The world's population should be at most 50 million.

[A-g-n-o-s-t-i-c]

Hi.
Does Human wants life millions and millions years in earth with a good environment?

1. Does the human being think that technology will continue for thousands of years, or the resources and health of the planet will be destroyed for several hundred years?
2. High population density: higher land temperature, more fuel consumption, forest destruction, increased radio waves and other pollution, and lack of water ...
3. The Japanese will have their population smaller and will be halved for several decades!
4. At all, tell the logic, what is the benefit of the crowd for humans? (Animals do not have science and technology and their survival is increasing population)

[brewer]

[edit]
4. At all, tell the logic, what is the benefit of the crowd for humans? (Animals do not have science and technology and their survival is increasing population)

Petri dish for future cannibalism.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Could we possibly see your analysis by which you arrived at that figure? But please wipe it down first, as I suspect you pulled it directly out of your arse.

Boru

[purplepurpose]

Only rich countries have time and money to think about environment, which are very few. Most of the countries are barely surviving and nobody cares about environment there.

[Hammok Man]

I do not think there is going to be an upper limit on human population period. Growth and expansion is part of human nature. The low birth rates in developed 1st world nations is a function of supply and demand. It cost more today to raise children than in the 1960’s.
https://247wallst.com/investing/2011/06/...e-a-child/
I am of the opinion that most families will have as many children as they have reasources to support.

Also, women are more inclined to enter the work force in professional careers, there is a trade off to this when it comes to having children.

Lower socioeconomic populations are having more children in the developed world, I think this is mainly due to government social programs. Once again the number of children is equal to reasources available.

People have been saying for a very long time that population pressures are going to lead to world wide shortages of commodities. I am unaware of any trends that indicate this. world population has almost doubled from 1960 (approx) rather than rationing and shortages commodities are less expensive and more plentiful.

https://www.caymanfinancialreview.com/20...ty-prices/

Also fifty million people is not a lot, I think you need to go back to the pre Roman era to find that sort of low population density.

[Angrboda]

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.

[robvalue]

I think overpopulation is a problem that isn’t being addressed enough. Solutions are not easy to come by; ethical ones, at least.

In England, society and benefits are so hugely in favour of those having children that it’s just making it worse.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Overpopulation is a self-correcting problem.  Dr. Malthus always has the last laugh.

Boru

[Bob Kelso]

As it’s been said before, we are animals. Not sure why you’re trying to put us to the side in your last point. Pointing to nature doesn’t do anything for you, since we are a part of nature.

---

What would you propose to do about population issues, OP?

[The Grand Nudger]

50 million....?  There are 7 billion of us.  You reckon you'd qualify to be among the remaining .7% of humanity?  

At all, tell the logic, what is the benefit of the crowd for humans? (Animals do not have science and technology and their survival is increasing population)

How much time you got? No..really, how much time do you have? More time or less time than 100 people? Many hands make light work - up to and including in the areas of science and tech. I understand concerns about resources, I really do...but right now..we don't have a resource availability problem..we have a resource distribution problem, exacerbating a resource efficiency problem...playing out in the theater of largely haphazard development.

Guess what we need to solve those problems. More people working on them...and we can only cannibalize other sectors of productivity so much to make up the missing labor. Human effort is a finite resource, and the resource upon which all other things important to us depend.

@Purp

Only rich countries have time and money to think about environment, which are very few. Most of the countries are barely surviving and nobody cares about environment there.

A shame, really, because those poor countries are almost uniquely positioned to make the greatest gains with an environmental focus.