Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 2:21 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The world's population should be at most 50 million.
#11
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
You were stuck in peak traffic when you made this thread
Reply
#12
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
[Image: tumblr_inline_nhd9wytSSZ1sooy0z.png]
Reply
#13
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
The world would be better off at 50 million, but we need to kill most of them off slowly.

I suggest we let old age have it's way for the time being. It's the most guaranteed way to kill off lots of humans without raising suspicion.
Insanity - Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result
Reply
#14
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
It would be sweet if there was 100th the number of people there are. That's why Wyoming is awesome. No people.
[Image: dcep7c.jpg]
Reply
#15
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
I think 50 million is a good figure whether it was pulled out of an ass or not.

50 1,000,000 population cities would be about as perfect as I can imagine.
Reply
#16
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
The hopeful side wants to believe that humans can slow down and extend the ride. The pragmatic side knows that regardless of even if we manage to extend the ride, meteors and commits and the sun are far more powerful and our ride still will end, just like it did with the other 5 mass extinctions in our planet's history.

The only axioms I can agree with in reality is that nothing last forever and the only consistent aspect of reality is change.
Reply
#17
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
(October 7, 2018 at 6:30 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: It would be sweet if there was 100th the number of people there are. That's why Wyoming is awesome. No people.

I remember when I was in the 5th or 6th grade ('62-'64) I saw a map with population densities. I marveled at the population density in Wyoming, which was 2 per square mile. I've been in the deserts of the southwestern states and observed that sort of population density. While I like my quiet time, that's a bit extreme, for me.

I DO agree with Khem, though. The resources exist, even at the moment, but getting the food to those people is the real problem (worldwide, but not necessarily in 1st world countries).

I was talking with an acquaintance yesterday, and he buys completely into the "Welfare Widow" mentality of not providing aid to those who are impoverished. He and I are miles apart on this issue, and reminding him that it wouldn't take much for him to be in that position didn't phase him in the least. I've lived at the bottom before, and our family could have used the help, but even if it had been available where we lived, my dad would have refused it. He as much as told me that, "We don't need charity!"
If you get to thinking you’re a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else’s dog around.
Reply
#18
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
We may be able to increase the amount of resources (presuming we can somehow halt global warming or create sustainable resources to replace the non-renewable ones) in concert with our population growth, but it'll probably not mean that much if we can't create social roles for people to fill. We've already got a generation of people who've reached employment age and found that there weren't any jobs to get, and if there were, credential creep ensures many will never be qualified enough to get them.





Some have said Calhoun's experiments are less applicable to humans because, well, the mice were trapped, and unlike the natural thing they do when peak social density was reached, they couldn't find someplace to colonise that had resources, and, most importantly, not a shitton of other mice to deal with. But, these days, humans really aren't that different in this regard. If you've ever tried moving house, it's a logistical nightmare, and hinges on actually finding another place to move to, often in a place that's not too differently populated from the place you left behind. And even then, there's still psychological ties that may prevent one from doing so, ultimately trapping people in the same place like they're in The Exterminating Angel.

But still, it's not like there's much of a practical solution that doesn't involve killing a shitton of people. And now, Avengers: Infinity War may very well be my favourite film of 2018 so far because someone manages to do it, albeit by killing off half the life in the universe randomly.





#thanosdidnothingwrong. I've said before that I recently watched the entire MCU in order specifically to lead up to this one moment, by the way. This is what being part of the solution looks like. Why, yes, it does suck that things are so messed up that I think this is a viable solution. And even then, things may just get worse again.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.

[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]

I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
Reply
#19
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
(September 13, 2018 at 10:47 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: We're animals.  Just another example of biology.  We are designed to live at the bleeding edge between sustainability and overpopulation.  It's the way evolution works.

Exactly.
If The Flintstones have taught us anything, it's that pelicans can be used to mix cement.

-Homer Simpson
Reply
#20
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
I recently saw a program where a population expert said the present population of 7.4 billion had overshot the carrying capacity of the planet by 50%. We are only sustaining our population through burning non-renewable fossil fuels and otherwise mining our natural resources. He also said that the sustainable carrying capacity varies with the affluence of the inhabitants. The Earth could sustain 15 billion living at very low levels of affluence, but only 1.5 billion at American standards.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Population boom lifesagift 58 10172 December 18, 2014 at 12:27 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
Star Milky Way Could Contain 100 Million Planets with Complex Life MountainsWinAgain 3 1256 June 1, 2014 at 7:15 pm
Last Post: Jackalope
  120 Million Years Ago...not 6,000 Minimalist 4 2544 March 10, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Last Post: Cyberman



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)