5 ms·

We’re not even close to overpopulation

nikhilsimha 3y ago
/s ?
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
Only of you ignore CO2 and other environmentally damaging emissions that stem from needing to feed and push millions more people out of poverty into the middle class where they also start to consume and travel and produce emissions. So yes, the planet can theoretically sustain billions more people but only if you look at planetary free square footage per capita, but at the cost of either them living in absolute poverty, or insane environmental damage and climate change which will also create poverty from the issues climate change will cause to agriculture and food prices, so we're back to millions living or dying in poverty. Canada and Australia are huge countries but the livable parts are quite small. You can't have infinite growth on a planet of finite resources.
- freshpots 3y ago
  Well said, many seem to conflate abundant space (habitable or not) with resources as if they are evenly distributed and consumed.
inglor_cz 3y ago
"We" who? Overpopulation is a local issue. Lithuania isn't overpopulated. Japan sort-of is, most inhabitable territory is already built over. Egypt is definitely overpopulated, with 100 million people packed into inhabitable territory the size of Florida. Etc. etc. Edit: to the downvoters, can you provide counterarguments? I would say that a good measure of overpopulation is that the country in question cannot possibly feed all of its population even if it tried very hard, and is inevitably dependent on imports.
- soared 3y ago
  Japan has massive amounts of unused land - take the train 45 minutes in any direction from Tokyo to see it.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    Looking at the map, it seems that the majority of those regions are hilly/mountainous. So the land may not be economically viable.
pfdietz 3y ago
It's a function of technology and what damage to natural ecosystems could be tolerated, but with current demonstrated crop yields the world could support 150 billion people. At the limit imposed by direct thermal pollution, the world could support 1 trillion people (but it would be more like living in a space station than on a planet.)
- whatevaa 3y ago
  So the only thing a human need is food? Nothing else? No desires? You think peoole in poorer countries wouldn't like all the goodies you get to enjoy? Accounting overpopulation on food alone is just plain stupid.
  - stephc_int13 3y ago
    And it does not take into account the quality and diversity of the food. Hunter-gatherers had better diet than most of us. But their lifestyle would not even be possible for a few millions of humans.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Observation is not advocacy.
- throwbadubadu 3y ago
  Sorry, but that is unreasonable theory vs practice.. "by my metrics the world could support 150 billion people" but we don't even manage to put 8 altogether at reasonable living standards while we dump the world into a climate catastrophe? Why assume some tech that doesn't exist or couldn't be deployed at that scale? Even those crop yields are not sustainable long term.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    It's a reasonable thought exercise to ask what the ultimate limits are if technology is allowed to vary. That's no more unreasonable than asking what the limit is if technology is completely frozen. The actual answer will be between the two.
throwbadubadu 3y ago
So what defines the limit,.and what is it? Imo as long as world overshoot day is not beyond December we definitely are.. there are other knobs and factors one could touch to shift that (e.g. our current living standards), but who wants to cut in there? Everything else is just theory, or waiting for some assumed tech to save us..
stephc_int13 3y ago
It depends on the criterion. Is it possible to feed more people? Yes, clearly, but mostly with highly processed junk food. At the current population it would simply not be possible to feed everyone with a healthy diet. From my point of view, we've been past overpopulation for decades.

/s ?

Only of you ignore CO2 and other environmentally damaging emissions that stem from needing to feed and push millions more people out of poverty into the middle class where they also start to consume and travel and produce emissions. So yes, the planet can theoretically sustain billions more people but only if you look at planetary free square footage per capita, but at the cost of either them living in absolute poverty, or insane environmental damage and climate change which will also create poverty from the issues climate change will cause to agriculture and food prices, so we're back to millions living or dying in poverty. Canada and Australia are huge countries but the livable parts are quite small. You can't have infinite growth on a planet of finite resources.

freshpots 3y ago
Well said, many seem to conflate abundant space (habitable or not) with resources as if they are evenly distributed and consumed.

inglor_cz 3y ago

"We" who? Overpopulation is a local issue. Lithuania isn't overpopulated. Japan sort-of is, most inhabitable territory is already built over. Egypt is definitely overpopulated, with 100 million people packed into inhabitable territory the size of Florida. Etc. etc. Edit: to the downvoters, can you provide counterarguments? I would say that a good measure of overpopulation is that the country in question cannot possibly feed all of its population even if it tried very hard, and is inevitably dependent on imports.

soared 3y ago
Japan has massive amounts of unused land - take the train 45 minutes in any direction from Tokyo to see it.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  Looking at the map, it seems that the majority of those regions are hilly/mountainous. So the land may not be economically viable.

pfdietz 3y ago

It's a function of technology and what damage to natural ecosystems could be tolerated, but with current demonstrated crop yields the world could support 150 billion people. At the limit imposed by direct thermal pollution, the world could support 1 trillion people (but it would be more like living in a space station than on a planet.)

whatevaa 3y ago
So the only thing a human need is food? Nothing else? No desires? You think peoole in poorer countries wouldn't like all the goodies you get to enjoy? Accounting overpopulation on food alone is just plain stupid.
- stephc_int13 3y ago
  And it does not take into account the quality and diversity of the food. Hunter-gatherers had better diet than most of us. But their lifestyle would not even be possible for a few millions of humans.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Observation is not advocacy.
throwbadubadu 3y ago
Sorry, but that is unreasonable theory vs practice.. "by my metrics the world could support 150 billion people" but we don't even manage to put 8 altogether at reasonable living standards while we dump the world into a climate catastrophe? Why assume some tech that doesn't exist or couldn't be deployed at that scale? Even those crop yields are not sustainable long term.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  It's a reasonable thought exercise to ask what the ultimate limits are if technology is allowed to vary. That's no more unreasonable than asking what the limit is if technology is completely frozen. The actual answer will be between the two.

throwbadubadu 3y ago

So what defines the limit,.and what is it? Imo as long as world overshoot day is not beyond December we definitely are.. there are other knobs and factors one could touch to shift that (e.g. our current living standards), but who wants to cut in there? Everything else is just theory, or waiting for some assumed tech to save us..

stephc_int13 3y ago

It depends on the criterion. Is it possible to feed more people? Yes, clearly, but mostly with highly processed junk food. At the current population it would simply not be possible to feed everyone with a healthy diet. From my point of view, we've been past overpopulation for decades.