Poll of the Day > what do you think of people who claim there's too many people on earth?

(+) Yeah! (+)

and that it'd be best for future couples to either not have children or adopt if they really must

that another person's sheer existence would put too much pressure on the planet
---

Thank you for doing your part.
---

they're factually incorrect
---

That it's a good thing for everybody that they'll act on their beliefs and not be hypocritical
---

OniRonin posted...

they're factually incorrect

their argument was

". The world population is at 7 billion and it is estimated to reach 10 in a few years. There are MILLIONS of people starving around the world, we dont need more humans. 36% of all the mammals on Earth are humans, 60% are livestock, and only 4% are wild animals. That is blatant INSANITY."
---

NightMareBunny posted...

OniRonin posted...

they're factually incorrect

their argument was

". The world population is at 7 billion and it is estimated to reach 10 in a few years. There are MILLIONS of people starving around the world, we dont need more humans. 36% of all the mammals on Earth are humans, 60% are livestock, and only 4% are wild animals. That is blatant INSANITY."

Video of shapiro DESTROYING that argument with FACTS and LOGIC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GobgW2U3vQ" data-time="&start=136
---

Isn't Shapiro A Donald Trump Fanboy?
---

I don't care if they believe it and want to not have kids or adopt. I think adoption is a great option since there are many children who need homes. If a couple want to remain childless then that is fine too. They can pretend their pets are babies since that is the going thing now.

I thought the going thought on population projection was an increase to a certain point then steady off with a decrease in some areas of the world and increase in others.


---

HelIWithoutSin posted...

Thank you for doing your part.

Lmao

We have plenty of resources for more people, its greed that keeps the sustainable population down. Why give food and water away when you can profit from it?
---

Thanos did nothing wrong.

Theyre not wrong. Keep your neighbors close enough to be useful, but far away enough so they dont annoy you.
---

The world could sustain WAY more humans then it currently does, but that does not mean it should.

We shouldn't even have as many (or nearly as many) humans as we currently do. There are many reasons for population control.

Responsibility: Everyone who has a child should be responsible for that child, plan to take care of the child and have the resources to do so, and the child should grow up in a caring and nurturing environment. Any time this is not the case it is a travesty far worse then aborting a child or not having one in the first place.

Environment: While the world can sustain more people, we are not currently technologically advances, or Economically motivated enough to do so without causing damage to the world at large, destroying other life forms en mass, using up un-replacible resources and potentially having wars in a fight over them. If we kept the world wide population at around 2 billion, there would still be many people available to be creative, you could use robots/machines to cover most menial labor and allow a greater number of humans to exercise their creativity and every single one would have more resources, no struggle for survival, way less crime and in the US especially you wouldn't have to keep them in cages and treat them worse then animals should be treated.

Food: Yeah, we could produce way more food, more then enough for double the worlds population, but at least for now, we often do so in very cruel ways. The number of cows that are killed each year to support our population for instance, and they way they are raised/treated etc. Less humans could enable a more humane way of producing the meat needed (although we should and could do that even with our current population).

I always wanted kids, and I am not against people having them, I AM against people having children by mistake....or abandoning them, I'm against children being abused, suffering, being basically forced into crime and treated like less then human etc. I think every single human should be appreciated and given the tools and opportunity to succed and have a good life. A primary way to accomplish that would be to control population growth and restrict the ability to have children to those who are ready for it. Much like getting a drivers licence, you need a license to pro-create.
---

The people starving now are starving not because there isn't enough food in the world for them, but because the food that is in the world isn't reaching them. With better organization, there's no reason the world couldn't support significantly more people, especially once we start developing vertical farming technologies (e.g. hydroponics, aeroponics) and viable lab meat.

Hypothetically, the entire population of the world could fit into Texas, with a population density about 5-10% higher than that of Manhattan (if I'm remembering the math I did a while ago correctly). Having such a high population density over such a large area creates some logistical challenges that you don't see when it's a much smaller area, of course, meaning living in such a megalopolis would be very different from living in Manhattan, but it wouldn't be impossible.
---

The best way to control population is to educate and empower women and give them access to birth control
---

Because too many others treat strangers as if their lives don't matter.
---

captain planet had two episodes about this
---

Of course this was inspired by a cartoon.

This is just a not at all veiled topic about NMB trying to justify his life isn't it.

You can die if you want, I want to be immortal.
---

Other than some glaringly false claims, it's largely a matter of opinion. Do we really need as many people as we do? Clearly there are a lot of superfluous individuals (NEETs, for example, literally do nothing), but overall population changes are unlikely to really impact that unless the population got so bare-bones that we couldn't have people sit at home petting their dogs.

That said, larger populations means that a generation is more likely to have a lot of exceptional individuals whose innovations can lay the groundwork for other exceptional individuals.

NightMareBunny posted...

OniRonin posted...

they're factually incorrect

their argument was

". The world population is at 7 billion and it is estimated to reach 10 in a few years. There are MILLIONS of people starving around the world, we dont need more humans. 36% of all the mammals on Earth are humans, 60% are livestock, and only 4% are wild animals. That is blatant INSANITY."

There's always going to be starvation, that's not a population size problem. And, by % of population, starvation was a much wider problem in the past.

hypnox posted...

We have plenty of resources for more people, its greed that keeps the sustainable population down. Why give food and water away when you can profit from it?

Not really an issue of greed, it's long-term resource management.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Because too many others treat strangers as if their lives don't matter.

If you'll never meet the other person, they won't even qualify as a stranger.
---

They're using the global population stats as a way to jank on India and China...

But India... is weirdly being super progressive lately. So it's all down to China.
---

Aaantlion posted...

If you'll never meet the other person, they won't even qualify as a stranger.

#zueslogic

stranger:
a person whom one does not know or with whom one is not familiar.

My point is there are millions of people I'll never meet but I recognize the importance of their lives. Do you?
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Aaantlion posted...

If you'll never meet the other person, they won't even qualify as a stranger.

#zueslogic

stranger:
a person whom one does not know or with whom one is not familiar.

My point is there are millions of people I'll never meet but I recognize the importance of their lives. Do you?

...except the term stranger only applies when you meet them. If it's somebody you don't know exists, they don't even qualify as a stranger. Without using Google or any other resource, could you tell me the population of Buffalo, NY? If not, how can you pretend that you value them? You don't even know how many of them there are. I could give you 10 names and would you "recognize their importance" without even knowing whether or not they're real?
---

And when there are 300,000,000,000 people where will we all live?
---

Kill all the bottom feeding poor people.

Kill everyone over the age of 75.

Start again.
---

Aaantlion posted...

If it's somebody you don't know exists

SunWuKung420 posted...

whom one is not familiar.

#zueslogicfail

I don't need to know someone exists to know they exist.
---

adjl posted...

Hypothetically, the entire population of the world could fit into Texas, with a population density about 5-10% higher than that of Manhattan

Hypothetically, it could probably fit in NYC. According to statista.com, there's just under 240 million square feet of office space just in midtown Manhattan:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/605882/size-of-office-area-manhattan-by-submarket/

Considering most people take up around 1 square foot of ground while standing, you could probably stuff everyone into NYC if they were all standing. The vast majority would probably die relatively quickly, though, if everyone was forced to remain for any extended length of time.
---

NightMareBunny posted...

what do you think of people who claim there's too many people on earth?

They are part of the problem too.

NightMareBunny posted...

that it'd be best for future couples to either not have children or adopt if they really must

That's the couples choice.

NightMareBunny posted...

that another person's sheer existence would put too much pressure on the planet

The planet is still here. Right this second some folk have died and some have been born.
---

HelIWithoutSin posted...

Thank you for doing your part.

lmao
---

zebatov posted...

And when there are 300,000,000,000 people where will we all live?

I hear Texas is a pretty big place
---

fuck em
---

zebatov posted...

And when there are 300,000,000,000 people where will we all live?

Space: The final frontier!

Granted, the planet might be able to accommodate that many people anyway, considering the open space we have, although we'd need new technologies to offset the ecological damage.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Aaantlion posted...

If it's somebody you don't know exists

SunWuKung420 posted...

whom one is not familiar.

#zueslogicfail

I don't need to know someone exists to know they exist.

...what? That makes zero sense. Your argument boils down to, "I know they exist because I have faith!"
---

Maybe certain countries have higher populations because other countries decided to help them increase fertility by providing aid without said countries learning proper social responsibility first?
---

Cacciato posted...

HelIWithoutSin posted...

Thank you for doing your part.

Lmao

---

Aaantlion posted...

..what? That makes zero sense. Your argument boils down to, "I know they exist because I have faith!"

Are you seriously arguing that because you've never met someone that currently lives in, let's say, Ethiopia, that you don't know other people exist in Ethiopia? And on top of that, there's no reason to care or acknowledge or place value in their existence?
---

That, not only are they noticably alive and dis-interested in actually restricting themselves most of the time and expecting OTHER people to do it, they're releasing these claims in mainly developed nations where the birth rate is low or even going down already as opposed to the developing/undeveloped nations where it's rapidly growing.
---

Blaqthourne posted...

adjl posted...

Hypothetically, the entire population of the world could fit into Texas, with a population density about 5-10% higher than that of Manhattan

Hypothetically, it could probably fit in NYC. According to statista.com, there's just under 240 million square feet of office space just in midtown Manhattan:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/605882/size-of-office-area-manhattan-by-submarket/

Considering most people take up around 1 square foot of ground while standing, you could probably stuff everyone into NYC if they were all standing. The vast majority would probably die relatively quickly, though, if everyone was forced to remain for any extended length of time.

Touche.

bulbinking posted...

Maybe certain countries have higher populations because other countries decided to help them increase fertility by providing aid without said countries learning proper social responsibility first?

Explosive population growth in developing countries is usually a consequence of the fact that it takes time for cultures to catch up to the fact that their infant mortality rate has gone down. When infant mortality rates are high, you need to keep pumping out kids to have any chance of having a couple reach adulthood. When infant mortality rates go down, you get a period of explosive growth because people keep having the same number of kids, but those kids actually survive. That growth naturally slows down within a generation or two.

Sure, it'd be nice if birth rates could reduce at the same time as infant mortality rates, for more controlled population growth, but that's just not a realistic expectation. Somebody who watched 8 of their 10 siblings die before puberty (and similar rates among all their friends and extended family) isn't going to immediately be okay with only having 2-3 kids just because some doctor says those kids probably won't die. You need a couple generations of people experiencing those lower mortality rates for themselves.

Aaantlion posted...

...what? That makes zero sense. Your argument boils down to, "I know they exist because I have faith!"

She isn't real. I can't make her real!
---

_AdjI_ posted...

Explosive population growth in developing countries is usually a consequence of the fact that it takes time for cultures to catch up to the fact that their infant mortality rate has gone down. When infant mortality rates are high, you need to keep pumping out kids to have any chance of having a couple reach adulthood. When infant mortality rates go down, you get a period of explosive growth because people keep having the same number of kids, but those kids actually survive. That growth naturally slows down within a generation or two.

Sure, it'd be nice if birth rates could reduce at the same time as infant mortality rates, for more controlled population growth, but that's just not a realistic expectation. Somebody who watched 8 of their 10 siblings die before puberty (and similar rates among all their friends and extended family) isn't going to immediately be okay with only having 2-3 kids just because some doctor says those kids probably won't die. You need a couple generations of people experiencing those lower mortality rates for themselves.

Or maybe we let them figure it out themselves like the prime directive in star trek and save the environment along with our pocketbooks while handing these people back their own autonomy?
---

bulbinking posted...

Or maybe we let them figure it out themselves like the prime directive in star trek

Wouldn't help. It'd just delay it by a few decades. As soon as the infrastructure's in place to access the Internet and therefore the medical knowledge and technology of the rest of the world, infant mortality rates will decrease faster than birth rates will. One way or another, you're going to get that rapid growth.
---

adjl posted...

bulbinking posted...

Or maybe we let them figure it out themselves like the prime directive in star trek

Wouldn't help. It'd just delay it by a few decades. As soon as the infrastructure's in place to access the Internet and therefore the medical knowledge and technology of the rest of the world, infant mortality rates will decrease faster than birth rates will. One way or another, you're going to get that rapid growth.

Except population growth that outpaced a nations ability to provide for the new lives didnt happen in more sophisticated societies. Usually the wealth came before the population growth, or even caused a decline in fertility.

I see a dangerous global trend if we the worlds population is replaced by nations thats growth is caused by others, there will be significant death and destruction once the nurturing nation can no longer keep providing the other nations needs and they collapse under the weight of their own populations infrastructure requirements.
---

If they think there's too many people here they can show themselves the door.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Aaantlion posted...

..what? That makes zero sense. Your argument boils down to, "I know they exist because I have faith!"

Are you seriously arguing that because you've never met someone that currently lives in, let's say, Ethiopia, that you don't know other people exist in Ethiopia? And on top of that, there's no reason to care or acknowledge or place value in their existence?

@Aaantlion
---

bulbinking posted...

Except population growth that outpaced a nations ability to provide for the new lives didnt happen in more sophisticated societies.

Because they were limited by the rate at which medical and agricultural technology developed. Now, the information already exists, it's simply a matter of developing the infrastructure to access and take advantage of it, which will trigger more rapid growth. It's not like developing societies will reinvent everything developed societies have already made.
---

NightMareBunny posted...

Isn't Shapiro A Donald Trump Fanboy?

no
and even if he was, that would change...?
---

adjl posted...

bulbinking posted...

Except population growth that outpaced a nations ability to provide for the new lives didnt happen in more sophisticated societies.

Because they were limited by the rate at which medical and agricultural technology developed. Now, the information already exists, it's simply a matter of developing the infrastructure to access and take advantage of it, which will trigger more rapid growth. It's not like developing societies will reinvent everything developed societies have already made.

Not reinvent, but also not handed everything for free either.
---

I don't think the world is overpopulated, it's just woefully mismanaged. With that comes things like many people going homeless and without food, then causing global warming and such issues. So I feel the population issues are a symptom of a larger problem and not the cause. Once mankind gets its act together the world could sustain way more people.
---

Until every child is appreciated and cared for, given the opportunity to have a full and rewarding life, we are overpopulated.
---

Guys! We have to eat the babies!

Save the world! Eat the children!

But in all honesty, were probably fine...
---