Overpopulation

No, there has certainly been a time where none of the humans were starving.

At one time a primate got born with a mutation that made him the first human. If he were always starving then he would never have been able to produce offspring.

>fossil fuels
>sustainable

pick one

>America alone has 300,000,000 people.

How much of America's standard of living is a result of cheap labour and imports from 3rd world countries?

Which "we"? Because that's sure as fuck not representative of the entire world. I doubt it's even representative of any of the six continents.

Oh shut up. There has never been a time in history where a large portion of our ancestors population was not starving or on the edge of starvation

>Solution if you think overpopulation is an issue: sterilize americans, europeans and japs.
So....
Sterilize the people that already have negative population growth?
Wipe out the same societies that gave the world the ability to feed itself in the first place?

protip: being more cynical than most people doesn't make you "better"

>Implying the human species can't be seen as one population in the modern world, especially in regards to it's impact on nature.

>Wipe out the same societies that gave the world the ability to feed itself in the first place?

lel, yeah, the world couldn't feed itself before the white man showed them how!

>implying fossil fuels are the only possible energy source

...and don't forget that the per-capita energy consumption in the civilized world is dropping

Overpopulation is really only an issue in non white countries.

>implying renewables provide enough energy to fit America's energy consumption

retard

Give it some time. Eventually we will be fossil fuels ourselves.

We probably wont, most of our fossil fuels come from carboniferous plants, and thats never going to happen again

>How much of America's standard of living is a result of cheap labour and imports from 3rd world countries?
Up until 1980, none.
Before 1980, America produced more than it consumed, and loaned more than it borrowed.
Since 1980, America has suffered a decline in the middle class, and our average standard of living has declined as the middle class recedes.
We've been losing our standard of living at the same time that we've started living on trade credit.
We have a high standard of living despite cheap labor elsewhere, not because of it.

As long as China has that many people, you're going to be outcompeted in the labor market. Overpopulation is therefore the problem.

>lel, yeah, the world couldn't feed itself before the white man showed them how!
"lel" all you want.
Without western technology, the world couldn't produce enough food too feed the current population.

>doesn't make you
Nobody's trying to be better than anyone else here.

There's only one reason people make population threads. It's to advocate for genocide. Nobody that seriously cares about the issue would ask Veeky Forums. If it really bothered people, we wouldn't need threads like this. Threads like this do nothing to change the way people live, think, breed, or die. It's purely a sensationalist marketing ploy with no purpose.

The key word was:
>if you think overpopulation is an issue
>if
That is, if you're dumb enough to buy the hype and ignore all the hard ecological and economic science behind population science, then killing off the people using the most resources per capita is the "logical" solution.

But since overpopulation is a hype FUD campaign, there's no need to kill anyone or even think that it might ever be necessary.

The fact that they have a negative population growth is evidence that it's not an issue. Think.

>before the white man showed them how!
p.s.: are you implying Americans don't come in all colors?

Without western technology, said technology might be named eastern technology

>>implying renewables provide enough energy to fit America's energy consumption
The reason renewables (presently) don't is because the crutch of cheap non-renewables retards development/investment/deployment of renewables.

dumbass

not him but... without western technology, the populations wouldn't have grown so much. And the people who are currently starving because of subsidies wouldn't exist or wouldn't be starving. (Albeit people would be more susceptible to draughts and long winters and so on)

Anyway you're probably trolling so this is my last post in this thread.

>As long as China has that many people, you're going to be outcompeted in the labor market.
Nah. As their standard of living climbs, the problem sorts itself out.

>Nobody's trying to be better than anyone else here.
>It's to advocate for genocide.

:^)

didn't bother to read the rest

>without western technology, the populations wouldn't have grown so much.
Largely because they wouldn't have been able to feed themselves.
Plus medical care.

...

>making the other guy's point

you can't fake being this dumb

Why did you bother typing that? Let alone posting.

>>making the other guy's point
He's making MY point.
me: without western technology, we couldn't feed this many people
him: without western technology, there wouldn't be this many people
me: because we couldn't feed them, goto 10

>Why did you bother typing that? Let alone posting.
Try reading again.
"nobody's playing at being superior, we're just here to discuss killing all the inferior folk"

We're here to idly pretend that OP isn't a genocidal nimrod. We were doing a good job up until you bastardized your reading comprehension on that post.

Overpopulation is a real concern of anyone who bothers to study the total environmental impact of human activity and is able to comprehend the complexity of global trade.

...

As I said, you can't fake being this dumb.
Everything you typed is correct.
Conclusion: if there were no "western technology", there wouldn't be any issue in the first place.

Except it isn't, you don't know that, and you don't have the expertise or contacts to claim it at all.

...

I am making the effort to learn.

>Conclusion: if there were no "western technology", there wouldn't be any issue in the first place.
No, there would still be overpopulation, we'd just hit that ceiling at a much lower number of people.

Then don't make shit up as if you know what goes on in the world.

Can you recommend me whatever it was that irreversibly convinced you that we should never worry about overpopulation?

Nah, but space needs people. Mars beckons.

>irreversibly
Never assume that about me.

Is it a problem? Certainly. The greater concern is how we are supposed to sustain this population healthily and ethically when they all want better lifestyles which places immense pressure on already stressed resources and space. Who knows, maybe once developing countries start developing and adopting trends from the West it will taper off, but might be too late.

>Do we have some ideas how many people the earth can sustain?

What living standards are we holding the world to? If everyone lived like the third world then quite a number.

I'm studying to me a medical examiner/coroner. Trying to treat each case uniquely and differently, yet still objectively.

this picture makes me question that the fuck is even the point.

there are plenty of ways to increase the longevity of resources

but
>muh big trucks
>muh bacon
>muh packaged food
>recycling is for sissys
>bigger house the better
>people turn there cars off at red lights and trains? wtf
>people unplug appliances and chargers when they are not in use? wut r u gay?
>im to fat to ride a bike
>i take 4 hour showers because it feels good
>gotta flush even if its just watery pee
>eww this banana is starting to turn brown, better throw it away
>compost? you mean smells-like-shit?

The problem exists, but if you have reliable gov borders and good custom service it's not going to touch you. Why do you have to give a fuck about some biogarbage? But if your country is full of degenerates, especially those ones in politics - it's gonna hurt. In 20 years your country will be full of shitskins. I'm sadly OK even with shitskin poos like fucking Pajeets or Rajeshes, I'm not against slavs, jews, asians, I would be OK if they were to migrate in my country, but sandniggers and niggers are worse than a fucking a-bomb. They are a disaster. In Finland we don't have much of them yet and I hope we won't, but another countries like Germany or US are dead in 15-25 years. Mark my words. They will significantly decline in terms of many social-economic points.

Efficiency consistently and reliably increases to meet demand for most commodities. The forecast for remaining barrels of crude oil on earth goes up every time it is calculated.

>turn cars off at red lights and trains
and waste gas on the alternator on start up?

That's fossil fuels which are peaking or have peaked. 21st century will see a human depopulation to a billion or so, maybe less depending how much carnage ensues. Modern life everywhere is basically based on cheap oil,coal and gas.

is your car from the 50s?
slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2008/05/is_an_idle_car_the_devils_workshop.html

Most of what you list is driven by the laissez-faire
free market system that rewards anyone who promotes consumerism beyond people's natural desire to consume.

There is someone ITT who wants you to live like a Kenyan so we can make 31 more Kenyans.

I say live and let die, consume and when resources run out let mother nature take over because she is the pro in matters like equilibrium as proven over time. Fucking monkeys thinking they can manage their population? Ridiculous, eating, pooping, sleeping and breeding is what monkeys do.

>measures that exclusively target ordinary citizens
Profit-based production uses up the vast majority of earth's resources, and profit-based industry revolves around teaching ordinary citizens that they always need more and bigger things. You will never save the environment by targeting the consequence instead of the cause. Humans will always be susceptible to manipulation so you must go directly for the manipulators.

We need to educate the people of developing nations and get the women there into the workforce. That will drastically decrease birth rates.

Right, just like u can squeeze 6 people on a life raft designed for 4. Then u can squeeze in another 2, and even another 2, then another 2...

you dumb fuck

Hi there!

Soil Scientist here!

Here's the bad news. We are past it.

The overwhelming majority of the planet's soils are fucked. Seriously. They are. The only reason they keep producing is because we apply shit loads of fertilizer, a huge proportion of which are derived from petro-chemicals.

Now, here's the good news!

The soils will eventually replenish themselves naturally. It will only take about ten million years or so to return them to the state of the early 20th century. Providing they are left completely uncultivated during that period.

But dont take my word for it guys! Just have a look at what interest rates are doing, in general, around the world. Golly! Swiss banks are offering 10 year bonds that carry a NEGATIVE INTEREST RATE.

Gosh! I wonder why they are doing that????

>nitrates derived from petroleum are running out!
>what is crop rotation?

Overpopulation is not an issue: the upcoming little ice age will fix it:

iceagenow.info/

This contest amount to "our tribe of talking monkeys can outbreed your tribe of talking monkeys", and the prize for winning is the greatest population who are starving. Nice work, "sapiens", L0L

Overpopulation is not real. There's only crime. Deviation from the Holy Bible is crime. Such deduction is completely wrong. I do think and know that only the Holy Bible is right as law.

Don't be a fag

already being handled using cultural conditioning!
your being brainwashed

You can if you can build into the raft and make it bigger you shit eater

I think our ability spread do quickly and plenty is what will give us an advantage when colonizing space.
Overpopulation is not a problem. Organizing humans ins

>Efficiency consistently and reliably increases to meet demand for most commodities.
This is only accomplished through the unsustainable extraction of nonrenewable materials demanded to grow industry exponentially.

Seriously, have you people even read Limits to Growth?

Massive die-offs are practically inevitable at this point. Luckily, it'll only be your children who start to experience it.

Good, I was hoping someone would comment on some of the core issues of agriculture, taking a few courses relating to soil resources myself, and it is definitely a shitball of an issue, mainly because most people just look at soil and assume it is just an inexhaustible resource because it is prevalent everywhere. Shit is fucked, and some land is even totally degraded from past empires such as the Romans, unable to support agriculture let alone the original native flora. Just like as we have done to new tracts of land, today.

>The overwhelming majority of the planet's soils are fucked. Seriously. They are. The only reason they keep producing is because we apply shit loads of fertilizer, a huge proportion of which are derived from petro-chemicals.

And even this is slowly beginning to lead to stagnation in yield increases and even declines in some regions. Not to mention that topsoil erosion in places with fucked but still functioning soils is a ticking lifespan clock on the ability for the land to even produce anything worthwhile to begin with.

But lets just keep making more farmland to feed more people leading to a larger population requiring the clearance of more farmland, while many places that probably should never support agriculture are already being utilized, with new regions being brought into production.

daily reminder
youtube.com/watch?v=8QUSIJ80n50

>Is human overpopulation is a concerning problem?

Not at all.

>Do we have some ideas how many people the earth can sustain?

We already have the technology to feed everyone in the world and then some. We even waste more than half of the food we have already. We just don't care to give it to the poor/starving due to them being out of sight and out of mind. It is all logistics.

If all logistics problems were taken care of and we disregarded the global environment, our current technology level could sustain about 6.3 trillion people. (Manila has 111,002 people per square mile x land on Earth 57,268,900 square miles).

That means all food production will have to be done artificially under/above the population. The entire land mass would look like the fictional planet Coruscant. If we expanded into the oceans we could support more than 21.8 trillion people (god damn, nightmare mode).

Food production would need to be highly segregated in order to actually support everyone. Most people would actually have to do farming in order for it to work, if they wanted to eat "normal" food. If industrialized "food product" was being manufactured then barely anyone would need to make it for everyone else.

This scenario completely fucks the global environment to the point that sustaining breathable air will be a main concern and methods to make clean air will be paramount. There wouldn't be any wild life, no deserts, no "oceans", no mountains, nothing but cityscape and all the supporting technology for it.

Thankfully, we will never see anything like that nor will the human race in the first place.

This user is correct.

This user is a dumb fuck with dumb fuck analogies.

To what end you stupid autistic faggot?

Not soil guy but it's true, soils are dead now and have been for some time. they are basically sponges for copious quantities of petrochemicals, you can sit on them and rotate all you want but they won't grow shit without big inputs now.

The green revolution was really a black hole of hungry mouths. A good ole fashioned famine will sort things out quickly though, supply and demand world.

Have you been to Wyoming?

>petrochemicals

you have some good points there; also phosphorus will became extremely expensive in the future, and that's one of the reasons for attacking Syria:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus#Minerals_.28phosphate_rock.29

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11633289/Isil-seizes-Syrian-regimes-lucrative-phosphate-mines.html

on the other hand, the CO2 rising is making plants stronger, and urbanization is still freeing up the countryside, so I'm not that pessimistic:

washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04/watch-how-europe-is-greener-now-than-100-years-ago/

I'm not sure about the future of this stuff tho:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hydroculture

Subsistence farmer here.

I compost and use animal manures. I grow crops to feed the animals and their manure feeds the crops. I eat both and compost my own wastes. Also cover crops and companion planted crops fix nitrogen from the air. I don't use pesticides or store fertilizers. The entire cycle it larger and more complicated than that, but I hope you get the idea. My crops are more productive, larger, are put in earlier, some are year round even in -15F winters, and my growing season lasts longer than any other farm around here.

The problem you anons are referring to occurs only with industrialized farming practices. If you wish to learn more about other farming practices stop by the Homegrowmen threads. Here's the latest:

>their manure feeds the crops. I eat both
You eat the manure?

>industrialized farming practices

which are the majority
it's possible to convert them to be organic, sure, but then expect food prices to rise 4x, not to mention that every square meter of land will be used (Japan, prepare to give up that damn golf courses!)

>it's possible to convert them to be organic

That in itself does not mean non-industrialized. In fact you really don't need to change much for it to still be industrialized and organic. Switching to organic merely means the pesticides and fertilizers come from an organic source and are approved to be organic.

On another note, check this out if you've not seen it before. It may be only 1 type of plant, but similar can be done with many others. It is pretty old news though.

>Japanese plant experts produce 10,000 lettuce heads a day in LED-lit indoor farm
independent.co.uk/news/science/japanese-plant-experts-produce-10000-lettuces-a-day-in-led-lit-indoor-farm-9601844.html

The golf course could be put on top.

That's bullshit though. We know what plants need to survive and we can add those elements and chemicals as we so choose. We get nitrates from petroleum. Nitrates can be just as easily obtained by growing plants such as soy which faster nitrogen fixing bacteria in their roots.

>Switching to organic merely means the pesticides and fertilizers come from an organic source and are approved to be organic.
You sound like a acronym hating hippy tbqh. I bet you are against GMOs too.

High efficiency hydroponics is a big step forward, especially in places like Japan where space and arable land are at a premium. The issue right now is that it uses a lot of electricity. As we move toward more renewables, we'll need to keep in mind that our electricity demands will likely rise faster than we're installing new capacity.

Growing them indoors defeats the purpose of agriculture. We use plants to capture the energy of the Sun. Building a 10 km^2 of photovoltaics to turn into electricity and then back to light to grow the equivalent of 1 km^2 of lettuce is stupid.

It was a half serious post.
Was simply pointing out how pathetic the public is.

cont.
blaming only the cooperation takes any blame off stupid stupid. I'm not saying focusing on the people will work, but I'd like it if people knew how superficial and ignorant they are

if youre fighting against companies to save on resources and improve the earth as a whole, but drive a truck that gets 3mpg and take 2 hour showers, you should just kill yourself

It is a matter of square land space. You can have skyscrapers of these types of farms on a very tiny footprint of surface area of the land taken up. Nuclear power doesn't give a fuck about solar effciencies.

Also, the purpose of agriculture is to eat food.

The future will be aquaponics. That combines aquaculture and hydroponics into a single circular system that uses microbes to control the waste and nutrients.

user, that's really really stupid. We don't have any limit on land area on the moment and we won't for at least hundreds of years. Furthermore, fission isn't even sustainable over the long term.

AGRICULTURE IS MEANT TO CAPTURE SOLAR ENERGY.

It would go down so fast in many places other than China if the west stopped throwing money in aid to third world landfills.

Did you miss the thread subject? It is about max capacity of the planet. That will be a world where real estate is worth more than gold. See this post

Fair enough. Too caught up in tangents I guess.

I think it's bigger than that, not just the synthetic nutrients but the synthetic herbicides and pesticides. The diesel tractors that seed it, harvest it and drive to to market where you drive your gasoline engine to pick it up. By enlarge we eat oil today, people like this guy are the tiny minority. Throw in terminator seeds and food patents, wew, future of food is looking precarious as we are way into overshoot already. One huge oil shock like a big war and shelves will go empty quickly, dying starts about a week later and escalates to die off inside a month or two. Not a prepper but easy to see why it's popular these days.