Thread: Overpopulation....a threat or a myth?

Overpopuplation is a myth. And that's coming from someone in per square km the most populated country in the world.

Even if it is not, there are always control mechanisms that keep it at bay.
The question is rather whats more pleasant.
Controlling it by ourselves like the Chinese do with their "one child policy"
or facing things like wars, lethal infections, starvation etc.

Originally Posted by 0livia

Even if it is not, there are always control mechanisms that keep it at bay.
The question is rather whats more pleasant.
Controlling it by ourselves like the Chinese do with their "one child policy"
or facing things like wars, lethal infections, starvation etc.

China's problem is the men greatly outnumber women now.

So...i guess it kind of is working itself out...

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Overpopuplation is a myth. And that's coming from someone in per square km the most populated country in the world.

Overpopulation isn't a myth. And that's coming from someone in the per square km most populated country in the world.

(Actually, this isn't true anymore, we've been overtaken a few years ago)

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Overpopuplation is a myth. And that's coming from someone in per square km the most populated country in the world.

You're listed in the Netherlands, not Bangladesh.

as someone who lives in a city of 6 million people and change, I can identify with people who feel crowded. but if i drive a few hundred miles in any direction, i'll see nothing but empty space.

i agree with previous poster. population is self regulating. europe was getting awfully crowded in the mid 1300s, but that was self regulated away. china is now the biggest sausagefest in the history of mankind, so i expect to see those numbers slip down, too.

You can't look at population based on density. You need to look on a larger scale than that, at the very least you have to look at the level of resources vs population.

Canada and Australia for example are underpopulated. Looking at population hubs is simply not a realistic way of juding this balance.

Resources. Energy requirements. I've heard it said that the planet itself has an unlimited supply of geothermal energy let alone wind and solar. I'm not a scientist, but it seems to me that our planet can easily provide the right kind of resources needed to support its population.

Although the ultimate problem in "saving our planet" is eons away, unless the inhabitants of earth can prevent the seemingly inevitable progression of our sun turning into a gas giant and literally burning up our solar system including frying earth to a crisp, the existence of the earth itself is finite.



Chris L

Originally Posted by ChrisL

...the seemingly inevitable progression of our sun turning into a gas giant and literally burning up our solar system including frying earth to a crisp, the existence of the earth itself is finite...

Is that what those fearmongers told you would happen?

Flat Earth Society

Its pretty simple really, the collective health of people in mind/body/soul dictates the number of sustainable population.
The more unhealth wheither in mind or body causes more waste and loss of value, hence the value assigned to total possible population also drops.

If someone tells you that the world would be better off with a population of 500 million then when they were doing their math they probably factored in all the unhealthy pastimes and addictions they themselves are accustomed to and do not want to give up.

Food and water are the main things, and the water problem is easy to solve with rainwater catchement/filtration.
The next thing is obviously food which really means that people just need a healthier understanding of the health of the land. (not overcropping and draining all the resources with industrial farming).
The real problem for food though is peoples consumption of meat, sustaing a planet of meateaters is much more difficult than sustaining a planet of vegitarians. Meat eating isnt healthy and therfore lowers the overall value of the planet, that value has knock-on effects in possible population size aswell as many other areas.(lol i know theres probably a few who would disagree with me)
The planet could probably double its population from 7 to 14 if everyone was vegitarian, and then more if people didnt use drugs,alcohol,tea,coffee and the possible population goes up even higher the more (unhealthy/wasteful/unnecessary/disconnected/linear/stagnent/
unwise/unmanagable/negative/uncreative/temporary/problems/
unreality/lies) we collectivly decide to remove. (its all about choices)

Truth = Health= Love = Life = Freedom = Necessary = Connected = Cyclical = Transient = Wisdom = Manageable = Positive = Creative = Eternal = Utilisation = Sollutions = Reality

Well thats my 2 cents on the population thing.
Best regards
Greg.