Are there too many people on Earth? If yes, what is a good number and how do we get there?
#asknostr
Discussion
We cant control that. If we do that means genocide every few years to cut down the number of humans.. all we need is to stop being greedy. The world has abundance for every human is that some steal it from others and say thats ok
I agree, who gets to decide whose children die? It's a morally void argument to propose that we can deliberately reduce Earth's population.
We can stop hunger by planting fruit trees around the cities or edible plants so homeless can eat i mean we can start there
No. I'm tired of that Malthusean BS.
We already produce more than enough food.
There's more than enough space if idiots didn't get taken in by the lie that cities are better.
No. Just no.
I agree, though I think cities are key to it, ironically. They reduce our footprint on the planet considerably, there is never going to be enough room for all of us to live in suburbia.
Incorrect.
Cities are trash that only become trash. Cities are the Fiat of living situations.
Small communities of like minded people living in close enough proximity to be a real community without stepping on each other's toes, growing their own foods, building and supplying each other with what is needed, and being capable of coming together in emergencies. That's what's really needed, and there's plenty of space for that on this planet.
There's just not enough space though, if 200 square meters is the average suburban property surface area then you would need 1,600,000,000,000 square meters for all 8 billion of us. Let's assume there are 4 people to each household, that's still 400,000,000,000 square meters. The Earth has 148,326,000,000 square meters of land. You need cities for this to work.
That math isn't at all what I've read before...
I encourage you to double check it, I'm not the best at math and have had a bit to drink lol
So, every human alive (~7billy), if allocated 100m^2, can fit into the state of Texas.
Texas is approximately 262,000m^2. Doubling that, you'd need to use a few other states, but, if you wanted to, you could fit everyone into that size place easily.
So, there's plenty of space. We produce too much food. Fiat BS and politics are what get in the way of feeding everyone.
I'm not sure I follow, how does 8,000,000,000 x 100 = 262,000 ?
Derp, I'm mixing units. ~268,000mi^2. That's way more.
Here's another way to look at it:
268,000 square miles = 431,304 square kilometers.
8,000,000,000 x 100 =/= 431,304
431,304x1000 to get meters squared.
I think the key to that graph is it takes the population density of those large cities and applies it to land area. The simple truth is there is just not enough land for all of us to live in suburbia.
Texas has 695,660,000 square meters according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas
If you accept that the average suburban land parcel is 100 square meters, then you have:
8,000,000,000 x 100 trying to fit into 695,660,000
It only works when you use city pop densities, not suburbia.
https://www.answers.com/geography/Can_the_population_of_the_world_fit_into_the_state_of_Texas
Not sprawling suburban McMansions, no, but, still livable, if you could figure out infrastructure. Which honestly sounds a lot like the BS 15 minute cities that are being pushed now.
We're talking high-rise apartments here.
No, we aren't. Though, they are certainly not efficient, space wise, and we're also not really treating families as anything more than just individuals, too.
My home is only about 240sqft. Could live on a thousand square foot lot of I had to, but I don't want to.
Sure, cities are fine for some people, and anyone that wants to can live in one, but I don't think that's good for humanity, long term.
The math doesn't work.
We are: 8,000,000,000 people
Earth has: 148,940,000,000 meters ^2
How many meters should each person get?
Kilometers squared, my dude. Not m^2
OK, sure. But, I hope you're realizing that it's still not a big issue, at least not in the sense that it's the "worst thing ever to happen since the world was going to end in 2008."
I never said population size is an issue, but you're kidding yourself if you think cities aren't the way to go.
The Earth has 148,940,000,000 square meters, we are 8,000,000,000, the average suburban parcel would put us above Earth's total land surface area.
Sorry to be pedantic but unlike m to km sq m to sq km is not x 1.6, it's closer to 2.6 because a sq mile will be 1.6 x 1.6. Because a mile is a bit more than 1600m it will be just shy of 2.59.
Yeah fair point, the conversion always messes with me. I've tried to use the straight meter values in my later replies.
yes.
But I feel like we need to bring back the nuclear family so there aren't that many old people dying without care.
Because no one is going to want to do those jobs to strangers.
I totally agree, the nuclear family worked for all of us. Grandparents took care of the grand-kids and helped around the house, they in turn were looked after by the family, everybody won.
Yeah I don't get the Liberals from some of the shit that they say. Like are you four single motherhood and think that that's a better Dynamic for a family like I don't get it
No.
nostr:npub1q6ya7kz84rfnw6yjmg5kyttuplwpauv43a9ug3cajztx4g0v48eqhtt3sh made good points elsewhere in the thread that I largely agree with. I do think cities fulfil important functions for supply chain, manufacturing, and energy hubs though.
The only argument that appears to hold water is how destructive we are to the environment. That is not a population numbers problem in my mind, that is a fiat money and broken incentives problem that we are on our way to fixing.
Yes. The optimal number is 1: just myself...