According to an online world population clock, there are about 8.3 billion people living on Earth today. I am interested in your opinions about whether:
Is this overpopulation already?
Approximately, what would be the greatest number of people that would still not mean overpopulation?
There is no overpopulation, the problems are greed and selfishness, not the overpopulation
There is no overpopulation, the problems are greed and selfishness, not the overpopulation
So your opinion about the first question is the answer "no". But you have not answered to the second question... or do you think Earth could support any number of people?
So your opinion about the first question is the answer "no". But you have not answered to the second question... or do you think Earth could support any number of people?
Visit Bihar, Karachi (especially Lyari), Old Delhi (the poorer parts) or Bangladesh to understand what is over population, but I don't think there is a fixed number since it depends on the environment of the place
I actually also think that depends on the place like for example in some places in Africa with climate change it means that more places will be like a desert so in that case even 10 ppl can be overpopulation bc the earth cant deal with that. But in other places there can be millions and still the place can handle it so it kind of depends. So EVEN if u can say which number in total is overpopulation: i think that number changes again super fast bc of for example climate change. 🙄🙄
Visit Bihar, Karachi (especially Lyari), Old Delhi (the poorer parts) or Bangladesh to understand what is over population, but I don't think there is a fixed number since it depends on the environment of the place
You have come up with an interesting argument. So in your opinion we cannot talk about global overpopulation, only about local overpopulation? And there is local overpopulation at some places, but there is no overpopulation at other places? I'm thinking on how to relate my concept of global overpopulation to that...
EDIT:
Well, my definition of global overpopulation would be a level of human population size that is dangerous to the environment, potentially causing mass extinctions and a big crisis that maybe destroys 50% of humans in about 5 years... the numbers are just my estimations, but I think you can get the idea.
You have come up with an interesting argument. So in your opinion we cannot talk about global overpopulation, only about local overpopulation? And there is local overpopulation at some places, but there is no overpopulation at other places? I'm thinking on how to relate my concept of global overpopulation to that...
EDIT:
Well, my definition of global overpopulation would be a level of human population size that is dangerous to the environment, potentially causing mass extinctions and a big crisis that maybe destroys 50% of humans in about 5 years... the numbers are just my estimations, but I think you can get the idea.
Let me explain, some towns in Japan can do with more population since they were made for it and proved to be able to sustain it for centuries, they are underpopulated. Then you have the plains of Bihar, which have fertile lands and abundant water from the Ganga, but there is no way it can support a population density of 1400 per square kilometer, the consequence is the state has a reputation for all the wrong reasons and it along with 2-3 more states ends up ruining the stats for most of India. Then there is my state of Himachal Pradesh, boy, we are one of the happiest and richest among all the large states, our stats are slightly messed up due to the tribal regions in the north, but in their defense getting modern facilities to an altitude of 4km and -20degree celsius with the most inhospitable terrain there is, is rather difficult. In the Himalayas the environment is geographically highly sensitive, it cannot support too many roads, tunnels, hundreds of houses etc. and thats why things like landslides or casualties due to floods are increasing. There is nothing like "global overpopulation', it can just be readjusted.
A mass extinction for Humans in the foreseeable future is unlikely, but smaller ones may happen, here is an example,China is currently building the world's largest dam on the Brahmaputra river, which is bigger than the 3 gorges dam by a huge margin, but, this dam is in the most seismically unstable zone on the planet with nearly a billion people living in the downstream in India and Bangladesh, but since the dam will lie on China's border, they literally don't care, since it will have the highest output from a dam in the world, besides they can use it choke India's water supply in the north east o use it to unleash a mini Tsunami in India. That kind of thing might happen, but is that thing breaks, It will kill nearly 0.5-1 billion ppl, and then it will probably also start a nuclear war which no one will win. I recommend you do your own research into this.
0.5-1 billion people dying just due to a dam sounds quite unrealistic (the entire population of India is just a bit over 1 billion). However, I can accept that my estimation also seems unrealistic. Maybe overpopulation will cause no global crisis, but some countries will manage better, others will be failing states. I just wanted to emphasize that if there are too many people, something very bad may happen. We can imagine in theory that people from overpopulated areas can relocate to underpopulated areas, but even after that, overpopulated areas may remain... and we can imagine global overpopulation to be it. I think David Attenborough is quite a smart man, and he also mentioned the fast population growth in the last century, which is probably not sustainable.
0.5-1 billion people dying just due to a dam sounds quite unrealistic (the entire population of India is just a bit over 1 billion). However, I can accept that my estimation also seems unrealistic. Maybe overpopulation will cause no global crisis, but some countries will manage better, others will be failing states. I just wanted to emphasize that if there are too many people, something very bad may happen. We can imagine in theory that people from overpopulated areas can relocate to underpopulated areas, but even after that, overpopulated areas may remain... and we can imagine overpopulation to be it. I think David Attenborough is quite a smart man, and he also mentioned the fast population growth in the last century, which is probably not sustainable.
Correct in India there wont be too many fatalities, but Bangladesh will be very severely affected too, and that area is agriculturally rich, the food shortages will be wild and don't forget the economic crash and the certainty of WW3 due to the dam breach.
Correct in India there wont be too many fatalities, but Bangladesh will be very severely affected too, and that area is agriculturally rich, the food shortages will be wild and don't forget the economic crash and the certainty of WW3 due to the dam breach.
The dam is an interesting problem to learn about, thanks. But I guess this might be an argument for that there is already overpopulation, otherwise China would not need to build that dam.
So your opinion about the first question is the answer "no". But you have not answered to the second question... or do you think Earth could support any number of people?
You're right, I haven't answered it. I think Earth can support a lot more than we think, but we have to be smart and empathic. Like I've said, greed and selfishness have a very significant impact: instead of developing nuclear weapons, getting mad in industrialisation and nature exploitation, it would be much better to relocate the resources in the real life-quality developing researches (to be constructive instead of destructive). I'm aware that currently it's impossible to do that on the macro scale but on the micro scale we can always do at least something.
@TheLOVERofMachines does Bangladesh have any plan for the future? I know they are full of rivers and very flat country
According to an online world population clock, there are about 8.3 billion people living on Earth today. I am interested in your opinions about whether:
Is this overpopulation already?
Approximately, what would be the greatest number of people that would still not mean overpopulation?
I'd say you can watch "overpopulation" in two ways: on earth in general, no. In Europe, yes. I find the tons of Muslims etc imported in Europe, an overpopulation.
You're right, I haven't answered it. I think Earth can support a lot more than we think, but we have to be smart and empathic. Like I've said, greed and selfishness have a very significant impact: instead of developing nuclear weapons, getting mad in industrialisation and nature exploitation, it would be much better to relocate the resources in the real life-quality developing researches (to be constructive instead of destructive). I'm aware that currently it's impossible to do that on the macro scale but on the micro scale we can always do at least something.
@TheLOVERofMachines does Bangladesh have any plan for the future? I know they are full of rivers and very flat country
They seem to be going down the Pakistan route at the moment, so they don't have a plan or the money to bring it to action. They are just barely a brink away from civil war. They depend on India to save them (which we aren't good at just yet) from Chinese floodwaters if they ever come. You must have heard about the Bangladesh protests a couple of months back, that's the issue. They had this corrupt PM called Sheikh Hassina who rigged elections and shit, there were massive protests, so she ran to India where she still is. All of this created a civil war like situation, although it seems to have calmed down a bit.
Well, no one answered with a number yet, so maybe I'll be the first one for some encouragement. Earlier I would have said between about 1 billion (like in 1800 before the Industrial Revolution) and 3 billion (before baby boomers), but I have changed my mind. Have you heard about the Earth Overshoot Day? It is a date determined by estimating the date in a year (from 1 January) when the Earth's resources of that year are used up. I think the Earth Overshoot Day is computed by experts, which I am not... so maybe I can believe them approximately. In 2026 the Earth Overshoot Day (for 1 Earth) was July 30, meaning that in one entire year the resources of 1.73 Earths would be required (I've just checked this with Google). Dividing the current world population (8.3 billion) by 1.73, we get a little less than 4.8 billion people. So I guess we can estimate that there is overpopulation on Earth if the human population exceeds 4.8 billion people. Can someone argue for more or less?
@TheLOVERofMachines I hope they will find solutions
@Arpad more. I don't know how much but much more than the current number. With proper researches and scientific breakthroughs, almost no limit
@Arpad more. I don't know how much but much more than the current number. With proper researches and scientific breakthroughs, almost no limit
Current developments, the AI and robots seem to worsen the situation even more, humankind also have to mine materials for them. I think we should read some of Lester R. Brown's books, e.g. "Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity". By the way, dying bees are also an issue. I've talked with a beekeeper (my old classmate), and he said that many bees can no longer survive without the aid of humans, for humans protect them from diseases or something like that. If bees disappeared, that would make the situation even worse.
@TheLOVERofMachines I hope they will find solutions
@Arpad more. I don't know how much but much more than the current number. With proper researches and scientific breakthroughs, almost no limit
I hope so too, since we don't need any more illegal immigrants in here.
Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Uprising it provides a clear picture of what happened there, and if you read this you'll see the issues with them right now.
Literally as we speak: Bangladesh rocked with fresh violence: Bus driver burnt to death, crude bomb blasts hit Dhaka, other cities
Vehicles torched, crude bombs exploded: One killed as fresh wave of violence hits Bangladesh
@Korisnik jinxed it.
This is an entirely consumption-oriented perspective, driven by an impulse to preserve the concept of a consumer society. A consumer society is not built upon scarcity, but rather upon the waste and excess necessary for the continuation of growth. Dynamic factors such as the volume of production and innovation capacity are disregarded in the provided figures.
The issue is not the number of people, but the unjust distribution of resources and wealth. The world is capable of producing enough food and resources to feed and house its current population; the real problem lies in habits of hyperconsumption. The real question that should be asked here is: what is a human being? Are they merely simple consumers—represented by cold figures in statistics—or are they sources of value and innovation, equipped with the ability to solve problems?
Completely ignored fact is that there are very different consumption patterns all over the world. A myopic focus on population control causes us to miss the real issue. The real, major problem is the construction of identity through consumption. A consumerist frenzy trapped in an endless cycle has entrenched a "throwaway" culture, exacerbating massive textile waste, resource depletion, and ecological crises. At this very point, the real question emerges: Conscious 8.3 billion people or 4.8 billion people in consumerist frenzy?