What would be the ideal population for Earth?

[Deleted]

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

[Maruka]

3 billion is my opinion

[poser765]

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.

[Grizzly Willy]

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.

[PACOX]

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.

[muto]

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.

[Cybran]

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.

[Deleted]

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.

[ati87]

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'').

[ro9ue]

500,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

[N-7]

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.

[Mister K]

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.

[Spectral]

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

[frogger237]

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.

[Chickat]

6 billion redistributed equally into regions so that each region is far less populated then japan etc.

[anveena]

The current population of the US seems reasonable.

[Deleted]

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.

[Sayier]

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.

[Grimbold21]

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.

[detectivekr]

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.

I second this, although I would be ok with mega cities if it meant consuming less land. Just a lower population living on a smaller fraction of the planet would be ideal.

The eco benefits of a smaller population and less resources/land consumption would be nice, but the main reason I feel this way is, I think it's far easier to give 0.5 billion people a high quality of life (upper middle class American/European or better) compared to 10 billion people. It might even be 100% sustainable at a certain population, too, so all future generations could live and prosper. Basically the closest we'll ever get to a utopia, but I don't see humanity dropping to those populations again without some sort of disaster.