*SERIOUS THREAD* How many people do YOU think our planet can sustain?

[Jon Lai]

Personally I think 6 billion is too much. We're using too much resources and not leaving enough for other animals and our future ancestors.

Serious thread.

Discuss.

[laptop-tech]

37.853.744.129 people in total.

[cheapmeister]

I say a lot but the problem is that most of the people are all on one side of the planet and the weight is not balanced on the other side of the earth. This causes the earth to wobble when spinning and it is throwing off the weather patterns.

[llbeanburrito]

Anyone more than me is too much. Could you hurry up and leave please.

[AzN_RiverdaleCI]

over 9000


GTFO, my OT.

Anyways seriously now, I don't know I need to look at more facts and figures before I can make an educated guess.

[bokep]

10+ bil easy

with more effective recycling, smarter farming, better resource management

[Peckerwood]

10+ bil easy

with more effective recycling, smarter farming, better resource management
+1 the correct answer

[user01]

All I know is, if we eat more than what we produce then we cannot continue to live on but to kill each other for food... :|:|:|

[Peckerwood]

All I know is, if we eat more than what we produce then we cannot continue to live on but to kill each other for food... :|:|:|
http://stevejencks.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/soylent-green.jpg

[Siefer999]

http://blog.chrisworfolk.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/foodchain.gif

[Strategy]

So much for a 'serious' thread.


Anyways, I'd say over 10 billion, even though at this current rate it doesn't seem like it. We just have to stop destroying the environment and our limited resources first ;)

[Logos88]

Thomas Malthus was very pessimistic about this very issue. Look up "Malthusian crisis". However this "crisis" did not happen, thanks to the advancement in agriculture that exponentially increased the planet's population sustainability.

As long as science is allowed to flourish I expect the sustainability will only go up.

[surge]

Hold on, let me do some calculations on the back of my Natural Resource Management degree. Damn I messed up, oh well I still have my Human population and geology degree.

Ok, according to my calculations, it's 6.5 bill/0................................

Nice thread, op.

Also

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/y_so_srs.jpg

[cheapmeister]

Why the hell do we need 10+ billion anyway? Ever heard of using birth control?

[Jon Lai]

Why the hell do we need 10+ billion anyway? Ever heard of using birth control?

We don't, that's my point of this thread.

I personally voted for 3 billion. Right now we have WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE, and the planet is barely sustainable. And by sustainable, I mean every single person can sustain themselves as well as plants and animals being able to sustain themselves as well as the ecosystems.

Too much poverty in the world right now, and we can do without panhandlers in this world. Cut half the people, move everyone closer to the poverty line (yes I realized that works both ways) and be done with it. Everyone, I guarantee, will live a happier life that way.

[adeel]

We don't, that's my point of this thread.

I personally voted for 3 billion. Right now we have WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE, and the planet is barely sustainable. And by sustainable, I mean every single person can sustain themselves as well as plants and animals being able to sustain themselves as well as the ecosystems.

Too much poverty in the world right now, and we can do without panhandlers in this world. Cut half the people, move everyone closer to the poverty line (yes I realized that works both ways) and be done with it. Everyone, I guarantee, will live a happier life that way.

How do you propose that we 'cut' 3 billion people? Also, even with 3 billion ppl, over time the world will increase population and leave us with the same problems. What needs to be done is to make more efficient use of land and resources. For example, not using biofuels, since biofuels take the space of valuable farm areas that can be used to feed many more people. I cant recall the exact scale, but it was something like the area to produce one tanker of biofuel could feed 100 or 1000 people or something to that effect.

[Jon Lai]

How do you propose that we 'cut' 3 billion people? Also, even with 3 billion ppl, over time the world will increase population and leave us with the same problems. What needs to be done is to make more efficient use of land and resources. For example, not using biofuels, since biofuels take the space of valuable farm areas that can be used to feed many more people. I cant recall the exact scale, but it was something like the area to produce one tanker of biofuel could feed 100 or 1000 people or something to that effect.

Well, "cut" is the wrong word, but slowly decrease over time. It's just bound to happen. The planet is only able to sustain so many people before resources are used up and the function isn't exponential anymore.

What makes you think population will "always" increase? For population to be SUSTAINED every couple has to have 2.2 babies (2 replacing the parents, the 0.2 replacing accidental deaths) roughly. If everyone lived in middle class and up, you can surely bet that each couple won't be having that many babies.

[KorruptioN]

Where's stanislavspon when you need him? He would feel right at home in this high-quality thread.

[mightylobo]

I think a lot of documentaries say about 8- 10 billion by 2050 or something and it will start to Plateau

[bokep]

remember that it all depends on what kind of lifestyle these people have. would everyone be living like north americans and consuming excessive amounts of resources? other factors would be farming strategies, technological advancements, resource management, recycling programs, energy sources, etc. as these factors are dynamic and are continuously changing, there is no number you can point to and say anything over that wouldn't be sustainable for the earth.

[windforcexx28]

lol earth only has a certain amount of resources..

[dealguy2]

I think you should do the right thing then and either get yourself neutered or do yourself in. Think of the planet dude and welcome to the environmental movement.

[cheapmeister]

I believe the earth will level out the population on its own. A new virus will appear and kill millions. Also the lack of food from droughts, floods, and global warming will reduce the food supply and then peeps will die off.

[laptop-tech]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/185/376204528_5f1e15d57e.jpg

[thendless]

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b202/phd805/internet_serious_business.jpg

[Kommander_KornFlakes]

-
There was a study done by demographic experts who said that the entire population of the Earth right now (6 billion) would fit in Texas comfortably, like a giant city Manhattan-like city (no empty spaces or parks).

The Earth can maintain around 30 billion people comfortably and efficiently.


Where's stanislavspon when you need him? He would feel right at home in this high-quality thread.

He re-calculated his Mayan calendar doomsday and got a new death date of February 01. 2009, so he went and committed suicide on the 31st of January :o



-

[cheeseshredder]

I say a lot but the problem is that most of the people are all on one side of the planet and the weight is not balanced on the other side of the earth. This causes the earth to wobble when spinning and it is throwing off the weather patterns.

The mass of all people on earth is negligible in comparison to the mass of Earth.

[CanadianMike]

Personally I think 6 billion is too much. We're using too much resources and not leaving enough for other animals and our future ancestors.

Serious thread.

Discuss.
http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/serious-cat.jpg

[Mike_wang]

That cat is quite serious.

[Snicla]

10+ bil easy

with more effective recycling, smarter farming, better resource management

Untrue, there isn't enough land that's suitable for farming.

[UncleSteve]

future ancestors.


WTF?

http://www.spartan5.com/images/fail_boat.jpg

http://www.burned.org/gallery/d/1712-2/you_deserve_a_seizure_for_your_posts.gif

[beerbaron105]

Just wait until vertical farming takes off

world hunger crisis = solved

[danfromwaterloo]

As technology increases, the amount of successful crops that can be produced in more arid/desolate places increases. Therefore, areas that normally wouldn't be able to sustain good crops, can.

I suspect a combination of both technology and global warming will inevitably allow good farming in the tundra of the north.

Combine that with the ever-growing expanse of colonization and high-capacity living - probably anywhere from 9 billion up to 12 or 13 billion.

[SAN66]

Its not a density problem, its a distribution problem. The entire population of the world could live comfortably in a space the size of Texas.

Its also a huge waste problem, allot of the food in the first world goes to rot because it reaches its expiration before people can get to it, while people in the third world starve. We overfish, overfarm and overslaughter creating a blight on our lands.

If we humans were more efficient we could sustain many more people, but we are far from efficient and with our current habits we are already overpopulated. With population momentum alone we are projected to reach 9 billion in the next 30 or so years.

[Jon Lai]

-
There was a study done by demographic experts who said that the entire population of the Earth right now (6 billion) would fit in Texas comfortably, like a giant city Manhattan-like city (no empty spaces or parks).

The Earth can maintain around 30 billion people comfortably and efficiently

I knew you were ignorant but not this ignorant. There's more to living comfortably than personal space.

Food, shelter, natural resources, animals, plants, insects, water, air, etc. etc...

[Jon Lai]

As technology increases, the amount of successful crops that can be produced in more arid/desolate places increases. Therefore, areas that normally wouldn't be able to sustain good crops, can.

I suspect a combination of both technology and global warming will inevitably allow good farming in the tundra of the north.

Combine that with the ever-growing expanse of colonization and high-capacity living - probably anywhere from 9 billion up to 12 or 13 billion.


Just wait until vertical farming takes off

world hunger crisis = solved

Actually, it's more complicated than that. Vertical farming/farming fields require large amounts of water that isn't available locally (otherwise you wouldn't need to artificially create farmland). This means you must transport water from elsewhere, most likely by building a dam in a nearby river. Think of the wildlife that will be affected by the building of this dam.

Ever heard of entropy? The entropy of the world is always increasing, whenever you attempt to make something more organized, something else in another part of the world is becoming even less organized.

[Eyies]

RFD OT saving the world.

[SAN66]

I knew you were ignorant but not this ignorant. There's more to living comfortably than personal space.

Food, shelter, natural resources, animals, plants, insects, water, air, etc. etc...

Actually the study factored those things into it, granted we're not efficient enough to do it. Technically speaking you could fit the entire worlds population in 2% of the area of Texas, but then that wouldn't be comfortable.

http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2001/could-the-entire-world-live-in-texas-part-ii/

Though for some reason you can't access it on Sierra Clubs website. Yes it was promoted by an environmental group as a study against urban sprawl.

[Dash]

well, from what I've gathered, there are some RFDers who I doubt will be reproducing, so they're doing their part at least. :cheesygri

[mahpoaht]

I introduce you a new champion in the world of 1-star threads. Johnnnnnnnn Laaaaaaaiii !!!!

[KorruptioN]

I introduce you a new champion in the world of 1-star threads. Johnnnnnnnn Laaaaaaaiii !!!!

It's pretty clear that he started that other K_K bashing thread because this one was such a failure :lol:

[PrinceMS]

Not sure why threads have the tendacy to go all whacky ....


Anyway - I voted 3 billion. Technically, we maybe able to support 10+ billion on the planet but if you compute nature, politics, human pattern etc - I think 3 billion will be too much as well. We need to first define / learn how to live in harmony with nature, that will define how many of us should exist.

[victory01]

Personally I think 6 billion is too much. We're using too much resources and not leaving enough for other animals and our future ancestors.

Serious thread.

Discuss.

It is too much. Watch 'The 11th Hour'. Really interesting stuff discussing this topic.

Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhjJ7DvwNcA

[Majinvegeta]

It can sustain as many as needed! 10,20,30 billion w/e!

otherwise what do you want to do about it? kill people? if so, you can start by killing yourself, and then we'll see how many follow suit.

[Jon Lai]

I introduce you a new champion in the world of 1-star threads. Johnnnnnnnn Laaaaaaaiii !!!!

Um, it's only 1 star in you mind.

[manho]

depends on technological advancements.