When will there be too many people ?

[another1]

Population projections are so scary that I can't even figure out how to find them. Maybe you can. I ran across a website that makes me wonder something, and I was just going to see if someone would do some math work for me. On this website the births today clock is moving a LOT faster than the deaths today clock. When you move down to Forest loss this year - CO2 emissions this year - Toxic chemicals released in the environment this year - People who died of hunger today - People with no access to a safe drinking water source... you may start to wonder when it is time to ease up on reproducing.

The worst numbers flickering on the page are about starvation. If they can't even feed the ones they already have, what the hell? Seems kooky that overweight numbers are higher than malnourishment numbers, and the money spent on weight loss would feed the starving 10x over. I mean... if you stare at those numbers too long you may get frustrated. Me, I'm just kind of confused at this point. I don't know if this is some psychic computer program... or real numbers being ran in by thousands of people smoking cigars and yelling into cup phones like 1930's gangsters. What is this thing?

As for humans, don't get me wrong. I love people. I wouldn't mind if the place became so overpopulated that crowded shantytown coffee can candles actually changed the way the planet looks from space. It would look beautiful. I wouldn't mind inhaling human skin cells in every breath, no matter where I go. I wouldn't mind to overshoot the population straight into the planet, eventually creating ugly mole people. Then they would be behaving more like mycelium, which is why I provided the fungus GIF at the beginning there. They would spread downward just as heavily, layer upon layer - as far as they can drill without bursting into flames. Just as long as they keep scrogging and spawning! That is very important. They are important beings with souls. Isn't it obvious in how passionately they kill everything else?

Down to business. Here are the numbers I need from you. At their current rate of breeding, how long until they eat all other animals into extinction? Factor infanticidal cannibalism as a food source near their end, because you know they're going to fight extinction as long as they can. They will probably eat the females first, so shave a few digits for that. Also, I need to know how many cubic feet they can compact into. I'm thinking four cubic feet could provide for a productive life of inhaling/exhaling air?

It may be a hard equation. The mass of the inhabitable earth, the known animals living on it.. and them. How long until they devour every single inch of it and beg the deaf ears of space (too late to make it there) for a fairy to come make it all right again? They will never stop breeding. It feels too good. The last two people left will probably be screwing when they die. Screwing while devouring each other. Yep, that is what will happen. I'd like the number to support that please. You know there is one floating around in numberland. I think you can find it because I beilieve in you.

There are a lot of things to factor before you can get "the number". What I was looking for was something like a date. Some terrorizing number to drool at while watching monster truck and whatnot. Not into anti-humanitarian causes or anything like that. Just curious about these things because they're stuff so terrible that people have a weird instinct to avoid them. Sometimes even laugh. Not all people of course but the numbers, I mean. The big numbers out there aren't even aware of the smaller numbers. The small numbers don't understand the big ones. That is a problem in itself but really this is more about getting a number for me, than anything else. I'm curious about "when". A particular century will do. Thank you much. If you're not already trying to come up some figures, you're good. Don't worry about this.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Would we necessarily "eat all other animals into extinction"? Aren't most animals that are eaten farmed? So, we just need to farm more animals if we have more people. Now, that requires land in many cases, so we can't use up all the land for people, we need to keep farm land. So, housing of humans will just have to become denser, i.e., more high rises. There's plenty of room in the world for that at least. I guess you'd have to calculate how much food we could ultimately farm on the planet.

Also, there's an energy problem, right? All these people would use a certain amount of energy and we'd have to provide it. So, it'll take calculating all the potential energy sources (be they fossil fuels, nuclear, or renewables) and then see how much can be sustained.

 

[another1]

Would we necessarily "eat all other animals into extinction"? Aren't most animals that are eaten farmed? So, we just need to farm more animals if we have more people. Now, that requires land in many cases, so we can't use up all the land for people, we need to keep farm land. So, housing of humans will just have to become denser, i.e., more high rises. There's plenty of room in the world for that at least. I guess you'd have to calculate how much food we could ultimately farm on the planet.

Definitely and I see that as a first cycle. But you can only build up and down for so long.

Also, there's an energy problem, right? All these people would use a certain amount of energy and we'd have to provide it. So, it'll take calculating all the potential energy sources (be they fossil fuels, nuclear, or renewables) and then see how much can be sustained.

Oh man, I forgot about the energy numbers ticking on that webpage. They project about 50 years til the end of natural gas I think. Same for oil. That lobs a huge digit off. Now we're talking about a number within our current century. Wow, now it seems a little negative. Chances are that some rich, humanitarian supervillians are cooking up some chemtrails and the like, but even they can't stop the spread and consumption. People are totally powerless, huh. In 50 years I mean.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Never.

There's a statistical correlation between the number of people and the incidences of cannibalism, so overpopulation is a self-correcting issue.

 

[another1]

Oh man you may have cracked it. The number may be infinity, or whenever the planet explodes and kills everybody. Some number figures on that page got me thinking. 3,300,000 blog posts written today vs 441,000,000 tweets sent today = people think like flies. But flies benefit our environment, so I don't want to go accusing flies of anything irate. The lay eggs in poop and dead things, yet they're way more noble when it comes to the numbers. As for insects, do you think they will outlive humans? Something screwy thrown into their balance (by humans) will probably kill them off. It is already happening so no need to get dramatic with that. Yeah, humans will be the last living things around. Do you think they can live only on human meat? I wonder if that would do to them after a few hundred years.

 

[Elixir]

On another site there was a poster who did an impressive amount of work trying to support his thesis that this planet can support a trillion people (without inhabiting the interior of the sphere). It was a pretty airtight calculation, accounting for climate and geographic variables among a host of other factors, and assumed only current technology. The fault was that it also ignored the possibility of microorganisms taking advantage of the scenario, which of course involved the loss of most extant biodiversity...
Evolution being as chaotic a process as it is and its outcomes as unpredictable as they are, I deemed his entire thesis a fail. But that's what I WANTED to think in the first place, so I take my own conclusion with a grain of salt.
Viable or not, I realized in 1954 when I was a toddler, that within my lifetime human overpopulation was going to wreck most of the planet. I remember the epiphany to this day. I tried to engage some adults on the subject, but that was in the giddy post WWII days, and even if they had believed that a little kid was concerned with the matter, nobody wanted to discuss it.

Now, here we are, with people acting more and more like lemmings every year, ready to drive huge numbers of populations into starvation and/or war. There WILL be a population crash. It's possible that nobody will really notice if it is comprised of a series of "small" disasters, e.g. everyone in sub-Saharan Africa starves, then the Indian continent gets a record drought, then the Siberian Trapps rupture and kill off most of the Chinese.... or it might be one biggie - pandemic, nuclear war or whatever. But I believe we are already past any point of sustainability.

 

[another1]

I remember the epiphany to this day. I tried to engage some adults on the subject, but that was in the giddy post WWII days, and even if they had believed that a little kid was concerned with the matter, nobody wanted to discuss it.

Yeah that is a good example of nowadays but it seems like the type of thing that "those people over there" are handling, but there don't seem to be any people over there, other than fools who WANT to think something like this is calculable, which is definitely toddler'ish. The math problem is in too many sets to really do, and the microorganisms are too abundant to count. I don't see anyone counting the days until they kill everything dead. I'd like to but not sure where to look for those things.

Now, here we are, with people acting more and more like lemmings every year, ready to drive huge numbers of populations into starvation and/or war. There WILL be a population crash. It's possible that nobody will really notice if it is comprised of a series of "small" disasters, e.g. everyone in sub-Saharan Africa starves, then the Indian continent gets a record drought, then the Siberian Trapps rupture and kill off most of the Chinese.... or it might be one biggie - pandemic, nuclear war or whatever. But I believe we are already past any point of sustainability.

Yeah I totally agree with that actually. A neon number is what I was hurting for. Something to write down and keep in my own pocket. I wasn't interested in proving any sustainability issues, and by the way that guy must have been insane. The guy with the trillion number. No need to copypaste whatever was said but nah, a trillion?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Definitely and I see that as a first cycle. But you can only build up and down for so long.

We can routinely build 100 story buildings now, and there's plenty of space for putting them up. I don't think we'd run out of living room any time soon.

 

[Valjean]

It's not a matter of room. It's a matter of sustainable carrying capacity and lifestyle. Our prime directive should be the maintenance of the planet's biodiversity, which is what sustains a functional biosphere.
We're already using resources faster than they can be replenished. We're already poisoning the land, waters and air. We're already causing mass extinctions.
I'd say life might be sustainable if we kept our numbers at maybe 500M.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It's not a matter of room. It's a matter of sustainable carrying capacity and lifestyle. Our prime directive should be the maintenance of the planet's biodiversity, which is what sustains a functional biosphere.
We're already using resources faster than they can be replenished. We're already poisoning the land, waters and air. We're already causing mass extinctions.
I'd say life might be sustainable if we kept our numbers at maybe 500M.

As I said, it's about balancing our living room against the room necessary to generate the food and energy to sustain us. It's quite possible that there's a limit to a population before the generation of food and energy itself becomes detrimental to the growth of the population (through those things you mention like poisoning the water, etc.). I'm not prepared to do the calculations, but it would seem calculable.

 

[bilby]

There will likely never be 'too many' people. World population is increasing today at a far slower rate than it did during the 20th Century, and at this point only demographic lag is causing it to increase at all.

It will level off somewhere around the 10-12 billion mark, somewhere between 2050 and 2080.

The Population Explosion of the 20th Century was driven by high infant mortality (people have more children when they are not all expected to survive); agrarian lifestyles (children are an economic asset for farmers, and a liability for city-dwellers); and lack of access to safe and effective contraception (the contraceptive pill wasn't invented until the 1960s, and wasn't widely available in the developing world until the end of the 20th Century).

The 'problem' was exacerbated by the agricultural revolution - people who would have died in their millions in the first half of the 20th Century from starvation were able to survive (and even thrive) in the late 20th century.

Right now, we have about 7.5 billion people, and enough food for about 10 billion; And the amount of land worldwide under agriculture has been steadily falling since about 1980, as have incidences of famine - to the point where famine is almost unheard of today, and only ever when food supplies are deliberately obstructed (usually by war).

In 1985, Bob Geldof was whipping up panic about overpopulation, using the Ethiopian famine as the exemplar of the problem. In 1985, Ethiopia had a population of less than 41 million; Today, it has a population of over 99 million, and no famine - despite drought conditions a few years ago that were as severe as those of the early 1980s.

What changed? Well, obviously it wasn't population control that saved Ethiopia from famine today; the population increased to 2.4 times what it was. But most importantly, Ethiopia is no longer at war with Eritrea - There's nothing like a war to create famine. Secondly, and of similar importance, Ethiopia no longer tries to grow all of her own food. Many food crops don't do very well in Ethiopian conditions; so feeding 100 million people from Ethiopian farms was never going to work. But then, the city of Tokyo has a population of over 10 million and produces almost no food at all; New York City has close to 9 million inhabitants, and Central Park doesn't produce enough food for even a tiny handful of people. The Ethiopians solved their food problem the same way that Tokyo and NYC did - they sell other stuff, and buy food with the proceeds. In Ethiopia, the big product that feeds the country is still an agricultural product - they are not yet a first-world economy - but it's not food; It's flowers. Ethiopia grows decorative flowers that she exports to the EU, where German and French housewives buy them and use them to decorate their homes. In doing so, they do FAR more to feed Ethiopians than they did when they chucked a few hundred Marks or Francs in the collection tins at Live Aid.

The world had a big population problem in the 20th Century. Then we invented the contraceptive pill - which may be the most important invention since the wheel. Now we don't have a population problem; All we have now is a perception problem - the people who grew up in the population panic of the 1970s and 1980s are still behaving as though the problem was real, some forty years after it was solved. And that's very silly indeed.

The only thing we need to do to prevent population from re-emerging as a problem for humanity is to keep up the fight to educate people (particularly girls), and to keep up the push to make contraception freely available to all who want it (particularly women). The only obstacles standing in the way of this today are Christianity and Islam, both of which are working hard against both education for girls and contraception for anybody. Current trends suggest that it is unlikely that they will succeed in dragging us back into the abyss - but it's far from being a sure thing, so we need to keep pushing.

Famine has pretty much disappeared from the world. FAR more people suffer today due to eating too much, than due to not having enough to eat. If you don't want famine to return, the best thing you can do is to donate to organizations that educate girls in the Third world (particularly sub-Saharan Africa); and avoid supporting organizations that promote religion in the Third World (particularly sub-Saharan Africa).

And don't worry about how many kids you have - If everyone on the planet has the number they actually want (and access to the means to avoid any they don't want), we won't have a problem.

 

[another1]

We can routinely build 100 story buildings now, and there's plenty of space for putting them up. I don't think we'd run out of living room any time soon.

Room for living, but what else would be living around them? I don't think hellish highrises like that are possible because it takes sea sand to make concrete. Screw up the sea and they're gonners in no time. I don't think people can get along well enough to do that anyway but that is just my opinion.

It's not a matter of room. It's a matter of sustainable carrying capacity and lifestyle. Our prime directive should be the maintenance of the planet's biodiversity, which is what sustains a functional biosphere.
We're already using resources faster than they can be replenished. We're already poisoning the land, waters and air. We're already causing mass extinctions.
I'd say life might be sustainable if we kept our numbers at maybe 500M.

500M is totally a reasonable number. Sounds like a good prime directive but it seems impossible to make it so without being completely evil. But I don't think any animal on the planet understands evil besides humans. Maybe dolphins. Maybe the dolphins are laughing at us when they make those strange sounds, because they know that the planet will somehow regulate the situation. They are a slippery bunch and I don't put much past them.

As I said, it's about balancing our living room against the room necessary to generate the food and energy to sustain us. It's quite possible that there's a limit to a population before the generation of food and energy itself becomes detrimental to the growth of the population (through those things you mention like poisoning the water, etc.). I'm not prepared to do the calculations, but it would seem calculable.

You're giving perfect solutions for prolonging things but at what point would all of that create such a hellsish life for humans that they should have just fizzled down when they had a chance? I mean yeah they can keep building here but at what point would they look around and say wow this is hell? What year will that be? A year would be wonderful. If someone could come up with a vague year. I have personal uses for these things, it isn't that I care as much as you may think. Everyone will be dead before this matters, so it isn't a big thing, really.

World population is increasing today at a far slower rate than it did during the 20th Century, and at this point only demographic lag is causing it to increase at all.

Are you sure? After the candy bus bombing the other day, I started thinking that every one of those children represented three more people within the next 15 years. I managed to multiply up to sixty, and then considered that they were homeless to begin with. But if you say so I'll go with it for now.

It will level off somewhere around the 10-12 billion mark, somewhere between 2050 and 2080.

Sorry but I disagree again. I tried to hang tough. I think people will breed more desperately, as the world becomes sicker. And I think future wars will take hundreds of years, and they'll be won through breeding ridiculously too much. Races will probably say hey we deserve this or that space, and then bam they will go at it. If the problem is space, it will defitely happen in some similar way. The crazy highrises will be destroyed just as fast as they're built in that case, too. The numbers you're giving may be accurate at this minute but who can really say. There is a big chunk there that is informative so thank you a lot. Then I get to this next part:

Famine has pretty much disappeared from the world. FAR more people suffer today due to eating too much, than due to not having enough to eat.

If the "number people" running the magic website are right, famine is getting worse. And nobody cares. Testimony there for shaving things down over time, because they just Can't Getright. The numbers on famine, malnourishment and just plain ABANDONMENT are tragic, and I'm seeing the site's numbers as suspiciously low, from what I've read in the recent past.

the best thing you can do is to donate to organizations that educate girls in the Third world (particularly sub-Saharan Africa); and avoid supporting organizations that promote religion in the Third World (particularly sub-Saharan Africa).

I really don't know about that because watching this little Tanzania thing go up and down is freaking me out. It looks like an hourglass next to an erupting volcano. And "the best thing you can do" isn't a charity in my opinion. I think being charitable would only make people happy enough to go have unprotected sex. Even the most well meaning charity is just a cold, wet cloth on the forehead of a dying thing. Just there to help a tiny, tiny bit. Especially Religious ones, you're right on that. I watch Bob the crackhead wake up on a different set of church steps every day. Nobody is actually helping him. Sure a donut will keep him alive but he has no real value to these rich Church people. Stupid really. They should turn him away because he literally makes concrete stink where he sleeps. For days! I never knew that was possible until I saw the miracle for myself.

And don't worry about how many kids you have - If everyone on the planet has the number they actually want (and access to the means to avoid any they don't want), we won't have a problem

You're coming with awesome numbers and knowledge I didn't know about this. So thank you for all of that. Thing is that people are crazy. Some people have kids just to have them. I know a guy with ten kids and he never sees one of them. Out of the ten, you can bet the same pattern repeats a few times. That isn't really disagreeing with what you said, but yeah. I see little trends like that getting worse. A positive outlook on the population of the world is an impossible thing to have. People are stupid and getting stupider. I never even considered this until now, which is just insulting to myself. But it is a totally foreign thing because it is a flashing, changing picture of a hellish future - no matter what happens. Why look at something like that, is the mentality I suppose. We can agree that the world is bound for a kind of hell, if people don't manage to escape it? Given enough time? I'm talking thousands of years, if they can even make it past another 50.

 

[bilby]

World population is increasing today at a far slower rate than it did during the 20th Century, and at this point only demographic lag is causing it to increase at all.

Are you sure?

Yes.

After the candy bus bombing the other day, I started thinking that every one of those children represented three more people within the next 15 years. I managed to multiply up to sixty, and then considered that they were homeless to begin with. But if you say so I'll go with it for now.

I don't say so; All of the organizations that actually measure population do.

Your gut feeling is not worth shit in comparison to actual research done be skilled and qualified demographers.

It will level off somewhere around the 10-12 billion mark, somewhere between 2050 and 2080.

Sorry but I disagree again.

Sure. But you are nobody. Why would the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the Population Reference Bureau, and the OECD be wrong; and some random poster on the Internet (whose entire evidence base seems to be that he doesn't 'feel' like the published data are correct) be right?

I tried to hang tough. I think people will breed more desperately, as the world becomes sicker.

The world doesn't care what you think - only what you can demonstrate. Show reasons for your beliefs, or be ridiculed for them.

And I think future wars will take hundreds of years, and they'll be won through breeding ridiculously too much. Races will probably say hey we deserve this or that space, and then bam they will go at it. If the problem is space, it will defitely happen in some similar way. The crazy highrises will be destroyed just as fast as they're built in that case, too. The numbers you're giving may be accurate at this minute but who can really say. There is a big chunk there that is informative so thank you a lot.

You have Internet access. You therefore have NO excuse for not being informed already - unless you don't much care, in which case, why bother?

Then I get to this next part:

Famine has pretty much disappeared from the world. FAR more people suffer today due to eating too much, than due to not having enough to eat.

If the "number people" running the magic website are right, famine is getting worse.

Citation needed



The 1950s and '60s had famines. The '70s, 80's and '90s were far better. Since 2000, famine has almost completely disappeared.

World Population has tripled since the 1950s, while famine deaths dropped from almost 2 million per annum to approximately zero in the same period.

And nobody cares. Testimony there for shaving things down over time, because they just Can't Getright. The numbers on famine, malnourishment and just plain ABANDONMENT are tragic, and I'm seeing the site's numbers as suspiciously low, from what I've read in the recent past.

If you have data to support this, then feel free to share it. But I am prepared to bet that you don't have any such data from any reliable source - because you are completely wrong.

the best thing you can do is to donate to organizations that educate girls in the Third world (particularly sub-Saharan Africa); and avoid supporting organizations that promote religion in the Third World (particularly sub-Saharan Africa).

I really don't know about that because watching this little Tanzania thing go up and down is freaking me out. It looks like an hourglass next to an erupting volcano. And "the best thing you can do" isn't a charity in my opinion. I think being charitable would only make people happy enough to go have unprotected sex. Even the most well meaning charity is just a cold, wet cloth on the forehead of a dying thing. Just there to help a tiny, tiny bit. Especially Religious ones, you're right on that. I watch Bob the crackhead wake up on a different set of church steps every day. Nobody is actually helping him. Sure a donut will keep him alive but he has no real value to these rich Church people. Stupid really. They should turn him away because he literally makes concrete stink where he sleeps. For days! I never knew that was possible until I saw the miracle for myself.

And don't worry about how many kids you have - If everyone on the planet has the number they actually want (and access to the means to avoid any they don't want), we won't have a problem

You're coming with awesome numbers and knowledge I didn't know about this.

Indeed, it is PAINFULLY obvious that you don't know. So why are you flapping your gums? Do you think your wild speculation presented as fact is somehow a good thing?

So thank you for all of that. Thing is that people are crazy. Some people have kids just to have them. I know a guy with ten kids and he never sees one of them. Out of the ten, you can bet the same pattern repeats a few times. That isn't really disagreeing with what you said, but yeah. I see little trends like that getting worse. A positive outlook on the population of the world is an impossible thing to have. People are stupid and getting stupider. I never even considered this until now, which is just insulting to myself. But it is a totally foreign thing because it is a flashing, changing picture of a hellish future - no matter what happens. Why look at something like that, is the mentality I suppose. We can agree that the world is bound for a kind of hell, if people don't manage to escape it? Given enough time? I'm talking thousands of years, if they can even make it past another 50.

Your pessimism isn't data.

This is data:
https://ourworldindata.org/famines/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/259827/global-famine-death-rate/

https://ourworldindata.org/future-world-population-growth/





Your hypothesis is contradicted by the data; It's time to drop it in favour of a new hypothesis.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Room for living, but what else would be living around them? I don't think hellish highrises like that are possible because it takes sea sand to make concrete. Screw up the sea and they're gonners in no time. I don't think people can get along well enough to do that anyway but that is just my opinion.

Hundred story buildings are made out of steel, not concrete. But that does bring up a good point about the potential limit of resources for actually constructing the housing, not just worrying about the space.

 

[another1]

Your gut feeling is not worth shit in comparison to actual research done be skilled and qualified demographers.

Right, that is why the thread is posed as a question and I have just been asking for numbers and opinions about things that can shape them. You went far beyond what I expected, considering I've been talking the way I have about it. I'm satisfied with what you did there. Almost. Still one thing missing.

You have Internet access. You therefore have NO excuse for not being informed already - unless you don't much care, in which case, why bother?

I'm not big on looking things up. You brought numbers and they're real. I know you're a real person. You did well bilby. You went the extra mile to prove that census numbers dictate the future.

But. What I'm still lacking is a year. When will there be too many? Simplify things and assume that humans will not esacape the planet, because they dicked around too long and now it is too late. Consider everything these nice people have said here. I think you can get me the number. The year. Certainly you don't expect them to sustain here forever. Give them thousands of years if you like but please provide the year, century or decade that you think there will simply be too many

Oh and about the famine stuff, there should be no famine, like... since the invention of the boat. That doesn't make any sense, huh. Countries willing to let their people starve while they buy golden Ak-47's aren't above lying about how many are actually starving. I don't trust those famine statistics but yeah the population projections I'll go with for now.

 

[Elixir]

In the interest of arguing against myself, here's a TED talk. I really like Hans Rosling, but I can't shake the feeling that there's something amiss about the way he presents this dynamic. What am I missing?

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth

 

[Elixir]

Definitely and I see that as a first cycle. But you can only build up and down for so long.

We can routinely build 100 story buildings now, and there's plenty of space for putting them up. I don't think we'd run out of living room any time soon.

Biodiversity is inversely correlated with vulnerability to disease.
Just sayin' ...

 

[bilby]

Right, that is why the thread is posed as a question and I have just been asking for numbers and opinions about things that can shape them. You went far beyond what I expected, considering I've been talking the way I have about it. I'm satisfied with what you did there. Almost. Still one thing missing.

You have Internet access. You therefore have NO excuse for not being informed already - unless you don't much care, in which case, why bother?

I'm not big on looking things up. You brought numbers and they're real. I know you're a real person. You did well bilby. You went the extra mile to prove that census numbers dictate the future.

But. What I'm still lacking is a year. When will there be too many? Simplify things and assume that humans will not esacape the planet, because they dicked around too long and now it is too late. Consider everything these nice people have said here. I think you can get me the number. The year. Certainly you don't expect them to sustain here forever. Give them thousands of years if you like but please provide the year, century or decade that you think there will simply be too many

Oh and about the famine stuff, there should be no famine, like... since the invention of the boat. That doesn't make any sense, huh. Countries willing to let their people starve while they buy golden Ak-47's aren't above lying about how many are actually starving. I don't trust those famine statistics but yeah the population projections I'll go with for now.

There IS NO YEAR.

There will NEVER be 'too many' people. Not this century, not next, not ever.

If you are not going to read what I write, then what's the fucking point in your replying to it?

 

[Elixir]

There will NEVER be 'too many' people. Not this century, not next, not ever.

Quibbling over definitions ("too many")?
Obviously that is a subjective thing. If there are "too many" people for the carrying capacity of the planet, there will be a die-off.

 

[beero1000]

People need to be aware of the dangers of linear thinking. Carrying capacity is dependent on technological advancement. Technological advancement is dependent on the number of researchers working in scientific fields. The number of scientific researchers is dependent on the number of people on the planet. More people means more advancement in food production, technology, medicine, energy. All of it, faster and faster, thus allowing for even more people.

There's probably a limit - but at this point it's unknowable. Any numbers given would just be wild guesses, and probably wrong.