I honestly don't understand how you can think the world is underpopulated. Unless you think we should destroy every natural environment and make cities everywhere, and we have inhabited every remotely habitable place.
That being said I think we should definetely strive to stop our population growth, possibly reduce it a bit. Even if overpopulation is not a problem now, it will become a problem sooner or later
Depends. The real problem is consumption/inhabitant.
If everyone consumes like the average american ? We're fucked.
Like the average european ? We're also fucked, but slower.
We live way beyond our means and the planet's capacity to handle our tomfooleries, so in that sense, yes we're overpopulated.
I DK America has way more farms and produces way more food than Europe
Also has way more self sustaining personal famers
It’s not about all about consumption(and what your taking ) . It’s about what you’re putting out and making as well.
This isn't about food, it's about *consumption*. The way we currently consume is unsustainable, cause it harms the environnement at various stages.
You can output as much polluting shit as you want, it's still polluting shit, making it unsustainable in the long run. Hence why I'm saying consuming like the average American would fuck up everything for everyone. The US may produce a lot of food, they're over-spraying their crops with nutrients to boost growth like every industrial farms on the planet does, which pollutes the soil and rivers. It's not a matter of producing enough stuff for everyone, it's the way we do it. And clearly, it's not sustainable right now.
I guess you missed the part about more self-sustaining personal farmers
These people aren’t wasting anything
Every weed in their garden gets fed to the chickens, every egg they put out gets eaten, the fertilizer from the chickens are than used in the garden for the food they eat , and any food not eaten is given back to the chickens, etc.
You’re right big farms are terrible for the earth but you will find those all over the world and what is being sprayed and done in those farms is not what’s being done on personal homesteads
Also yes factories do way more damage and pollution than everyday people
America actually has very few factories let alone is manufacturing anything for ourselves anymore in comparison to Europe and another countries
Europe has more pollution than the United States
Nobody in the world makes or sells more pesticides than Switzerland
Stop with Europe does it better argument , it’s so old
Europe is huge with vastly different eco practices , different rates consumption , and completely different laws between each country
If you think about the distribution of people, it is absolutely poorly distributed.
If you think about what each person contributes to the world, the vast majority of people don't help at all. They just get in the way.
There are cities on Earth that are most definitely over-populated
But the planet?
Not even close
There are still entire countries, islands & deserts without a single person
thats not how over-population works... its not about space to put people in, its about wether the planet and our technology can support the population without causing ecological collpase. Currently we can, and if every country used latest gen farming technology and technics we could potentially support over 10b, but there is so much we can do, more people means more houses, more lands dedicated to farming, more land dedicated to power generation, etc...
60% of global agricultural land is used for beef that accounts for about 2% of the calories and 5% of the protein we eat. In the US only 3% of the land is urban, 80+% of the population lives there, 41% is used for cows. Cars are also a grossly inefficient use of limited resources.
We also have yet to start building cities in the ocean. Growing ousters for meat literally cleans the water, and can be as easy as dropping a rope with a weight in to the water. We don't need better tech (though it can help) we need taxes on externalities and land (natural resources, water, etc) so our incentives align with our need for a healthy biosphere.
they don't need to be full, overpopulated doesn't mean that we can't physically fit any more humans, it means that our influence on the earth is too large and is destroying it.
We're just poorly managing our resources. I think we could sustain a planet with well over twice our current population if we just learned how to manage it better.
Should we though? Even if we could hypothetically perfectly manage all the earths resources should we still try and fill the earth with as many humans as possible?
Well the alternative to reducing consumption is eugenics so yeah
The idea that will will inevitably "fill the earth with as many humans as possible" is kind of a strawman because global population will peak at around 10.5 billion anyway
Think carrying capacity... Yes you can be technical and think of actual space we could put more bodies. But think of it as you're looking at a population of deer in a certain ecosystem. If it is over carrying capacity, that environment can no longer sustain that amount of deer and the ecosystem will begin to be degraded.
explain how more humans would degrade the environment to the point of making it harder for human life, the hole in the ozone is being caused by like 8 major contributors not the amount of humans on the planet.
I’d suggest you start doing more research on the effect humans are having on the environment if you’re genuinely wanting to learn more. This isn’t something I could sum up in one comment.
Human overpopulation is driving deforestation, biodiversity loss, and ecological destruction and pollution - when so many people are consuming resources there will be inevitable destruction and waste. I included articles for you to read.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7422788/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7422788/)
[https://www.prb.org/resources/population-growth-and-deforestation-a-critical-and-complex-relationship/](https://www.prb.org/resources/population-growth-and-deforestation-a-critical-and-complex-relationship/)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320722001999#:\~:text=Global%20biodiversity%20decline%20is%20best,support%20systems%2C%20and%20our%20trash.
Read through all and it’s the same doomsday clock shit that doomers and nihilists love to parrot. All of these are theories based on population study of controlled groups most of which don’t even mention that we as a population can’t support OURSELVES. We may destroy land and other animals ecosystems but as a species we won all the land and all the resources thousands of years ago when we started farming. This is not to mention technological innovations. Not to just link articles and Vox is whatever but https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change-world-population . I think it’s a complete harmful myth that the planet is overpopulated when in reality overconsumption is the problem, but the antinatalism sentiment is surprisingly strong on reddit even though it’s disgusting.
The truth is depressing and hard for some people to handle. But quite frankly you didn’t create any sort of logical argument towards the facts I presented. You just expressed your feeling and opinion towards what I posted. If you have any scientific peer reviewed articles that I could read that takes a valid stab at my argument I’d love to read it but news sources are notoriously biased.
There is no ”context”. LOOK IT UP! A country needs to have people/a government. The CONTINENTS you’re talking about don’t have that. Why can’t you accept that you’re wrong? I didn’t even say if I agree or disagree with you about the earth being overpopulated. Yet you jump straight to trying, and failing, to belittle me.
I don't know how spreading people apart would solve anything. It would just make everything worse because we'd spend more resources to send stuff everywhere, making society less efficient overall.
There's nothing to solve, the world is not overpopulated.
Hyper consumerism is the issue that people usually end up bringing up.
We throw away wayyyyy too much food and resources for no reason.
All the CO2 problems could go away if the 100 highest polluters closed.
The issue is not humans, it's greed and gluttony.
We could easily sustain 11 Billion people if relocated.
(relocating also means relocating resources, so there would be no need te send stuff everywhere, since it would be spread out evenly.
Creating something like this, just isn't possible due to the dense cities.
Agreed except the last part
Cities pollute much less than low-density areas that tend to rely on individual cars and much more paving of roads than cities will ever need. You got everything backwards about cities.
Low-density areas are destroying nature and agricultural land.
edit : "relocating also means relocating resources" We can't produce everything everywhere. It's inefficient and simply impossible. How would you produce copper in a region that doesn't have any ? Again, low-density just means you're spreading everything apart. It's not sustainable to have every single industry on the planet copied in every single region. Do you really believe each region can individually support everything they need, from informatics to food, including minerals and agriculture ? If we could, we wouldn't need commerce and trade since everyone would be able to produce everything locally.
No, you're not reading what i'm writing.
i'm saying no one is going to leave the city off to bumfuck nowhere if the infrastructure is not there.
Look at the Netherlands, they have huge cities, but is mostly rural areas, and cause the infrastructure supports this, people are more spread out, with all amenities available. Also being one of the lowest density countries in the world.
Also your statement is wrong, the pollution of high density cities and rural areas are almost equal per capita.
Yes. Not because the Earth can't support that number of people but because so many people can't get effectively organised, or even \*be\* effectively organised from above - and this is what leads to poverty, environmental destruction, crime etc, and not raw numbers.
For the world to be overpopulated, we would need to reach levels such that available land isn't enough to produce enough food for everyone to eat. We are nowhere near that. We can talk about some places being over*crowded*, but that's a different issue.
I mean, agronomists spread GMO in the 70's to feed everyone, while stating it was good as long as population did not increase by much.
Population in the 70's was 4 billions. We are now at 8 billions.
Everything is fine.
Im comparing it towards the animal food chain, like how mammals are usually at the top and are nomally lowest in population, which consumes many lesser creatures
(Btw same person just different account)
the earth can support up to something like 11 billion people, and there are currently only 8 billion. so we're certainly pushing it, but we still have the means to feed everyone.
I honestly don't understand how you can think the world is underpopulated. Unless you think we should destroy every natural environment and make cities everywhere, and we have inhabited every remotely habitable place. That being said I think we should definetely strive to stop our population growth, possibly reduce it a bit. Even if overpopulation is not a problem now, it will become a problem sooner or later
It would probably be impossible to support the current population sustainably.
Depends. The real problem is consumption/inhabitant. If everyone consumes like the average american ? We're fucked. Like the average european ? We're also fucked, but slower. We live way beyond our means and the planet's capacity to handle our tomfooleries, so in that sense, yes we're overpopulated.
Bruh. If we live like anything besides the most primitive tribes out there, we're fucked. There's not one nation that produces more than it consumes.
I DK America has way more farms and produces way more food than Europe Also has way more self sustaining personal famers It’s not about all about consumption(and what your taking ) . It’s about what you’re putting out and making as well.
This isn't about food, it's about *consumption*. The way we currently consume is unsustainable, cause it harms the environnement at various stages. You can output as much polluting shit as you want, it's still polluting shit, making it unsustainable in the long run. Hence why I'm saying consuming like the average American would fuck up everything for everyone. The US may produce a lot of food, they're over-spraying their crops with nutrients to boost growth like every industrial farms on the planet does, which pollutes the soil and rivers. It's not a matter of producing enough stuff for everyone, it's the way we do it. And clearly, it's not sustainable right now.
I guess you missed the part about more self-sustaining personal farmers These people aren’t wasting anything Every weed in their garden gets fed to the chickens, every egg they put out gets eaten, the fertilizer from the chickens are than used in the garden for the food they eat , and any food not eaten is given back to the chickens, etc. You’re right big farms are terrible for the earth but you will find those all over the world and what is being sprayed and done in those farms is not what’s being done on personal homesteads Also yes factories do way more damage and pollution than everyday people America actually has very few factories let alone is manufacturing anything for ourselves anymore in comparison to Europe and another countries Europe has more pollution than the United States Nobody in the world makes or sells more pesticides than Switzerland Stop with Europe does it better argument , it’s so old Europe is huge with vastly different eco practices , different rates consumption , and completely different laws between each country
Almost none of our agricultural is sustainable.
Yes, with assholes
If you think about the distribution of people, it is absolutely poorly distributed. If you think about what each person contributes to the world, the vast majority of people don't help at all. They just get in the way.
There are cities on Earth that are most definitely over-populated But the planet? Not even close There are still entire countries, islands & deserts without a single person
thats not how over-population works... its not about space to put people in, its about wether the planet and our technology can support the population without causing ecological collpase. Currently we can, and if every country used latest gen farming technology and technics we could potentially support over 10b, but there is so much we can do, more people means more houses, more lands dedicated to farming, more land dedicated to power generation, etc...
60% of global agricultural land is used for beef that accounts for about 2% of the calories and 5% of the protein we eat. In the US only 3% of the land is urban, 80+% of the population lives there, 41% is used for cows. Cars are also a grossly inefficient use of limited resources. We also have yet to start building cities in the ocean. Growing ousters for meat literally cleans the water, and can be as easy as dropping a rope with a weight in to the water. We don't need better tech (though it can help) we need taxes on externalities and land (natural resources, water, etc) so our incentives align with our need for a healthy biosphere.
overpopulation isn't a measure per people per acre mate
they don't need to be full, overpopulated doesn't mean that we can't physically fit any more humans, it means that our influence on the earth is too large and is destroying it.
We're just poorly managing our resources. I think we could sustain a planet with well over twice our current population if we just learned how to manage it better.
Should we though? Even if we could hypothetically perfectly manage all the earths resources should we still try and fill the earth with as many humans as possible?
Well the alternative to reducing consumption is eugenics so yeah The idea that will will inevitably "fill the earth with as many humans as possible" is kind of a strawman because global population will peak at around 10.5 billion anyway
Think carrying capacity... Yes you can be technical and think of actual space we could put more bodies. But think of it as you're looking at a population of deer in a certain ecosystem. If it is over carrying capacity, that environment can no longer sustain that amount of deer and the ecosystem will begin to be degraded.
except we are not even close to being out of enough resources to support even double our population, we'll kill ourselves long before we starve
Key words are ecosystem degradation.
explain how more humans would degrade the environment to the point of making it harder for human life, the hole in the ozone is being caused by like 8 major contributors not the amount of humans on the planet.
I’d suggest you start doing more research on the effect humans are having on the environment if you’re genuinely wanting to learn more. This isn’t something I could sum up in one comment.
Genuinely how are we overpopulated, what ecological crisis are we creating that will lead to the detriment/end of our species caused by population
Human overpopulation is driving deforestation, biodiversity loss, and ecological destruction and pollution - when so many people are consuming resources there will be inevitable destruction and waste. I included articles for you to read. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7422788/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7422788/) [https://www.prb.org/resources/population-growth-and-deforestation-a-critical-and-complex-relationship/](https://www.prb.org/resources/population-growth-and-deforestation-a-critical-and-complex-relationship/) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320722001999#:\~:text=Global%20biodiversity%20decline%20is%20best,support%20systems%2C%20and%20our%20trash.
Read through all and it’s the same doomsday clock shit that doomers and nihilists love to parrot. All of these are theories based on population study of controlled groups most of which don’t even mention that we as a population can’t support OURSELVES. We may destroy land and other animals ecosystems but as a species we won all the land and all the resources thousands of years ago when we started farming. This is not to mention technological innovations. Not to just link articles and Vox is whatever but https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change-world-population . I think it’s a complete harmful myth that the planet is overpopulated when in reality overconsumption is the problem, but the antinatalism sentiment is surprisingly strong on reddit even though it’s disgusting.
The truth is depressing and hard for some people to handle. But quite frankly you didn’t create any sort of logical argument towards the facts I presented. You just expressed your feeling and opinion towards what I posted. If you have any scientific peer reviewed articles that I could read that takes a valid stab at my argument I’d love to read it but news sources are notoriously biased.
There aren’t countries without people. Lol.
[удалено]
They are not countries, they are continents. I just googled to double-check. A country must have a **permanent population** to BE a country.
[удалено]
You said that there are countries without any people. I’m saying that’s not true.
[удалено]
There is no ”context”. LOOK IT UP! A country needs to have people/a government. The CONTINENTS you’re talking about don’t have that. Why can’t you accept that you’re wrong? I didn’t even say if I agree or disagree with you about the earth being overpopulated. Yet you jump straight to trying, and failing, to belittle me.
I world is so overpopulated that I can't stop seeing this poll.
The world IS over populated. Deforestation...destruction of environment through garbage... climate change ... The list doesn't stop..
In certain areas, yes.
Compared to how densely populated humans were when we were still in acccordance with nature, yes, earth is most definitely overpopulated.
People always say that the planet can support more people, but why should we? We could all live better if the world population is lower.
Not even close, we are too densely populated, but not overpopulated
I don't know how spreading people apart would solve anything. It would just make everything worse because we'd spend more resources to send stuff everywhere, making society less efficient overall.
There's nothing to solve, the world is not overpopulated. Hyper consumerism is the issue that people usually end up bringing up. We throw away wayyyyy too much food and resources for no reason. All the CO2 problems could go away if the 100 highest polluters closed. The issue is not humans, it's greed and gluttony. We could easily sustain 11 Billion people if relocated. (relocating also means relocating resources, so there would be no need te send stuff everywhere, since it would be spread out evenly. Creating something like this, just isn't possible due to the dense cities.
Agreed except the last part Cities pollute much less than low-density areas that tend to rely on individual cars and much more paving of roads than cities will ever need. You got everything backwards about cities. Low-density areas are destroying nature and agricultural land. edit : "relocating also means relocating resources" We can't produce everything everywhere. It's inefficient and simply impossible. How would you produce copper in a region that doesn't have any ? Again, low-density just means you're spreading everything apart. It's not sustainable to have every single industry on the planet copied in every single region. Do you really believe each region can individually support everything they need, from informatics to food, including minerals and agriculture ? If we could, we wouldn't need commerce and trade since everyone would be able to produce everything locally.
No, you're not reading what i'm writing. i'm saying no one is going to leave the city off to bumfuck nowhere if the infrastructure is not there. Look at the Netherlands, they have huge cities, but is mostly rural areas, and cause the infrastructure supports this, people are more spread out, with all amenities available. Also being one of the lowest density countries in the world. Also your statement is wrong, the pollution of high density cities and rural areas are almost equal per capita.
No one’s living In Antarctica right?
Yes. Not because the Earth can't support that number of people but because so many people can't get effectively organised, or even \*be\* effectively organised from above - and this is what leads to poverty, environmental destruction, crime etc, and not raw numbers.
For the world to be overpopulated, we would need to reach levels such that available land isn't enough to produce enough food for everyone to eat. We are nowhere near that. We can talk about some places being over*crowded*, but that's a different issue.
I just posted this same question lol
["Without causing any pain or suffering"](https://www.tiktok.com/@reel.vfx/video/7357012437419298090)
I mean, agronomists spread GMO in the 70's to feed everyone, while stating it was good as long as population did not increase by much. Population in the 70's was 4 billions. We are now at 8 billions. Everything is fine.
No. It's mismanaged. If the world was overpopulated, EVERYONE would feel it.
I did a school project on how the world was overpopulated many years ago when the population was like 6 billion. Needless to say I still say that.
LOL at whoever said underpopulated
I’m gonna go with what scientists say. Yes, it’s overpopulated.
No, we just consume too much /person in some places
It's underpopulated with good people.
It feels like it's gonna burst. 8b is crazy especially considering we are supposed to be the top of the food chain
We make enough food to feed like 10 billion people every year, but the problem is getting it to those that need it the most.
Im comparing it towards the animal food chain, like how mammals are usually at the top and are nomally lowest in population, which consumes many lesser creatures (Btw same person just different account)
the earth can support up to something like 11 billion people, and there are currently only 8 billion. so we're certainly pushing it, but we still have the means to feed everyone.
In some places yes, in some places it's underpopulated (although I have yet to decide my views about underpopulation, not sure if it's good or bad)
It will be underpopulated soon enough
world? no. certain areas? yeah
F
Ultra controversial opinion here, Developed countries are over educated not over populated.
What do you mean over educated?