[Kerrigan]

Is the world overpopulated? I think so. I would like to see the global population culled to about twenty thousand or so, 80% of whom would be really hot girls. It would benefit everyone all around.

What are your thoughts?

[design219]

Yes, that is our biggest problem, but no sane people are going to seriously propose doing something about it. There might well be some radical nut job medical researchers working on a selective malady that will take out a hunk of us.

Ever read Stephen King's "The Stand"?

I don't think 20,000 people could handle the world very well. Even if 80% are really hot.

[Chuckit]

I don't think so. Humans manage to create scarcity in a lot of places by being ridiculously inefficient, but that only amounts to the world being overpopulated if we're unwilling to be more efficient before we start dying from it en masse.

This is, of course, an entirely different question from whether I would prefer the population to be 80% hot girls.

[Shaddim]

I read somewhere that the max sustainable population for this planet is 16 billion.

[nonhuman]

The entire population of the world could live in Texas without exceeding the density of Manhattan.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Is the world overpopulated? I think so.

Yep. The World can handle no more than 2.5bn peeps.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I would like to see the global population culled to about twenty thousand or so, 80% of whom would be really hot girls.

So what would the other blokes do for companionship? Would they be gay?

[design219]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Humans manage to create scarcity in a lot of places by being ridiculously inefficient

I'm not sure I'd agree with that, at least as a main reason. Scarcity seems to be mostly in places where political problems come into play, or the climate, but humans have become wonderfully efficient in the last century. Our ability to produce more crops from a given size of dirt has increased tremendously.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I read somewhere that the max sustainable population for this planet is 16 billion.

I'm sold.

That's like those newspaper headlines that start "Some say..."

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by design219 

humans have become wonderfully efficient in the last century. Our ability to produce more crops from a given size of dirt has increased tremendously.

And you'll note that along with those efficient farming methods, cancer rates have grown considerably.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The entire population of the world could live in Texas without exceeding the density of Manhattan.

Not if I have anything to say about it.

Why don't we all come over to your place, instead?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by chris v 

I'm sold.

That's like those newspaper headlines that start "Some say..."

My bad, it's 15 billion.

Overpopulation.Com » How Much Food Could Potentially Be Grown?

[rjenkinson]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And you'll note that along with those efficient farming methods, cancer rates have grown considerably.

And fewer people have become farmers. Does a lack of farmers cause cancer?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Not if I have anything to say about it.

Why don't we all come over to your place, instead?

You wanna move to Massachusetts? Be my guest, and enjoy the **** weather.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by rjenkinson 

And fewer people have become farmers. Does a lack of farmers cause cancer?

Farmers are an important part of this balanced breakfast.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

My bad, it's 2.5 billion.

Fixed.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by rjenkinson 

And fewer people have become farmers. Does a lack of farmers cause cancer?

Yes, actually.

Since fewer people are farmers, each farmer has a larger land parcel. To make life easier, the farmer uses mass-production methodology. Which involves pesticides. Which cause cancer.

[Atheist]

I have a rather bleak view of humanity in general... thus I'm inclined to say yes, the world is overpopulated. Everywhere you look people are either starving or trying to kill each other. I suppose the killing and starving would be lessened with fewer people... but then again... maybe not... I could just be full of sh*t.

[Cipher13]

Even when the world wasn't overpopulated, people were either exceedingly rich or exceedingly poor. People still killed each other over nothing more than ridiculous superstitions.

The more things change, the more they stay teh same.

[lpkmckenna]

The world isn't over-populated, but under-developed.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by design219 

I'm not sure I'd agree with that, at least as a main reason. Scarcity seems to be mostly in places where political problems come into play, or the climate, but humans have become wonderfully efficient in the last century. Our ability to produce more crops from a given size of dirt has increased tremendously.

We may have made the farming more efficient, but it seems like better farming always goes hand in hand with greater meat consumption. Meat is a really inefficient food — the amount of energy and land resources required to support it are simply staggering. I'm not trying to turn this into a vegetarianism debate, but it seems pretty clear that cutting back on meat consumption could drastically reduce the strain on our food supplies and land.

I'm not saying that's the sole example of waste, but it is one that I see.

[Visnaut]

The world's been ending since it started. Get over it. People have been predicting our demise and downfall for as long as writing has been around, and they were likely doing it before then, and what's happened? Oh yeah, not only have we stuck around, but multiplied and prospered immensely.

The means of survival and living conditions for the large majority of humans has drastically improved in the last century. Of course there are notable exceptions to that, but I think that as a whole, humanity is going down the right path.

I mean hell, we've made it from beating sticks together in caves, all the way to arguing about the human condition on the internet. That's something absolutely unfathomable just two generations ago. Think about it.

Not to say that the way forward won't be without major challenges. It almost certainly will. Population growth is certainly one of the biggest challenges that we and our descendants will have to face, but that doesn't mean it's an insurmountable one. Humanity's proven it's up to the challenge up until this point. Why turn tail and be all pessimistic about it now?

Oh, and as an aside, I really don't like the term "over"population; to me, it's just a relative term that implies that there are too many of us. Such line of thought implies either a tacit acceptance or active pursuit of mass death.

[Jawbone54]

The world isn't overpopulated.

We just, for some god-awful reason, decide to clump together and live so close to each other that it's suffocating.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yeah, certainly true, but it is all relative. That meat would have to be replaced by enough appropriate agriculture, which also has its problems. I tend to think free-range (or wild) meats are the best idea and try to purchase such for myself whenever I can afford it.

I don't know much about population, but I tend to think we're probably close to a "comfortable" planet population. As everyone says, it's the inefficiency both in using resources and in distribution that creates a big problem.

greg

[Atomic Rooster]

Enjoy the new 'Soylent Green' Cheerios.

- The Soylent Food & Beverage Corp.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Yeah, certainly true, but it is all relative. That meat would have to be replaced by enough appropriate agriculture, which also has its problems.

Not really, if the whole world went vegetarian we'd not only get rid of the meat production, we'd also decrease our total amount of agriculture. Raising animals requires feeding them.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

The world's been ending since it started. Get over it. People have been predicting our demise and downfall for as long as writing has been around, and they were likely doing it before then, and what's happened? Oh yeah, not only have we stuck around, but multiplied and prospered immensely.

The means of survival and living conditions for the large majority of humans has drastically improved in the last century. Of course there are notable exceptions to that, but I think that as a whole, humanity is going down the right path.

I mean hell, we've made it from beating sticks together in caves, all the way to arguing about the human condition on the internet. That's something absolutely unfathomable just two generations ago. Think about it.

Not to say that the way forward won't be without major challenges. It almost certainly will. Population growth is certainly one of the biggest challenges that we and our descendants will have to face, but that doesn't mean it's an insurmountable one. Humanity's proven it's up to the challenge up until this point. Why turn tail and be all pessimistic about it now?

Oh, and as an aside, I really don't like the term "over"population; to me, it's just a relative term that implies that there are too many of us. Such line of thought implies either a tacit acceptance or active pursuit of mass death.

I came to this thread wanting to say this. I was too late.

Kudos.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Is the world overpopulated? I think so. I would like to see the global population culled to about twenty thousand or so, 80% of whom would be really hot girls. It would benefit everyone all around.

What are your thoughts?

You're stealing Adolph's idea.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Yeah, certainly true, but it is all relative. That meat would have to be replaced by enough appropriate agriculture, which also has its problems.

The animals wouldn't need to be replaced by anything. We already have more agriculture than we need to feed everybody — we're just wasting it on animals that needn't exist in the first place. The amount of plant matter required to feed an animal so that humans can eat that animal is way more than it takes just to feed a human. Most of the resources that go into raising the animal are wasted.

Basically, the more we replace meat with veggies, the fewer veggies we need to grow. It's counterintuitive, but it makes sense if you think about it.

[MacosNerd]

I think so,
It isn't just the density of people which is high, take India and China as an example, but what goes along with that. Look at the trash problem that the US has and we're just 300 million or. Then there's the pollution that we dump into the ground, water and air.

There's been a lot of talk of global warming and yet the reason for that is our population dumping obscene amounts of pollution, we double the population to 12 billion how bad do you think the pollution will be then and how bad the global warming?

I think we're getting near the point where there will be serious and possible irreversible consequences due to the population.

[richwig83]

I don't think its overpopulated, its just in certain areas the population density is too high!

[mattyb]

Visit Oxford Street in London on a Saturday and you'll think that the world is over populated.

Visit parts of the Sahara Desert and you'll feel lonely.

I've had the chance to see both places. I don't want to get too philosophical, but each one of us needs to find the level of population density that we are comfortable with. Hustle and bustle for some, cockerels sounding off in the morning for others.

[kikkoman]

Yes, the world is over populated and is the root cause of our problems.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Yes, the world is overpopulated. Sorry about that, I've been compensating for low self-esteem.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by kikkoman 

Yes, the world is over populated and is the root cause of our problems.

Well, that's true. There's one too many Paris Hiltons in the world, and she is the root cause of our problems.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Not really, if the whole world went vegetarian we'd not only get rid of the meat production, we'd also decrease our total amount of agriculture. Raising animals requires feeding them.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The animals wouldn't need to be replaced by anything. We already have more agriculture than we need to feed everybody — we're just wasting it on animals that needn't exist in the first place. The amount of plant matter required to feed an animal so that humans can eat that animal is way more than it takes just to feed a human. Most of the resources that go into raising the animal are wasted.

Basically, the more we replace meat with veggies, the fewer veggies we need to grow. It's counterintuitive, but it makes sense if you think about it.

Well yes that makes sense. But it isn't that easy is it? It's not like you can just take what agriculture animals eat and start giving it to humans instead. There's important distinctions in type of food, quality of food, food processing, and the fact that many free-grazing animals have varying levels of feed given them.

Either of you have any information/studies on the subject? From what I've read, barring the extremely unrealistic option of everyone in the world going veggie, a low-meat, free-range diet has the smallest ecological footprint.

greg

[RAILhead]

Yes, it is. It's time begin mass sterilization.

[Tesselator]

I read paper based on what I consider to be credible science and statistical analysis
that claimed the Earth was not even close to being over populated and wouldn't
begin to be until around 75 billion. Currently there are about 6 to 6.5 billion
and I guess we all have seen the study which shows the entire population of
the Earth would be perfectly sustainable with just a little planning and engineering
if entirely limited to and contained within the state of Texas.

I think the idea of overpopulation is just an excuse for governments to grab
more control and resources than they are entitled to. I guess it's also used
by the nazis and eugenicists as an excuse to murder a bunch of us and treat
us like cattle (or satanic sacrifices depending on the literature you read).

[ShortcutToMoncton]

75 billion?!?! That's way above and beyond what's been posted in here already. Where's this source?

greg

[Tesselator]

75 is actually a mid-low estimate among proposed estimates from biophysical,
social, and other life scientists who actually study this issue. Estimates range
from 40 billion to 1,000 billion given we break the oil companies monopolistic
strong-arm choke hold over energy profiles. There are a few idiot scientists
who claim it's more like 1 billion but no one takes them seriously (well except
the New World Order eugenicists and other Nazis). Unfortunately this is the
crowd in control of lower education and media. Additionally many junk scientists
set the range between 4 billion and 10 billion but most of them have been
severely debunked.

The 75 billion I quoted was based just on current technology or on technology
we can see that actually will be achievable in the next 5 or 10 years (ie. short
term). It also assumed the absence of technology suppression - perhaps naively.

Some lit to look at or search terms to enter:

1. Ehrlich, P. R. 1994. Ecological Economics and the Carrying Capacity of the Earth. In: Jansson, A. M. Investing in natural capital: the ecological economics approach to sustainability. Island Press.
   
2. Hardin, G. 1986. Cultural carrying capacity: a biological approach to human problems. BioScience
   
3. Klein, D.R. 1968 The introduction, increase, and crash of reindeer on St. Matthew Island. Journal of Wildlife Management.
   
4. Whittaker, R. H. and Likens, G. E. 1975. The Biosphere and Man.
   
5. Lieth, H. and Whittaker, R. H. Primary productivity of the biosphere. Springer Verlag, NY Inc.: NY
   
6. (UNFPA), United Nations Population Fund - UNFPA
   
7. Cohen, J. E. 1995 W.W. Norton & Co.: NY. Marchetti (1978)
   This guy estimates 1,000 billion with technology assist.
   
8. Pearson & Harper (1945)
   Here is a 1 billion estimate but it's based solely on grain production in North America.
   
9. Hardin 1986
   
10. Pimentel 1999
    
11. Livernash & Rodenburg 1998
    
12. Pimentel, D., Bailey, O., Kim, P., Mullaney, E., Calabrese, J., Walman, L., Nelson, F., and Yao, X. 1999. Will the limit of the Earth's resources control human numbers. Environment, Development and Sustainability.
    
13. Daily and Ehrlich 1992
    
14. World Energy Council, Survey of Energy Resources 1998, World Energy Council
    
15. Campbell, C.J. and Laherrere, J.H. 1998. The end of cheap oil. Scientific American.
    
16. Pimentel, D., Harman, R., Pacenza, M., Pecarsky, J., and Pimentel, M. 1994. Natural resources and an optimum human population. Population and Environment.
    
17. Rees, W. E. 1996. Revisiting Carrying Capacity: Area-Based Indicators of Sustainability. Population and Environment DIE OFF - a population crash resource page.
    
18. Cohen, J. E. 1995. Population growth and Earth's human carrying capacity.
    
19. Whittaker, R. H., Likens, G. E., and Lieth, H. 1975.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I would like to see the global population culled to about twenty thousand or so, 80% of whom would be really hot girls. It would benefit everyone all around.

Am I the only one to see why this is such a bad idea ?

Hint: Do you know how HARD the remaining 20% have to work to pick of the slack of the 80% hot girls ?

-t

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by richwig83 

I don't think its overpopulated, its just in certain areas the population density is too high!

You need to visit Mongkok on a Saturday afternoon to really experience population density.

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Am I the only one to see why this is such a bad idea ?

Hint: Do you know how HARD the remaining 20% have to work to pick of the slack of the 80% hot girls ?

-t

I don't know. It'd be worth it to have 4 hot girls to every one guy. Heck, most guys work their butts off to get one semi-hot girl to like them. Imagine what it would be like if the odds were completely stacked in your favor.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ 

I don't know. It'd be worth it to have 4 hot girls to every one guy. Heck, most guys work their butts off to get one semi-hot girl to like them. Imagine what it would be like if the odds were completely stacked in your favor.

Uhm yeah, if the ratio is 4:1, the guys wouldn't have to work for it, so they get lazy, too. Great new world, nothing gets done because everyone is busy being pretty / needed.

-t

[Buckaroo]

I have no idea scientifically if we are over populated or not, I can only express my opinion that I believe that we are approx. 50% over populated. I live in Los Angeles, and I hate this crazy traffic.

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Uhm yeah, if the ratio is 4:1, the guys wouldn't have to work for it, so they get lazy, too. Great new world, nothing gets done because everyone is busy being pretty / needed.

-t

Lets look at this. 4 hots girls. Being lazy. Lots of open space, free houses, cars, and no limits on fishing. Whats wrong with that?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

I really don't like the term "over"population; to me, it's just a relative term that implies that there are too many of us. Such line of thought implies either a tacit acceptance or active pursuit of mass death.

Or active pursuit of birth control?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

75 is actually a mid-low estimate among proposed estimates from biophysical,
social, and other life scientists who actually study this issue. Estimates range
from 40 billion to 1,000 billion given we break the oil companies monopolistic
strong-arm choke hold over energy profiles. There are a few idiot scientists
who claim it's more like 1 billion but no one takes them seriously (well except
the New World Order eugenicists and other Nazis). Unfortunately this is the crowd in control of lower education and media.

Godwin. You lose.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Am I the only one to see why this is such a bad idea ?

Hint: Do you know how HARD the remaining 20% have to work to pick of the slack of the 80% hot girls ?

Well if you can't handle them, you can give your share to me.

I actually took 8 hot girls out on the same date once*. To the cinema. It was a bit like the cinema scene from Gremlins combined with a bit of cat herding, but a lot of fun once you get used to it.

(* yes, really)

[Tesselator]

I live in Japan. Check it out:






.
.
.
.
.
But the VAST majority of the country (95%?) looks like this:

[Kerrigan]

Well, I'm sure Japan is great and all, but it has not made the shortlist of where this 20,000-strong community is going to set up camp. Currently the only 2 places under consideration are St. Bart's and Martinique.