The ideal human population
- Thread starter rainforests1
- Start date
I think someone voted 7,000,000,000 to irritate me. I would have preferred humans remain hunters and gatherers. The population at that time was 10,000,000 or less.
Once we have the ability to start populating habitats beyond our home planet, it would be beneficial for the survival of our species if our numbers went through the roof. That is the best way to avoid extinction due to catastrophes such as collisions with asteroids, gamma ray bursts, etc.
The Earth population of humans should probably be less than a third of what they are now.
I think it's completely unrealistic to think we would be able to reduce our numbers that much in the near future, though. Some think we have reached "peak child". Apparently, this means the world population will stabilize at 15 billion. Here is Swedish prof. Hans Rosling's take on it:
The Earth population of humans should probably be less than a third of what they are now.
I think it's completely unrealistic to think we would be able to reduce our numbers that much in the near future, though. Some think we have reached "peak child". Apparently, this means the world population will stabilize at 15 billion. Here is Swedish prof. Hans Rosling's take on it:
Spang
Foot Fetisher
- Joined
- May 31, 2012
- Reaction score
- 6,170
- Age
- 45
ledboots
Peace
I remember the population going over the 4 billion mark when I was young. Amazing that it has about doubled in my lifetime already.
I was the first voter on this thread, and I intentionally voted 7 Billion, not to **** you off, but because I thought it through and care HOW you would get to a lower number.
Killing off a few billions or simply letting them starve?
Killing off a few billions or simply letting them starve?
Clueless Git
Plant powered
To anyone who votes less than 7.3b ...
I'm not taking you seriously untill you take it seriously enough to jump in front of a train.
I'm not taking you seriously untill you take it seriously enough to jump in front of a train.
Clueless Git
Plant powered
They are already doing that, Andy.
I heard, but haven't checked, that the cull by starvation has increased recently from the old rate of one every six seconds to one every four.
This generally doesn't work, I think. The countries where people are "culled" due to starvation and easily preventable diseases are the same ones that still manage to grow their population. It's only the industrialised countries where child mortality is approximating zero that the population numbers are stabilizing or even declining.
Clueless Git
Plant powered
Well, it's definitely working to the tune of culling these people off, particularly their children, to the tune of one every to four to six seconds.
That it's all a bit ***-about-face I'm not disputing though.
A cull of children (mostly) by poverty when it is poverty driving people to have more children is clearly either callous, or insane, to a degree that beggars belief. No dispute that it must be one or the other, callousness or insanity, either.
If there's any logic behind it all it must be that the cost of a self defeating human cull by poverty simply costs less than the cost of eradicating poverty.
The question is in regards to the ideal population. Sometimes I prefer not to live in reality and this is one of those cases.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
I voted 7,000,000, since there wasn't a "this is the wrong question to ask" option.
Its foolish to think that a small human population is necessarily less damaging than a large one. We have history to look at, and in history, hunter-gatherers are disproportionately harmful to their ecosystems. Hunter-gatherers out-perform when it comes to making other species extinct, as our history of the Americas and Australia shows.
Humans need to grow up, but that involves wisdom and knowledge which is unlikely to develop with a low population.
Its foolish to think that a small human population is necessarily less damaging than a large one. We have history to look at, and in history, hunter-gatherers are disproportionately harmful to their ecosystems. Hunter-gatherers out-perform when it comes to making other species extinct, as our history of the Americas and Australia shows.
Humans need to grow up, but that involves wisdom and knowledge which is unlikely to develop with a low population.
It's believed there are millions of species that haven't been named yet. We're completely unsure of how many species are going extinct today. It's all a guess and could be very high. It's as much about the future as it is about the present. If civilization continues for many decades longer they expect the number of extinctions will skyrocket. Add in the amount of fish being killed and the farm animals being killed(56-65 billion worldwide per year and probably growing) and it's not even close.
Will saving poor children lead to overpopulation?
Statistician Hans Rosling thinks if the two billion people are lifted out of poverty that population growth will stop but not before about four billion more people will be added to the population.
Statistician Hans Rosling thinks if the two billion people are lifted out of poverty that population growth will stop but not before about four billion more people will be added to the population.
Last edited:
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
It's not the poor who are using the majority of the earth's resources or who are causing the most environmental problems...
Right, but as the video showed it's the poorest who have bigger families and unfortunately some of their children die and so they have more. If all women were more educated and had access to birth control on a global level hopefully the population growth would slow down as intelligent women have fewer children or none at all.
I didn't read all the posts so I didn't realise you already quoted Hans Rosling.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
The poor aren't the reason for most of the pollution or resource use.
But poor nations have bad environmental records, and for good reason. Caring for your environment doesn't tend to come before basic survival.
