What Should We Do About World Population

[fvkasm2x]

Short of a massive war that doesn't involve nukes or a devastating plague, there is nothing we CAN do.

We're killing off animals and forests at an alarming rate. Famine has been a problem in many countries for decades and we don't care because it hasn't hit us yet... but it will.

We can't keep reproducing like this, but we "have to" because we need to fill up the working and taxable population lol.

Governments don't realize that you can make all the money you want in taxes, but if we kill off all our resources then there won't be a society left to tax.

[BC Landlord]

The nature has its own mechanisms. We (as humanity) need no involvement in that. Otherwise, it would bring up our darkest side. Perhaps, that could be one of those "mechanisms", but I would not prefer such an outcome.

[JLives]

There is something we can do, with no downside. Educate women.

[typhoon44]

There is something we can do, with no downside. Educate women.

Education isn't the biggest problem when the church demands that abortion be illegal.

[alanjh595]

[GordonH]

Sooner or later something will come along and wipe out a very large percentage (if not all) of human population, it’s only a matter of time.

In few hundred thousand years the oil generated by our body’s will be used or not by whatever comes next.

[WESTman]

Mass vaccinations that sterilize..

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFLyisOfadU&t=55s[/youtube]

[GordonH]

Sooner or later something will come along and wipe out a very large percentage (if not all) of human population, it’s only a matter of time.

I really had my hopes up and bets pinned on covid...oh well, maybe next pandemic.

Could be an astroid, since they can’t scan in every direction it maybe a complete surprise.

[Jlabute]

Large asteroid or comet strikes are not frequent. Tunguska in 1908 was big, but not large enough to affect population in any manner. Numerous asteroids that make a crater about 1 Km in diameter have struck earth but they did not end much life at all. Most of the big stuff happened 10s, 100s, or 1000s of millions of years back with the largest creating 150 km, 160 km, and up to 500km diameter craters. Those can end a percentage of life but are rare and have not happened for 10s of millions of years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_crater

We will likely see an ice age long before a large asteroid strike. This would affect food production and we would see lots of starvation, but most of the world's land masses are still ice free, but much colder. Most people are not adapt to cold conditions and do not have winter tires that will work on 4km of road ice. You could break your neck just looking up at it at around the 45th parallel. All Canadians would become snow birds. Russia, Europe, Canada, Alaska would be obliterated. Conditions will chill on for 10s of thousands of years.

A super-nova is more likely to affect life on earth if it occurs in a close proximity.

COVID will barely will make a dent in anything. China will lose 500,000,000 people by 2100 because of their one-child policy. Nothing can stop this.

After all is said and done, intra and extra-terrestrial forces always win. If something wipes life out (which is highly unlikely), the plate tectonic changes will absorb all the mess, throw it all in to the great internal furnace, and boom everything will be like new a few millions years later.

If we really are worried about 8 billion people (and not 30 billion chickens), then educate and empower third world countries to modernize. This is where the birth-rates are highest.

[BC Landlord]

So, .. are we debating here most efficient ways of wiping out people en masse? I would feel uneasy even thinking about that.

[Jlabute]

So, .. are we debating here most efficient ways of wiping out people en masse? I would feel uneasy even thinking about that.

Inevitably whenever the topic of climate or environment comes up, someone always suggests naturally decreasing population by 50%, as easy as snapping ones fingers. In order to avoid losing all life on earth, zero population growth after a period of negative growth is needed to avoid a catastrophe. This probably goes through the mind of a small number of people, but not me. It is a ridiculous claim.

Despite Paul Ehrlich writing a 'best seller" called the Population Bomb, 50 years later the predictions bombed. 200 million people a year from 1970 will die from starvation because the world can't make enough food. Most of the worlds population will die in an eco-catastrophe by 1975. 65 million Americas will be a part of the great die-off. By 1980, everyone's life expectancy will be 42 years. Who is listening to this stuff?

Yet a few people believe Ehrlich was right including Ehrlich. Ehrlich thinks the future is worse than what scientists predict although his predictions are laughable and too few people take him seriously. The cheese fell out of his sandwich many years ago and only tenure allows him to keep a public presence.

[GordonH]

Wondering what does everyone believe to be the ideal population of this planet.

To maintain that population does the planet need its game of Carousel (70s movie with this in it).

[Ka-El]

Wondering what does everyone believe to be the ideal population of this planet.

The most common guess by scientists is around 9 to 10 billion. We already have the knowledge and technological capacity to educate, feed and house every person on this planet. It is a matter of distribution and socioeconomics. While our current market systems have served us well and gotten us to where we are, they are now failing us and we need to adapt. This adaptation is going to come around one way or the other, and as Darwin noted, "it is not the strongest or the smartest of species that will survive, but the species most adaptable to change. Humans have this capacity. Now we need to employ it.

[Ka-El]

Re read gordons question....or is 9-10 billion your ideal?

I'm less concerned about the number and more hopeful we decide to start learning to live cooperatively with each other.

[Jlabute]

Wondering what does everyone believe to be the ideal population of this planet.

To maintain that population does the planet need its game of Carousel (70s movie with this in it).

Logan's Run. Similar to Soylent Green. Great movies!
Since there were no more sources of food from the ocean, heck, why not eat people over 30?

A 2012 United Nations report summarized 65 different estimated maximum sustainable population sizes and the most common estimate was 8 billion

Various scientists and reports give populations ranging from 1 billion or less, up to 1000 billion. Dozens of reports indicate 32 billion or more. We can't appeal to authority in this matter since it is impossible to know and subject to bias like so many other complex issues. There really is no authority on this question. It is also likely not to exceed 10 billion. Those who coincidentally say 8 billion and politicize their estimate for support offer no better guess.

Man has worried about this for centuries and has always been wrong. If you worry about this now, you're not living a full life ;-)