Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think we need to worry too much about it. Once the ice age comes many wont survive. And of course there will be future major wars, possible viral epidemics, large scale environmental disasters (i.e. a super volcano like the one that lies under Yellowstone N.P. erupting).
The vast majority of land is sparsely populated so, technically, a much larger number than present. More people means more pollution of course. If global warming is real, rather than purely cyclical, that could be the issue.
Population growth will stop by 2050. Around 7 - 8 billion I believe, although experience suggest high estimates are usually overstated. Shouldn't be much more of a problem than the first 6 billion.
That point came around 1990, give or take.
We cannot sustain the 7 billion we have now.
Every problem we suffer today has its roots in hyper-overbreeding, a
lot by people who are least capable of supporting their breeding habits.
I think we could have many billions more people, if we used the least polluting technologies, instead of the most polluting technologies. There are so many people running things that seem to love disabling & killing people. The US govt, because of bribery from corps to Dems & Reps, gives those corporations permission to slowly kill us. It's sort of like being on death row when no crime has been committed. That is why I must vote 3rd party. They don't try to kill us, as they won't take bribes. They care about public.
The # of people the world has in the future will depend on the governments & corporations. If leaders of countries consider their main obligation to help the general public, we could have longer lives and better health, if we choose to want that. I don't have the policies of every govt at hand, but have heard of limits on # of babies allowed. Should they be allowed to do that? Is it cruel to bring any more children into this world, as freedom including the right to best medical treatment may not exist?
I think there are some counties in the US that have about 100 people. Should multi-billionaires be allowed to buy nearly an entire county, thus keeping it off limits to house more people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoGuy
The vast majority of land is sparsely populated so, technically, a much larger number than present. More people means more pollution of course. If global warming is real, rather than purely cyclical, that could be the issue.
Is there a point where there is too much people? What is that number? 10 billion? 20 billion? 50 billion? 100 billion?
We're way past the carrying capacity already. Every day species are going extinct and the environment is degrading. What is the current pop? 7.3 billion? Long term, the planet might sustain an advanced society with maybe 1.5 billion people. 100 years from now the only wild animals that will be left will be rats, raccoons and cockroaches.
Population growth will stop by 2050. Around 7 - 8 billion I believe, although experience suggest high estimates are usually overstated. Shouldn't be much more of a problem than the first 6 billion.
The minimal estimates were wildly optimistic. Revised estimates put human population at 12 billion by 2100.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
