What Is the Ideal Human Population and What Kind of World Is Possible?

[wolram]

Does the human race------

Have a goal, other than an ever easier lifestyle, do you agree that we will never all be equally comfortable, do you agree that the Earth does not have the resources to make it so?
In another thread the ideal population for Earth was guessed to be 2 billion, we are way over that.
Eventually we will need more land than the Earth has, so should we be looking to populate other planets with some urgency?

Edit.http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html

When environmentalists say that the world is overpopulated, they mean that the environmental consequences of the excessively high human population are destroying the biosphere--the Earth's life-support system. This leads to the question of what these environmental consequences are, and the related question of how many people can the Earth really support. As we'll see in this article, the question cannot be answered without offering another-- "What kind of world do you want?"Finally, there's another, more fundamental, question--"What kind of worlds are possible?"

 

[Cyrus]

We don't need more than 2 billion people in the world. How about cutting that number down? It would solve a LOT of problems.

 

[Zantra]

I think space exploration may be a necessary next step to our continuing expansion.

On the goals part of your question, I think that the ever present goal of humanity is to improve itself. It may seem that we've focused on improving quality of life, but I think that it is just a natural side benefit to our investment in expanding our knowledge. I think that population reduction is ultimately a stop gap and a futile effort. What we really need is to focus on expansion beyond the planet (moonbase anyone?) and ultimately beyond our solar system. It's a big universe, and decreasing our numbers as a long term means of sustaining the species is flawed. Oil is an issue, but is the solution to reduce the usage, or to find an alternative fuel?

If scientific understanding and discovery leads to improvements in our living standards, is that a bad thing? Is that our overall driving goal? I don't think so. Curiosity drives us.

 

[Mk]

We don't need more than 2 billion people in the world. How about cutting that number down? It would solve a LOT of problems.

It would solve a lot of problems to have two people (who would of course, proceed to kill each other in all likelyhood, then humans would have 0 problems). The more people you've got the more problems, everybody knows that. But we as a race are prepared to have more than two people.

 

[Cyrus]

It would solve a lot of problems to have two people (who would of course, proceed to kill each other in all likelyhood, then humans would have 0 problems). The more people you've got the more problems, everybody knows that. But we as a race are prepared to have more than two people.

......uh?

 

[Cyrus]

I think space exploration may be a necessary next step to our continuing expansion.

On the goals part of your question, I think that the ever present goal of humanity is to improve itself. It may seem that we've focused on improving quality of life, but I think that it is just a natural side benefit to our investment in expanding our knowledge. I think that population reduction is ultimately a stop gap and a futile effort. What we really need is to focus on expansion beyond the planet (moonbase anyone?) and ultimately beyond our solar system. It's a big universe, and decreasing our numbers as a long term means of sustaining the species is flawed. Oil is an issue, but is the solution to reduce the usage, or to find an alternative fuel?

If scientific understanding and discovery leads to improvements in our living standards, is that a bad thing? Is that our overall driving goal? I don't think so. Curiosity drives us.

How are you going to put people on the moon and sustain life there? You will have to make even more resources on Earth and send it to the moon. I don't see the logic here.

The simple and easy answer is people need to stop having kids. Mainly people in 3rd world countries that spread AIDS, have kids that end up working in factories, put an economic strain on their government, etc.

Just stop having so many kids. What are most of the people in the world doing? Honestly, the majority of people in the world are poor - dirt poor. Thats not a life to live. The majority of the world are living hopeless live. Control the population and increase the standard of living for everyone in the process.

 

[wolram]

We don't need more than 2 billion people in the world. How about cutting that number down? It would solve a LOT of problems.

I am sure we are not going down the route of exterminating people, and population control
is not in effect, so the population will keep growing.

 

[Cyrus]

I would start with you, for not reading my post correctly.

No seriously, I never said exterminate people. I said don't let them procreate. I don't need poor people giving birth to 10 kids in the hopes of making more income from more working hands.

Hell, you could pay them NOT to have kids.

And all those damn kids that run around in resturants and annoy you, we could get rid of them too and enjoy a meal in peace with your friends! - I should be in government.

problem solver<---(points to self)

 

[wolram]

The moon does not seem to be a good candidate for population, but a one way trip to an Earth like planet is possible, but even so sending thousands of people on this one way trip
would be a massive undertaking, one that i can not for see.

 

[wolram]

I would start with you, for not reading my post correctly.

No seriously, I never said exterminate people. I said don't let them procreate. I don't need poor people giving birth to 10 kids in the hopes of making more income from more working hands.

Hell, you could pay them NOT to have kids.

And all those damn kids that run around in resturants and annoy you, we could get rid of them too and enjoy a meal in peace with your friends! - I should be in government.

problem solver<---(points to self)

Thank you, tongue, I will give you 1 point, but you need thousands to be elected to government.

 

[Cyrus]

Does this mean I get your bikes after your gone?

You don't need thousands if you get rid of all the people that vote against you!

Seeee- Problem solver!

There is only one answer to your question, STOP having so many people in the world. Literally half of them are doing nothing but wasting land, air, water,etc while living in poverty. They contribute nothing, they are just a burdon. If you can slowly decrease the populaton size these people will disappear over time. Now you have more resources for a smaller amount of people, a government that can take care of a smaller amount of educated, productive, healthy people. Less spread of disease. -am I missing something here in this logic?

 

[wolram]

Does this mean I get your bikes after your gone?

You don't need thousands if you get rid of all the people that vote against you!

Seeee- Problem solver!

There is only one answer to your question, STOP having so many people in the world. Literally half of them are doing nothing but wasting land, air, water,etc while living in poverty. They contribute nothing, they are just a burdon. If you can slowly decrease the populaton size these people will disappear over time. Now you have more resources for a smaller amount of people, a government that can take care of a smaller amount of educated, productive, healthy people. Less spread of disease. -am I missing something here in this logic?

I agree with you up to a point, and no my bikes go with me, add to the list for none procreation.
Politicians, anyone involved with the Eurovision song contest, hardened criminals.

 

[rjbig2000]

The dreamer in me says yes I have a Goal. World Peace and equality. Can we ever achieve it? Probably not, but it is a worthy goal so, let us start. If we would just start to utilize the resources that we have, wisely, we would be able to provide for a higher number of people without nearly as much affect on our environment. Technologies like Anaerobic Biogas Digesters combined with Solar, Wind, and other renewable energy sources are all existing and could be used right now. Should we be looking for another home? Definitely! Mankind is doomed as long as we are only on this one rock. Sooner or later something is going to hit us, or the Sun goes out, or we blow ourselves up. If we are on more than one rock the ones not here survive! Wow! To think that someone else should decide whether or not you should be allowed to have children! Who has the right to decide? Only the Rich can reproduce? Only the Sexy? Only the Smart? Only the productive? Is music or art Productive? I know only Good artists! Only Muslims? Only Christians? See how foolish this is. Many would have snuffed Hawkins before he ever taught us anything! Education appears to be the greatest birth control around. Look at how much lower birth rates are in developed countries. If you want to reduce birth rates just start educating everybody! Hey now that's a good idea. Maybe we could become smart enough to stop trying to solve our problems with Guns! Yeah Right!

 

[Lisa!]

We don't need more than 2 billion people in the world. How about cutting that number down? It would solve a LOT of problems.

Yep, that's why we choose funniest members every year and then throw them in volcano

 

[Evo]

Just stop having so many kids. What are most of the people in the world doing? Honestly, the majority of people in the world are poor - dirt poor. Thats not a life to live. The majority of the world are living hopeless live. Control the population and increase the standard of living for everyone in the process.

Oddly one of our world's biggest problems, overpopulation, would be the easiest, if not most popular way to fix the problems on this planet.

I'm with you Cyrus.

It's aggravating right now, they have these "adopt a poor family for Christmas" things on the radio, and they describe the family "mother has 15 children to take care of so doesn't have time to work and the dad has the IQ of a turnip so can't hold a job, they want new school uniforms for their kids that are in parochial school" wait, they're paying for their kids to go to private church schools and then complaining they're poor? WTH?

 

[wolram]

I would not want to bring any more kids into this world even though my IQ is slightly above a turnips, what is it worth to have no children a $100, 1000, 10,000? what happens if there is not enough candidates coming forward?
When would we have the technology and the will to transport 1000s of people to another planet?

 

[Mk]

Oddly one of our world's biggest problems, overpopulation

Ok, let's get this one for me. How is it one of our world's biggest problems?

 

[wolram]

Ok, let's get this one for me. How is it one of our world's biggest problems?

I think it comes down to lack of resources, and the resistance to redistribute what we have equally, and that is for todays population.

But then what is the general population learning apart from how to make money, one may say that science is gaining knowledge but how does that equate to the population?
In the grand scheme are humans an infestation or are we a worthy people that one day
may survive to live on other planets?

 

[Mk]

In the grand scheme are humans an infestation or are we a worthy people that one day
may survive to live on other planets?

By that, you'd have to establish a universal worth.

 

[wolram]

By that, you'd have to establish a universal worth.[/QUOTE

What ever it may be i can not find one, we exist have fun experience tragedy, but we do not advance in any sci fi way.

 

[Evo]

Ok, let's get this one for me. How is it one of our world's biggest problems?

According to environmentalists overpopulation lies at the heart of all problems, including Global Warming. It was actually for the "go Green" media push a couple of weeks ago, reducing the world's population was listed as one of the top ten ways to "go green" and fight AGW. They suggested one child per couple.

I can't find that list, but here's an article discussing it. I'd think the problems caused by overpopulation would have been quite obvious just for the drain on resources.

In other areas, though, the panel attempts to tread carefully and not upset sensibilities. One of the greatest environmental dilemmas is the issue of the world's rapidly growing population. Many argue very persuasively that we have no hope of confronting all our environmental problems without greatly reducing the number of people on the planet. But how to begin? The Environment Agency ranks this as 18 on its list, describing it as the "environmentalists' elephant in the room", but says government is responsible for confronting this, not the procreators themselves.

"Global population is now six billion and is projected to be 11 billion by 2050," says Nick Reeves, executive director of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management. "Scratch the surface of any environmental problem and it reveals population growth, and the way we live our lives, as the root cause. The need for a population policy has never been more urgent."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/01/ethicalliving.g2

 

[wolram]

Thank you for that Evo, the choices are stark, but we have to make them.

 

[out of whack]

Let me get space exploration out of the way as a non-starter. If 2 billion is the right number for Earth then all we need to do is ship a few excess billions to outer space. Trivial.

So the next best idea is growth control. That can actually be worth trying. I would be curious to know some acceptable way to limit every woman on Earth to a maximum of 2 children.

Why 2 instead of 1? Because it's easier to sell. It makes more "normal" families. It gives a better chance of balancing male/female offsprings. It doesn't force upon a single child the unreasonable burden of later caring for two elderly parents. It implements a somewhat stable population instead of one that is crashing downwards. Some women will chose to have only one or no child at all, so the long term trend will still be down. And some people die before becoming parent, which also contributes to negative growth.

So, who's got a good idea in order to implement this? How do we install 3 billion birth counters, one on each female of the species? I'm the highfaluting idea man of course, so my work is done here. I would never lower myself to dabble with menial implementation details. :uhh:

 

[hotcommodity]

Environmentalists are not the only ones concerned with human population. Alot of political think tanks have certainly considered the idea of population reduction (the Club of Rome comes to mind). On a side note, when I read the opening post, I was instantly reminded of the Georgia guidestones. Some people may find this interseting (note the very first commandment):

http://www.crystalinks.com/gaguidetablet.jpg
http://www.crystalinks.com/gaguidestones.html

 

[Moonbear]

-am I missing something here in this logic?

Just human nature to be selfish. People don't even have to stop having children, just stop having SO MANY children. A good start would be only one kid per parent. It won't reduce population sizes, but at least hold it steady. The problem is there are too many people who want to have 6 or 10 kids when there are only two parents (or heck, even if there are 3 or 4 parents involved, that's too many, especially if some of the multiple dads are also going off and having kids with multiple women). They obviously aren't thinking about what that would do to the world those kids will be growing up in if everyone did that.

 

[Cyrus]

If I recall correctly, 2-3 kids are needed by every set of parents to maintain the population. So if people had 1-2 kids, the population size would go down. It depends on the population pyramid. If its got a big base then it has lots of young people, and parents should have 1 kid. For europe and the US, the pyramid is upside down. The point is at young people and the base is up top at old people, so we need 2-3 kids + in the us to maintain our population. Its mostly older people.

 

[Gokul43201]

The effects of a uniform, globally declining population may be as disastrous as that of the current growth. The real target is a big population decline in Africa, the Islamic world, and South and East Asia, a small growth rate in Russia, the Baltics and most of central and eastern Europe, and small or no decline in most other parts of the world.

 

[Evo]

The effects of a uniform, globally declining population may be as disastrous as that of the current growth. The real target is a big population decline in Africa, the Islamic world, and South and East Asia, a small growth rate in Russia, the Baltics and most of central and eastern Europe, and small or no decline in most other parts of the world.

Yes, it has to be proportionate to where the overpopulation is, especially in proportion to the area's ability to sustain that population.

 

[out of whack]

Yes, it has to be proportionate to where the overpopulation is, especially in proportion to the area's ability to sustain that population.

Actually I'm not sold on this criterion. The ability of an area to sustain a local population is already pretty much what it is. For an acid test of a country's self-sufficiency you need to stop international trade and see what happens. No more oil imports for the US might emphasize a need to drop the American population to what the local energy sources can sustain, for example. In a global market, the only well-defined area is the planet.

 

[rjbig2000]

I agree that over population is one of the main factors but I really believe the best way to handle this is with EDUCATION. As education levels go up birthrates go down. Increased education also has many other benefits. If the world were to make educating the world the priority it would help to reduce birth rates as well as making people more able to provide for themselves, reduce disease, and the list goes on.
I don't believe we could or should stop international trade. I believe we need to eliminate the "free trade agreements" and legalize international free trade. One thing that people here in America don't seem to realize is what we have done. Pat yourselves on the back! With our trade in countries like China and India we have dramatically improved the standard of living in both of these countries! China now has a middle class! We did this by purchasing the products they sell us. Now if someone would just come up with a Global Translator so we could communicate with each other it would be fantastic.