Current Events > Do you think the world is overpopulated?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Our population boom is directly linked to our use of fossil fuels. They are the backbone of our supply chains. Not only that, but stuff like farming is bad for the planet. Anywhere you look and see land that has been cleared out for humans, thats bad for biodiversity. If were going to try to keep our population level in a way thats healthy for the planet, well have to be creative. As it stands, our population level is destroying the environment. If all fossil fuels disappeared overnight, billions would die.

Im not sure

considering that there were 5 mass extinctions (I believe there were more unaccounted for but that is a guess) and there was a bottleneck in history I think we should relax and enjoy things in life

just thinking about the extinctions give me anxiety , how are we still here

pedro45 posted...

What's it gonna take to build it?

Honestly, it will take the govt to kind of force it through.
Take public transportation. It takes a long time to build here in the US which ends up increasing costs an insane amount. A lot of the reason for the delays is regular people and localities having complicated zoning and building laws. Same with how housing takes so long to build because many cities and people abuse zoning and environmental laws because many people honestly to purposely delay things being built.

Hell, a big one is in electric transmission lines and permitting to build renewable energy. We literally have tons of renewable energy that can't be built because it's stuck in permitting limbo!!

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/a/aecf06cf.jpg

hockeybabe89 posted...

So companies have been massively cutting jobs since before the pandemic because of overpopulation? That doesn't even make fucking sense.

There was unemployment way before covid, lol.

Basically, a million people unemployed means there were a million people too many born 20 years ago.

hockeybabe89 posted...

And why would less people mean lower taxes?

Example: less garbage on the street to be cleaned up.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

No the world is not overpopulated. We have enough resources for everyone on the planet.

I let this slide in the other thread, but it's not strictly true. There's not enough electricity, that's why we need to cause so much pollution.

And we're on a planet literally covered in water, and there's not even enough of that.

DarkDoc posted...

There was unemployment way before covid, lol.

Basically, a million people unemployed means there were a million people too many born 20 years ago.

Example: less garbage on the street to be cleaned up.

I let this slide in the other thread, but it's not strictly true. There's not enough electricity, that's why we need to cause so much pollution.

And we're on a planet literally covered in water, and there's not even enough of that.

Aren't you a huge GT fan? Thought i'd seen you before on some other boards. What do you mean , you let that slide in the other thread. I kinda agree with you with your response to that guy.

If people are telling me not to eat meat because it's an unsustainable industry taking up far too much land and growing, the world is over populated.

The_Korey posted...

If people are telling me not to eat meat because it's an unsustainable industry taking up far too much land and growing, the world is over populated.

yeah good pt. Many people don't think of that in particular, that that really points to overpopulation.

Smallville posted...

yeah it has increased by a huge amount in the past century or so right? Isn't most of this due to preventing major disease, vaccinations and stuff? Or is it something else mostly , idk

This is due to the Haber-Bosch process, which is the primary method of producing ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen, which in turn allowed mass agriculture to flourish.

Without fossil fuels, the earth can only sustain about 1 billion people, maybe less. Even if climate change was not the crisis that it is, the population will still crash this century due to overshoot. Our entire modern civilization is built entirely on unsustainable practices and propped up by extracting fossil fuels that don't cost more than they return on energy. The amount of energy it takes to extract fossil fuels vs. how much we get out of it (ERoEI) has continued to increase over the years.

The oceans have been absorbing most of the excess heat that has been trapped by greenhouse gases, however, that is starting to change as the energy in the system continues to rise. We are experiencing amplification and exponential warming. While the past ~150 years have seen an increase of about 1.5C, we will reach 2.0C before 2050, and 4C+ warming by 2100 by conservative estimates.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/151743/the-ocean-has-a-fever

https://twitter.com/SamCarana/status/1756444454087790608

https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1756333738521420040

CSCA33 posted...

This is due to the Haber-Bosch process, which is the primary method of producing ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen, which in turn allowed mass agriculture to flourish.

Without fossil fuels, the earth can only sustain about 1 billion people, maybe less. Even if climate change was not the crisis that it is, the population will still crash this century due to overshoot. Our entire modern civilization is built entirely on unsustainable practices and propped up by extracting fossil fuels that don't cost more than they return on energy. The amount of energy it takes to extract fossil fuels vs. how much we get out of it (ERoEI) has continued to increase over the years.

The oceans have been absorbing most of the excess heat that has been trapped by greenhouse gases, however, that is starting to change as the energy in the system continues to rise. We are experiencing amplification and exponential warming. While the past ~150 years have seen an increase of about 1.5C, we will reach 2.0C before 2050, and 4C+ warming by 2100 by conservative estimates.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/151743/the-ocean-has-a-fever

https://twitter.com/SamCarana/status/1756444454087790608

https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1756333738521420040

Oh really? And many people do not still believe in climate change. But you really think that increased medical advances, preventing disease and vaccinations had very little to do with the population increasing so much in the past 100 yrs?

hockeybabe89 posted...

Literally all of that could be resolved without decreasing the population. If governments cared

Even with the government caring, we have to be realistic of the resources required to make sure 8 billion people live a healthy and safe life.

The resources needed for not just food, but clean food
The resources needed for not just water, but clean water
The resources needed for electricity, that even what you would call renewable energy still takes resources to initially build. That shit doesn't magically build itself with magically spawned material and magically bypass the climate damage to build those things.
The resources needed for transporting basic resources to believe it or not less developed areas let alone developed ones. Infrastructure doesn't just magically spawn, the resources needed doesn't magically spawn, it doesnt build itself, the climate damage doesn't magically get ignored, etc, etc.
The resources needed for maintenance of basic things and more seems to be forgotten or ignored by idealistic types who think 8 billion and more is sustainable.

The more people on the planet means more resources needed to support these people, and some seem to think those resources spawn like magic. Im not saying dont help the needy or something psychotic like genocide or murder, my point is strictly on our population growing isnt a good thing. I know idealistic people want to think supporting 8 billion and beyond people in healthy and safe environments is sustainable but those idealistic people dont grasp the resources needed to support 8 billion and the unavoidable harm its doing to the planet.

Even the rich aside, it's still a heavy toll on the climate and resources.

Even if we manage to end our use of fossil fuels without allowing billions to starve to death (not currently possible), and create some magical technology to remove all of the excess CO2 we have put in the atmosphere which doesn't exist, the oceans have already absorbed incredible amounts of energy that we cannot wish away. This is triggering positive feedback loops with irreversible melting of the ice on the planet, reducing albedo, melting permafrost and releasing methane (more than 80x more powerful than CO2 for near-term warming), as well as increasing water vapor in the atmosphere (another potent greenhouse gas.)

The earth will continue to warm for decades even without emitting more greenhouse gases, and aerosol particulates from our pollution have helped artificially cool the planet by about 1C. The arctic will be ice free beginning during the summer within about a decade, until it is completely gone year round. This is known as a blue ocean event (BOE) and it cannot be stopped at this point.

Yes, but not because there are actually too many of us; we just suck and we're destroying the planet so I wish the birth rate decline was faster.

Overpopulated? No

Population poorly distributed geographically? Of course

Smallville posted...

yeah good pt. Many people don't think of that in particular, that that really points to overpopulation.

What, no. That doesn't point to overpopulation at all

DarkDoc posted...

There was unemployment way before covid, lol.

Basically, a million people unemployed means there were a million people too many born 20 years ago.

Unemployment isn't meant to be zero. This isn't some Capitalism thing. An unemployment level of 0 means no one is moving around and switching jobs.
Unemployment doesn't tell you anything about overpopulation.

DarkDoc posted...

I let this slide in the other thread, but it's not strictly true. There's not enough electricity, that's why we need to cause so much pollution.

And we're on a planet literally covered in water, and there's not even enough of that.

We have means of having energy abundance, we just don't fucking build it.

emblem-man posted...

We have means of having energy abundance, we just don't fucking build it.

Nuclear power plants?

Requiring technology and fossil fuels to maintain the current human population absolutely points to overpopulation. Like there is literally no argument, unless you somehow think any non-human spaces existing on Earth is proof that there aren't too many people yet. Which is an extremely short-sighted take.

To use an analogy, imagine a medicine where 1/4 cup is effective, 26-99% will cause varying degrees of negative side effects, and a full cup would be guaranteed deadly overdose. We're currently at 3/4 cup and tolerating the side effects, but y'all are claiming it's not a problem until we go beyond 99%...

Raikuro posted...

Requiring technology and fossil fuels to maintain the current human population absolutely points to overpopulation. Like there is literally no argument, unless you somehow think any non-human spaces existing on Earth is proof that there aren't too many people yet. Which is an extremely short-sighted take.

To use an analogy, imagine a medicine where 1/4 cup is effective, 26-99% will cause varying degrees of negative side effects, and a full cup would be guaranteed deadly overdose. We're currently at 3/4 cup and tolerating the side effects, but y'all are claiming it's not a problem until we go beyond 99%...

what do you mean by non human spaces...though?

Smallville posted...

what do you mean by non human spaces...though?

Plants and wildlife, obviously.

Overpopulation of humans doesn't mean the planet is 101%+ physically covered in human life. It means more humans than the planet's resources can sustainably provide for. People keep pointing out "how much non-human space there is so there can't be overpopulation", which is irrelevant to the discussion.

A lot of our luxuries are causing global destruction. Maybe the amount of people aren't so much the problem as how the people choose to live, spend, and make money. At the end of the day both are linked, and the latter can be handled but won't because...money.

Something like cigarettes still being legal pretty much sums up where human priorities are.

CSCA33 posted...

Nuclear power plants?

Nuclear, solar, wind, etc.

DarkDoc posted...

Most definitely.

Every single problem has overpopulation as the root cause.

Hospital waiting lists? Poor medical infrastructure and a lack of medical staff

Traffic jams? Bad urban planning. Netherlands, for example, has excellent traffic despite being one of the most densely populated countries in the world

High taxes? Lolwat taxes literally used to be higher when there were fewer people

Unemployment? Too few jobs

Pollution? Dirty fuel being cheaper, nuclear power having terrible PR and once again poor urban planning

Etc

I'm assuming I'm responding to a joke post, right?

reincarnator07 posted...

I'm assuming I'm responding to a joke post, right?

So he is completely wrong on all of them? How so though?

<img src="//:0">https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/8/86d471fc.jpg

Sephiroth_C_Ryu posted...

<img src="//:0">https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/8/86d471fc.jpg

supposedly like a few hundred yrs ago humans was like way less than half , now it's like upper 90s , percent.

Smallville posted...

So he is completely wrong on all of them? How so though?

How so? In the ways that I wrote in my post...

In the sense that we could hypothetically support the entire population of the planet in an imaginary utopia, no. In the sense that we dont have a system to properly support the entire population of the planet, yes.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

People within individual countries cannot even cooperate to the point of fixing all their issues, so an altruistic global community is pretty much an imaginary utopia from where we currently stand.

Nemu posted...

People within individual countries cannot even cooperate to the point of fixing all their issues, so an altruistic global community is pretty much an imaginary utopia from where we currently stand.

i kinda agree. "in a perfect world , everyone could easily be supported, many billions" but it is far from perfect.

emblem-man posted...

What, no. That doesn't point to overpopulation at all

Oh yes it does. There is zero point in being here if everyone needs to primarily eat vegan shit.

The_Korey posted...

Oh yes it does. There is zero point in being here if everyone needs to primarily eat vegan shit.

yeah i kinda agree with you. But like 2 posters said that for a fact that it was wrong.

The_Korey posted...

Oh yes it does. There is zero point in being here if everyone needs to primarily eat vegan shit.

You're saying there's zero point in being alive if we can't eat meat?

Anyway, we'll have lab grown meat in the future

They keep making shitty apartments and townhouses slower than people can move in. That's all I need to know

All 8 billion people of the world's population could fit inside new york city. Not alot of elbow room, but if you actually make all of NYC a 3 layer megacity with the elite occupying the top portion with lavish and abundant real estate then put the important non elites in the middle layer with some conveniences and then keep the pollution and rest of the population in the slums of the dark bottom layer, then everything will be just fine.

emblem-man posted...

You're saying there's zero point in being alive if we can't eat meat?

Fuck yeah.

Anyway, we'll have lab grown meat in the future

Fuck no.

The_Korey posted...

Fuck yeah.

Fuck no.

you don't believe his post about lab grown meat, why though?

I don't think overpopulation is a problem right now, but we definitely won't be doing anything about it when it does become a problem in the near future. Our quality of life as it is now isn't sustainable, and we're not going to slow down on resource use as much as we should.

We're supposed to stop eating fish for like one year so they can replenish themselves, and we're not even doing that.

bladegash posted...

All 8 billion people of the world's population could fit inside new york city. Not alot of elbow room, but if you actually make all of NYC a 3 layer megacity with the elite occupying the top portion with lavish and abundant real estate then put the important non elites in the middle layer with some conveniences and then keep the pollution and rest of the population in the slums of the dark bottom layer, then everything will be just fine.

So basically a hive city from Warhammer 40k? Pass.

Smallville posted...

you don't believe his post about lab grown meat, why though?

Wasn't a matter of whether I believe it'll happen or not. More along the lines of there's no chance that shit'll be safe/healthy and taste good/the same. It's never both and we don't need the meat equivalent of shitty 0-sugar sodas flaunting how they taste just like the real thing, when in reality, they are disgusting.

Also, just the koncept of needing to grow a basic food group in a lab suggest we fucked up, be it overpopulation or otherwise.

MorganTJ posted...

I don't think overpopulation is a problem right now, but we definitely won't be doing anything about it when it does become a problem in the near future. Our quality of life as it is now isn't sustainable, and we're not going to slow down on resource use as much as we should.

We're supposed to stop eating fish for like one year so they can replenish themselves, and we're not even doing that.

Fish will be gone from the oceans by 2048

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9d56a208.jpg

Maybe if government policies catch up and force people to live more sustainably then earth might support more humans. With the way we live right now we are well past what the earth can support. Its technically not a population issue though

Rika_Furude posted...

Maybe if government policies catch up and force people to live more sustainably then earth might support more humans. With the way we live right now we are well past what the earth can support. Its technically not a population issue though

We don't really need a drgrowth mindset to combat climate change, and honestly, it's a losing argument to most people. You need a society that fully utilizes technology to build and create what we need for energy over-abundance

emblem-man posted...

We don't really need a drgrowth mindset to combat climate change, and honestly, it's a losing argument to most people. You need a society that fully utilizes technology to build and create what we need for energy over-abundance

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

CSCA33 posted...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Interesting had never heard of it. Sounds like it could be valid

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It would definitely take an imaginary utopia to realistically sustain 8 billion people and growing in a safe, clean, and healthy environment that's fair and doesn't destroy the environment and climate.

You speak of the logistics, but I don't think you truly understand just how much resources that actually requires and the level of damage to the environment and the climate that requires. Including but not limited to producing, transporting and processing those intense manual labor products. For you to enjoy your luxuries, even the ones that you may think aren't luxuries.... somebody less fortunate is exploited for you to enjoy the most basic things such as your phone and even the clothes you wear or the food you eat. Like I don't think people really grasp just how food, metals, fuel, clothes, just basic shit is produced nevermind refined and turned into a product which brings even more exploitation.

We agree there's definitely a wealth gap that the wealthy take advantage of. We also agree the wealthy could definitely help the less unfortunate if they were not hoarding wealth which would definitely reduce some of the populations problems. Not saying it's great they are widening the gap.

That all being said, even with that, there are luxuries everyone on this board enjoys that it's tough to swallow... contributes to exploitation as well.

Smallville posted...

Interesting had never heard of it. Sounds like it could be valid

It demonstrates one folly of the transition to green energy - we arent using less fossil fuels, were just using more energy as it becomes cheaper and more accessible, or otherwise sustaining BAU (business as usual)

Other problems involve time and resource consumption to overhaul infrastructure, further degradation of the environment, etc. Its not practical or sustainable, requiring more fossil fuels to build and maintain under our current systems. Its maintaining the status quo that got us into this mess in the first place.

We are already in overshoot - a population crash in the relative near future is unavoidable and this is demonstrated with physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08nHuUbt8SQ

CSCA33 posted...

It demonstrates one folly of the transition to green energy - we arent using less fossil fuels, were just using more energy as it becomes cheaper and more accessible, or otherwise sustaining BAU (business as usual)

Other problems involve time and resource consumption to overhaul infrastructure, further degradation of the environment, etc. Its not practical or sustainable, requiring more fossil fuels to build and maintain under our current systems. Its maintaining the status quo that got us into this mess in the first place.

We are already in overshoot - a population crash in the relative near future is unavoidable and this is demonstrated with physics.

Looks bad right? Do you have a solution though, think there is one?

Smallville posted...

Looks bad right? Do you have a solution though, think there is one?

The time for that was back in the 70s and 80s when people were sounding the alarm about climate change, limits to growth, etc into the 90s.

We can still potentially mitigate some damage, protect biodiversity to some degree, but were currently at just about 1.5C warming with 2.0+C already in the pipeline. Our window to secure a livable future for humanity is closing and the powers that be are largely disinterested or otherwise unable to enact such widespread reform across the globe to mitigate the effects of rapid climate change and mass extinction. Major swaths of the planet will be uninhabitable by the end of the century.

Building and maintaining community is important at an individual level, for the populace. And living in the present.