Mental, I'm not talking about if there is hypothetically enough land mass to keep x number of humans alive, go back and read what I said.
True. Scroll down for short version, or read the rest of the post.
mental then tried to make a case that overpopulation wouldn't be a problem because the Earth has a lot of land.
My first post does take into account land and resources.
The Ethiopian case offers a case analysis to what you are claiming that there seems to be problems that exist before a population can grow. Sure, but while you didn't necessarily miss the point of my post entirely, however, you disregarded what I was trying to say.
My original posts intent was to show that there isn't an overpopulation problem. The U.N. paper specifically states that even though the population is growing it will soon plateau off towards 10B.
But, OF COURSE, we have to be able to deal with problems that currently exist. However, those problems will exist even if the population were held at 7B. Pollutants in water by corporations, droughts, lack of capitalization on resources as in your Ethiopian case. But making strides in these areas, like the rest of the world is, and Africa in general (Ethiopia is below the standard of African agriculture as stated within your paper), larger populations are sustainable.
Like I said in my 3rd post, problems do exist that need to be addressed, but population growth isn't one of those problems. You believe that we ought to address the problems before a population can grow, my point is, population is a non-issue and will grow regardless of what you think because this is the reality of life, so let's just tackle the problems to sustain the population of humans.
To frame the question as to what population of humans the Earth can sustain is completely missing the point. It is about a quality of life, as Evo points out
Your comfort level is irrelevant. I am talking about sustainability. I disregarded that as I didn't care for it and felt it irrelevant to my post.
Real world politics, civil wars, sanctions, economic interests, religious beliefs, etc. will prevent the world from ever coming close to the ideal models. You can say it's the fault of this group of people or that group of people that we don't reach some optimal model, but it's almost inevitable that something will prevent the optimal model from being reached.
This will happen regardless of population size. But the models in my post merely point to humans having sex, thus having babies. Religions, economic interests, are irrelevant to this reality.
Sure, given that these sorts of organizations exist and have a hand in the dealings of the world as Evo points will ultimately influence how we go about dealing with the problems we currently face, a larger population will have more difficulties. I understand that. However, like my post clearly outlines in the first and foremost post, I don't care for that, I am purely talking about the notion that overpopulation is a problem. This is not a problem, the problems are what you listed organizations, etc..., and these will continue to be problems regardless of population size if they aren't dealt with.
Overpopulation = no problem
Problem = All of what you said and Evo said (population-based posts not-with-standing).
The population will keep growing, we've achieved escape velocity in terms of that. Deal with the actual problem and not the knuckles like I said in the 3rd post.
Obviously the church has issues, but that doesn't detract from the truth of what Evo said. No matter how much you think the organization lacks credibility, it still possesses a large amount of power, and can use that power and influence to halt progress, should it so choose.
Sure, my original post cares not for this. This is irrelevant. These problems exist despite any population size. Taking a brief stroll down memory lane (i.e., history) will show you as such. These are problems that must be dealt with, population size? You try to "deal" with that, you automatically are on a losing end and completely miss the point of what actually needs to be dealt with.
Humans will have sex. You can, "get out the word" on the street corners and yell about, "WE NEED TO CONTROL THE POPULATION" but the chances of it working are slim. Even so, it is quite inane to do it in the first world though as people in the West and some Asian countries see a decline in fertility rates, so you'd ultimately have to venture out to the developing world spouting such rhetoric. To which I say, "good luck! You won't accomplish anything and the problems will still exist."
In other words,
Fighting population = losing battle.
Fighting problems = a feasible winning battle.
Given that, population isn't much a problem that needs to be addressed.
Short Version:
We all agree that these problems need to be addressed. But pouring resources to quell the population size is not a good plan in my opinion, and it will divert attention away from the problems that do exist. You cannot fight two ends of a battle with the same amount of concentration and energy, one of the battles will ultimately take more strength.
Thus, to say that the population needs to remain stagnant or be reduced means that you would have to divert attention towards that end (to keep it stagnant or reduced), and that ultimately won't deal with the actual problems that exist, or will minimize the concentration and energy towards the problems that do exist, i.e. corporation pollution, religious influence, etc...
I think we can agree now to some extent.
).