Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #41
    Brewmaster Caninese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamdwelf View Post
    Because we are not like most creatures who are adapted to a certain environment or area, we literally adapted to change itself.
    Obviously, we adapted on a scale superior to any single species on the planet, but we adapt, and force adaptations upon the environment, which can be destructive.

  2. #42
    The Lightbringer JfmC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Antwerp City
    Posts
    3,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueobelisk View Post
    5,000,000,000 sounds like a good number to me.
    I wanted to go with 1,000,000,000 but 5,000,000,000 looks like more interesting stuff would happen
    Thread:Will we ever create A.I?
    So I just watched Her and it gave me a deep thought. Will man ever create an artificial consciousness or is it impossible. Anyone have any ideas?
    Quote Originally Posted by det View Post
    We are currently creating "A.S" - artificial stupidity. A.K.A internet forums

  3. #43
    Pandaren Monk Maruka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    1,853
    3 billion is my opinion

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Arnorei View Post
    I'd say 5 billion would be perfect.
    Why? Because it's about how much we had in 1990's. And current population is way too big in many areas.

    I'm not even talking resource wise now, talking about space, how crowded some areas are etc.
    I spend a very large part of the day, all day flying over the earth. What I see is LOTS of empty space. I can't even convey with words how empty most of the land mass in the US is. Sure there are some areas that are heavily populated but those are small islands in the sea.
    Get a grip man! It's CHEESE!

  5. #45
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Caninese View Post
    Nature does destroy itself, all the time. Hurricanes, Earthquakes, Diseases, Famine that kind of thing. If a population of deer grows too large for their environment, the plant life becomes more sparse, some deer starve, and the problem solves itself. That doesn't seem to be happening to us. Humans just destroy on an extreme level, but there's nothing stopping us from doing it.
    Nothing stopping us yet. We're relatively young, and we certainly don't have the capacity to permanently destroy the world.

  6. #46
    We aren't even close to be over populated. People need to spread out. There is practically zero growth in the natural born population of Western nations.

  7. #47
    Legendary! muto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Inside a Bubble
    Posts
    6,036
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyHellfire View Post
    The Earth isn't overpopulated at all.
    You're absolutely right.

    If all 6.8 billion people on earth today were evenly distributed across the land surface, they would produce an average population density of 117 people per square mile, or 45 per square kilometer.

    Straight out of my college Geography textbook.


  8. #48
    The problem is not the space. The problem is the food and water deal. In the next 40 years we won't have enough water to produce meat and will have to switch to a vegetatian diet. The main problem now is not the birth rates, since they are down, but how we will deal with the Billion of old people once the population starts shrinking.

    Ideal number would be around 5 billion.

  9. #49
    The Lightbringer Istaril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Scotland. Freedom and So on.
    Posts
    3,239
    If only we could make places like the Sahara Desert hospitable, and perhaps even the Oceans themselves.
    Why would we need to do that when there are so many empty places that already are hospitable, the population density of the Scottish Highlands, for example, is one of the smallest in Europe since the Highland Clearances.

  10. #50
    If we removed all of those people that think that the Earth (send them to mars) is overpopulated then we would have the correct population...

    First the earth isn't overpopulated, at best we have highly dense city's
    Second: the only reason why certain countries like China (best example) tried to reduce their population growth is because the growth was to excessive, allot of countries don't even have this problem and some countries have the opposite (Russia If my memory serves me right).
    Finally: The population of a country has to grow because the population as a whole is the true foundation of our wealth (and not silly things as ''job creators'').

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Extremity View Post
    I like turtles. I would like turtle-based tier sets. I would like a turtle shell helmet, and perhaps a cheeseburger backpack and a chestpiece that simply places a red gemstone on my bellybutton.

  12. #52
    The Lightbringer N-7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,449
    Dunno but an ideal population would probably be more than what we currently have. We don't have any shortage of land or resources so to speak.

  13. #53
    The Lightbringer Mister K's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Under your desk
    Posts
    3,829
    With efficient management of resources, housing and so forth there is plenty of room. That said, at this moment it is simply appalling how the world is run, from food waste to energy efficiency and education.

    Colonize Deserts, Seas and in future Antarctica etc.
    CASE: Coolermaster Cosmos 2 / MOBO: Asus Maximus Hero VI / CPU: i7 4770k @ 4.2Ghz 1.184v (delidded) / GPU: Gigabyte Windforce 780 3GB 1173MHz, 6589MHz, 1.2v / RAM: G.Skill Trident-X 16GB 2400Mhz / PSU: Corsair AX860 Platinum / BOOT: Samsung 840 256GB x2 Raid 0 /

  14. #54
    That depends on your goals, doesn't it? It seems a bit like a nonsense question.

  15. #55
    Id like the population to be at 500,000,001 to 1,000,000,001 and live on and use only 1/4th of the earths landmass. That way we don't get to the point where we have to become vegetarians and we all don't have to live in Mega Cities as living in cities is believed to increase stress and decrease mental health compared to those living in rural areas.

  16. #56
    I am Murloc! Chickat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Orgrimmar
    Posts
    5,873
    6 billion redistributed equally into regions so that each region is far less populated then japan etc.
    My Warlords of Draenor Screenshots so far!
    http://imgur.com/a/YCLjL#0
    http://imgur.com/a/2rApO#0

  17. #57
    Scarab Lord Noobadin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,097
    The current population of the US seems reasonable.

  18. #58
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,186
    Quote Originally Posted by Fincayra View Post
    we're definitely not overpopulated overall, just in a few regions.
    No, we are over populated, its not about density, its about use of resources to support levels of development and consumption. A less resource intensive society could have a higher population, a higher resource society a lower one.

    Right now we are not sustainable, so its either:

    A) find a shit load more resources to exploit, which is possible but not likely in the near future, or
    B) lower population. Which is much more likely, not volutarily, but if we carry on like we are, it will happen through disease, conflict of similar. We are competing for resources against increasingly numerous and developed competitiors, there have been several wars fought over oil in the recent past, and more for oil and other resources will follow. Weapons tech is taking off again all over the place, the US is worst of all with weaponising space with a military shuttle, but China is capable of space weaponisation, N.Korea can reach orbit, Iran is almost certainally developing nukes, India and Pakistan have nukes and no cultural fear of them like typical westerners have. Chemical and biological agents are becomming increasingly easy to manufacture, and modern societal patterns of population congreation and rapid movement means dispersal is not the barrier it once was.....
    Not to be too paranoid or depressing, but if we dont sort out population soon, something will have to give, it will self correct sooner or later.
    No game will ever kill wow. Though Blizard themselves are making a pretty damm good attempt lately.

    THE FIRST RULE OF BRAWLERS GUILD IS YOU DO NOT GET INVITED TO BRAWLERS GUILD.

  19. #59
    High Overlord Sayier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Small Town, Maine
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by tlacoatl View Post
    No, we are over populated, its not about density, its about use of resources to support levels of development and consumption. A less resource intensive society could have a higher population, a higher resource society a lower one.

    Right now we are not sustainable, so its either:

    A) find a shit load more resources to exploit, which is possible but not likely in the near future, or
    B) lower population. Which is much more likely, not volutarily, but if we carry on like we are, it will happen through disease, conflict of similar. We are competing for resources against increasingly numerous and developed competitiors, there have been several wars fought over oil in the recent past, and more for oil and other resources will follow. Weapons tech is taking off again all over the place, the US is worst of all with weaponising space with a military shuttle, but China is capable of space weaponisation, N.Korea can reach orbit, Iran is almost certainally developing nukes, India and Pakistan have nukes and no cultural fear of them like typical westerners have. Chemical and biological agents are becomming increasingly easy to manufacture, and modern societal patterns of population congreation and rapid movement means dispersal is not the barrier it once was.....
    Not to be too paranoid or depressing, but if we dont sort out population soon, something will have to give, it will self correct sooner or later.
    OR C) New innovations that make resource consumption a non-issue. With science and engineering there is always another option.

  20. #60
    I wonder how many of these threads are needed for people to understand that the problem is bad government/management than population itself, that and the social values as well.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •