There is not an over population crisis. If anything, the Earth is capable of supporting 10 billion people easy. amirite?

Yeah and you could physically fit everyone in my neighborhood inside my apartment. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. There's only one toilet. There's not enough food for everyone. There's not enough seats. It's a fire code violation.

by Ok_Pattern_9553 2 months ago

You could fit everyone in the world in the grand canyon if you threw them all in a pile.

by HedgehogRealistic429 2 months ago

That's an interesting picture

by Anonymous 2 months ago

I'd love to test that.

by Anonymous 2 months ago

You aren't wrong, but it is also a bit of a weird argument. Should we aim at the maximum population that our planet could theoretically feed? Or is it better to keep some wiggle room for nature or unexpected problems?

by torphyassunta 2 months ago

What do you think we should do then?

by Anonymous 2 months ago

Keep some wiggle room

by Own-Frame 2 months ago

We should use mechanisation to lower the amount of labor needed to keep society running so that society including health/elder care) can function with a smaller "working age" population. And at the same time continue all the paths that we already see increase life quality but decrease childrates (woman education, availability of anti-conception stuff, elder care independent of children, probably more, education free from religion) and if these things spread world wide we will probably get a negative population growth everywhere which we will either change law to stabilize at some point (rewards for more children) or humanity will slowly becomes less numerous which IMO is not per definition bad.

by torphyassunta 2 months ago

We just have to learn to live the way we treat our chickens. Yeah, no thanks, you're insane.

by Anonymous 2 months ago

Five people can live in a single bedroom apartment.

by Anonymous 2 months ago

True. But just because you can doesn't mean you should.

by Cultural_Gap_8919 2 months ago

Firstly I would argue we should NOT aim for the absolute maximum we possibly can support at peak efficiency. Secondly the issue isn't really with what earth can support but what society can support, and given how things are currently going that number is a hell of a lot less then 10 billion

by ProtectionTasty5876 2 months ago

Yes, but the quality of life would be suffer.

by Anonymous 2 months ago

As others have mentioned there is not a population crisis, as the population will start crashing from about 2100 onwards. Most countries will have a under population crisis

by Striking_Musician 2 months ago

It is not that "the population will start crashing", but "the population better start crashing, or else".

by Watsicaalice 2 months ago

It's going to crash anyway, so how does it matter how it's said? BUT, the economy will crash big time with it so there won't be a big celebration

by Striking_Musician 2 months ago

You are somewhat correct, but also exaggerating just a tad. The earth can sustain a population of 10 billion, but no more than that, so it's not easily. 10 billion has been estimated to be the stable end point. What is demonstrably true however, is that overpopulation is absolutely not the problem. It's the pollution we cause that's bad.

by HedgehogRealistic429 2 months ago

Where did you get that number?

by Anonymous 2 months ago

With water supplies dwindling in many populated places, how do you suggest providing enough water for this 10 billion people?

by hudsonsyble 2 months ago

Our supplies are dwindling due to government mismanagement - not over population.

by Anonymous 2 months ago

You say that as if government mismanagement wouldn't get worse with even more people 😂

by Anonymous 2 months ago

Severe drought also exists in many areas of the world.

by hudsonsyble 2 months ago

There's plenty of room for improvement in how efficiently water is used and desalination is improving.

by Anonymous 2 months ago

This is too reliant on expecting the best in people. We have too many wars over food sources, oil, and minerals to start an effort towards water efficiency.

by MuchRelationship 2 months ago

the problem is not overpopulation in the majority of countries, it's an aging population that is losing the ability to work

by Electronic_Box 2 months ago

If everyone consumed as much as a staving child in Africa, I would say roughly 20 billion. If everyone had their own 10m² of surface area, we would survive at 51.21 billion. There are some tradeoffs though.

by Anonymous 2 months ago

am i the only one that finds the population number sketch? With all the birth rates going down and seeing people die unexpectedly often like never before I don't see how the population is increasing like they say it is lol. But that's just the way im seeing it.

by Anonymous 2 months ago

Yeah good point I wasn't thinking about all that thanks bro

by Anonymous 2 months ago

I agree the earth is not over populated. There are areas of the Earth that definitely are though. We also haven't figured out how to provide for everybody efficiently either with things like food, consumables, energy.

by ConsistentWafer 2 months ago

This is a common fact tbh. We have enough resources to enable every individual a life that not only fulfills the most basic needs of food and ahelter but even add quality to it that could be called a good life. The problem is inequality and those profitting the most from it are making sure it stays that way. Poverty is on the rise globally.

by Super-Assignment-249 2 months ago

The only problem with us procreating to those levels is the effects it'll have on the climate and therefor nature and you're pretty dependent on that nature to survive so whilst I may be possible it'll not be sustainable due to nature

by Anonymous 2 months ago

There's even been an uptick in concerned climate change activists about havings kids for this reason. Some straight up aren't.

by Anonymous 2 months ago

If our population drops below a certain amount just barely, the entire world population will collapse. This is now an actual danger.

by tania15 2 months ago

We're under populated to keep the world running AND seeing massive birthrate decline. I'll be surprised if the population isn't half by the 22nd century.

by bergstromtristi 2 months ago

The world's population was 2 billion in 1927 according to my quick search. We could lose a lot more and still be just fine as a species. Our economic numbers wouldn't look as good during the decline unless it's from a war.

by Anonymous 2 months ago

Honestly, the third world can do without you. We're just fine.

by Anonymous 2 months ago

Imagine the arrogance of the guy you're replying to! "if the first world populations drop below a certain level, who will look after the third world countries! They need us to look after them!" Absolutely wild take.

by Anonymous 2 months ago

So I can I get all my tax dollars that have gone to aiding the third world back?

by Anonymous 2 months ago

lol. Reality doesn't match that but okay.

by bergstromtristi 2 months ago

Can the world afford everyone to live a lifestyle like in rich countries though? Sure, it can afford even 20 billion people living in tents eating nothing but rice or wheat or potatoes all day. But is that a life we truly want? I prefer quality over quantity. And with that the Earth is definitely not big enough for 10 billion.

by Anonymous 2 months ago

Waiting room at doctors offices and waiting time for simple things at most medical issues went from okayish to insane within 2 decades. Overpopulation is an issue, we don't need so many people and it does nothing good for the world. We need thanos

by Anonymous 2 months ago

This is not a population size problem at all; it just means that a lower percentage of people are going for medical studies. This could be easily fixed even if we were 500 billion.

by Sorry-Mortgage 2 months ago

Housing got way less affordable. Also not a problem of population size? Idk what else to blame that everything got worse and worse for the average dude the past 5 decades. I mean we doubled within 100 years, what else to blame

by Anonymous 2 months ago

You are totally wrong without fossil fuels we couldn't support half the people all ready here

by Anonymous 2 months ago

10 billion people sharing one ball of water and earth? VERY debatable, but OK, still not within the territory of nonsense. 10 billion living a FIRST-WORLD life? You mean 10 billion people driving an electric car, owning an iPhone, living in a Midwest-sized house, eating red meat and organic vegetables and drinking Coca-Cola, things that a typical First World middle class dude can afford to do? No way. The waste of resources is surely a terrible reality, but how will humanity control it so that everyone's well-being is assured? Is there a way that every factory and every farm make optimal use of resources without any waste? Another question: will there be a job for each of these 10 billion people? In a world more and more dominated by AI? No.

by No-Base6993 2 months ago

The earth can, yes But can we handle that many? Without them starving? Or being homeless? Or getting sick? We can't even do that with the 8 billion we have. So while yes, we could have more, it's only downhill with more

by Ok_Row_5300 2 months ago

How many people could you support maximum in your home? Now imagine doing it.

by Weak-Fee-1327 2 months ago

There is an overpopulation of cows, not people. If we eradicated cows and produce the exact same quantity of meat and dairy from goats we would dramatically decrease the amount of land, crops, water, and fuel we collectively use each year. Simple as. There are about 1 billion domesticated bovine on Earth, and they need roughly 16 million calories per day. That's a loooooooot of soybeans and grains (most cows graze very little)

by NecessarySilver6700 2 months ago

Earth could sustain even more people. The question is just what kind of life would that be? Living in pods, eating bug burgers and being terminally online?

by audreannehansen 2 months ago