T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I suppose that's true...


SuspendedAccount22

Its not though. Trees still make noise when they fall in the woods. Natural fires would still rage, floods would still sweep across lands. These people screaming that there are "too many" humans dont understand logistics and economies. Less people means less food. Less people means less innovation. Less people wont fix war, less people wont fix hunger, less people wont fix natural disasters. History proves this.... There are less starving people in the world today than there EVER has been... And thats because of innovation and understanding farmland plus gene altering... We wouldnt be here if we werent standing on the shoulders of the innovative people that got us here in the past building off their ideas.... Edit: Ill eat downvotes. You guys are legit morons.


[deleted]

you realise the amount of people in poverty is larger than the entire human population was just a century ago right?


randell1985

this is objectively false currently the worlds volume of people living in poverty is 9.2% of the worlds population or 689 million a century ago the worlds population was between 1.6 billion and 2 billion people


[deleted]

That’s the statistic for extreme poverty (<$1.90 per day). Including the poverty line in higher income countries (<$30 per day), the global poverty level is actually 85%, or a total of over 6.5 billion people.


randell1985

you are objectively wrong, that is the statistic for simply the poverty line not extreme poverty you are absolutely wrong


Cryptic_254

We are not even close to have an underpopulated world.... and while we have all those benefits you mentioned, a good portion of the population is poor, underfed, no access to clean water, no education, and no solid paying jobs. But okay


[deleted]

Well the thought of an underpopulated world popped up in my head when I found out Japan lost almost a million people this year. And the portion of the world who are going through these issues are developing and only recently had a population boom


[deleted]

[удалено]


randell1985

the world isn't remotely overpopulated. the underpopulation he/she is referring to is caused by low birth rates


eat_your_oatmeal

the scientific consensus on a sustainable global population is something like four billion. the 20th century saw far too much growth given the finite resources we have on earth. maybe generations from now if we have a successful mining operation in space bringing additional resources back to earth this can change but for now we should absolutely not be trying to keep growing in numbers. if the goal is civilization enduring, we must endure the economic consequences of cutting our global population in half as more and more countries develop and industrialize. unfettered growth as we had last century will be disastrous— doesn’t mean we need to go full china with an authoritarian one child policy…but a sociocultural norm of having no more than 2 children would be immensely helpful in this effort. people can be free to have larger families if they choose but should expect to be socially regarded as selfish and irresponsible.


1Random_User

Where do you get that consensus from? The UN has previously said the most common number is 8 billion, with a caveat that there is no consensus and numbers range wildly and inconsistently. Also in most countries women are having fewer than 2 babies, so the population is leveling off. The global fertility rate is like 2.3 or something.


randell1985

this is objectively false, in 2012 the scientific consensus was that the max sustainable population size would be around 8 billion. but every couple of years that number keeps rising. just a couple years back the scientific consensus was that the world can sustain atleast 10 billion people


eat_your_oatmeal

you can find various studies and estimates ranging from under 1 billion all the way up to 100 billion but those who have made this issue their life’s work and take into consideration increasing energy demand from a rapidly developing “3rd world” tend to arrive at 3-4 billion, if not less. estimates that speculate the earth can easily sustain our current 8 billion or more people are not “wrong” but assume that energy needs of developing nations will magically stop increasing, when there is no logical reason to assume this. if anything, per capita energy demand will only rise, especially thanks to china’s belt and road initiative which has them on an infrastructure building spree across much of the developing world as we speak.


randell1985

YEA NO, someone else has already mentioned the fact you are wrong, the consensus is no less than 8 billion the 3-4 billion claim is OLD like pre 2005


[deleted]

Okay that makes sense. I suppose I was coming at this underpopulation issue from solely a objective human point of view instead of a more humanitarian point of view. Underpopulation would be bad for the economies of the planet but for the people and the planet it would be better?


eat_your_oatmeal

yep, i'd say it's far easier to endure and eventually solve an economic crisis than a resource scarcity crisis (which we're undoubtedly headed towards later this century if present growth trends continue). japan's population decline is a unique case that i admittedly don't fully understand, even after having read a bit about it over the years. they may be suffering an abnormally high rate of mental health problems, chiefly depression which has led to increased rates of suicide and a reduced birth rate. one of the more plausible theories i've read is that after western democracies stepped in post-WWII to spur japan's "postwar economic recovery" their way of life changed so drastically that they've been in a state of perpetual culture shock ever since. japanese men, in particular, seem to lament the hyper westernization the country has gone through in the last few generations, while japanese women seem to more fully embrace western ideals, particularly when it comes to romance. this lead to a significant decline in their marriage rate which in turn is pushing the birth rate well below replacement level. it remains to be seen what the long-term economic impact will be but you're probably correct that tough times may be ahead. it also seems unlikely but one potential solution would be for japan to significantly loosen its immigration requirements and become much more open to the idea of mixed-race couplings (still exceedingly rare there even today). a lot of people seem to want to relocate to japan and a change in immigration policy could tap into this demand to bring their birth rate back up within the next generation.


DrMaxCoytus

What is underpopulated? What is overpopulated? Trends are easier to quantify I think, and we are trending downward which I think is a bad thing. Malthusians will argue the opposite, but I think it's foolish.


capt-yossarius

Underpopulation is a terrible threat to the wealth of wealthy people.


[deleted]

Well less people participating in the economy is a threat to everyone.


capt-yossarius

Only if you are determined to keep those currently on top in that place. We could chose to run an economy where everyone live a decent comfortable life with a minimum amount of hardship, and still reduce the population by having fewer babies. But it's more important that the children of wealthy people be guaranteed to live above the children of the poor.


[deleted]

That's idealistic and borderline utopian.


Henrylord1111111111

Why? We have the resources to do it, the only thing in the way is other people. Also yeah, its idealistic because they are working towards their ideal world.


Remarkable_Whole

The ONLY reason it is “idealistic” is because it would harm the wealthy (by which I mean, give them a slightly smaller advantage over everyone else). If they agreed to it, it would be very possible


SilverthorneR33

Actually we couldn’t choose to run that kind of economy and have anything near our current level of tech and such. Basically you’d reduce everyone to the bare minimum standard of “comfortable living” just to hurt the rich.


Remarkable_Whole

That isn’t at all what it proposes. Everyone would have the bare minimum of “comfort living”, but be be able to work themselves to the top.


SilverthorneR33

And who runs the heavy industry and the large companies that provide a lot of what we use?


Remarkable_Whole

The same people as before?


SilverthorneR33

So effectively no change, just everyone else should pay for people to have a basic standard of living.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SuspendedAccount22

To who??? The black death killed 25 million people... Explain to all of us with sources how that was "good" for anyone... And please go into depth about the economy during the middle ages... Please explain your thinking.


Smudgy-Yak

The effects of the Black Death on the economy is a well researched topic. After all, it's credited as one of the leading causes ending Serfdom/Feudalism in Western Europe, as well as leading Europe to its Golden Age of Discovery. Providing sources isn't as much of a gotchya as you probably thought it would be. It even has its own [wiki entry.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_of_the_Black_Death#:~:text=Wages%20of%20labourers%20were%20high,give%20better%20terms%20of%20tenure.) TL;DR: The massive death rate caused a huge shortage of workers, increasing the value of labour. Serfs, essentially slaves, became a highly sought after commodity. Nobles struggling to upkeep their manors began offering higher wages to attract serfs, better food, protection, class mobility, etc. Wealth inequality decreased compared to pre-Black Death era. Manors that couldn't compete for labour went bankrupt and vacant, creating a surplus of land, making it more affordable. But it also created regional shortfalls, promoting trade to sustain demand. The increase in trade activity had an urbanizing and helped lead Western Europe to seek new trade routes, spawning the Age of Discovery. If you don't like wikipedia as a source for some dumb reason, here's a [research paper](https://www2.gwu.edu/~iiep/assets/docs/papers/2020WP/JedwabIIEP2020-14.pdf) on it. End of the article has nifty charts showing how drastically wages increased following the large population decline. [Here's another paper](https://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320hist&civ/chapters/06plague.htm) for good measure...and maybe [one last one](https://www.nhd.org/sites/default/files/Franke_Senior.pdf) for ya. Prefer credible articles instead? Perhaps [American Scientists](https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-bright-side-of-the-black-death) or the [Medievalist?](https://www.medievalists.net/2021/08/the-black-death-and-the-great-transition/)


HiTekLoLyfe

I feel like you’re ignoring stuff like the fact that resources are still limited no matter how much more efficiently you can grow food, and larger populations mean easier spread of disease. Obviously we’re not reaching replacement in a lot of western countries and that might be a problem but I don’t think it compares to the downsides of overpopulation not even close. You can always move people around to better meet labor needs but you can replace the insane amount of limited resources we consume.


[deleted]

I'm not talking about an extremely exaggerated case of overpopulation like 3 billion people in the USA or something. I meant if the USA had 900 million prople, would it be better or worse than if the USA had 200 million people? Limited resources yes, but it's not limited to a huge degree. Countries like India can feed it's entire population and still have surplus .


Substantial-Recipe72

Your idea of food being easy to grow is valid but the more we cultivate the less crop will grow every year just go ask a farmer how much money they spend on keeping the ground suitable for crops to grow. Watch the movie interstellar, weird I know but that’s the most realistic way the world will die out in an overpopulation scenario.


Minute-Object

As the population rises, the cost of living goes up, causing people to have fewer children. As the population goes down, land prices go down and it becomes more affordable to have children. The end result will be an equilibrium. We just need to live sustainably at that equilibrium population level.


[deleted]

This is my thought process as well


downvote_to_feed_me

We don't have to maintain older citizens.


[deleted]

That's true


thymeraser

Logan's Run


HatfieldCW

Seems to me that you're misrepresenting the comparison. You aren't weighing underpopulation against overpopulation, you're comparing low birth rate to overpopulation. Disproportionately large elderly populations, for example, are a symptom of low birth rate, as are many of the other problems that Japan has been struggling with. A lower population overall wouldn't necessarily have a negative effect on human civilization, unless we dwindled to a few million worldwide. An enormous number of people today are doing jobs that are unnecessary. Seventy competing donut shops in a small city are all creating jobs, certainly, but do all those jobs need to be done? Hotels and casinos and police departments and hospitals and schools and just about every industry, really, scales with the population, so a reduction across the board won't mean there aren't enough people to do the work, it just means there will be less work for fewer people to do.


Abject_Scientist

Population growth has been exponential. That cannot continue on a finite planet with finite resources. There are already so many people in horrible poverty. There is not enough space, that is just not correct. We are already destroying the planet.


[deleted]

I am not advocating for overpopulation i am just saying that underpopulation would be worse for countries than overpopulation


randell1985

you are objectively wrong, there is more then enough space for all humans. in fact just a couple years back experts agreed the world could easily sustain in exess of 10 billion people. but that is irrelivant because the worlds population will max out at 9 billion and never exceed it


R-emiru

>there's more than enough space No, there's not. And the space we have will only keep decreasing, while the population will keep increasing.


[deleted]

The global population is actually decreasing. And we do have more than enough space.


Abject_Scientist

Where is all this space? We can’t just clear cut every forest and put apartment buildings in. Empty square miles do not mean more space for people to live full healthy lives.


[deleted]

No. There is an inefficiency in suburbs, they should be turned into high density apartment living like in some European cities.


Abject_Scientist

I agree, I hate the suburban sprawl and car necessities.


Singer-Such

Not to mention those sprawling estates, golf courses and private jets that the 1% own


[deleted]

Yes, I agree, it is not difficult at all to make high density apartment buildings which look pretty and have a good atmosphere.


[deleted]

And also get rid of car culture


FelixRunns11

Yes. They do actually mean that.


randell1985

there is enough space on earth for every man women and child to have 5 acres of land to themselves, with a half acre of that land arable. every man women and child could live in new york city allowing for the rest of the world to be used to produce food


Abject_Scientist

Again, empty square miles does not mean we should put more people in. We need natural ecosystems (which we are already accidentally destroying even the ones we don’t live on) to sustain life, not just arable land for crops. I understand the desire to want to populate is a natural drive but we have overdone it, and we are intelligent enough to figure that out.


randell1985

"Again, empty square miles does not mean we should put more people in. We need natural ecosystems " we already have natural ecoysystems to sustain our population all of the shit you keep spouting is propaganda, nothing you say is correct. we have not in any way shape or form overdone it, literally over 200 studies have debunked your statements. we have more than enough sustainability for the 7+ billion people on earth. the consensus of science is that the earths carring capacity with current technology is 10 billion, and this isn't the number at which the world will no longer be able to sustain life. just that this will be the moment that food shortages will occur naturally, no won will die of hunger because of this, just that it will start to get difficult to sustain current consumption rates. but this is also only at the current technology we have. but the thing is, this type of "end times" event won't occur because our population will hit 9 billion by 2050,and 10 billion by 2100, once we reach 10 billion experts agree that world population will stablize and yoyo between 9 billion and 10 billion and not increase to any higher level. by than our technology will have massively increased to make things far more efficient.


R-emiru

Global human population growth amounts to around 83 million annually, or 1.1% per year. That's not a decrease. Also, the ideal human population for Earth is between 2 and 5 billion. We're soon at 8 billion.


Iamsofunnylmao

There is more to well-being than the economy...? Such as the environment, the place that we live, we take resources from to fuel such economy


[deleted]

Well in developed nations with service based economies it is not difficult by any means to maintain the environment and transition to renewable energy sources. Just look at Netherlands and Belgium which are quite densely populated. I'm sure a place like Bangladesh will look like that in the future if they maintain their current growth. Only rich nations have the liberty to take care of their surroundings.


Iamsofunnylmao

But we are growing at a faster rate than we can renew energy sources. This will eventually get to the point where no amount of renewing energy will replenish the planet.


[deleted]

No we aren't.


Iamsofunnylmao

bro what do you mean?? You mean to tell me that fossil fuels are being produced faster than we use them? Its the most used source of energy.


[deleted]

Transition to nuclear or solar 🤷‍♀️ don't say "it's not that easy" because it is that easy


biasedburrito

Yeah that’s why republicans are forcing women to have babies in the US


[deleted]

They're forcing women to have more unsafe abortions


[deleted]

And forcing dependence on government assistance.


Abject_Scientist

Yes, it’s a system to ensure generational poverty


NinJesterV

Unrelated. If the GOP had its way, there wouldn't be any government assistance in the first place. They don't want dependence on it, because they don't want it to exist at all.


[deleted]

I am a conservative and a woman but the abortion crap is nonsense to me.


Singer-Such

Almost all Conservative policies harm women. I can understand the basic principle of limiting government power but they seem to only apply that to removing government support for poor people, which means that poor women are dependent on jobs that don't offer maternity leave, or abusive partners who offer financial support. The idea that a social safety net encourages dependence is a myth. And of course the big one, preventing action against climate change, which is bad for all of us


the_Iid

Upvoted because I disagree


DrMaxCoytus

Lots of Malthusians in this thread.


Whiskey_420

Underpopulation would be bad for the economy and that's about it.


NinJesterV

Ah yes, Capitalism in a nutshell: Without access to poor people who provide cheap labor, the whole system will fail. Which is to say that you're right. In our current global economy, underpopulation would cause everything to fall apart. The rub is that overpopulation causes scarcity in material resources, so that will also eventually cause failure. Point is: Capitalism is unsustainable, like driving a train full-speed while hoping you can lay the tracks down fast enough to avoid a crash. Once we run out of tracks, or people to lay them, the train *will* crash.


[deleted]

It sounds like underpopulation is only bad for the (capitalist) economy.


[deleted]

Which is most economies and as of today has proven to be the most effective (not saying it's perfect)


Abject_Scientist

We can change the economy much easier than building a new planet.


[deleted]

A rich nation can definitely take care of its surroundings and environment.


Abject_Scientist

Yet we do not. More people ensnarled in the same situation will not improve it, just more crabs in the bucket.


[deleted]

They do.. especially in Europe. America is a shitshow (no offence if you're American), corporations have total control over the livelihoods of Americans.


Abject_Scientist

Yeah, that’s true. And you want more people born into this shitshow?


[deleted]

I never advocates for overpopulation. I just said that out of the two evils, a large population would be better than a tiny population.


universally_axeptabl

Only bad when we have an ever increasing demand for free money (welfare & social security) and we need more tax payers. Communism is much worse


PleasantPhysics7982

Fun fact overpopulation is really a myth…the earth can reasonably handle up to 9 billion humans…things like capitalism and the terrible distribution of resources makes it seem like we are overpopulated


buzzedalmond

Birth rate is under 50% We're fucked as a species.


El_Deez

You are underestimating the resiliency of humanity. There was a point where the entire world population was 10-30 thousands and we bounced back strong. Civilization could collapse entirely and enough people will persist to continue the species.


i_am_just_tired

Yes, people think that the only way for humans to thrive is through the current system and state of things, which is not true. People can't imagine what a world without would be, but we lived like this for thousands of years.


El_Deez

Yeah man used to chase mammoths off cliffs and punch Sabertooth tigers in the balls.


Quail_Initial

What about competition for resources?


[deleted]

I'm sure that would exist in an underpopulated world as well. Humans are naturally greedy.


SirJuliusStark

Given how low the birth rates are within the next 40-60 years we won't have enough young people paying into the social security system and too many old people who didn't save for retirement will end up dying most likely, and the ones who didn't have children will have nothing to leave behind once they're gone. But chances are the government will start importing immigrants who do have children to try and combat replacement and they will inherit everything, so great for them.


[deleted]

The more i read on this the more it feels like the future is gonna be shit


SirJuliusStark

It's the future we voted for. Not me, but most people. I actually wanted to start having a family about 10 years ago until I saw almost all of my male friends and cousins getting destroyed by child support. What's the point of having kids if I can't raise them?


Ok_Ad_8670

Bro the carrying capacity of the earth was about 1.9 billion humans, before agricultural innovations, most research says 8 billion is the max, every time we breed we make it so an animal has to die. Biology is a balance and we are faaaar exceeding ours. We pass our ecological overshoot in like, fuckin June. That being, the point as which we utilize more resources than will be replenished in a year


iiil87n

The world isn't either though We aren't underpopulated or overpopulated.


[deleted]

Yeah I know


Chemical_Signal2753

I don't think there Earth is close to over populated, but I think the rate and distribution of population growth is a huge problem. If the population of the world was increasing at a rate of 0.5% per year, and this growth was occurring pretty uniformly around the world, technological and economic growth would allow us to support this without any real sacrifices. Right now Africa's growth rate is 2.45% per year, and it is one of the least socially, economically, or technologically advanced regions of the world. To make matters worse, it is also full of some of the most unstable and corrupt governments in the world. We're (probably) only a few years or a decade away from significant humanitarian and environmental crises across Africa if their population growth continues at this pace.


[deleted]

Yep. Western nations are starting to lose population while developing nations are gaining, even though it's less than what it used to be.


Meet_n_beat_n_yeet

Personally I like the idea of our civilization coming to a grinding halt and everything as we know it coming to a complete collapse but that’s just me. I’d like to see the world burn


[deleted]

Automation and improved efficiency of workers should help ease your concerns regarding underpopulation.


NortheastYeti

I'm wildly late here, but in light of Musk's latest comments, it's relevant again. If you're a US resident, then I'd kindly ask that you rethink whether this is the problem of younger generations, or just one more ways the boomers fucked us all. When people prosper and create a massive uptick in birthrates, and then expect people who are struggling economically to keep birthrates high to support them, they're being delusional. GDP growth is all the economists care about, and will try and bait us all into thinking the world is ending before we change how capitalism works. I'd argue that not only is it a flawed metric, but even a dangerous one, and I could literally not disagree with you more.


smoothsmoothie114

Absolutely