Is the planet over populated with humans?

[harrison102]

What is going to happen when the human population keeps growing by 2050 going to be around 10 billion people on the planet. Is this good or bad for humans and animals and the planet?

[letuswaltzforthedead]

No, the opposite, the planet is underpopulated. If you want to say it's overpopulated, than it's just overpopulated with idiots. The more intelligent a society becomes, the less time they focus on copulation.

[harrison102]

So the impact on the planet humans causing is not a issue?

[letuswaltzforthedead]

Never said it wasn't, it is definitely an issue that needs improvement on and we need people to create solutions for the bad things. Less people isn't the solution, it's part of the problem.
I'm curious about your position though, do you think we're overpopulated? What should be done about that?

[harrison102]

So you don’t think we are having a impact on the environment? And we need more people? So how would more people be good?

[letuswaltzforthedead]

We are having an impact on the environment. We would need people to fix it, people who can come up with smart solutions. On the same token, the more complex a society becomes. The more people you need to maintain it since you can't just have 5 people doing everything. Also beside creative innovations and focusing on becoming more sustainable, we also need people for the economy (aka people's livelihoods).

[harrison102]

So you are all for the economy?

[letuswaltzforthedead]

What do you think I'm talking about?

[harrison102]

So you happy for the economy to grow with population growth? So you don’t think it comes with a consequences? More farming needed for food more houses?

What about the wildlife? Where would all the animals go when expansion happens?

[letuswaltzforthedead]

Sir, what do you think the economy is? Just answer that question for me please. Also, I think you're underestimating how smart farming has become, particularly in the United States although not every country farms the same way. If they did, I reckon we could feed many more. Houses and such will definitely become an issue with rapid growth, which is not currently occurring anywhere except in a few countries like Niger. That will definitely require work done, I'm not going to argue against that. Wildlife depends more on the people, some people will definitely try to protect certain species as you see happening now. I don't think every animal will go extinct or anything extreme like that.

[harrison102]

Are you referring to USA or as the hole planet? I think you just talking about let’s make America great again.

[letuswaltzforthedead]

I honestly think you're arguing emotionally right now and I mean no disrespect by that. I didn't mention "make America great again" or anything relates to that. If you like, we can have this discussion at a later time.

[harrison102]

You talking about USA, the post wasn’t about USA but the planet.

[letuswaltzforthedead]

Yes, I mentioned the United states due to how farming is done here. There are other countries who also does it efficiently but it isn't everyone. I am aware your post isn't just about the united states and you can apply what I'm saying globally. Everyone needs food anyways.

[harrison102]

Okay, and you agree with deforestation in the Amazon? Because population growth is causing the pressure of more farm land? Of course everyone and everything needs a home plus food

[letuswaltzforthedead]

We don't need that currently, so technically no. We just need more effective farming tactics to spread and once that's cover (or before) we need better ways to create more food. There's already factory farming as a method which isn't practiced everywhere albeit imperfect.

[harrison102]

So at some point you would agree with deforestation to make way for farming? And factory farming is good? Farming what?

[letuswaltzforthedead]

I wouldn't say either thing is good, they are both mutually neutral in my opinion. If humanity finds better and more effective ways of doing things, we won't have to. Again, we would need people to come up with intelligent ideas and solutions. Deforestation is a very limited solution.

[pers0n]

All sorts of innumerable inventions have been confiscated, even in agriculture, like broadcasting the radiation of an herbicide frequency as recorded in 1940s, which had 99% kill rate, which is far more than what any herbicide applied chemically can do. It is well documented how a natural farmer produced many times more food from the same area of land as a modern monocrop gmo soy shit while improving the soil quality, as opposed to turning it into deserts. Nutrient density plummeted and now all food has stupid amounts of pollutants, even in our gardens.

[pers0n]

None of this is an accident. ..

[pers0n]

Well said jshm2... I think even if we had a tenth of the population we have now, nothing in our environment would be cleaner.

[jshm2]

No. The whole human population could fit on America alone, and we'd still have a hectare each and food and resources to ensure we all live to 100.

The problem is resource allocation, government and private systems. Too few people making shitty decisions, which affect too many people ; is why shit is hitting the fan.

We need smaller corporations, less billionaires and more public control and transparency.

[harrison102]

Okay but still doesn’t mean we not over populated because we could all fit in the US. It’s the impact humans have on the planet and the strain.

[Stoner710]

No that’s a very anti human view point to have, your also not going to stop reproduction without authoritarianism, literally killing the 2nd or 3rd child that someone has or forcing women to get fixed after there first child

[harrison102]

Education and people realise that the impact on the planet humans are having

[Stoner710]

Sure but the idea that we need to control population is in a very authoritarian and anti-human idea. Of course humans have impact on the environment just like cows or any other creature on earth. But unless you’re willing to put 1984 or brave New World Or Logan’s run or Soylent Green into actual reality it is best to let humans populate the way they see fit you’re not gonna get Catholics and Jews and Christians and Muslims and Buddhist and Hindus to agree to limit the amount of kids they have you would basically have to take on the Chinese policy of a one child nation. Watch the documentary one child nation and see how that goes it’s actually really good

[harrison102]

Apart from farming and livestock, name me another animal that has an impact on the planet?

[Berethor]

Because shithole countries keep having too much children.

[harrison102]

So you do think it’s over populated?

[Berethor]

Over populated in shithole countries, under populated in japan.

www.washingtonpost.com/.../

[harrison102]

But as a hole, the planet is over populated?

[Berethor]

I am not globalist, so I looking at every country separately, but yea over populated.

[NewsReader]

No worries, the Chinese virus took care of that problem. Population is going down.

[TroyDT]

The planet will likely equalize at some point between 11 and 13 billion, which this planet can easily handle.

[harrison102]

So there be enough food to go round? Wouldn’t have to cut more trees down make way for farming or will more natural resources be used?

[OddBeMe]

When looked at in depleting resources? Yes. Fresh water will be just as valuable as oil soon.

[jjj101010]

Some countries are some aren’t

[jimmy2]

No worries God is in control and coming back

[In_Trance]

not even close