overpopulation...

[BudAshes]

If there weren't so many people we could each get away with wasting a lot more resources with less consequences. What do you think the optimum number of people on earth would be?

 

[AreaCode707]

Dunno, but we'll never get there. The biological urge to reproduce and the cultural ideal of a happy little family is apparently a more powerful immediate motivator for people than the overall well-being of the planet and society several hundred years from now.

<---- not having kids

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Roughly 6,000,000. 5,900,000 of those would be women. Hot women. And of those 100,000 dudes, 99% would be eunuchs. And everyone would worship me as a God. Also, I'd have a spaceship. Space is cool.

 

[TallBill]

According to population studies, the earth will reach about 8 billion in 2035-2050 and hold fairly steady.

 

[sactoking]

1,000,001

The hottest million wimmenz and me

/end typical ATOT response

Edited:

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Roughly 6,000,000. 5,900,000 of those would be women. Hot women. And of those 100,000 dudes, 99% would be eunuchs. And everyone would worship me as a God. Also, I'd have a spaceship. Space is cool.

Beat me to it.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: TallBill
According to population studies, the earth will reach about 8 billion in 2035-2050 and hold fairly stead.

Huh, that's interesting. Did the study state why the population would hold steady at that point? Resource issues? If that's the case, would it be holding steady because the death rate increases while the birth rate stays the same?

 

[SlitheryDee]

Hard to tell. We're probably already using more resources than all the other animals combined. At some point that's got to screw something up. *shrug*

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: TallBill
According to population studies, the earth will reach about 8 billion in 2035-2050 and hold fairly stead.

Huh, that's interesting. Did the study state why the population would hold steady at that point? Resource issues? If that's the case, would it be holding steady because the death rate increases while the birth rate stays the same?

Yeah, it'd flatline because birth rate and death rate would be roughly the same. It's a population S-curve.

I cant quote or reference anything, we covered this in biology last semester when learning about population models.

 

[Albatross]

humanity as a phenomenon is growth in numbers;the industrial civilization had to wait for the first billion to come into its own,the demographic explosion in the 3d world and its modernization are closely linked.
Man is still man`s best friend(and at the same time its worse enemy),but all the Clubs of Rome,all the population bombs,all the morons and maniacs of fear of humans should learn this.
of course ,im looking at teh big picture;in New York somebody with moronic neighbours living in a bad part of the city could be forgiven thinking the world is overpopulated.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: TallBill
According to population studies, the earth will reach about 8 billion in 2035-2050 and hold fairly stead.

Huh, that's interesting. Did the study state why the population would hold steady at that point? Resource issues? If that's the case, would it be holding steady because the death rate increases while the birth rate stays the same?

Yeah, it'd flatline because birth rate and death rate would be roughly the same. It's a population S-curve.

I cant quote or reference anything, we covered this in biology last semester when learning about population models.

Just curious what the study considered the cause for the rate changes. Right now birth rate is higher than death rate, so one or both would need to adjust for it to flatline overall population. If the flatlining is due to resource constraints, that may not be pretty...

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Hard to tell. We're probably already using more resources than all the other animals combined. At some point that's got to screw something up. *shrug*

I think you are incorrectly assuming we are apart from the animals. Nature doesn't give a damn about us, and we are lumped in that pile with the animals.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Just curious what the study considered the cause for the rate changes. Right now birth rate is higher than death rate, so one or both would need to adjust for it to flatline overall population. If the flatlining is due to resource constraints, that may not be pretty...

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/fa...BK/BioBookpopecol.html

There's a decent link which explains it fairly well. No great numbers, but the concept anyways. Shows the population over time too.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Hard to tell. We're probably already using more resources than all the other animals combined. At some point that's got to screw something up. *shrug*

I think you are incorrectly assuming we are apart from the animals. Nature doesn't give a damn about us, and we are lumped in that pile with the animals.

Well yeah, but we are one distinct group. If dogs were the ones using all the resources the way I would put it is; "Those dogs are using more resources than all the other animals combined". I said it the same way in my post above, only I said "we" because humans are us.

 

[IGBT]

..get rid of the dependent deduction, start a tuition for public education and get rid of the home mortage deduction if your serious about your question. the era of the unsettled 1800's continent is long overwith. Taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing those who wish to have kids.

 

[lxskllr]

18th century levels would be satisfactory I think.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TallBill
According to population studies, the earth will reach about 8 billion in 2035-2050 and hold fairly steady.

right now most polulation growth is based on pure momentum of smaller old generations living longer, and the current younger generations getting older.

basically the number of 5 year olds isn't increasing very fast, The number of 60 year olds is, and will continue over the next 50+ years. the number of 100 year olds is exploding, and will continue to for at least the next hundred years.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: TallBill
According to population studies, the earth will reach about 8 billion in 2035-2050 and hold fairly stead.

Huh, that's interesting. Did the study state why the population would hold steady at that point? Resource issues? If that's the case, would it be holding steady because the death rate increases while the birth rate stays the same?

birth rates have dropped like a brick, the think the mean number of children per woman is down to below 2.5 now, which is barely above replacement.

Resource issues are not an issue, even with peak oil (lol) the number of people the planet could support with todays land usage and technology, is several fold higher than what we currently support.

 

[finite automaton]

Maybe more babies is our ticket to getting out of this recession.

 

[ja1484]

This is America. I waste the resources anyway. Let future generations pay the price.

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: TallBill
According to population studies, the earth will reach about 8 billion in 2035-2050 and hold fairly stead.

Huh, that's interesting. Did the study state why the population would hold steady at that point? Resource issues? If that's the case, would it be holding steady because the death rate increases while the birth rate stays the same?

birth rates have dropped like a brick, the think the mean number of children per woman is down to below 2.5 now, which is barely above replacement.

Resource issues are not an issue, even with peak oil (lol) the number of people the planet could support with todays land usage and technology, is several fold higher than what we currently support.

Assuming nothing drastic happens and a large human migration isn't required.

 

[DVad3r]

FEMA will take care of that. They are making concentration camps and plastic coffins for you.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: BudAshes
If there weren't so many people we could each get away with wasting a lot more resources with less consequences. What do you think the optimum number of people on earth would be?

Throwing a dart at the wall -- 1 Billion.

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: DVad3r
FEMA will take care of that. They are making concentration camps and plastic coffins for you.

human beings are best at killing each other, so if we have to all scrap for resources just to survive things won't go well for the underdogs.

 

[0roo0roo]

pretty much all those aid workers that went over with medicine/food and no conditions are responsible for a lot of future carbon output and other nonsense.;P

 

[StageLeft]

Around 1200-1500 has been shown as a statistically perfect population of humans on the planet.