4 ms·

In general, don’t we want the global population to fall a bit? 8-10 billion people are taxing the planet. Climate change, plastic use that ends up everywhere,

In general, don’t we want the global population to fall a bit? 8-10 billion people are taxing the planet. Climate change, plastic use that ends up everywhere, …

karanbhangui 4y ago
No, overpopulation is a myth.
- oblak 4y ago
  It really isn't unless looking at the world through the eyes of a "everything exists to be consumed by humans, preferably me and my family/friends" entity. Shortcut to dystopia, this.
  - blamazon 4y ago
    https://alt.pavethe.earth/ https://alt.pavethe.earth/
    - oblak 4y ago
      Yeah, I know at least a handful of people who would take every last bit of this at face value. Even early gems like "The world must be covered with beautiful, black asphalt." and "1.2 Why asphalt? Simply put, everything else sucks." would not throw them off. Just last week, I was told that if we were to place the entire human population next to each other, we would take this and this insignificant space on just one continent. Apparently, overpopulation is a myth perpetuated by a shadowy group championed by Bill Gates himself, and they are the ones responsible for my disagreement with the fact that "they" (said group of global elite) are trying to reduce the population in order to control the world.
  - karanbhangui 4y ago
    Yes this exactly, but also produce. Remember, production comes first, stuff we want doesn’t (mostly) grow on trees.
nomy99 4y ago
Where is the evidence that it's taxing the planet?
- npteljes 4y ago
  For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environmen...
mistrial9 4y ago
some humans populations are growing rapidly.. almost fifty percent of the entire population is under 25 in some groups, right now.. it happened during the same years that these IT and JP populations fell. Without elaborate socio-political analysis, falling back to simple biology, one model says there are "K"-type populations and "N"-type populations.. it explains a lot right there.
credit_guy 4y ago
What’s special about 8 billion? Granted, it’s a very large number, the largest human population the Earth has ever seen. 50 years ago we were only half as many. But 50 years ago someone could say (and it’s virtually guaranteed someone did say) that 4 billion is too many. Because 4 billion at the time was the largest number of people simultanously alive on our little planet. It was twice as many as there were just 50 years before. And I bet in 1922, people were thinking that 2 billion is to many. We had just left behind a devastating war and an even more lethal pandemic. It mustve appeared that the planet just cannot bear 2 billion of us. So, when you say the world population should go down a bit, do you mean down to 7, to 5, or to 1 billion? Why not 200 million. We were about as many during the Roman Empire and still perfectly capable of astonishing feats of war and devastation.
- melling 4y ago
  8 billion people is the current population that’s why it was mentioned. Look at all the coal we burn, Climate change is unavoidable at this point… pollution of the oceans, encroachment onto wildlife, etc. Humans have done a lot of damage. also, we grow chickens in cages, overfish the oceans… Anyway, I’m really amazed that I have to go into detail… I thought we were all on the same page for the “human footprint “ on the planet
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    Still, would you be content with 6 billion, or what?
    - t-3 4y ago
      Absolute number doesn't matter, impact does. Economic demand for environmental destruction is easiest to reduce by reducing population though.
      - credit_guy 4y ago
        > I thought we were all on the same page for the “human footprint “ on the planet We are on the same page on the some things, but not all. You say we burn too much coal. I say that too. We are on the same page. I say we need to burn less coal. You say there need to be fewer of us. We are not on the same page. The thing is, we already are burning less coal. Much less. The US has burned 1 billion tons annually between 2000 and 2010. Now we burn half of that. We did not need to reduce our population by half in order to achieve that. We can achieve lots of similar things without reducing our population.

In general, don’t we want the global population to fall a bit? 8-10 billion people are taxing the planet. Climate change, plastic use that ends up everywhere, …

karanbhangui 4y ago

No, overpopulation is a myth.

oblak 4y ago
It really isn't unless looking at the world through the eyes of a "everything exists to be consumed by humans, preferably me and my family/friends" entity. Shortcut to dystopia, this.
- blamazon 4y ago
  https://alt.pavethe.earth/ https://alt.pavethe.earth/
  - oblak 4y ago
    Yeah, I know at least a handful of people who would take every last bit of this at face value. Even early gems like "The world must be covered with beautiful, black asphalt." and "1.2 Why asphalt? Simply put, everything else sucks." would not throw them off. Just last week, I was told that if we were to place the entire human population next to each other, we would take this and this insignificant space on just one continent. Apparently, overpopulation is a myth perpetuated by a shadowy group championed by Bill Gates himself, and they are the ones responsible for my disagreement with the fact that "they" (said group of global elite) are trying to reduce the population in order to control the world.
- karanbhangui 4y ago
  Yes this exactly, but also produce. Remember, production comes first, stuff we want doesn’t (mostly) grow on trees.

nomy99 4y ago

Where is the evidence that it's taxing the planet?

npteljes 4y ago
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environmen...

mistrial9 4y ago

some humans populations are growing rapidly.. almost fifty percent of the entire population is under 25 in some groups, right now.. it happened during the same years that these IT and JP populations fell. Without elaborate socio-political analysis, falling back to simple biology, one model says there are "K"-type populations and "N"-type populations.. it explains a lot right there.

credit_guy 4y ago

What’s special about 8 billion? Granted, it’s a very large number, the largest human population the Earth has ever seen. 50 years ago we were only half as many. But 50 years ago someone could say (and it’s virtually guaranteed someone did say) that 4 billion is too many. Because 4 billion at the time was the largest number of people simultanously alive on our little planet. It was twice as many as there were just 50 years before. And I bet in 1922, people were thinking that 2 billion is to many. We had just left behind a devastating war and an even more lethal pandemic. It mustve appeared that the planet just cannot bear 2 billion of us. So, when you say the world population should go down a bit, do you mean down to 7, to 5, or to 1 billion? Why not 200 million. We were about as many during the Roman Empire and still perfectly capable of astonishing feats of war and devastation.

melling 4y ago
8 billion people is the current population that’s why it was mentioned. Look at all the coal we burn, Climate change is unavoidable at this point… pollution of the oceans, encroachment onto wildlife, etc. Humans have done a lot of damage. also, we grow chickens in cages, overfish the oceans… Anyway, I’m really amazed that I have to go into detail… I thought we were all on the same page for the “human footprint “ on the planet
- credit_guy 4y ago
  Still, would you be content with 6 billion, or what?
  - t-3 4y ago
    Absolute number doesn't matter, impact does. Economic demand for environmental destruction is easiest to reduce by reducing population though.
    - credit_guy 4y ago
      > I thought we were all on the same page for the “human footprint “ on the planet We are on the same page on the some things, but not all. You say we burn too much coal. I say that too. We are on the same page. I say we need to burn less coal. You say there need to be fewer of us. We are not on the same page. The thing is, we already are burning less coal. Much less. The US has burned 1 billion tons annually between 2000 and 2010. Now we burn half of that. We did not need to reduce our population by half in order to achieve that. We can achieve lots of similar things without reducing our population.