Poll: Is the world overpopulated?

[ksen]

I was born in 1984, which according to Wikipedia means I'm either one of the younger members of Generation X or one of the older Millennials.

Go with Gen X. We're way cooler than Millenials.

Oh, and the world is not overpopulated.

 

[dystopian]

And the whole point of the answer is to point out to you that the definition of "overpopulation" means monumentally more than whether we can create enough food paste tubes to prevent starvation. You fail to notice this point.

But... it doesn't. That's literally what overpopulation is about; whether or not our population outstrips the available resources necessary to support it. The notion of overpopulation has NOTHING to do with whether or not you get to keep your giant country home and obscene (relative to that of most people) lifestyle.

What is life? Why not just put people into life support incubators and let them interface via computer simulation?

You may not understand; but I wouldn't be all that opposed to that idea.

What is life. An existence worth living. And your scenario does not produce one,

Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. You've just told the majority of the world's people that their existence is not worth living. Most of us are just fine with high urban density living, you know. In fact, qualify of life is considerably higher in the average western city than it is on the countryside. If people are happy to live in paris at its current density, they would be happy to live in a paris a 100 times the size but with the same overall density.

therefore, it describes a higher population than can be supported for "life".

Ridiculous. You mean, it describes a scenario which you've arbitrarily decided isn't worth living (without establishing why)

Overpopulation happens long before we are living in towers with a pass to visit the local outdoor square mile once a year.

Nobody said anything about outdoor passes; no need to be melodramatic.

You think a voluntary move of a single person to the current sized city is the same as forced migration of all people to megacities with respect to how much of a catastrophic change it would be for society? "rollseyes"?

No, but forcing people to move to the city is hardly 'catastrophic'; especially assuming that it's done for the purposes of reducing humanity's ecological footprint.

"Oh no, the government bought my rural country house and is forcing me to live in the big city where I'll have easy access to things like high-speed internet, department stores, countless entertainment venues, and so on! It's horrible!"

I think you misunderstand what a catastrophic social upheaval it would be to need clustered megacity existence for all people.

That word, I don't think it means what you think it does.

Most of us already live in clustered megacities; somehow we're doing okay. You rural hillbillies can learn to adapt if need be.

 

[dystopian]

Now, Oxygen is readily available from any rocky body (say, the moon.) Hydrogen is only readily available in the outer solar system. Carbon and Nitrogen aren't so easy to come by. You're going to have to keep supplying your farm with all of these.

Actually, there are large supplies of Hydrogen on the moon. Carbon is in fact found in plentiful abundance in the solar system. You don't even need to go to the outer solar system to get it either; you could harvest it from the atmosphere of Venus. Nitrogen of course is much rarer; however, the solar system is hardly devoid of it. In fact, there's significant supplies of nitrogen on the moon itself and in various comets... and Titan is practically soaking in the stuff.

I was discounting the stuff that isn't viable in this case.

Sure, water turbines do well--but there's not that much hydro power available. Note, also, that there would be *NONE* available under the conditions needed--if you leave the water in the environment we turn into a Venus.

I'm sorry, what? You're still talking about that cover the planet's entire surface thing right? I thought we agreed that wouln't even remotely be necessary.

I didn't say the most efficient. I was limiting myself to what could actually be used on this scale.

Bullshit, don't backtrack now. You explicitly said our most efficient powerplants were only 33% efficient. You did not qualify it by saying "only the powerplants we'd be able to use at this scale".

No solar in this world--it's all being used to grow food.

...

What was the point of me explaining how LED based farming is already far more efficient than regular sunlight? And I don't think you understand how solar works; nothing would prevent us from using using regular sunlight to both grow crops AND generate power; it's not one or the other.

And besides that, the Japanese are already working on orbital solar power plants that beam the energy back down to earth.

 

[dystopian]

I doubt that a single world city could ever work in practical terms. The sheer scale of infrastructure to transport food from vast areas of farmland and factories, include vast mountains of waste products, commuting, recreation and so on... it would be a nightmare. Not at all practical.

How is that different from what we *already* have? We already need all of those things today, for the same number of people; except we have to spread that shit out across almost the entire planet instead of having it neatly centralized. That's way more infrastructure to accomplish the same thing, even taking into account how with centralization the infrastructure would have to accommodate greater volumes of traffic.

 

[Rhea]

But... it doesn't. That's literally what overpopulation is about; whether or not our population outstrips the available resources necessary to support it.

I don't see how you can claim that is the only definition of overpopulation. If you have to change everything to sustain it, you've shown that you overpopulated your previous environment.

The notion of overpopulation has NOTHING to do with whether or not you get to keep your giant country home and obscene (relative to that of most people) lifestyle.

~snort~ I grow much of my own food and I have an outhouse (well, I have indoor plumbing, too, but a lady needs a place to go outside). I live on a dirt road and the house is a hundred years old.

What is life? Why not just put people into life support incubators and let them interface via computer simulation?

You may not understand; but I wouldn't be all that opposed to that idea.

You're right, I do not understand wanting that.

What is life. An existence worth living. And your scenario does not produce one,

Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. You've just told the majority of the world's people that their existence is not worth living. Most of us are just fine with high urban density living, you know. In fact, qualify of life is considerably higher in the average western city than it is on the countryside. If people are happy to live in paris at its current density, they would be happy to live in a paris a 100 times the size but with the same overall density.

Nah, I didn't tell them that. Your scenario requires everyone to become vegan and the city populations to expand dramatically. Pupulation density is one thing, but all of those current city people _can_ get to the countryside in less than a day. Make your cities huge and you take this away from them. (among many other things, obviously)

therefore, it describes a higher population than can be supported for "life".

Ridiculous. You mean, it describes a scenario which you've arbitrarily decided isn't worth living (without establishing why)

Oh, but I did. It's what people choose now.

Overpopulation happens long before we are living in towers with a pass to visit the local outdoor square mile once a year.

Nobody said anything about outdoor passes; no need to be melodramatic.

You thuink a 700Billion population will be able to go visit nature without a pass system? Our current national parks require one, why would that change when the number of people visiting them is increased?

You think a voluntary move of a single person to the current sized city is the same as forced migration of all people to megacities with respect to how much of a catastrophic change it would be for society? "rollseyes"?

No, but forcing people to move to the city is hardly 'catastrophic'; especially assuming that it's done for the purposes of reducing humanity's ecological footprint.

"Oh no, the government bought my rural country house and is forcing me to live in the big city where I'll have easy access to things like high-speed internet, department stores, countless entertainment venues, and so on! It's horrible!"

I can see that you don't understand this. It still exists.

I think you misunderstand what a catastrophic social upheaval it would be to need clustered megacity existence for all people.

That word, I don't think it means what you think it does.

Most of us already live in clustered megacities; somehow we're doing okay. You rural hillbillies can learn to adapt if need be.

1. It means that overpopulation means a vast complexity of things and you are concerned with only a single one of them, nutrition. You're missing a large part of the very real effect. And,
2. Why force people to adapt if you don't have to? And
3. "countless entertainment venues" does not solve all problems, nor meet all needs.


and make up your mind. Am I a rural hillbilly or an obscene country estate? LOL

 

[Rhea]

Most of us already live in clustered megacities; somehow we're doing okay.

It could increase a hundredfold and it would still be something we can cope with.

Not one of us anywhere lives in a megacity of the size required for a HUNDREDFOLD population increase. That may be where you are confused by the answers you're getting. I'm looking at your earlier scenario and applying it.

List of largest cities
The largest American city is merely 1/3 the size of the largest city on the planet (either by raw population or by population density). 1/3. Not 1/100th.

A hundredfold. ?

No, most of us are certainly not living in megacity style. None of us are.

 

[ksen]

I am looking forward to living in the Caves of Steel.

 

[Rhea]

So, to expand: this hundred-fold increase in America alone (assuming no one from the rest of the world migrates here) would establish cities with the density of approximately Miami, from coast to coast and throughout Alaska, with no break for lakes, swamps, rivers, mountains or deserts. It would leave no space for farming, water reservoirs, sewage treatment, or waste. It would leave no room for parks, wildlife or wilderness. Miami. Coast to coast.

That's what 100-fold means.

(What it means to India is even more dramatic)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, there are large supplies of Hydrogen on the moon. Carbon is in fact found in plentiful abundance in the solar system. You don't even need to go to the outer solar system to get it either; you could harvest it from the atmosphere of Venus. Nitrogen of course is much rarer; however, the solar system is hardly devoid of it. In fact, there's significant supplies of nitrogen on the moon itself and in various comets... and Titan is practically soaking in the stuff.

In a world with a *MAJOR* space-based infrastructure.

I was discounting the stuff that isn't viable in this case.

Sure, water turbines do well--but there's not that much hydro power available. Note, also, that there would be *NONE* available under the conditions needed--if you leave the water in the environment we turn into a Venus.

I'm sorry, what? You're still talking about that cover the planet's entire surface thing right? I thought we agreed that wouln't even remotely be necessary.

You never adequately addressed your math error. Multiply the numbers *YOU* gave and compare it to the population you said we could support.

I didn't say the most efficient. I was limiting myself to what could actually be used on this scale.

Bullshit, don't backtrack now. You explicitly said our most efficient powerplants were only 33% efficient. You did not qualify it by saying "only the powerplants we'd be able to use at this scale".

Ok, I should have qualified it.

What was the point of me explaining how LED based farming is already far more efficient than regular sunlight? And I don't think you understand how solar works; nothing would prevent us from using using regular sunlight to both grow crops AND generate power; it's not one or the other.

Light the solar cell absorbs won't be available to grow a plant with.

And besides that, the Japanese are already working on orbital solar power plants that beam the energy back down to earth.

That moves a good chunk of the heat off Earth but you're still looking at a 30% increase in the heat load just to grow your food.

 

[dystopian]

It could increase a hundredfold and it would still be something we can cope with.

Not one of us anywhere lives in a megacity of the size required for a HUNDREDFOLD population increase. That may be where you are confused by the answers you're getting. I'm looking at your earlier scenario and applying it.

List of largest cities
The largest American city is merely 1/3 the size of the largest city on the planet (either by raw population or by population density). 1/3. Not 1/100th.

A hundredfold. ?

No, most of us are certainly not living in megacity style. None of us are.

Perhaps you're the one confused; I was talking about a city housing the current world's population at densities found in modern cities being less than half the size of texas. Obviously a city with a population a 100 times that is going to be much bigger, but it wouldn't necessarily need a higher density; just more space. However, we could dramatically increase the density as well to cut down on that size, and still find examples of it today. I was working off the population density of Paris. We could instead use Manilla, which is still a perfectly liveable city, which has twice the density.

And yes, most of us are in fact living in megacity style. Strictly speaking, a megacity is just a city with a population of around 10 million. While it's true that there are only a few dozen of these megacities in the world, that's mostly just a matter of boundary definitions. For instance, the conurbation I live in could easily be classified as a single city, and would then be considered a megacity. There's also the fact that in much of the world, smaller cities have the same sort of density as you find in their megacity cousins. And most of the world's urban population (and the urban population exceeds the non-urban population) is concentrated too, in so called megaregions; or megalopoli; and these megaregions are essentially just sprawled out conurbations themselves. The Ganges Plain megalopolis houses almost 180 million people; The European Blue Banana houses 110 million; and the Yangtze River Delta houses 105 million. Yes, they're not quite at the hypothetical level we're talking about sure, but it's hard to argue that the people there aren't accustomed to megacity living.

 

[dystopian]

So, to expand: this hundred-fold increase in America alone (assuming no one from the rest of the world migrates here)

...

did you not bother to actually read any of my posts? I was talking about the WORLD's population: In other words, a hundred fold increase in the WORLD's population, NOT 'america alone'. And I was not talking about this hypothetical thought-experiment city being in America, I merely compared its size to Texas.

would establish cities with the density of approximately Miami,

You're joking. I was talking about the density of Paris; that's five times the density of Miami. Or if we're going with something like Manilla, ten times the density of Miami.

from coast to coast and throughout Alaska, with no break for lakes, swamps, rivers, mountains or deserts.

Who the fuck said anything about no breaks? We know how to build cities with such breaks in them, you know. Not to mention; again... I showed what the size of a hypothetical city housing the world's population would be in relation to Texas; nobody was seriously suggesting a singular city.

It would leave no space for farming, water reservoirs, sewage treatment, or waste.

Sigh, it would leave the ENTIRE REST OF THE PLANET for all of that. Because that's what we're talking about here; a thought experiment in which we concentrate the ENTIRE WORLD POPULATION in a city smaller than the size of Texas. We're NOT talking about increasing the population of the US to match that of the planet.

It would leave no room for parks, wildlife or wilderness. Miami. Coast to coast.

Are you suggesting that miami doesn't have any parks? Or are you suggesting that those parks aren't including in the calculations that are used to arrive at miami's urban density?

For the record, Miami only has a population density of 12,139.5/sq miles (a figure that's going to drop dramatically if you take into account the entire metro area). Paris meanwhile, which was the kind of density we were ACTUALLY talking about, has a population density of 55,000/sq miles. Paris by the way, has plenty of parks. But, let's go with what wikipedia assures me is the most densely populated city in the world instead, Manilla. It has a density of 171,300/sq miles. Yes, Manilla too, has parks.

 

[dystopian]

The notion of overpopulation has NOTHING to do with whether or not you get to keep your giant country home and obscene (relative to that of most people) lifestyle.

~snort~ I grow much of my own food and I have an outhouse (well, I have indoor plumbing, too, but a lady needs a place to go outside). I live on a dirt road and the house is a hundred years old.

Newsflash; growing your own food does NOT mean your lifestyle isn't obscenely lopsided compared to that of the average person on the planet. You live in the west; even if you were living like the Amish, and you're not, you'd still be taking up way more resources than the average human being on this planet does.

Nah, I didn't tell them that. Your scenario requires everyone to become vegan

I never said that. I said that we COULD sustain the population with a vegan diet with way less land than if we maintained our current diet. That's a simple statement of fact, not a requirement.

Pupulation density is one thing, but all of those current city people _can_ get to the countryside in less than a day. Make your cities huge and you take this away from them. (among many other things, obviously)

We already have huge cities, and we can get to the countryside in less than a day no matter what megacity we're in. There's absolutely no reason this would need to change even if *did* create a singular world city unless you can't conceive of a city that's anything other than perfectly circular in shape. Hell, if you created this world city using Amsterdam's 'lobe' principle, you could easily make it so anyone in the city could reach the countryside within a day, no matter how big the city becomes.

Oh, but I did. It's what people choose now.

Actually, it's the opposite. The majority of people are choosing urban living.

You thuink a 700Billion population will be able to go visit nature without a pass system? Our current national parks require one, why would that change when the number of people visiting them is increased?

So if your current national parks require a pass, then why is it a bad thing?

1. It means that overpopulation means a vast complexity of things and you are concerned with only a single one of them, nutrition.

No, actually I'm not. I'm also concerned with all the other aspects of quality living. But once again; the quality of life; at least in the west; of urban populations is HIGHER than that of people in the countryside. This is a simple fact. By your rant filled posts, it seems as if you think living in Paris or Tokyo is some sort of blade runner-style nightmare, but in reality it's quite the opposite.

2. Why force people to adapt if you don't have to?

Once again, this whole thing is a thought experiment. Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything.

3. "countless entertainment venues" does not solve all problems, nor meet all needs.

I could've easily added in things like 'schools', hospitals, general emergency services, libraries, supermarkets, well-kept parks, marinas, or any number of things you won't find in plentiful supply on the countryside.

and make up your mind. Am I a rural hillbilly or an obscene country estate? LOL

When I say "Obscene", I mean in a global context. The footprint of a rural american hillbilly indeed *is* obscene compared to that of some living in say, Kenya; or indeed, just the average human being.

 

[bilby]

You guys do know the difference between a thought experiment designed to make it easier to imagine a complex situation, and an actual policy proposal, don't you?

IF the entire world population was to be in one place, it would be possible for them to occupy a city the size of Texas, at currently widely accepted population densities; and they could be fed by a land area similar to that of the USA; and they could get all of their water needs from the Colombia river.

The first word in that sentence should be a warning to anyone who is hoping to make a killing supplying concrete and steel to the San Angelo region; or by selling their farmland in Germany to fund the purchase of an farm in Arizona.

 

[bilby]

I don't see how you can claim that is the only definition of overpopulation. If you have to change everything to sustain it, you've shown that you overpopulated your previous environment.

By this definition, the world has been overpopulated since the widespread adoption of agriculture. If you want to use this definition, then I am forced to agree that the Earth is overpopulated; but you must equally accept that it really is not a problem at all. After all, we have been overpopulated for longer than we have had history, and yet quality of life for all has improved beyond belief for all of that time.

The question 'Is the Earth overpopulated?' is rather like the question 'Am I going too fast?'; the answer is meaningless without more context, and so the question is also meaningless without more context.

Going at 15km/h is too fast when driving around a hairpin bend in icy conditions; it is not too fast on a straight stretch of dry freeway. A half-billion people is too many if we are not allowed to change the natural environment one iota. it is not too many if we are allowed to farm.

Anything and everything is unsustainable at ANY population level, unless there is a way to re-cycle it. Some recycling happens without human intervention - such as in the water cycle; some requires intervention using various technologies - from the super simple like shovelling up the cow-pats and spreading the muck on the fields to fertilise the grass, to feed the cows; to the more complex stuff, like using solar power to convert excess atmospheric carbon dioxide into aviation fuel.

The natural recycle rates can be boosted using technology - desalination bypasses the waiting for the sun to evaporate water from the ocean, then waiting for the rain to fall where you want it to fall. Ploughing and tilling means you needn't wait for worms or pigs to turn over the soil; spreading muck means not waiting for the cows to poop where you need them to poop, and using chemical fertilisers means not waiting for the cows to poop at all - or not waiting for the legumes to fix nitrogen for your next grain crop.

Technology changes the carrying capacity of the planet. To date, it has almost always increased that capacity faster than we have increased our numbers; and now that our numbers have stopped increasing (or rather, are about to stop increasing), we need not worry about absolute population numbers - which means we are free to solve real problems, such as poverty, disease, slavery, war, and the existence of Justin Bieber.

Worrying about non-issues on a large scale is positively harmful to humanity. This is true whether the issue is whether a magic skybeast will burn you for eternity for falling in love with someone with the wrong shaped genitals; or whether it is "overpopulation".

 

[Zeluvia]

I don't see how you can claim that is the only definition of overpopulation. If you have to change everything to sustain it, you've shown that you overpopulated your previous environment.

By this definition, the world has been overpopulated since the widespread adoption of agriculture. If you want to use this definition, then I am forced to agree that the Earth is overpopulated; but you must equally accept that it really is not a problem at all. After all, we have been overpopulated for longer than we have had history, and yet quality of life for all has improved beyond belief for all of that time.

The question 'Is the Earth overpopulated?' is rather like the question 'Am I going too fast?'; the answer is meaningless without more context, and so the question is also meaningless without more context.

Going at 15km/h is too fast when driving around a hairpin bend in icy conditions; it is not too fast on a straight stretch of dry freeway. A half-billion people is too many if we are not allowed to change the natural environment one iota. it is not too many if we are allowed to farm.

Anything and everything is unsustainable at ANY population level, unless there is a way to re-cycle it. Some recycling happens without human intervention - such as in the water cycle; some requires intervention using various technologies - from the super simple like shovelling up the cow-pats and spreading the muck on the fields to fertilise the grass, to feed the cows; to the more complex stuff, like using solar power to convert excess atmospheric carbon dioxide into aviation fuel.

The natural recycle rates can be boosted using technology - desalination bypasses the waiting for the sun to evaporate water from the ocean, then waiting for the rain to fall where you want it to fall. Ploughing and tilling means you needn't wait for worms or pigs to turn over the soil; spreading muck means not waiting for the cows to poop where you need them to poop, and using chemical fertilisers means not waiting for the cows to poop at all - or not waiting for the legumes to fix nitrogen for your next grain crop.

Technology changes the carrying capacity of the planet. To date, it has almost always increased that capacity faster than we have increased our numbers; and now that our numbers have stopped increasing (or rather, are about to stop increasing), we need not worry about absolute population numbers - which means we are free to solve real problems, such as poverty, disease, slavery, war, and the existence of Justin Bieber.

Worrying about non-issues on a large scale is positively harmful to humanity. This is true whether the issue is whether a magic skybeast will burn you for eternity for falling in love with someone with the wrong shaped genitals; or whether it is "overpopulation".

bilby, just curious. But where do you stand on the rights of indigenous peoples? Amazonia, Africa, Australia, North America, Mongolia, areas of China. These people live tribal subsistence level lives. Much of the time their land is taken to be "improved", their culture and life style destroyed, and they become a new generation of poor while they try to catch up. This is actually the way superior technology has played out many places in the world, even in Great Britain during the first agricultural revolution. What do you suggest about this human problem?

 

[bilby]

I don't see how you can claim that is the only definition of overpopulation. If you have to change everything to sustain it, you've shown that you overpopulated your previous environment.

By this definition, the world has been overpopulated since the widespread adoption of agriculture. If you want to use this definition, then I am forced to agree that the Earth is overpopulated; but you must equally accept that it really is not a problem at all. After all, we have been overpopulated for longer than we have had history, and yet quality of life for all has improved beyond belief for all of that time.

The question 'Is the Earth overpopulated?' is rather like the question 'Am I going too fast?'; the answer is meaningless without more context, and so the question is also meaningless without more context.

Going at 15km/h is too fast when driving around a hairpin bend in icy conditions; it is not too fast on a straight stretch of dry freeway. A half-billion people is too many if we are not allowed to change the natural environment one iota. it is not too many if we are allowed to farm.

Anything and everything is unsustainable at ANY population level, unless there is a way to re-cycle it. Some recycling happens without human intervention - such as in the water cycle; some requires intervention using various technologies - from the super simple like shovelling up the cow-pats and spreading the muck on the fields to fertilise the grass, to feed the cows; to the more complex stuff, like using solar power to convert excess atmospheric carbon dioxide into aviation fuel.

The natural recycle rates can be boosted using technology - desalination bypasses the waiting for the sun to evaporate water from the ocean, then waiting for the rain to fall where you want it to fall. Ploughing and tilling means you needn't wait for worms or pigs to turn over the soil; spreading muck means not waiting for the cows to poop where you need them to poop, and using chemical fertilisers means not waiting for the cows to poop at all - or not waiting for the legumes to fix nitrogen for your next grain crop.

Technology changes the carrying capacity of the planet. To date, it has almost always increased that capacity faster than we have increased our numbers; and now that our numbers have stopped increasing (or rather, are about to stop increasing), we need not worry about absolute population numbers - which means we are free to solve real problems, such as poverty, disease, slavery, war, and the existence of Justin Bieber.

Worrying about non-issues on a large scale is positively harmful to humanity. This is true whether the issue is whether a magic skybeast will burn you for eternity for falling in love with someone with the wrong shaped genitals; or whether it is "overpopulation".

bilby, just curious. But where do you stand on the rights of indigenous peoples? Amazonia, Africa, Australia, North America, Mongolia, areas of China. These people live tribal subsistence level lives. Much of the time their land is taken to be "improved", their culture and life style destroyed, and they become a new generation of poor while they try to catch up. This is actually the way superior technology has played out many places in the world, even in Great Britain during the first agricultural revolution. What do you suggest about this human problem?

I don't have a solution. I would prefer to see the lands of indigenous peoples recognised as being their property, and therefore not available to exploit without their permission as owners; but in most cases, they simply don't have the ability to defend themselves, nor the political influence to obtain adequate protection from the national governments.

The nomadic lifestyle doesn't lend itself to learning how to defend against theft of property that people have no concept of ownership over; If you offer a tribe a dozen cases of whiskey in return for a few thousand square miles of land, they think you are an idiot, and gladly fleece you - what kind of fool give perfectly good whiskey away? The land isn't 'property', it is just there; If you want to buy the Eiffel tower from me, I will take your money and run.

Today, many governments are beginning to provide some protection to their indigenous peoples. The majority of those parts of Australia that has been stolen from its original inhabitants was stolen within a century or so of the landing of the First Fleet; by 1888 the population of Australia was around 3 million migrants and their descendants, plus an unknown number of Aborigines. World population at that time had yet to reach 2 billion. Today, with protections in place, Aboriginal lands cannot even be visited by non-Aborigines without a permit from the locals - which is as it should be; after all, you can't take a stroll around my backyard without asking me first either. There are still many issues, and it is too complex to go into all of them here; but on the whole, things are less awful today than they were a century ago, or even a half century ago, for Australian Aborigines. This despite the population of non-aborigines in Australia having multiplied by five in the last century, mainly through further immigration.

This problem is a dreadful and difficult one - but its causes are not population growth, but rather the pursuit of economic growth by a small number of people from a small number of nations mostly in Western Europe, mostly in the 16th through 19th centuries. The English, Spanish, French, Dutch and Portuguese didn't go to America because they had too many people at home; they went because they had the technology necessary to get there, and they hoped to get rich. Stealing stuff from people who have no ability to prevent you from doing so is a very effective way to get rich, no matter how large or small the world population may be.

So in summary; it sucks; but I don't know what else to do about it that isn't already being tried; and it isn't relevant to the topic of the thread.

Overpopulation is like Goddidit. You can point to any problem and say that's the answer; but all you achieve thereby is a smug feeling of not being totally clueless. It is better to say you don't know the answers; at least that way you don't stop looking for them.

 

[Rhea]

...

did you not bother to actually read any of my posts? I was talking about the WORLD's population: In other words, a hundred fold increase in the WORLD's population, NOT 'america alone'. And I was not talking about this hypothetical thought-experiment city being in America, I merely compared its size to Texas.

Yes, I got that. It makes sense as a thought experiment. Then, as part of the experiment, one imagines it trying to work. One tries to picture it given the resources and all. So that's where my extensions came in. So, *IF* we're going to make these megacities, what will that really be like, given all that we currently know. IF one looks at your idea of 100x, and does not _even_ try to cram it into the state of Texas-sized spots, just take the current countries, their current populations and their current densities and multiply them 100x, how does this extended thought experiment LOOK and FEEL in context?

That's what I was saying in reply.

I'm saying, okay, take that 100x. I won't suggest making it a single city because it wouldn't be. Just take each country and 100x it. The USA should be a relatively easy one, since it ranks 182 on the list of population densities (80ppl/mi^2), especially compared to, say, the Netherlands which ranks 30th at 1000 ppl/mi2. So IF it can be done, it can be done here in the USA, no sweat.

So IF (this is a thought experiment, as we all agree by this point) population went 100x here, one wonders, what would that look like? One can bracket this by saying, "what would it look like evenly spread out?" That's Miami coast-to-coast. But in the thought experiment, of course, one KNOWS that one must subtract land unfit for cities. Like lakes, deserts (maybe not! Tatooine here we come!) and mountain peaks. One also knows, that even in a thought experiment, one needs space for garbage, sewage treatment, oh, and to grow food.

One can think, if one has read enough science fiction, about "Public Square Mile" nature preserves, and getting to go once per month and the rest of the time in artificial light below levels. One can think about what kind of food can be grown in the least possible space and whether it's diverse.

One can also think, "they are having water battles already over much of that space what will happen at 100x?"

So, that Miami population density is merely the BEST possible unrealistic case and only for one of the least populated countries on the planet. So that's why I did that. That's the brack. You can't get any _better_ than that outside of Australia and Russia (as examples; see the list for more). But you can't get any better than that for 182 countries.

And of course, even that is unrealistic because of the other space subtractors I've covered.

Sigh, it would leave the ENTIRE REST OF THE PLANET for all of that. Because that's what we're talking about here; a thought experiment in which we concentrate the ENTIRE WORLD POPULATION in a city smaller than the size of Texas. We're NOT talking about increasing the population of the US to match that of the planet.

IF we made a city more dense than Singapore (by 25%) and made it 700 miles across the thought experiment again asks, and this would not cause major upheaval? But this part of the thought experiment was only a step to the larger population, the 100x. So now you need a land area of 100 Texases which equals 7 USAs to keep with this density that is all hunkey-dorey and...

shit.

We are at 46% of the planet's surface, and we still haven't subtracted out the swamps, mountains, lakes, volcanoes, glaciers, garbage dumps and sewage treatment plants.

It would leave no room for parks, wildlife or wilderness. Miami. Coast to coast.

Are you suggesting that miami doesn't have any parks? Or are you suggesting that those parks aren't including in the calculations that are used to arrive at miami's urban density?

I am _definitely_ suggesting that Miami's parks (and Paris' and Manilla's) are not what I think of when I think "Parks." I'm thinking Everglades, Tetons, Glacier, Badlands, Yellowstone, Denali and Big Bend.


.
.

So I'm just working on your thought experiment, and it's coming up short, from what I can see.

 

[Rhea]

We already have huge cities, and we can get to the countryside in less than a day no matter what megacity we're in. There's absolutely no reason this would need to change even if *did* create a singular world city unless you can't conceive of a city that's anything other than perfectly circular in shape. Hell, if you created this world city using Amsterdam's 'lobe' principle, you could easily make it so anyone in the city could reach the countryside within a day, no matter how big the city becomes.

When 700 Billion people go out for the day, it is not "countryside" any more. I mean, it _isn't,_ right?

Oh, but I did. It's what people choose now.

Actually, it's the opposite. The majority of people are choosing urban living.

I meant they currently choose a mix. Your scenario has no mix.

You thuink a 700Billion population will be able to go visit nature without a pass system? Our current national parks require one, why would that change when the number of people visiting them is increased?

So if your current national parks require a pass, then why is it a bad thing? [/quote]
Oh, because the parks would be gone. Just a small city square left and a million people to use it.

1. It means that overpopulation means a vast complexity of things and you are concerned with only a single one of them, nutrition.

No, actually I'm not. I'm also concerned with all the other aspects of quality living. But once again; the quality of life; at least in the west; of urban populations is HIGHER than that of people in the countryside. This is a simple fact. By your rant filled posts, it seems as if you think living in Paris or Tokyo is some sort of blade runner-style nightmare, but in reality it's quite the opposite.

Really What's the measure of "quality of life"? Genuinely curious, assuming you have a reason to say that and I'm looking to learn what it is.

2. Why force people to adapt if you don't have to?

Once again, this whole thing is a thought experiment. Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything.

Well, yuh. In the experiment. Why go that route when deciding that population growth decisions can be made to avoid it (the first being to decide that it is undesirable)

3. "countless entertainment venues" does not solve all problems, nor meet all needs.

I could've easily added in things like 'schools', hospitals, general emergency services, libraries, supermarkets, well-kept parks, marinas, or any number of things you won't find in plentiful supply on the countryside.

We got all that. Our fire department has saved 4 cellar holes this year alone.

and make up your mind. Am I a rural hillbilly or an obscene country estate? LOL

When I say "Obscene", I mean in a global context. The footprint of a rural american hillbilly indeed *is* obscene compared to that of some living in say, Kenya; or indeed, just the average human being.

Compared to the average? I'm not sure it'd be "obscene" Definitely western-privileged, but I'm curious what factors do you think are present to make it "obscene"? I mean, yeah, my outhouse is a two-holer, and the seats are made of local cherry, but it's still an outhouse.

 

[bilby]

Yes, I got that. It makes sense as a thought experiment. Then, as part of the experiment, one imagines it trying to work. One tries to picture it given the resources and all. So that's where my extensions came in. So, *IF* we're going to make these megacities, what will that really be like, given all that we currently know. IF one looks at your idea of 100x, and does not _even_ try to cram it into the state of Texas-sized spots, just take the current countries, their current populations and their current densities and multiply them 100x, how does this extended thought experiment LOOK and FEEL in context?

That's what I was saying in reply.

I'm saying, okay, take that 100x. I won't suggest making it a single city because it wouldn't be. Just take each country and 100x it. The USA should be a relatively easy one, since it ranks 182 on the list of population densities (80ppl/mi^2), especially compared to, say, the Netherlands which ranks 30th at 1000 ppl/mi2. So IF it can be done, it can be done here in the USA, no sweat.

So IF (this is a thought experiment, as we all agree by this point) population went 100x here, one wonders, what would that look like? One can bracket this by saying, "what would it look like evenly spread out?" That's Miami coast-to-coast. But in the thought experiment, of course, one KNOWS that one must subtract land unfit for cities. Like lakes, deserts (maybe not! Tatooine here we come!) and mountain peaks. One also knows, that even in a thought experiment, one needs space for garbage, sewage treatment, oh, and to grow food.

One can think, if one has read enough science fiction, about "Public Square Mile" nature preserves, and getting to go once per month and the rest of the time in artificial light below levels. One can think about what kind of food can be grown in the least possible space and whether it's diverse.

One can also think, "they are having water battles already over much of that space what will happen at 100x?"

So, that Miami population density is merely the BEST possible unrealistic case and only for one of the least populated countries on the planet. So that's why I did that. That's the brack. You can't get any _better_ than that outside of Australia and Russia (as examples; see the list for more). But you can't get any better than that for 182 countries.

And of course, even that is unrealistic because of the other space subtractors I've covered.

Sigh, it would leave the ENTIRE REST OF THE PLANET for all of that. Because that's what we're talking about here; a thought experiment in which we concentrate the ENTIRE WORLD POPULATION in a city smaller than the size of Texas. We're NOT talking about increasing the population of the US to match that of the planet.

IF we made a city more dense than Singapore (by 25%) and made it 700 miles across the thought experiment again asks, and this would not cause major upheaval? But this part of the thought experiment was only a step to the larger population, the 100x. So now you need a land area of 7 USAs to keep with this density that is all hunkey-dorey and... shit. We are at 46% of the planet's surface, and we still haven't subtracted out the swamps, mountains, lakes, volcanoes, glaciers, garbage dumps and sewage treatment plants.

It would leave no room for parks, wildlife or wilderness. Miami. Coast to coast.

Are you suggesting that miami doesn't have any parks? Or are you suggesting that those parks aren't including in the calculations that are used to arrive at miami's urban density?

I am _definitely_ suggesting that Miami's parks (and Paris' and Manilla's) are not what I think of when I think "Parks" I'm thinking everglades, Tetons, Glacier, Badlands, Yellowstone, Denali and Big Bend.


.
.

So I'm just working on your thought experiment, and it's coming up short, from what I can see.

It is a pointless question. It doesn't matter whether the Earth could or couldn't sustain 700 billion people, unless there is a reasonable prospect of it ever being asked to do so. ten billion or so is it. Not 100x today; not even 2x today; about 1.43x today is all. For every two people, imagine adding another one. Does this sound like a disaster?

Asking whether we could cope with 700 billion is like saying a $5 increase in minimum wage would be a disaster, on the grounds that a $5 million minimum would cause economic ruin. The question at hand is "can we handle about 10 billion?" my bet is 'yes'. We will know for sure in about 40 or 50 years. There is a fair chance that I will still be alive to see it.

 

[Rhea]

I don't see how you can claim that is the only definition of overpopulation. If you have to change everything to sustain it, you've shown that you overpopulated your previous environment.

By this definition, the world has been overpopulated since the widespread adoption of agriculture. If you want to use this definition, then I am forced to agree that the Earth is overpopulated; but you must equally accept that it really is not a problem at all. After all, we have been overpopulated for longer than we have had history, and yet quality of life for all has improved beyond belief for all of that time.

The question 'Is the Earth overpopulated?' is rather like the question 'Am I going too fast?'; the answer is meaningless without more context, and so the question is also meaningless without more context.

These are good questions. I guess I look at them in a context like have we "overfished" the atlantic ocean? Well, since we raise salmon in farms then, "no," right?

You make a good point. We've been changing all along... and yet, the thought experiment of 100x doesn't just continue on a line of cultural change to the proximity of neighbors, I believe it actually uses stuff up. 100x is big. Really really big. I see points at which we have to admit we have permanently changed and lost things. There are many of these points in our history already.