Do you believe that we are now or will soon be overpopulated?

[Rigby5]

...

With higher population densities, we see more car traffic, urban pollution, and viral infections ... .

What we have actually seen in the real world is improved gas mileage and reduced emissions from cars over the past several decades, and increased use of public transportation. I already gave you an example of how urban pollution was worse over 100 years ago. As for viral infections, I gave you the most famous example, but we can look at the Bubonic Plague in comparison with 1918, 1957, 1959, 1965, etc. to see that viruses have always existed and over time our ability to mitigate the effects of them even in the face of a growing population has also improved over time. All of the things you want to point to as "proof" of so-called overpopulation are things that have always existed, but our ability to deal with them has NEVER been better than it is now with the highest population in history. There simply is NO 'overpopulation.' Even at that, as you have been told several times now, we are moving toward a global population decline in any case.

“Overpopulation” is a RELATIVE term.
This thread’s title asks our opinion.
In some places, outside large urban areas, there is little “overpopulation”, But in many other areas of this planet, there is undisputed overpopulation.
I know; I have traveled myself to India, China, Indonesia, etc. Have you?
.

Yes. You still fail.

The human species will fail Earth if it keeps screwing with Mother Nature.
.

David Attenborough Says Climate Change Is A ‘Crime’ Humanity Has Inflicted On The Planet

The documentarian reiterated his grief that society has destroyed large swaths of the natural world, but said humanity is “not beyond redemption.”

www.huffpost.com

Unkotare is smarter than David Attenborough

“Well, a crime has been committed,” Attenborough, 95, replied. “And it so happens that, I’m of such an age, that I was able to see it beginning.”
“It isn’t that I enjoy saying: ‘Doom, doom, doom,’” he continued. “On the contrary, I’d much rather [say]: ‘Enjoy, take thrill, excitement, pleasure, joy, joy, joy, joy.’ But if you’ve got any sense of responsibility, you can’t do that.”

The documentarian’s comments come amid ongoing and increasingly dire warnings from the planet’s scientists that climate change is largely continuing unabated. A report released last month by the Environmental Protection Agency detailed a disturbing shift in the United States caused by a warming world: The destruction of permafrost in Alaska, a spike in heat waves nationwide and longer-lasting wildfire and pollen season.

In his book and documentary, Attenborough pointed to existing technology that could help greatly alleviate the threat of climate change, primarily an immediate shift away from fossil fuels and an effort to “rewild” large tracts of the planet, giving the natural world time to recover.
The threat, he concluded, has grown so large as to be beyond the burden of any one nation.
“I would say that the time has come to put aside national ambitions and look for an international ambition of survival,” he said. He later added: “What good does it do to say, “Oh, to hell with it, I don’t care.’ You can’t say that. Not if … you love your children. Not if you love the rest of human― how can you say that?”

A. The world is far from being overpopulated. You can fit the entire world population in Texas and give ever family a quarter of an acre home.

B. Only science deniers think the climate of today is optimum and believe that for the first time since time began the climate must stop changing.

Except that they would all quickly die of thirst, starvation, and pollution if tucked into such a small space.
The whole point of spreading out is then we each gain more resource availability.
And the problem is we have saturated the globe.

Normal climate change cycles are 110,000 years from warm to ice age.
We have accelerated it to a period of only about 400 years.
Everyone will have to move, as coasts go under the 250 feet increase in oceans from melting ice water, and as current farmland turns to desert.
Sure new places current uninhabitable will become habitable, but the cost will be enourmous.
And the oceans will not do well.
Ever notice all the main fishing is near the poles?
Ocean life does better in colder climates.

 

[Unkotare]

Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born

Nearly every country will see their populations fall as the world has fewer babies.

www.bbc.com

 

[Rigby5]

...

With higher population densities, we see more car traffic, urban pollution, and viral infections ... .

What we have actually seen in the real world is improved gas mileage and reduced emissions from cars over the past several decades, and increased use of public transportation. I already gave you an example of how urban pollution was worse over 100 years ago. As for viral infections, I gave you the most famous example, but we can look at the Bubonic Plague in comparison with 1918, 1957, 1959, 1965, etc. to see that viruses have always existed and over time our ability to mitigate the effects of them even in the face of a growing population has also improved over time. All of the things you want to point to as "proof" of so-called overpopulation are things that have always existed, but our ability to deal with them has NEVER been better than it is now with the highest population in history. There simply is NO 'overpopulation.' Even at that, as you have been told several times now, we are moving toward a global population decline in any case.

“Overpopulation” is a RELATIVE term.
This thread’s title asks our opinion.
In some places, outside large urban areas, there is little “overpopulation”, But in many other areas of this planet, there is undisputed overpopulation.
I know; I have traveled myself to India, China, Indonesia, etc. Have you?
.

Yes. You still fail.

The human species will fail Earth if it keeps screwing with Mother Nature.
.

David Attenborough Says Climate Change Is A ‘Crime’ Humanity Has Inflicted On The Planet

The documentarian reiterated his grief that society has destroyed large swaths of the natural world, but said humanity is “not beyond redemption.”

www.huffpost.com

Unkotare is smarter than David Attenborough

“Well, a crime has been committed,” Attenborough, 95, replied. “And it so happens that, I’m of such an age, that I was able to see it beginning.”
“It isn’t that I enjoy saying: ‘Doom, doom, doom,’” he continued. “On the contrary, I’d much rather [say]: ‘Enjoy, take thrill, excitement, pleasure, joy, joy, joy, joy.’ But if you’ve got any sense of responsibility, you can’t do that.”

The documentarian’s comments come amid ongoing and increasingly dire warnings from the planet’s scientists that climate change is largely continuing unabated. A report released last month by the Environmental Protection Agency detailed a disturbing shift in the United States caused by a warming world: The destruction of permafrost in Alaska, a spike in heat waves nationwide and longer-lasting wildfire and pollen season.

In his book and documentary, Attenborough pointed to existing technology that could help greatly alleviate the threat of climate change, primarily an immediate shift away from fossil fuels and an effort to “rewild” large tracts of the planet, giving the natural world time to recover.
The threat, he concluded, has grown so large as to be beyond the burden of any one nation.
“I would say that the time has come to put aside national ambitions and look for an international ambition of survival,” he said. He later added: “What good does it do to say, “Oh, to hell with it, I don’t care.’ You can’t say that. Not if … you love your children. Not if you love the rest of human― how can you say that?”

Yeah....China is about to experience a rapid decline in population so much so they have lifted their one child policy and now want 3......

Climate change is a scam....the planet changes climate without any help......and anyone who is telling you to give them money and power to save the planet is selling you BS....

When fossil fuels run out, food production will reduce by 75%.
If we do not reduce the population by 75%, there will then be massive starvation.

The normal climate change cycle of warm to ice age and back is about 110,000 years.
We have not only accelerated it to only about 400 years, but have piggy backed a second warming on top of an existing warm period already.
This could push the planet into a positive feedback loop where enough water vapor then get added to the atmosphere to create a permanent, positive feedback, race condition. This may have happened before, in the Paleozoic era, but that was before there was any creatures on land. And land creatures likely would not survive.

 

[Weatherman2020]

...

With higher population densities, we see more car traffic, urban pollution, and viral infections ... .

What we have actually seen in the real world is improved gas mileage and reduced emissions from cars over the past several decades, and increased use of public transportation. I already gave you an example of how urban pollution was worse over 100 years ago. As for viral infections, I gave you the most famous example, but we can look at the Bubonic Plague in comparison with 1918, 1957, 1959, 1965, etc. to see that viruses have always existed and over time our ability to mitigate the effects of them even in the face of a growing population has also improved over time. All of the things you want to point to as "proof" of so-called overpopulation are things that have always existed, but our ability to deal with them has NEVER been better than it is now with the highest population in history. There simply is NO 'overpopulation.' Even at that, as you have been told several times now, we are moving toward a global population decline in any case.

“Overpopulation” is a RELATIVE term.
This thread’s title asks our opinion.
In some places, outside large urban areas, there is little “overpopulation”, But in many other areas of this planet, there is undisputed overpopulation.
I know; I have traveled myself to India, China, Indonesia, etc. Have you?
.

Yes. You still fail.

The human species will fail Earth if it keeps screwing with Mother Nature.
.

David Attenborough Says Climate Change Is A ‘Crime’ Humanity Has Inflicted On The Planet

The documentarian reiterated his grief that society has destroyed large swaths of the natural world, but said humanity is “not beyond redemption.”

www.huffpost.com

Unkotare is smarter than David Attenborough

“Well, a crime has been committed,” Attenborough, 95, replied. “And it so happens that, I’m of such an age, that I was able to see it beginning.”
“It isn’t that I enjoy saying: ‘Doom, doom, doom,’” he continued. “On the contrary, I’d much rather [say]: ‘Enjoy, take thrill, excitement, pleasure, joy, joy, joy, joy.’ But if you’ve got any sense of responsibility, you can’t do that.”

The documentarian’s comments come amid ongoing and increasingly dire warnings from the planet’s scientists that climate change is largely continuing unabated. A report released last month by the Environmental Protection Agency detailed a disturbing shift in the United States caused by a warming world: The destruction of permafrost in Alaska, a spike in heat waves nationwide and longer-lasting wildfire and pollen season.

In his book and documentary, Attenborough pointed to existing technology that could help greatly alleviate the threat of climate change, primarily an immediate shift away from fossil fuels and an effort to “rewild” large tracts of the planet, giving the natural world time to recover.
The threat, he concluded, has grown so large as to be beyond the burden of any one nation.
“I would say that the time has come to put aside national ambitions and look for an international ambition of survival,” he said. He later added: “What good does it do to say, “Oh, to hell with it, I don’t care.’ You can’t say that. Not if … you love your children. Not if you love the rest of human― how can you say that?”

A. The world is far from being overpopulated. You can fit the entire world population in Texas and give ever family a quarter of an acre home.

B. Only science deniers think the climate of today is optimum and believe that for the first time since time began the climate must stop changing.

Except that they would all quickly die of thirst, starvation, and pollution if tucked into such a small space.
The whole point of spreading out is then we each gain more resource availability.
And the problem is we have saturated the globe.

Normal climate change cycles are 110,000 years from warm to ice age.
We have accelerated it to a period of only about 400 years.
Everyone will have to move, as coasts go under the 250 feet increase in oceans from melting ice water, and as current farmland turns to desert.
Sure new places current uninhabitable will become habitable, but the cost will be enourmous.
And the oceans will not do well.
Ever notice all the main fishing is near the poles?
Ocean life does better in colder climates.

Dear Lord, can’t you people even grasp an analogy?

BTW- speaking of rapid climate change - just 12,000 years the Great Lakes didn’t exist.
I blame Fred Flinstone’s SUV.

Now please don’t lecture me that cavemen didn’t have vehicles, you Leftards have zero sense of humor or ability to grasp abstract ideas.

 

[Unkotare]

.....

Everyone will have to move, as coasts go under the 250 feet increase in oceans from melting ice water,....

You know 'experts' have been declaring this for around 40 years now, right? "I'm telling you," "I guarantee," "I promise!" for decade after decade and my city is still not underwater. The guy down by the train station who walks around every day wearing a sandwich board that says "The End is Near!" WANTS the world to end because he'll accept that if it means he's finally right. The Weeping Polar Bear Club is of exactly of the same mindset.













That guy is still pacing back and forth in front of the train station.........................

 

[Rigby5]

....

Sure, a declining population especially.
Unfortunately, it is a biological instinct for species to increase population if under any sort of stress, .....

Instinct or not, the wheels are in motion. A global population decline is coming. Just a matter of time.

That would save us if it would happen I think.
We just have to change the way religions were based on creating armies thousands of years ago.

 

[Weatherman2020]

...

With higher population densities, we see more car traffic, urban pollution, and viral infections ... .

What we have actually seen in the real world is improved gas mileage and reduced emissions from cars over the past several decades, and increased use of public transportation. I already gave you an example of how urban pollution was worse over 100 years ago. As for viral infections, I gave you the most famous example, but we can look at the Bubonic Plague in comparison with 1918, 1957, 1959, 1965, etc. to see that viruses have always existed and over time our ability to mitigate the effects of them even in the face of a growing population has also improved over time. All of the things you want to point to as "proof" of so-called overpopulation are things that have always existed, but our ability to deal with them has NEVER been better than it is now with the highest population in history. There simply is NO 'overpopulation.' Even at that, as you have been told several times now, we are moving toward a global population decline in any case.

“Overpopulation” is a RELATIVE term.
This thread’s title asks our opinion.
In some places, outside large urban areas, there is little “overpopulation”, But in many other areas of this planet, there is undisputed overpopulation.
I know; I have traveled myself to India, China, Indonesia, etc. Have you?
.

Yes. You still fail.

The human species will fail Earth if it keeps screwing with Mother Nature.
.

David Attenborough Says Climate Change Is A ‘Crime’ Humanity Has Inflicted On The Planet

The documentarian reiterated his grief that society has destroyed large swaths of the natural world, but said humanity is “not beyond redemption.”

www.huffpost.com

Unkotare is smarter than David Attenborough

“Well, a crime has been committed,” Attenborough, 95, replied. “And it so happens that, I’m of such an age, that I was able to see it beginning.”
“It isn’t that I enjoy saying: ‘Doom, doom, doom,’” he continued. “On the contrary, I’d much rather [say]: ‘Enjoy, take thrill, excitement, pleasure, joy, joy, joy, joy.’ But if you’ve got any sense of responsibility, you can’t do that.”

The documentarian’s comments come amid ongoing and increasingly dire warnings from the planet’s scientists that climate change is largely continuing unabated. A report released last month by the Environmental Protection Agency detailed a disturbing shift in the United States caused by a warming world: The destruction of permafrost in Alaska, a spike in heat waves nationwide and longer-lasting wildfire and pollen season.

In his book and documentary, Attenborough pointed to existing technology that could help greatly alleviate the threat of climate change, primarily an immediate shift away from fossil fuels and an effort to “rewild” large tracts of the planet, giving the natural world time to recover.
The threat, he concluded, has grown so large as to be beyond the burden of any one nation.
“I would say that the time has come to put aside national ambitions and look for an international ambition of survival,” he said. He later added: “What good does it do to say, “Oh, to hell with it, I don’t care.’ You can’t say that. Not if … you love your children. Not if you love the rest of human― how can you say that?”

A. The world is far from being overpopulated. You can fit the entire world population in Texas and give ever family a quarter of an acre home.

B. Only science deniers think the climate of today is optimum and believe that for the first time since time began the climate must stop changing.

Except that they would all quickly die of thirst, starvation, and pollution if tucked into such a small space.
The whole point of spreading out is then we each gain more resource availability.
And the problem is we have saturated the globe.

Normal climate change cycles are 110,000 years from warm to ice age.
We have accelerated it to a period of only about 400 years.
Everyone will have to move, as coasts go under the 250 feet increase in oceans from melting ice water, and as current farmland turns to desert.
Sure new places current uninhabitable will become habitable, but the cost will be enourmous.
And the oceans will not do well.
Ever notice all the main fishing is near the poles?
Ocean life does better in colder climates.

Oh, BTW - the ocean has risen 0.78 inches in the past 1,800 years.
That’s why Obama bought a mansion on the beach, he knows it’s bullshit.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Sure, a declining population especially.
Unfortunately, it is a biological instinct for species to increase population if under any sort of stress, .....

Instinct or not, the wheels are in motion. A global population decline is coming. Just a matter of time.

That would save us if it would happen I think.
We just have to change the way religions were based on creating armies thousands of years ago.

It's not about religion, it's about economics, equality, and the nature of demographics.

 

[Weatherman2020]

....

Sure, a declining population especially.
Unfortunately, it is a biological instinct for species to increase population if under any sort of stress, .....

Instinct or not, the wheels are in motion. A global population decline is coming. Just a matter of time.

That would save us if it would happen I think.
We just have to change the way religions were based on creating armies thousands of years ago.

We have such a surplus we burn food for fuel

 

[2aguy]

...

With higher population densities, we see more car traffic, urban pollution, and viral infections ... .

What we have actually seen in the real world is improved gas mileage and reduced emissions from cars over the past several decades, and increased use of public transportation. I already gave you an example of how urban pollution was worse over 100 years ago. As for viral infections, I gave you the most famous example, but we can look at the Bubonic Plague in comparison with 1918, 1957, 1959, 1965, etc. to see that viruses have always existed and over time our ability to mitigate the effects of them even in the face of a growing population has also improved over time. All of the things you want to point to as "proof" of so-called overpopulation are things that have always existed, but our ability to deal with them has NEVER been better than it is now with the highest population in history. There simply is NO 'overpopulation.' Even at that, as you have been told several times now, we are moving toward a global population decline in any case.

You make some good points in that improved technology can reduce emissions, take less space, make medical breakthroughs, etc.
However, there are 2 main reasons you are wrong.

One is that which made Malthus wrong was all fossil fuel based, and that is going to run out.
Fossil fuels powered the miracle that created the fertilizers that increased farming production by more than a factor of 4, and allow such wider food distribution that our grocery store have fresh produce from all over the world.
Solar and wind are awful because then you need some means of energy storage.
Fission and fusion are not sustainable either, since we have limited fissile material and will produce lots of radioactive wastes.
There is no energy solution I know of, and no one has suggested one.

The other is that there are many limits to how much of the earth we have to leave alone. Not only are we dependent upon things like birds to eat insects and pollinators, but the oxygen we breath itself has to be regenerated on about a 200 year cycle. We dump lots of wastes into the ocean, and eventually that has to bite us as well. And we need a lot more trees. They not only produce oxygen, but reduce erosion, provide habitat, create shade, and change weather. There is so much we do not even know about or take for granted. Even fresh water could well become a limiting resource very soon.

It would be a contradiction to assume that improving techniques, technology, and a declining global population can’t mitigate the above.

Sure, a declining population especially.
Unfortunately, it is a biological instinct for species to increase population if under any sort of stress, so "Soylent Green" is more likely.

"Soylent Green," tastes like chicken.......or so I am told......

 

[Rigby5]

...

With higher population densities, we see more car traffic, urban pollution, and viral infections ... .

What we have actually seen in the real world is improved gas mileage and reduced emissions from cars over the past several decades, and increased use of public transportation. I already gave you an example of how urban pollution was worse over 100 years ago. As for viral infections, I gave you the most famous example, but we can look at the Bubonic Plague in comparison with 1918, 1957, 1959, 1965, etc. to see that viruses have always existed and over time our ability to mitigate the effects of them even in the face of a growing population has also improved over time. All of the things you want to point to as "proof" of so-called overpopulation are things that have always existed, but our ability to deal with them has NEVER been better than it is now with the highest population in history. There simply is NO 'overpopulation.' Even at that, as you have been told several times now, we are moving toward a global population decline in any case.

“Overpopulation” is a RELATIVE term.
This thread’s title asks our opinion.
In some places, outside large urban areas, there is little “overpopulation”, But in many other areas of this planet, there is undisputed overpopulation.
I know; I have traveled myself to India, China, Indonesia, etc. Have you?
.

Yes. You still fail.

The human species will fail Earth if it keeps screwing with Mother Nature.
.

David Attenborough Says Climate Change Is A ‘Crime’ Humanity Has Inflicted On The Planet

The documentarian reiterated his grief that society has destroyed large swaths of the natural world, but said humanity is “not beyond redemption.”

www.huffpost.com

Unkotare is smarter than David Attenborough

“Well, a crime has been committed,” Attenborough, 95, replied. “And it so happens that, I’m of such an age, that I was able to see it beginning.”
“It isn’t that I enjoy saying: ‘Doom, doom, doom,’” he continued. “On the contrary, I’d much rather [say]: ‘Enjoy, take thrill, excitement, pleasure, joy, joy, joy, joy.’ But if you’ve got any sense of responsibility, you can’t do that.”

The documentarian’s comments come amid ongoing and increasingly dire warnings from the planet’s scientists that climate change is largely continuing unabated. A report released last month by the Environmental Protection Agency detailed a disturbing shift in the United States caused by a warming world: The destruction of permafrost in Alaska, a spike in heat waves nationwide and longer-lasting wildfire and pollen season.

In his book and documentary, Attenborough pointed to existing technology that could help greatly alleviate the threat of climate change, primarily an immediate shift away from fossil fuels and an effort to “rewild” large tracts of the planet, giving the natural world time to recover.
The threat, he concluded, has grown so large as to be beyond the burden of any one nation.
“I would say that the time has come to put aside national ambitions and look for an international ambition of survival,” he said. He later added: “What good does it do to say, “Oh, to hell with it, I don’t care.’ You can’t say that. Not if … you love your children. Not if you love the rest of human― how can you say that?”

A. The world is far from being overpopulated. You can fit the entire world population in Texas and give ever family a quarter of an acre home.

B. Only science deniers think the climate of today is optimum and believe that for the first time since time began the climate must stop changing.

Except that they would all quickly die of thirst, starvation, and pollution if tucked into such a small space.
The whole point of spreading out is then we each gain more resource availability.
And the problem is we have saturated the globe.

Normal climate change cycles are 110,000 years from warm to ice age.
We have accelerated it to a period of only about 400 years.
Everyone will have to move, as coasts go under the 250 feet increase in oceans from melting ice water, and as current farmland turns to desert.
Sure new places current uninhabitable will become habitable, but the cost will be enourmous.
And the oceans will not do well.
Ever notice all the main fishing is near the poles?
Ocean life does better in colder climates.

Dear Lord, can’t you people even grasp an analogy?

BTW- speaking of rapid climate change - just 12,000 years the Great Lakes didn’t exist.
I blame Fred Flinstone’s SUV.
View attachment 498323 Now please don’t lecture me that cavemen didn’t have vehicles, you Leftards have zero sense of humor or ability to grasp abstract ideas.

Its a terrible analogy.
Why do you think cavemen walked all the way from Africa to South America, and Columbus risked his life to find the Americas?
Its because quality of life depends on availability of natural resources.
The closer you are to natural resource, the less expensive they are,
TX was a terrible analogy because they already have a dropping water table that is going to make people have to start leaving TX.

 

[Unkotare]

...

With higher population densities, we see more car traffic, urban pollution, and viral infections ... .

What we have actually seen in the real world is improved gas mileage and reduced emissions from cars over the past several decades, and increased use of public transportation. I already gave you an example of how urban pollution was worse over 100 years ago. As for viral infections, I gave you the most famous example, but we can look at the Bubonic Plague in comparison with 1918, 1957, 1959, 1965, etc. to see that viruses have always existed and over time our ability to mitigate the effects of them even in the face of a growing population has also improved over time. All of the things you want to point to as "proof" of so-called overpopulation are things that have always existed, but our ability to deal with them has NEVER been better than it is now with the highest population in history. There simply is NO 'overpopulation.' Even at that, as you have been told several times now, we are moving toward a global population decline in any case.

You make some good points in that improved technology can reduce emissions, take less space, make medical breakthroughs, etc.
However, there are 2 main reasons you are wrong.

One is that which made Malthus wrong was all fossil fuel based, and that is going to run out.
Fossil fuels powered the miracle that created the fertilizers that increased farming production by more than a factor of 4, and allow such wider food distribution that our grocery store have fresh produce from all over the world.
Solar and wind are awful because then you need some means of energy storage.
Fission and fusion are not sustainable either, since we have limited fissile material and will produce lots of radioactive wastes.
There is no energy solution I know of, and no one has suggested one.

The other is that there are many limits to how much of the earth we have to leave alone. Not only are we dependent upon things like birds to eat insects and pollinators, but the oxygen we breath itself has to be regenerated on about a 200 year cycle. We dump lots of wastes into the ocean, and eventually that has to bite us as well. And we need a lot more trees. They not only produce oxygen, but reduce erosion, provide habitat, create shade, and change weather. There is so much we do not even know about or take for granted. Even fresh water could well become a limiting resource very soon.

It would be a contradiction to assume that improving techniques, technology, and a declining global population can’t mitigate the above.

Sure, a declining population especially.
Unfortunately, it is a biological instinct for species to increase population if under any sort of stress, so "Soylent Green" is more likely.

"Soylent Green," tastes like chicken.......or so I am told......

Do chickens think chicken tastes like human?

 

[Unkotare]

...Columbus risked his life to find the Americas?

.....

That's not why Columbus risked his life (and the lives of many others).

 

[2aguy]

...

With higher population densities, we see more car traffic, urban pollution, and viral infections ... .

What we have actually seen in the real world is improved gas mileage and reduced emissions from cars over the past several decades, and increased use of public transportation. I already gave you an example of how urban pollution was worse over 100 years ago. As for viral infections, I gave you the most famous example, but we can look at the Bubonic Plague in comparison with 1918, 1957, 1959, 1965, etc. to see that viruses have always existed and over time our ability to mitigate the effects of them even in the face of a growing population has also improved over time. All of the things you want to point to as "proof" of so-called overpopulation are things that have always existed, but our ability to deal with them has NEVER been better than it is now with the highest population in history. There simply is NO 'overpopulation.' Even at that, as you have been told several times now, we are moving toward a global population decline in any case.

You make some good points in that improved technology can reduce emissions, take less space, make medical breakthroughs, etc.
However, there are 2 main reasons you are wrong.

One is that which made Malthus wrong was all fossil fuel based, and that is going to run out.
Fossil fuels powered the miracle that created the fertilizers that increased farming production by more than a factor of 4, and allow such wider food distribution that our grocery store have fresh produce from all over the world.
Solar and wind are awful because then you need some means of energy storage.
Fission and fusion are not sustainable either, since we have limited fissile material and will produce lots of radioactive wastes.
There is no energy solution I know of, and no one has suggested one.

The other is that there are many limits to how much of the earth we have to leave alone. Not only are we dependent upon things like birds to eat insects and pollinators, but the oxygen we breath itself has to be regenerated on about a 200 year cycle. We dump lots of wastes into the ocean, and eventually that has to bite us as well. And we need a lot more trees. They not only produce oxygen, but reduce erosion, provide habitat, create shade, and change weather. There is so much we do not even know about or take for granted. Even fresh water could well become a limiting resource very soon.

It would be a contradiction to assume that improving techniques, technology, and a declining global population can’t mitigate the above.

Sure, a declining population especially.
Unfortunately, it is a biological instinct for species to increase population if under any sort of stress, so "Soylent Green" is more likely.

"Soylent Green," tastes like chicken.......or so I am told......

Do chickens think chicken tastes like human?

View attachment 498328

Here is one I thought of.....

If you eat an egg salad sandwich aren't you really eating a Chicken salad sandwich?

 

[Weatherman2020]

...

With higher population densities, we see more car traffic, urban pollution, and viral infections ... .

What we have actually seen in the real world is improved gas mileage and reduced emissions from cars over the past several decades, and increased use of public transportation. I already gave you an example of how urban pollution was worse over 100 years ago. As for viral infections, I gave you the most famous example, but we can look at the Bubonic Plague in comparison with 1918, 1957, 1959, 1965, etc. to see that viruses have always existed and over time our ability to mitigate the effects of them even in the face of a growing population has also improved over time. All of the things you want to point to as "proof" of so-called overpopulation are things that have always existed, but our ability to deal with them has NEVER been better than it is now with the highest population in history. There simply is NO 'overpopulation.' Even at that, as you have been told several times now, we are moving toward a global population decline in any case.

“Overpopulation” is a RELATIVE term.
This thread’s title asks our opinion.
In some places, outside large urban areas, there is little “overpopulation”, But in many other areas of this planet, there is undisputed overpopulation.
I know; I have traveled myself to India, China, Indonesia, etc. Have you?
.

Yes. You still fail.

The human species will fail Earth if it keeps screwing with Mother Nature.
.

David Attenborough Says Climate Change Is A ‘Crime’ Humanity Has Inflicted On The Planet

The documentarian reiterated his grief that society has destroyed large swaths of the natural world, but said humanity is “not beyond redemption.”

www.huffpost.com

Unkotare is smarter than David Attenborough

“Well, a crime has been committed,” Attenborough, 95, replied. “And it so happens that, I’m of such an age, that I was able to see it beginning.”
“It isn’t that I enjoy saying: ‘Doom, doom, doom,’” he continued. “On the contrary, I’d much rather [say]: ‘Enjoy, take thrill, excitement, pleasure, joy, joy, joy, joy.’ But if you’ve got any sense of responsibility, you can’t do that.”

The documentarian’s comments come amid ongoing and increasingly dire warnings from the planet’s scientists that climate change is largely continuing unabated. A report released last month by the Environmental Protection Agency detailed a disturbing shift in the United States caused by a warming world: The destruction of permafrost in Alaska, a spike in heat waves nationwide and longer-lasting wildfire and pollen season.

In his book and documentary, Attenborough pointed to existing technology that could help greatly alleviate the threat of climate change, primarily an immediate shift away from fossil fuels and an effort to “rewild” large tracts of the planet, giving the natural world time to recover.
The threat, he concluded, has grown so large as to be beyond the burden of any one nation.
“I would say that the time has come to put aside national ambitions and look for an international ambition of survival,” he said. He later added: “What good does it do to say, “Oh, to hell with it, I don’t care.’ You can’t say that. Not if … you love your children. Not if you love the rest of human― how can you say that?”

A. The world is far from being overpopulated. You can fit the entire world population in Texas and give ever family a quarter of an acre home.

B. Only science deniers think the climate of today is optimum and believe that for the first time since time began the climate must stop changing.

Except that they would all quickly die of thirst, starvation, and pollution if tucked into such a small space.
The whole point of spreading out is then we each gain more resource availability.
And the problem is we have saturated the globe.

Normal climate change cycles are 110,000 years from warm to ice age.
We have accelerated it to a period of only about 400 years.
Everyone will have to move, as coasts go under the 250 feet increase in oceans from melting ice water, and as current farmland turns to desert.
Sure new places current uninhabitable will become habitable, but the cost will be enourmous.
And the oceans will not do well.
Ever notice all the main fishing is near the poles?
Ocean life does better in colder climates.

Dear Lord, can’t you people even grasp an analogy?

BTW- speaking of rapid climate change - just 12,000 years the Great Lakes didn’t exist.
I blame Fred Flinstone’s SUV.
View attachment 498323 Now please don’t lecture me that cavemen didn’t have vehicles, you Leftards have zero sense of humor or ability to grasp abstract ideas.

Its a terrible analogy.
Why do you think cavemen walked all the way from Africa to South America, and Columbus risked his life to find the Americas?
Its because quality of life depends on availability of natural resources.
The closer you are to natural resource, the less expensive they are,
TX was a terrible analogy because they already have a dropping water table that is going to make people have to start leaving TX.

Are you a Leftist because you don’t grasp simple things, or visa versa?

 

[Rigby5]

.....

Everyone will have to move, as coasts go under the 250 feet increase in oceans from melting ice water,....

You know 'experts' have been declaring this for around 40 years now, right? "I'm telling you," "I guarantee," "I promise!" for decade after decade and my city is still not underwater. The guy down by the train station who walks around every day wearing a sandwich board that says "The End is Near!" WANTS the world to end because he'll accept that if it means he's finally right. The Weeping Polar Bear Club is of exactly of the same mindset.

That guy is still pacing back and forth in front of the train station.........................

No one ever suggested the problem would happen in 40 years.
More like 400 years.
But it is a slow cycle that can't be stopped after a certain point, so it has be avoided ahead of time.
It may be too late already.
Carbon in the atmosphere does not settle out of decompose.
The only thing that can reduce it is plant photosynthesis.

Just read our current carbon output into the atmosphere:
{...
The runaway train that is climate change is about to blow past another milestone: global fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions will reach yet another record high. Driven by rising natural gas and oil consumption, levels of CO2 are expected to hit 36.8 billion metric tons (40.6 billion U.S. tons) this year, according to new estimates from the Global Carbon Project, an initiative led by Stanford University scientist Rob Jackson.
...}

Global carbon emissions increase | Stanford News

Coal use is down dramatically in the United States and the European Union, and renewable energy is gaining traction. But rising natural gas and oil use in 2019 increased the world's carbon dioxide emissions modestly for a third straight year.

news.stanford.edu

That is over a 30% increase in carbon from what is normally was over 100 years ago.
And carbon in the atmosphere changes the frequency of the energy from photonic to vibratory.
Which means it then can't escape back out into space as much.
The amount of accumulating energy increases.
And if it continues like it does on Venus, then the temperature of the earth's surface can become that of molten lead, with no life.
Once it gets hot enough to start evaporating the oceans, there is no stopping it.
The only hope then is that the increased cloud cover will slow it back down by a higher reflective albedo.
But who wants to live with 20 degree higher temperatures and there always being perpetual clouds?

 

[Rigby5]

....

Sure, a declining population especially.
Unfortunately, it is a biological instinct for species to increase population if under any sort of stress, .....

Instinct or not, the wheels are in motion. A global population decline is coming. Just a matter of time.

That would save us if it would happen I think.
We just have to change the way religions were based on creating armies thousands of years ago.

We have such a surplus we burn food for fuel

No, we burn field corn, which is not food. And that is just government glitch.

 

[sealybobo]

...

With higher population densities, we see more car traffic, urban pollution, and viral infections ... .

What we have actually seen in the real world is improved gas mileage and reduced emissions from cars over the past several decades, and increased use of public transportation. I already gave you an example of how urban pollution was worse over 100 years ago. As for viral infections, I gave you the most famous example, but we can look at the Bubonic Plague in comparison with 1918, 1957, 1959, 1965, etc. to see that viruses have always existed and over time our ability to mitigate the effects of them even in the face of a growing population has also improved over time. All of the things you want to point to as "proof" of so-called overpopulation are things that have always existed, but our ability to deal with them has NEVER been better than it is now with the highest population in history. There simply is NO 'overpopulation.' Even at that, as you have been told several times now, we are moving toward a global population decline in any case.

“Overpopulation” is a RELATIVE term.
This thread’s title asks our opinion.
In some places, outside large urban areas, there is little “overpopulation”, But in many other areas of this planet, there is undisputed overpopulation.
I know; I have traveled myself to India, China, Indonesia, etc. Have you?
.

Yes. You still fail.

The human species will fail Earth if it keeps screwing with Mother Nature.
.

David Attenborough Says Climate Change Is A ‘Crime’ Humanity Has Inflicted On The Planet

The documentarian reiterated his grief that society has destroyed large swaths of the natural world, but said humanity is “not beyond redemption.”

www.huffpost.com

Unkotare is smarter than David Attenborough

“Well, a crime has been committed,” Attenborough, 95, replied. “And it so happens that, I’m of such an age, that I was able to see it beginning.”
“It isn’t that I enjoy saying: ‘Doom, doom, doom,’” he continued. “On the contrary, I’d much rather [say]: ‘Enjoy, take thrill, excitement, pleasure, joy, joy, joy, joy.’ But if you’ve got any sense of responsibility, you can’t do that.”

The documentarian’s comments come amid ongoing and increasingly dire warnings from the planet’s scientists that climate change is largely continuing unabated. A report released last month by the Environmental Protection Agency detailed a disturbing shift in the United States caused by a warming world: The destruction of permafrost in Alaska, a spike in heat waves nationwide and longer-lasting wildfire and pollen season.

In his book and documentary, Attenborough pointed to existing technology that could help greatly alleviate the threat of climate change, primarily an immediate shift away from fossil fuels and an effort to “rewild” large tracts of the planet, giving the natural world time to recover.
The threat, he concluded, has grown so large as to be beyond the burden of any one nation.
“I would say that the time has come to put aside national ambitions and look for an international ambition of survival,” he said. He later added: “What good does it do to say, “Oh, to hell with it, I don’t care.’ You can’t say that. Not if … you love your children. Not if you love the rest of human― how can you say that?”

Yeah....China is about to experience a rapid decline in population so much so they have lifted their one child policy and now want 3......

Climate change is a scam....the planet changes climate without any help......and anyone who is telling you to give them money and power to save the planet is selling you BS....

Bullshit. And the ocean is a toilet bowl.

But, these Green companies will be the new industries. I have a battery powered bike. My girlfriend just bought a home and purchased a battery powered lawn mower.

We need to pay taxes to hire people to go clean out the oceans of all the plastic you stupid conservatives are really ignorant.

lol batteries are toxic where do you think they go when used up?

Nonsense. Venice is moving to battery boats. Clean up the air, water and noise pollution.

View attachment 498293
Don't hate.

You think it'd be better for me to be riding around on a gas powered moped than my battery bike?

Where does everything go when we are done with them? In the trash. Recyle? It's amazing what we are doing today.

Yeah......Italy is truly a world leader......in what, we don't know......but that boat looks cute...

Meanwhile, the U.S. protects europe, Asia, and provides advanced tech and medical innovation for the world.....

You go girl...

I miss you Republicans back when you were at least pushing for more nuclear power. What happened to that? Are you hell bent on keeping the coal and gas business' going? Lobbyists? Votes?

I wish I could say I miss the days the Left cared about the environment. But there’s never been one of those days. Your killing of nuclear energy proves my point.

Well it doesn't sound safe does it to you?

Instead of plastic straws we want to move to bio degradable paper straws and you guys fight us. You love plastic coal and gas why?

Yeah, great move! Chop down trees for grocery bags and straws!

Trees grow back. Do it right.

 

[sealybobo]

...

With higher population densities, we see more car traffic, urban pollution, and viral infections ... .

What we have actually seen in the real world is improved gas mileage and reduced emissions from cars over the past several decades, and increased use of public transportation. I already gave you an example of how urban pollution was worse over 100 years ago. As for viral infections, I gave you the most famous example, but we can look at the Bubonic Plague in comparison with 1918, 1957, 1959, 1965, etc. to see that viruses have always existed and over time our ability to mitigate the effects of them even in the face of a growing population has also improved over time. All of the things you want to point to as "proof" of so-called overpopulation are things that have always existed, but our ability to deal with them has NEVER been better than it is now with the highest population in history. There simply is NO 'overpopulation.' Even at that, as you have been told several times now, we are moving toward a global population decline in any case.

“Overpopulation” is a RELATIVE term.
This thread’s title asks our opinion.
In some places, outside large urban areas, there is little “overpopulation”, But in many other areas of this planet, there is undisputed overpopulation.
I know; I have traveled myself to India, China, Indonesia, etc. Have you?
.

Yes. You still fail.

The human species will fail Earth if it keeps screwing with Mother Nature.
.

David Attenborough Says Climate Change Is A ‘Crime’ Humanity Has Inflicted On The Planet

The documentarian reiterated his grief that society has destroyed large swaths of the natural world, but said humanity is “not beyond redemption.”

www.huffpost.com

Unkotare is smarter than David Attenborough

“Well, a crime has been committed,” Attenborough, 95, replied. “And it so happens that, I’m of such an age, that I was able to see it beginning.”
“It isn’t that I enjoy saying: ‘Doom, doom, doom,’” he continued. “On the contrary, I’d much rather [say]: ‘Enjoy, take thrill, excitement, pleasure, joy, joy, joy, joy.’ But if you’ve got any sense of responsibility, you can’t do that.”

The documentarian’s comments come amid ongoing and increasingly dire warnings from the planet’s scientists that climate change is largely continuing unabated. A report released last month by the Environmental Protection Agency detailed a disturbing shift in the United States caused by a warming world: The destruction of permafrost in Alaska, a spike in heat waves nationwide and longer-lasting wildfire and pollen season.

In his book and documentary, Attenborough pointed to existing technology that could help greatly alleviate the threat of climate change, primarily an immediate shift away from fossil fuels and an effort to “rewild” large tracts of the planet, giving the natural world time to recover.
The threat, he concluded, has grown so large as to be beyond the burden of any one nation.
“I would say that the time has come to put aside national ambitions and look for an international ambition of survival,” he said. He later added: “What good does it do to say, “Oh, to hell with it, I don’t care.’ You can’t say that. Not if … you love your children. Not if you love the rest of human― how can you say that?”

A. The world is far from being overpopulated. You can fit the entire world population in Texas and give ever family a quarter of an acre home.

B. Only science deniers think the climate of today is optimum and believe that for the first time since time began the climate must stop changing.

Some like to assert that everybody on Earth could be fit into the State of Texas, using logic as follows. The area of Texas is about 262,000 mi2. Dividing this figure by the current human population of 7 billion leaves each person with less than 100 square meters, a small plot the size of a big room about 10 m x 10 m.

One third of Earth's surface is desert which supports very few people.

Without going into the fact that almost half the State is desert, notice we have not allowed for any roads, shopping malls, schools, hospitals, football stadiums, prisons, sewage plants, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, golf courses, parks, and what else? How much land does it take to support a human being?

Right now China, USA, Mexico, India, Europe, Canada, Australia, are all putting up too many toxic fumes. We need to stop. We are destroying the planet. THat's the scientific consensus.

Math rule #1: don’t mix units of measurement.
Assumption: 7.6B population
Texas = 268,820 sq miles = 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft

That means ever human on earth could live in Texas and have 3,944 sq ft. Family of 4 gives them .09 acres, which is standard suburban lot size.

As far as climates, many people live in deserts by choice. Most of the planet is covered by water and a third of our underground is filled with water. Much of the earth is covered in ice. Assuming that melts, we gain livable land.

For anyone who travels, they know the earth is far from being overpopulated.

Yea that's why cities out west want to take our great lakes water and we say no because once the water goes there it never comes back.

It's funny you cons refuse to admit this planet is fucked up. Too many of us. And yet at the same time you don't want to let any immigrants into the country because you know there are too many of us.

No....we don't want illegal aliens into the country because we have laws that have to be followed to become citizens....too many people at one time and they do not assimilate American values, and then their crappy values from the hell holes they are fleeing become the policies of the democrat party.....

If they follow the law, enter legally, assimilate and love this country they are more than welcome to come in to this country...you doofus...

Even your reasoning is off.

 

[Unkotare]

...

With higher population densities, we see more car traffic, urban pollution, and viral infections ... .

What we have actually seen in the real world is improved gas mileage and reduced emissions from cars over the past several decades, and increased use of public transportation. I already gave you an example of how urban pollution was worse over 100 years ago. As for viral infections, I gave you the most famous example, but we can look at the Bubonic Plague in comparison with 1918, 1957, 1959, 1965, etc. to see that viruses have always existed and over time our ability to mitigate the effects of them even in the face of a growing population has also improved over time. All of the things you want to point to as "proof" of so-called overpopulation are things that have always existed, but our ability to deal with them has NEVER been better than it is now with the highest population in history. There simply is NO 'overpopulation.' Even at that, as you have been told several times now, we are moving toward a global population decline in any case.

You make some good points in that improved technology can reduce emissions, take less space, make medical breakthroughs, etc.
However, there are 2 main reasons you are wrong.

One is that which made Malthus wrong was all fossil fuel based, and that is going to run out.
Fossil fuels powered the miracle that created the fertilizers that increased farming production by more than a factor of 4, and allow such wider food distribution that our grocery store have fresh produce from all over the world.
Solar and wind are awful because then you need some means of energy storage.
Fission and fusion are not sustainable either, since we have limited fissile material and will produce lots of radioactive wastes.
There is no energy solution I know of, and no one has suggested one.

The other is that there are many limits to how much of the earth we have to leave alone. Not only are we dependent upon things like birds to eat insects and pollinators, but the oxygen we breath itself has to be regenerated on about a 200 year cycle. We dump lots of wastes into the ocean, and eventually that has to bite us as well. And we need a lot more trees. They not only produce oxygen, but reduce erosion, provide habitat, create shade, and change weather. There is so much we do not even know about or take for granted. Even fresh water could well become a limiting resource very soon.

It would be a contradiction to assume that improving techniques, technology, and a declining global population can’t mitigate the above.

Sure, a declining population especially.
Unfortunately, it is a biological instinct for species to increase population if under any sort of stress, so "Soylent Green" is more likely.

"Soylent Green," tastes like chicken.......or so I am told......

Do chickens think chicken tastes like human?

View attachment 498328

Here is one I thought of.....

If you eat an egg salad sandwich aren't you really eating a Chicken salad sandwich?

Depends on how old the sandwich is.