Are there too many humans on Earth?

[Zecora]

Are there too many humans on Earth? Should they be fewer? Should they be more? Would the world be a better place with smaller optimal communities?

In short: Yes. There are way too many humans on Earth. Both we and the environment would be far better off if we reduced the population with 80-90%

[slime]

Before all the angsty edgemasters get in here, I'm going to proffer up one sentiment:


If you feel the earth is too overcrowded and humanity is a blight upon this "immaculate jewel of a planet..." we can always start with you.

I'd rather start with the weak-minded, so get in line.

Am I crazy or did you just insult the planet Earth? Like how can you even see it from your horse?

[Incarnia]

It depends... The western way of life is extremely destructive to our planet, so in that sense, yes, there are too many humans on Earth.
But if we changed our ways? This Earth would have no problems sustaining even more humans. If we changed enough it would even be possible for other species to thrive side by side with us, despite there being more of us.

However... I am quite confident there are currently way, way too many of us for us to be able to live in a world of peace. Enemy tribes having a go at each other (lol) are one thing, but nations at war with each other? Or large civil wars? How to avoid those, especially when religion and vastly different cultures are involved? - Wars impact this planet too, in resources and environments destroyed.

[Mihalik]

This "OMG OVERPOPULATION" thing is the quintessential First World Problem, that edgy kids love to worry about from behind their MacBooks and Iphones.

Considering that about 2 billion people (half of them living in the Western world) use up about 80% of the world's resources, overpopulation is hardly the problem.

Western nations throw away (produce, buy and just throw in the garbage) enough food to end world hunger a couple of times over.

I'm not some big environmentalist, but the glaringly obvious, is...well...obvious.

[Pony Soldier]

No, there's too many idiots.

[Raeph]

I grew up in Houston, TX. When I left in 2001 I heard a report that 20-25 million people travel into the city limits each day through the freeway system. I'm sure it's worse now.

Now I live on 2.25 acres 10 miles outside of a rural community of 10-14k depending on the oil market. I have six neighbors within a mile of me. I'm related to two of those households.

If I was still living in Houston I would say we have too many people. Now that I live where I am now I'd say we need to re-adjust how we distribute people and resources better. Just as an example I can think of about 80 unfilled employment positions across the town that have remained so for six months or best. They are the full spectrum from jobs at McDonalds to technical positions are a regional telecommunication company. We need more people here where I'm at not less.

[PC2]

All of the people saying it is the Western way of life that is destructive have clearly never learned about modern China. Unless they are also saying modernization is inherently Western.

[Mihalik]

All of the people saying it is the Western way of life that is destructive have clearly never learned about modern China. Unless they are also saying modernization is inherently Western.

Modernization is by definition the adoption of Western economic, cultural and technological models. Modernization is to a very large degree synonymous to Westernization.

China is still ranked 77th by nominal per-capita GDP and 89th by PPP . Would it's entire population consume resources the same way as we living in the Western world, the planet would implode into itself.

[PC2]

Modernization is by definition the adoption of Western economic, cultural and technological models. Modernization is to a very large degree synonymous to Westernization.

If that is the premise then I agree.

[Puupi]

Yes, way too many people. A big culling would do us good.

- - - Updated - - -

This "OMG OVERPOPULATION" thing is the quintessential First World Problem, that edgy kids love to worry about from behind their MacBooks and Iphones.

I strongly disagree. Overpopulation is mainly a third world problem. For the moment, it doesn't affect my life whether there are 100 million or 1 billion starving people in Africa. For people in Africa, it is a huge problem. First world isn't overpopulated, third world is.

[mizeri]

no, we just have too many huddled togather, spread them out and we have tons of room

[Wildtree]

All of the people saying it is the Western way of life that is destructive have clearly never learned about modern China. Unless they are also saying modernization is inherently Western.

21th century China is a lot better off than it ever was in it's history.
So there's improvement to be seen.
And deflecting from one bad situation onto another situation that's allegedly worse, that doesn't solve the former bad situation.


OT: No, we do not have too many humans on the planet.
We have however:
- regional problems with proper care of humans.
- regional pockets that are on their population limits, or approaching them.

Yet, at the same time we've vast amounts of land essentially sitting there "vacant" and waiting for being populated.
The planet itself would be big enough to provide room for at least three times the human population count.

[Kontinuum]

Yes, way too many people. A big culling would do us good.

It would have to be really big.

Even a catastrophic mass mortality event of 2 billion deaths over a hypothetical 5-y window in the mid-21st century would still yield around 8.5 billion people by 2100.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/46/16610.abstract
http://io9.com/even-world-war-iii-wo...say-1652280853

[3DTyrant]

Here's a video that I recently watched that may (or may not, who knows?) answer your question:

[ButterBeast]

Yes, population levels are at about 1000x what the maximum should be.

where did you pull that number from? let me guess, your ass?

[Shadowspire]

I think we we need a new planet to send some of the current people off world and get some elbow room. Who gets sent depends on the planet and its stability. For example Mars is honestly a shitty a planet with no grass or wood. But maybe a super planet like earth would be wanted.

[Independent voter]

google says there's nothing to worry about.

Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.2% per annum. In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%. The CIA World Factbook gives the world annual birthrate, mortality rate, and growth rate as 1.89%, 0.79%, and 1.096% respectively.



Europe is really nose diving.

[Mihalik]

I strongly disagree. Overpopulation is mainly a third world problem. For the moment, it doesn't affect my life whether there are 100 million or 1 billion starving people in Africa. For people in Africa, it is a huge problem. First world isn't overpopulated, third world is.

That's not how it works.

You see much of the Western world especially our large urban areas are reliant on technology for continued survival. Our technology is by extension dependent on looooooooooooooong logistical lines using scarce and rare resources from across the planet. Even something as basic as our food security is reliant on global trade networks and advanced technology like fertilizers, genetic engineering, stockpiling, warehousing, refrigeration etc. How do you think, you up there in the cold north have year round access to fresh fruits and vegetables, especially of the equatorial and tropical variety? Or where do you think all that coffee you guys guzzle in industrial amounts comes from?

Add to this our economic model where we consume excess amounts of pretty much every type of goods and produce. Much of those raw materials come from underdeveloped areas and are manufactured or processed in those underdeveloped areas, where there is an excess of cheap and available labor.

People in Africa don't starve because there are too many of them. They starve because they don't have access to complex technologies required for industrialized food production, nor do they have access to the energy that it's required to run it, nor can they afford to build those infrastructures.

[Deleted]

We're too many. We should be 5 billion tops. We'd have more resources to share for a better living style, several places would be much less overcrowded too and our impact on the planet would be smaller.
We are now almost 7.4 billion though. And the issue is that you can't drop the number, we can't perform genocide for obvious reasons and we can't have everyone have less babies because then we'd end up with an aging population. So the only true sollution is to attempt to stop the flow by imposing a 2 children per person policy to keep the number steady as it is. I don't see that happening either.
Overall, as we increase in age, so will the numbers of people increase. In time we'll start having issues with pollution (like China is having around their industrial areas right now in the east, where you can't even see the sun during the day at times) so bad we won't be able to breathe anymore. Our fish and vegetables will be filled with chemicals that harm us more than help us but are used to have enough healthy crops to feed all. We'll all live in small apartments as living spaces become an issue and forests will disappear more and more as we harvest the wood. The planet will start turning into a desert and we'll fight useless wars over the good lands still left. Or die.

More people will tend to produce more new things, which improves our lives.

Currently achievable agricultural yields can feed 100 B people or more, so we are not close to limits based on food. Having said that, moving away from agriculture would be a good thing for food production, so farmland (and the oceans) can go back to nature.

More people produce more things for more people. But, if less people existed, we wouldn't need more people to produce the things for those less people.

Yes, we are not near the limit for food. However, our impact on our planet is already clear, and the more we increase in number, the worse it will be. Furthermore, we have severe overcrowding problems in several areas around the world (India anyone?) that have shown to increase stress and decrease life quality for those living there by a huge part.

Last, but not least... how could we move away from agriculture? We need to eat, and we can't have 7 billions be hunter-gatherers. We can't move away from agriculture at any point in time soon. Maybe if we become androids in a few hundread years sure, but otherwise no way.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet, at the same time we've vast amounts of land essentially sitting there "vacant" and waiting for being populated.
The planet itself would be big enough to provide room for at least three times the human population count.

I disagree. Yes, there's land, but we have a lot of desert, frozen tundra and huge mountains. People could live there, but it costs a lot of resources, resources that are wasted this way. For example, Greenland is almost empty! But it's also a frozen iceberg with temperatures of two digits under 0. Sahara, also, much space... not that much water and the sandstorms are not that great either.

There are also still good areas, but many of them have other using. For example, theoretically the amazon rainforest would be great for people to live in... if we cut it all. But then, it would start creating a desert there... hmmm... There's also areas used for farming and agriculture, which can be moved... but not really to places we can't live in either.

So yes, there is still free spots on Earth. However many of these free spots are not good, would take too many resources to properly use or they have other uses already. Considering all the resources each person consumes and how much land said person occupies, we don't have that much free space.

[Dsonsion]

Yes, we need to thin the herd.

Yes! You're so absolutely right! WE humans are a blight to the planet, and you are one of the few enlightened ones that knows what to do. I beg of you, be a brilliant example of how to do things right and start with yourself.