over population or not?

[Thriller]

your lack of faith in your own humanity is a bit disheartening.

[Cole]

your lack of faith in your own humanity is a bit disheartening.

Hey, I was in the view "to save the planet from humans", not "save humans from humans"

It's not my fault if those people I mentionned are the ones who damage(d) the least the planet.

[Osi]

We're far from over populated, there are just over crowded regions with poor management. The amount of food the United States gives freely to developing countries would stave off starvation in Africa if the UN and other groups forced it to be distributed properly. Instead aid material is seized by mobs and warlords to maintain control over the population. Most of the world is still wilderness.

[[KMA]Avenger]

btw, 4 people voted yes to we are over populated but nobody has shown any evidence to support it so how can you people in good conscience vote on something without knowing what it is you have voted on or even understand where i'm coming from?

I love how you turn the whole "you do not understand" issue completely around every time you're convinced of something.. Ah well.. I don't care about the world anyway. Heck, for all I care it explodes right under my feet right this instant. What is there to live for save wonderful sunsets and other stuff?

Besides, I thought you said you didn't read our posts anyway, so how would you know whether we gave evidence or not.. Anyway, every site I see that claims the world is empty enough for all of us is also convinced of "inside-jobs", "aliens-come-to-save-humanity", "reptilian humanoids", "Bilderberg group controls the world" and other crap I really could care less about.


The end is nigh. Repent.

that's not what i said babes, now don't start playing word games, we are talking about the myth that is over population.
if you want to discuss inside jobs i believe i have a thread for that somewhere

The earth is over crowded with the wrong people. Its over crowded in general.

I believe Iran want to destroy a great historical site in order to make a new canal, and all these other wonders natural and ancient man made that will be destroyed because of our own recklessness.

Keep bumping into these fundamental errors today...

yay! Holocaust! I love it... I would do it.. but alas I dont have the power yet..

anyone who would wish for the end of days is imho, very troubled and in need of help...BIG TIME

it's sad universe that you can make such brash comments about conflicts you don't even really understand.

and your wrong avenger. I person does not need. 1/2 acre of land. They need land for food, water, entertainment, waste.... etc.. each person takes up far larger chunk of natural resources then you think.

tally all that up and then come back to the table.

1stly, i'm not being disrespectful, condescending or anything like that BUT...hasn't anyone read and understood what i wrote?

i've already stated that aside from bad management of the land, resources are also poorly handled, there is MORE than enough for EVERYONE and then some!
at present capacity, food production alone can feed 13.5 billion people a day, to say nothing of drinking water.

and to back this up, i saw a special report on TV about a year ago where they showed food driven up and down the country before it gets to the shelves, as well as out of date food taken on trucks to the european continent to be disposed of. in some cases, food produced in 1 country is shipped to another country to be modified in some way and then shipped all the way to another country to be sold or back to the country of origin, bottled water is no different.

so you see, there is more than enough for everyone, and if we had 1/2 an acre of land we could easily grow our food as well.

We're far from over populated, there are just over crowded regions with poor management. The amount of food the United States gives freely to developing countries would stave off starvation in Africa if the UN and other groups forced it to be distributed properly. Instead aid material is seized by mobs and warlords to maintain control over the population. Most of the world is still wilderness.

ah! someone did take the time to notice what i wrote, there is hope after all

[Cole]

And even if there was enough to feed everyone...where will the extra pop live?
Will we make this world be a giant Hong-Kong? (I mention them considering how much people live in this small area).

[[KMA]Avenger]

hey jim, happy new year mate, hope your doing well

as i said mate, there is enough room for more than 6.5 billion people to live comfortably, as long as the room is managed properly and transport infrastructure was better designed, you could double the population and still have room left over for even more people (plus the animals that live here as well), and everyone would have enough room so we wont be like they are in hong kong, london or any other city in the world for that matter

[Juliette]

hey jim, happy new year mate, hope your doing well

as i said mate, there is enough room for more than 6.5 billion people to live comfortably, as long as the room is managed properly and transport infrastructure was better designed, you could double the population and still have room left over for even more people (plus the animals that live here as well), and everyone would have enough room so we wont be like they are in hong kong, london or any other city in the world for that matter

I think I understand what you're saying.

If we had not had History condemning us to live where we have congregated over the past aeons, we would indeed be able to redesign the planet so that we could theoretically fit a load more people on Earth.
Why the hell anyone would want *more* people is beyond me, but that's another debate (as you correctly noted, G).
Unfortunately, we do have to deal with history as we have made it, or rather, as our ancestors have made it. You can fight the fact that it should have been another way, or whatever, but you cannot change this. Say for example that you would reorganise US Eastern Seaboard area; you'd be talking about moving 50 million (yes? or is it 100m?) people from their homes (they will need temporary residence elsewhere) in order to then demolish their current homes, then alter the terrain in order to fit everyone in it in the 'new way'.

You'd be talking such a humonguous operation that it is unfeasible.
So yes, perhaps there IS enough space.. but it will not be used properly in the lifetime of seven generations to come. After that? Who knows.. maybe we'll finally be extinct.. Maybe we'll find an innovative way of solving stuff.


Anyway, I've always said people should build homes in the bedrock and continental shelf, and build their homes higher and higher, connect the skyscrapers with translucent piazzas (so as not to darken the lower levels too much) at 500m altitude, etcetera. Kinda like Coruscant in Star Wars. In fact, very much like it.

[[KMA]Avenger]

see, wasn't to hard to figure it out

anyways, if we we're serious about sorting out the planet, abandon our childish ways and give up on useless wars we could put all unemployed people to work by setting aside unused and perfectly good land, and then putting said unemployed to work building new homes, transport infrastructure (such as monorails and much better super highways, and no need to build skyscrapers yet as there is enough land for all of us), and all the utilities people need to live and when finished we relocate people and redevelop the city that's just bee vacated.

this could be done by all country's at the same time, and city by city, in this way it can be done without to much upheaval and lets face it, the logistical nightmare of trying to do much at the same time would be avoided.

the cost of such an engineering feat? ZILCH! ZERO! in short...NOT A SINGLE PENNY! (take a look at the notes in your wallets/purse and have a GOOD look (but that's another argument entirely).

its either we redesign the planet no matter how many generations it takes, or we can carry on as we are and witness the mass extinction of species, bad land and resource management and watch countless people suffer and die from starvation on the news every now and then.

[Brdavs]

Answer is both yes and no.

From our POV most certainly yes.


Been done quite accuratly (calculations included) by a few sources actually. Here is one:
http://ergobalance.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-many-people-can-earth-support.html

One particular highligt that`ll pwerhaps make a few spoiled kids appreciate their luck of being born on the right continent:

If the whole existing number of people on earth lived at the standard of an average American (if there is really an average anybody), it is said we would need five planets worth of resources. It’s about 3.5 planets for a typical European (an even less average scenario), and four earths for that many Australians.

[Demeisen]

population is growing at an insane rate. in 50 years think how many people there will be. the growth is in the developing world. the developing world (eg africa) cannot always feed themselves as it is. how much worse will things be when there are twice as many people to deal with?

the developed world is ok. some countries are even in population decline. the developing countries are the ones who seriously need to sort out their growth.

the worlds resources are finite. if we carry on growing in numbers we will reach unsustainable levels. that would be disaster in my opinion.

so maybe the world isnt exactly over populated now. we can sustain our current numbers. but this will not always be the case. who can deny that population will continue to increase until its out of control?

[[KMA]Avenger]

which is exactly why we need to hold our leaders to account and start managing both land and resources properly and developing and making publicly available-new energy/fuel technology's.

i agree that the world can only support X amount and i'm in no way saying that either land or resources are infinite BUT, i wish people would stop saying that we are over populated when in fact we are not, and over population in our cities is down to nothing more than shortsightedness with regards to work, travel and immigration.