And some people still cling to the myth of the 'Population Explosion'

[Unkotare]

There are.

If people like you and the OP have your way, they won't be for long.

Do pictures like this fill you with dread for the future of the world?

http://watermarked.impactphotos.com/1256823.jpg

 

[Toro]

That's your opinion.

Oh, so you think wall to wall humanity would be utopia?

Besides, it's hysteria to say that we are in any danger of running out of space. If the world had a population density of Hong Kong, it wouldn't fill up Texas.

What a crock of shit.

Actually, it is. My mistake. We would all fit into Texas and California. Do the math.

The population density of Hong Kong is 6,480 per square kilometer. One square kilometer is equal to 0.386 square miles. Thus, with a population of 7 billion, there would need to be about 417,000 square miles to fit everyone into a city with the density of Hong Kong. The size of Texas is 267,000 square miles. California is 169,000. Combined, the two are about 436,000 square miles.

And no, I don't think it would be utopia. But it demonstrates that your hysteria about running out of space is overblown.

 

[Vox]

There are.

If people like you and the OP have your way, they won't be for long.

we are having our way.

are you planning to do what - exactly - shoot us? or perform abortion in 240 trimesters?

 

[Unkotare]

We are at 7 billion now and there is plenty of open space. At 9 billion there will STILL be
plenty of room.

Yeah, and it will look like this:

!

Say, that wouldn't be a picture of a favela in Brazil, now would it?

 

[Toro]

It means mankind is remarkably adaptable.

It's not your business to tell people how to live. If you want to live on 40 acres in the woods, good for you. But don't assume that everyone else needs space like that. I'd go ******* crazy living in the woods. Many people also want to live in places like New York, London and Paris. Urban populations are growing faster than rural populations.

Mankind, sure.

But what about all the other species we share the earth with that aren't so adaptable. Or, well, they try to adapt but get killed for it. Like the bears who try to scavenge from trash cans in what used to be their home, and then get shot for being a threat to precious little humans.

Cities are ever expanding into wild areas, usurping the animals' homes and eating up ever increasing numbers of resources. Why is it too much to ask people to reproduce responsibly?

You can ask all you want but people are going to do what they want to do.

The best way to slow population growth is to develop economies and make people wealthier. There is a direct correlation between birth rate and changes in wealth.

 

[DarkLion]

It would have been nice if it were more directly related to the topic, but good job nonetheless.

Thank you. And because I'm actually off work now, here's some more:

Human Nature, Technology & the Environment

This is a teaching aid for planning curriculum, but interesting anyway: 98.07.02: The Population Explosion: Causes and Consequences

Overpopulation: The Human Population Crisis

 

[Unkotare]

And here, look:

Plenty of room to fit some more people in there!

Why not show a photo of the stadium at the World Cup final match and start screaming hysterically about how many people there are!

 

[Unkotare]

There are.

If people like you and the OP have your way, they won't be for long.

What "way" is that?

 

[DarkLion]

There are.

If people like you and the OP have your way, they won't be for long.

Do pictures like this fill you with dread for the future of the world?

http://watermarked.impactphotos.com/1256823.jpg

Not the world per se. Humanity and most animals, yes. The world? Nah, the world will be here long after we've destroyed ourselves.

 

[Vox]

It would have been nice if it were more directly related to the topic, but good job nonetheless.

Thank you. And because I'm actually off work now, here's some more:

Human Nature, Technology & the Environment

This is a teaching aid for planning curriculum, but interesting anyway: 98.07.02: The Population Explosion: Causes and Consequences

Overpopulation: The Human Population Crisis

what a bunch of leftist BS

 

[Unkotare]

It means mankind is remarkably adaptable.

It's not your business to tell people how to live. If you want to live on 40 acres in the woods, good for you. But don't assume that everyone else needs space like that. I'd go ******* crazy living in the woods. Many people also want to live in places like New York, London and Paris. Urban populations are growing faster than rural populations.

Mankind, sure.

But what about all the other species we share the earth with that aren't so adaptable. Or, well, they try to adapt but get killed for it. Like the bears who try to scavenge from trash cans in what used to be their home, and then get shot for being a threat to precious little humans.

Cities are ever expanding into wild areas, usurping the animals' homes and eating up ever increasing numbers of resources. Why is it too much to ask people to reproduce responsibly?

Go sacrifice yourself to a bear in apology if it makes you feel better for that last moment. Did you read the links at the beginning of this thread?

 

[DarkLion]

There are.

If people like you and the OP have your way, they won't be for long.

we are having our way.

are you planning to do what - exactly - shoot us? or perform abortion in 240 trimesters?

You are, aren't you? Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

And me? Nothing. With my current health rating of "why aren't you dead yet?" I thankfully won't be around to see the chickens come to roost.

But keep driving that bus off the cliff if it makes you feel better.

 

[DarkLion]

what a bunch of leftist BS

You read the links in 3 mins? Impressive.

 

[Vox]

If people like you and the OP have your way, they won't be for long.

we are having our way.

are you planning to do what - exactly - shoot us? or perform abortion in 240 trimesters?

You are, aren't you? Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

And me? Nothing. With my current health rating of "why aren't you dead yet?" I thankfully won't be around to see the chickens come to roost.

But keep driving that bus off the cliff if it makes you feel better.

some more angry leftist BS

 

[Unkotare]

If people like you and the OP have your way, they won't be for long.

Do pictures like this fill you with dread for the future of the world?

http://watermarked.impactphotos.com/1256823.jpg

Not the world per se. Humanity and most animals, yes. The world? Nah, the world will be here long after we've destroyed ourselves.

Really? That picture fills you with dread for the future of humanity and most animals? I just want to be clear on this.

 

[Toro]

That's your opinion.

Oh, so you think wall to wall humanity would be utopia?

Besides, it's hysteria to say that we are in any danger of running out of space. If the world had a population density of Hong Kong, it wouldn't fill up Texas.

What a crock of shit.

Actually, it is. My mistake. We would all fit into Texas and California. Do the math.

The population density of Hong Kong is 6,480 per square kilometer. One square kilometer is equal to 0.386 square miles. Thus, with a population of 7 billion, there would need to be about 417,000 square miles to fit everyone into a city with the density of Hong Kong. The size of Texas is 267,000 square miles. California is 169,000. Combined, the two are about 436,000 square miles.

And no, I don't think it would be utopia. But it demonstrates that your hysteria about running out of space is overblown.

And FTR, the land surface of the earth is 57,490,840 square miles. Thus, 417,000 square miles accounts for 0.7% of the earth's land surface.

 

[Vox]

what a bunch of leftist BS

You read the links in 3 mins? Impressive.

I did. And a teachers school blah-blha-blah and somebody's blog may impress your hysterical sensitive soul but it does not impress ME

 

[Vox]

Do pictures like this fill you with dread for the future of the world?

http://watermarked.impactphotos.com/1256823.jpg

Not the world per se. Humanity and most animals, yes. The world? Nah, the world will be here long after we've destroyed ourselves.

Really? That picture fills you with dread for the future of humanity and most animals? I just want to be clear on this.

I think it is mostly the animals

 

[DarkLion]

Really? That picture fills you with dread for the future of humanity and most animals? I just want to be clear on this.

In all honesty? Not really. If humans confined most of their numbers to cities and built up instead of out into the countryside, and found cleaner sources of fuel, have at it. I'm sure there are ways we could sustain a world's population of several tens of billions.

My question is, do we really want that? Why not simply reproduce more responsibly?

 

[Unkotare]

It would have been nice if it were more directly related to the topic, but good job nonetheless.

Thank you. And because I'm actually off work now, here's some more:

Human Nature, Technology & the Environment

This is a teaching aid for planning curriculum, but interesting anyway: 98.07.02: The Population Explosion: Causes and Consequences

Overpopulation: The Human Population Crisis

Ok, so that first link is from 1992, well before demographers realized that in fact global population is most likely to decline about 50-60 years from now. Sort of renders the underlying premise moot, but does not conflict with the idea that we should manage our resources better. Of course that is simply prudent regardless of any false overpopulation myth.


Did you check the dates of the materials for that course the second link led to?



Again, if we should manage our resources better, get along better, stop killing each other so much, and continue to advance in medical science, great. All that is regardless of any overpopulation myth.