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

[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.

 

[2aguy]

If nothing else, this thread sadly shows that we’ve got numbskulls who swallowed a false crisis in the 70s, and have been pacing the same street corner wearing a “The End is Near!” sandwich board for almost 50 years. The sign is cracked and faded, but these old fools are still trying to maintain a look of smug superiority on their wrinkled old nihilistic faces.

Fools are those who don’t heed Benjamin Franklin‘s advice: an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure.
Earth’s population has doubled since the 1970s and quadrupled in the past 100 years. And urban areas have greatly increased in density and present major issues like pollution and pandemics.
You are the fool.
.

Relax, Chicken Little. We've still got plenty of room and resources, and demographics are trending toward an eventual global contraction. And guess what? With even half of the world's current population we would still have pollution, disease, war, and hunger. Those unfortunate aspects of life have existed as long as human society and they always will.

No, with half the world population, we would have significantly less pollution, and urban densities would be far less.
Most of the US population 100 years ago lived in rural areas.
Now, across most high-income countries (Western Europe, the Americas, Australia, Japan and the Middle East) more than 80% of the population live in urban areas.
With higher densities, we see more car traffic, urban pollution, and viral infections and pandemics.
.

Fail.

Remember how the Conquistadors met the Native Americans and so many Indians dropped dead of diseases that Europe had largely developed a herd immunity for? Do you know why? The answer goes back to the first permanent settlements and the domestication of animals in the Old World. Global population was much smaller then.

The Black Death wiped out almost half of Europe and many more in China, and that was almost 700 years ago - when the global population was much smaller.

European immigrants crammed into tenements in cities like NY over 100 years there was a terrible degree of disease, pollution, and crime. Much more intense than NY today despite there being a smaller pop

Air pollution was much worse in LA in the 1980s than today, but our population is larger now.

Starting to get the picture?

You’re polluting the discussion with irrelevant historical, cultural, & geographic variables.
Yes, thanks to bipartisan support for the
creation of EPA in 1970, LA & elsewhere has significantly reduced air pollution from cars/etc, but all other things being equal:

With higher population densities, we see more car traffic, urban pollution, and viral infections ... unless the pandemic keeps people at home.

Starting to get the picture?
.

Wrong.......our pollution problem has decreased as we have more people in this country............we had a pollution problem due to the transition to an industrial society...now, with time and experience, and an increase in wealth and technological innovation we have more people and less pollution, not more pollution......

You don't understand the issue or the solutions.

 

[PK1]

If nothing else, this thread sadly shows that we’ve got numbskulls who swallowed a false crisis in the 70s, and have been pacing the same street corner wearing a “The End is Near!” sandwich board for almost 50 years. The sign is cracked and faded, but these old fools are still trying to maintain a look of smug superiority on their wrinkled old nihilistic faces.

Fools are those who don’t heed Benjamin Franklin‘s advice: an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure.
Earth’s population has doubled since the 1970s and quadrupled in the past 100 years. And urban areas have greatly increased in density and present major issues like pollution and pandemics.
You are the fool.
.

Relax, Chicken Little. We've still got plenty of room and resources, and demographics are trending toward an eventual global contraction. And guess what? With even half of the world's current population we would still have pollution, disease, war, and hunger. Those unfortunate aspects of life have existed as long as human society and they always will.

No, with half the world population, we would have significantly less pollution, and urban densities would be far less.
Most of the US population 100 years ago lived in rural areas.
Now, across most high-income countries (Western Europe, the Americas, Australia, Japan and the Middle East) more than 80% of the population live in urban areas.
With higher densities, we see more car traffic, urban pollution, and viral infections and pandemics.
.

Fail.

Remember how the Conquistadors met the Native Americans and so many Indians dropped dead of diseases that Europe had largely developed a herd immunity for? Do you know why? The answer goes back to the first permanent settlements and the domestication of animals in the Old World. Global population was much smaller then.

The Black Death wiped out almost half of Europe and many more in China, and that was almost 700 years ago - when the global population was much smaller.

European immigrants crammed into tenements in cities like NY over 100 years there was a terrible degree of disease, pollution, and crime. Much more intense than NY today despite there being a smaller pop

Air pollution was much worse in LA in the 1980s than today, but our population is larger now.

Starting to get the picture?

You’re polluting the discussion with irrelevant historical, cultural, & geographic variables.
Yes, thanks to bipartisan support for the
creation of EPA in 1970, LA & elsewhere has significantly reduced air pollution from cars/etc, but all other things being equal:

With higher population densities, we see more car traffic, urban pollution, and viral infections ... unless the pandemic keeps people at home.

Starting to get the picture?
.

Wrong.......our pollution problem has decreased as we have more people in this country............we had a pollution problem due to the transition to an industrial society...now, with time and experience, and an increase in wealth and technological innovation we have more people and less pollution, not more pollution......

You don't understand the issue or the solutions.

You are blind to my Post #977, or you don’t want to understand that more traffic equates to more air pollution even nowadays?

“In cities across the United States, traffic on roads and highways has fallen dramatically ... as the coronavirus outbreak forces people to stay at home ...
A satellite that detects emissions in the atmosphere linked to cars and trucks shows huge declines in pollution over major metropolitan areas, including Los Angeles, Seattle, New York, Chicago and Atlanta.”
.

 

[PK1]

...

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?
.

 

[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.

“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.

 

[PK1]

...

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.
.

 

[PK1]

HAPPY MOTHERS DAY to all those WONDERFUL mothers ...
who gave BIRTH to 1-3 healthy children and spent a great deal of her time & resources in raising them responsibly!

You make Mother Nature “proud”.

 

[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.

I know you believe that if the human race is capable of engineering a solution to you that means we aren't overpopulated but just the fact this is true tells me that we are overpopulated

Ocean Plastics Could Triple If We Don’t Act Now, Warn Experts

And they have a plan to dramatically reduce plastic pollution by 80% by 2040.

www.huffpost.com

Plastic waste in the ocean could nearly triple over the next two decades unless the world takes unprecedented levels of action now and completely changes the way it uses plastics, warns a new report released Thursday.
The study ― commissioned by nonprofit The Pew Charitable Trusts and sustainability consultancy and incubator SYSTEMIQ ― finds that if plastic production and consumption continues at the current pace, by 2040 there could be 600 million metric tons (661 million tons) of plastic polluting precious marine ecosystems, clogging waterways and sinking to the depths of the sea. Over the next two decades, we could see over 2.5 times more plastic in the ocean each year, the report projects.


The fact this is happening proves we are overpopulated.



There is no single solution that can succeed, the report makes clear; simply focusing on recycling or alternative materials alone would be nowhere near effective enough. Instead, the report lays out measures to completely change the way we use, produce and dispose of plastics from production, to use, to disposal. These include: reducing the amount of plastic produced in the first place by eliminating avoidable plastics and designing products for reuse; using alternative materials where appropriate; improving labelling to help people better understand what’s recyclable; and increasing waste collection.
The next two years are crucial for adopting these solutions, the report warns. Even a five-year delay in taking action could lead to an additional 80 million metric tons (88 million tons) of plastic in the ocean in 20 years. That’s equivalent to around 6.2 million garbage trucks’ worth of waste.

 

[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.

“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.

I know you believe that if the human race is capable of engineering a solution to you that means we aren't overpopulated but just the fact this is true tells me that we are overpopulated
...

You don't even understand the words you post.

 

[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.

To you....

 

[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.

To you....

 

[there4eyeM]

Doubtlessly, the population will appear to be supportable up to the time catastrophe strikes and the woeful excess will be undeniably evident. There is no good reason for such massive concentrations of people that occur and these are all tragedies waiting for the inevitable. Humans are capable of intelligent action, yet it seems so rare.
A person may point these things out while holding life and humanity quite dear. It is not misanthropic to look around objectively. What would be wrong with a planet wide population at post WWII levels, around 1.5 billion? That is just a question, not a proposition that any steps be taken to effect population reduction by violent means.

 

[Unkotare]

Doubtlessly, the population will appear to be supportable up to the time catastrophe strikes and the woeful excess will be undeniably evident. There is no good reason for such massive concentrations of people that occur and these are all tragedies waiting for the inevitable. Humans are capable of intelligent action, yet it seems so rare.
A person may point these things out while holding life and humanity quite dear. It is not misanthropic to look around objectively. What would be wrong with a planet wide population at post WWII levels, around 1.5 billion? That is just a question, not a proposition that any steps be taken to effect population reduction by violent means.

Did you read the entire thread?

 

[there4eyeM]

...

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?
.

The discussion has included a bit too much passion and not enough objectivity. The above quote seems to sum things up.

 

[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.

.

 

[Unkotare]

If nothing else, this thread sadly shows that we’ve got numbskulls who swallowed a false crisis in the 70s, and have been pacing the same street corner wearing a “The End is Near!” sandwich board for almost 50 years. The sign is cracked and faded, but these old fools are still trying to maintain a look of smug superiority on their wrinkled old nihilistic faces.

Fools are those who don’t heed Benjamin Franklin‘s advice: an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure.
Earth’s population has doubled since the 1970s and quadrupled in the past 100 years. And urban areas have greatly increased in density and present major issues like pollution and pandemics.
You are the fool.
.

Relax, Chicken Little. We've still got plenty of room and resources, and demographics are trending toward an eventual global contraction. And guess what? With even half of the world's current population we would still have pollution, disease, war, and hunger. Those unfortunate aspects of life have existed as long as human society and they always will.

.

 

[Unkotare]

If nothing else, this thread sadly shows that we’ve got numbskulls who swallowed a false crisis in the 70s, and have been pacing the same street corner wearing a “The End is Near!” sandwich board for almost 50 years. The sign is cracked and faded, but these old fools are still trying to maintain a look of smug superiority on their wrinkled old nihilistic faces.

.

 

[Unkotare]

The earth is already over-populated, a problem that was foreseen as early as the 1960s or before. Funny, it has been the "conservatives" all along who didn't want anyone to talk about or to put any policies in place to avert it.

It's hilarious to read the comments by the "conservatives" who now want to curb population growth, but who are anti-birth control and anti-choice, and justify discrimination against LGBTs because they can't reproduce naturally on other threads.

The earth isn't even close to being overpopulated.........and your solution for this problem that doesn't exist.....kill brown people in 3rd world countries.......that is all you socialists ever have....

This is a ridiculous response. We've been hearing about the growing overpopulation problem for decades. ....

Just like we heard about the coming of the next ice age for decades. We heard all the airplanes would fall from the skies on 1/1/2000. We heard there would never be another war after WW1. We heard that sickness is caused by miasma. We heard that the earth is the center of the solar system.

.

 

[Unkotare]

....

We're overpopulated you dip shits!!! .....

Not even close, dumbass. We have far more than enough room and resources for many, many more people than our current population, which will begin to contract in the next 40-50 years anyway, as your dumb ass has been taught several times now. Just because someone frightened you with a false crisis sometime back in the late 70s and you never got over it - because you're stupid as shit - doesn't make it so.

.

 

[TheParser]

Yes, we are overpopulated with bad people.

Just read the crime statistics and look at the rioters on TV every day.

There would be even more human beings of that ilk if it were not for family planning and abortion.