, they're less of a problem because they use fewer resources per capita. Now, if people from wealthy nations lived more modestly, Earth could support more people, but of course that will never happen.

 

[Tee Kay]

1. If you were a superior being. Some sort of alien passing by. What number would you consider a reasonable population of humans on Earth would be?

Depends on the alien and her political ideology and/or agenda.

2. What do you see as the most probable limiting factors of the human population on Earth are

Human stupidity.

3. If food and wars will become major factors affecting the worlds population - will we also see a drop in education, making the world spiral even further into chaos?

Probably

4. Would you support government plans limiting your own nations growth to zero, including immigration, even if it means lowered living standards and increased unemployment?

Absolutely not.

 

[FriendlyFire]

We as first world countries can consume less and recycle more.
Obama suggested keeping your tyres pumped correctly to save petrol, Republicans mock and attacked him. So its an uphill (and fruitless) battle.