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

[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?”

 

[sealybobo]

I love this part: effort to “rewild” large tracts of the planet, giving the natural world time to recover.

Detroit would be a great place to start. Any slums or ghettos need to be torn down and turned back into forests. The people who are displaced can come live with the rest of us. If 70% of Detroit is a shit hole turn 70% of it into a forest. There are no jobs there anyways so get the fuck out! Same for Flint and Saginaw. Turn 70% of these major cities back into forests.

 

[sealybobo]

Why would unkotare want to keep our nations ghettos and slums in tact? Maybe he doesn't want those people moving to his neighborhood.

 

[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.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

...

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?”

Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

There's no doubt we could solve this problem but unkotare acts like it's not a problem or that we will have no problem solving the problem before it's too late. He reminds me of a citizen on Krypton.

 

[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?”

Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

Sort of like how Christians believe priests?

I don't think it's an appeal to authority when you get sick and go see a doctor is it? Well when it comes to climate change, who else are you going to appeal to? It's not a fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

We could put more infrastructure underground to free up green space.

 

[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.

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.

Is the decline in global population going to be enough? How low will our population go do you think?

Population growth is the increase in the number of individuals in a population. Global human population growth amounts to around 83 million annually, or 1.1% per year. The global population has grown from 1 billion in 1800 to 7.9 billion in 2020.

If it stays at 7 billion that's too much.

 

[sealybobo]

We could put more infrastructure underground to free up green space.

Floating condos and the marine life eats our poop and food waste.

 

[danielpalos]

We could put more infrastructure underground to free up green space.

Floating condos and the marine life eats our poop and food waste.

Underwater apartments could have live "aquariums" for scenery.

 

[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.

 

[bripat9643]

...

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?”

Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

Sort of like how Christians believe priests?

I don't think it's an appeal to authority when you get sick and go see a doctor is it? Well when it comes to climate change, who else are you going to appeal to? It's not a fallacy.

It's an appeal to authority, moron. You failed to prove it's not. You attempted to claim that some appeals to authority are valid, but you failed to prove it.

 

[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.

Is the decline in global population going to be enough? How low will our population go do you think?

Population growth is the increase in the number of individuals in a population. Global human population growth amounts to around 83 million annually, or 1.1% per year. The global population has grown from 1 billion in 1800 to 7.9 billion in 2020.

If it stays at 7 billion that's too much.

No, it’s not.

 

[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.

“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....

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

Is the decline in global population going to be enough? How low will our population go do you think?

Population growth is the increase in the number of individuals in a population. Global human population growth amounts to around 83 million annually, or 1.1% per year. The global population has grown from 1 billion in 1800 to 7.9 billion in 2020.

If it stays at 7 billion that's too much.

No, it’s not.

I asked you a question why didn't you answer it? You always say if I ask you will answer. How low do you think the human population is going to go?

 

[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?”

Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

Sort of like how Christians believe priests?

I don't think it's an appeal to authority when you get sick and go see a doctor is it? Well when it comes to climate change, who else are you going to appeal to? It's not a fallacy.

It's an appeal to authority, moron. You failed to prove it's not. You attempted to claim that some appeals to authority are valid, but you failed to prove it.

Well if that's your only comment I guess we're done. Even if it is an appeal to authority what's wrong with that? If the guy's a scientists or expert in the field why not point to him and say look he agrees with us?

You do it with Ben Carson.