+1 yNo- currently, we're producing enough to give everyone on the planet 2800 Calories per day, WAY more than you need unless you're climbing mountains. Now, that number IS from before the Covid crisis, and the ensuing supply chain crisis, which is affecting fertilizer production and distribution, and the current number may be lower, but not below starvation level.
The bigger issue is pollution. No, not the Greenhouse effect, or even more general "climate change", but pollution: industrializing an economy requires a HUGE amount of energy, and currently, nothing but fossil fuels can do the job. If we start building nuke plants (the safest and second cleanest form of energy), that will change, but not as quickly as you might expect- it'll give cheap *electricity*, but that's only about 20% of the energy consumption of a modern first-world country. The other 80% is much harder to alter.
The sad and sorry truth is that the environmentalist movement has held back progress on environmental issues by demonizing nuclear power since the 60's, and the technology's been mostly stagnant since then (it would've been COMPLETELY stagnant if not for France, and I thank goodness for them). Even then, though, we had molten salt reactors that would've made completely impossible the events of the Chernobyl disaster (which only happened because management did SEVERAL unsafe things to boost production, five of which required disabling pieces of safety equipment), the only nuclear disaster to ever have killed anyone, until Fukushima. Do you know how many people Chernobyl killed? 28 firefighters, and another 15 from thyroid cancer (which is one of the easiest and safest cancers to treat, though it's still cancer). And a UN-estimated 50-150 other casualties over an eighty year span. Even going with the worst numbers, that's 193 people dead. And Fukushima killed... one. 194 people dying is unfortunate, yes. But when the Banqiao dam collapsed in 1975, more than TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND people died. And those are specific isolated incidents; the numbers on what fossil-fuel burning air pollution does are harder to pin down, but even worse.
00 Reply
Most Helpful Opinions
Technically the world grows twice the calories that our population needs to survive in a normal year. That said, it is a logistic problem to get all the inputs to farms so that they can do what needs to be done every season, and to then get all that food where it needs to be for people to eat it and survive. That's in a normal year... When you have politicians purposely sabotaging supply chains to prevent food production with claims of climate change, then those yields will be much smaller and far less will be delivered to market for people to actually eat. That is a failure of leadership, not a food problem. That is what we are experiencing at the moment. There are parasites at the top that want you dead, and they are impeding the flow of food so that they can exploit you financially and control you politically. If you want your food problems solved, take out your leaders...
03 Reply- +1 y
Your leaders do things like cut the fertilizer deliveries to farmers to reduce crop yield. They raise fees on tons of carbon pollution to sabotage the fuel market and make diesel more expensive. They slow port efficiency with covid mandates which leaves food to rot in a storage container yard. When that doesn't work, they just blow up the grain storage at the port or burn a couple dozen food processing plants to the ground. It is an engineered crisis by evil people.
- 545 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yYes. We will eventually run out of resources. No good relying on tech, as that uses our finite resources.
Got to be quick about it. Global warming is gonna fry us. UK scheduled to have highest temp ever next week. My mum says it could be 41 deg C. 106 deg F.00 Reply
Anonymous(36-45)+1 yYes. Also consider quality. Stupid humans are popping out the most kids, and it needs to stop.
10 Reply
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
19Opinion
+1 yI think the question is more about the preservation of cultures than the population itself. Societies like Japan and much of the Western world are destined to collapse as birth rates continue to plummet. Conversely, people in China, Africa and India are having 8-10+ kids, many of which survive to adulthood due to healthcare advances. As Western society, reducing world population is something entirely out of our ballpark and on the developing nations. What's more important is making sure that your culture doesn't fade into obscurity as your culture, ethnicity or nationality becomes more and more scarce in contrast to the currently born people.
01 Reply- +1 y
If the western world stopped ruthlessly exploiting the global south (e. g. African colonies guaranteed western companies rights to their natural resources in exchange for their „independence“and therefor barely have a chance of getting out of poverty, economically colonialism never stopped) birth rates there would decrease just as they did in western countries.
High living standards always lead to a decrease in birthrates. This is about to happen in China rather soon and inevitably will also happen everywhere else.
580 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. No. Overpopulation is a myth. The world currently produces enough food to feed 10 billion people, yet even with a population of only 8 billions there‘s people starving. That is due to capitalism because under this system profit is more important than human lives, so there‘s no incentive to feed starving people if it doesn‘t make food companies more money. The problem is artificial scarcity and lack of will to distribute ressources accordingly, not that there‘s too many people.
The global population is forecasted to stagnate at around (I think) 12 billion people by 2100 anyway.00 Reply688 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Matter cannot be lost or created but only transformationed.
That means nothing had increased we just have humans using up atoms that were once used by a plant or a rock or an animal.
And the day where the human can no longer sustain himself he will die and his atoms will be given go another being.
All this to sya that there is no point worrying about the earth unable to hold us it has been carrying the exact same weight since it became a planet00 Reply27.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. YES. This is just common sense. When I was a kid the population explosion was a real thing. I think that sometime in the 80s folks realized that the more consumers you have the more money you will make.
Now there is a whole aisle at the supermarket dedicated to bottled water.
Wait until there is a shortage of potable water. then the $#!++ will hit the fan.00 ReplyIt is well documented that natural farmers could produce over a thousand times the amount of food that modern farms do now, all infinitely more nutritious, without toxic chemicals affecting the eaters nor the environment.
10 Reply
+1 yThere's more than enough resources to support double the population. The main issue is that we would have to have the elites live more in line with the masses and we'd have to end corporate tyranny.
The people with real power would rather bathe in blood than humble themselves.00 Reply
Anonymous(45 Plus)+1 yI’m sure it does. That’s why there’s prediction that by 2025 the US population will go from almost 330 million to 85 million. Maybe that’s why they were pushing the COVID vaccine so hard. Something is coming that’s for sure. I think the pandemic was a test to see how things worked, or didn’t work so they can tweak it for next time.
00 Reply8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. We can feed our population, but definitely not if we let the control freaks force us to move away from the fertilizer products and fossil fuels used in farming.
10 Reply728 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. We can grow enough food to feed our population or even a much larger population. That is not the problem. The problem is the quality of life and survival of other species when there is overcrowding.
00 Reply- 1.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yPeople have been fed the overpopulation lied for quite some time now, wasn't true then and it isn't true now.
00 Reply - 443 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yIt doesn’t have to, but yes it does. I’m not about to live in a bungalow alongside llions of people. I’m sure they don’t either. We’re mammals, not insects.
00 Reply - 4.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
u +1 yNo, it does not. That's "NWO" conspiracy nonsense by silly kooks.
00 Reply 4.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. We have plenty of resources for more people. We just don't distribute/use resources efficiently
10 Reply
Anonymous(30-35)+1 ythe world population already decreased with covid.
00 Reply
+1 yhun EVERYONE ON EARTH
CAN FIT IN
JACKSONVILLE FLORIDA
right now
there is no over population
its a lie
if anything we are under populated
00 Reply3.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. It should but not due to food shortages. We need to reduce the dumb
00 Reply
Anonymous(45 Plus)+1 yNot necessarily. A severe food shortage will do it for us.
00 Reply
+1 yOverpopulation isn’t an issue
10 Reply- 4.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yIt definitely should stabilize
00 Reply
Anonymous(36-45)1 yYes, I think so.
00 Reply- 1.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yYes. Without question
00 Reply
Do you think the human population is declining now?
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior
Guy's Behavior
Flirting
Dating
Relationships
Fashion & Beauty
Health & Fitness
Marriage & Weddings
Shopping & Gifts
Technology & Internet
Break Up & Divorce
Education & Career
Entertainment & Arts
Family & Friends
Food & Beverage
Hobbies & Leisure
Other
Religion & Spirituality
Society & Politics
Sports
Travel
Trending & News