The reason for the world's problem

[daniel l.]

The worlds population is compacted together.

Like a hundred small children locked in a cottage, we have no room to move and cannot stand the close presence of each other, in order to survive in the long term we must forget money or military dominance as the motive and instead work together just long enough to settle in with different planets and moons.

I think that the best population for each large world would be 500 million people (The largest amount that can be started with that will provide room to grow and make it always easy to move out to a area of uninhabited country if the big city is not for you.

[Bill Phil]

Maybe in cities. But not in other places. Europe, India, China, all those places are high pop density areas, but there is a lot of room here.

[daniel l.]

Maybe in cities. But not in other places. Europe, India, China, all those places are high pop density areas, but there is a lot of room here.

Yeah but in general the close life is not the best for us, Besides the current life (At least in America) is merely a matter of sitting around and getting fat, We need a challenge to life that makes it more enjoyable (Also to prevent the population from getting too high )

[Bill Phil]

Yeah but in general the close life is not the best for us, Besides the current life (At least in America) is merely a matter of sitting around and getting fat, We need a challenge to life that makes it more enjoyable (Also to prevent the population from getting too high )

Well that was insulting...

In cities people move around quite a lot...

[daniel l.]

Well that was insulting...

In cities people move around quite a lot...

The insult is aimed at myself too since i am american, But really alot of americans do tend to sit around watching TV eating chips and rooting for a bunch of people chasing a ball around a field.

[Bill Phil]

The insult is aimed at myself too since i am american, But really alot of americans do tend to sit around watching TV eating chips and rooting for a bunch of people chasing a ball around a field.

True. But that's what happened a long time ago in the 40s, just without TV. TV existed, but man it changes society.

[daniel l.]

True. But that's what happened a long time ago in the 40s, just without TV. TV existed, but man it changes society.

They still do it now. In fact i was trying to buy groceries a couple months ago (It unfortunately was Black Friday.) and we couldnt even get around all the fat people trying to buy 50" tv's and potato chips. D:

[Sidereus]

You could comfortably fit the entirety of the world's population into the state of Texas.

I think that the best population for each large world would be 500 million people (The largest amount that can be started with that will provide room to grow and make it always easy to move out to a area of uninhabited country if the big city is not for you.

So how would you propose to get the Earth's population to this level? Do you have some sort of, I dunno, Final Solution?

They still do it now. In fact i was trying to buy groceries a couple months ago (It unfortunately was Black Friday.) and we couldnt even get around all the fat people trying to buy 50" tv's and potato chips. D:

Oh teh nose! Fat people. Out in public. Buying TV's. LIKE THEY'RE PEOPLE!

[daniel l.]

You could comfortably fit the entirety of the world's population into the state of Texas.

So how would you propose to get the Earth's population to this level? Do you have some sort of, I dunno, Final Solution?

Oh teh nose! Fat people. Out in public. Buying TV's. LIKE THEY'RE PEOPLE!

You cant fit the whole population into texas! Japan has less than a hundred million people and they are all practically living in closets!

As for getting the pop down to 500 million just send them to SPAAAAAAAAAACEE

Edited March 13, 2015 by daniel l.

[xXIndestructibleEVAXx]

Actually, you can. You can fit (rather uncomfortably) over 100 people into the avarge american household. You could easily fit all of the UK's population in London, and all of China's in the Isle of Man.

Just so you know, I'm talking about cramping everyone together, not living space. If you had several 2 meter wide huts, about a meter apart, you could house the world's population in Texas. Probably.

Also, Japan has 123.7 million people as of 2013. And they all live in extremely dense cities, like Tokyo. And I don't think you can send 7 billion people into space. The earth's population is about 7.5 billion.

Edited March 13, 2015 by xXIndestructibleEVAXx

[Bill Phil]

You cant fit the whole population into texas! Japan has less than a hundred million people and they are all practically living in closets!

As for getting the pop down to 500 million just send them to SPAAAAAAAAAACEE

That's because they have a tiny amount of land, that's usable. It's pretty mountainous there... Texas has lots of area. Combined with Alaska...

[daniel l.]

That's because they have a tiny amount of land, that's usable. It's pretty mountainous there... Texas has lots of area. Combined with Alaska...

Still, it would not in any way be comfortable and the condition of the world would be far worse.

[ZedNova]

The worry of overpopulation is not about running out of room to live, it's about how to supply the growing population. Food, medicine, clothes, electricity ect.

[vger]

The "you can stuff everyone into Texas" statement is a rebuttal that is typically used to support allegations that the Earth still has nearly infinite space and/or resources, and we can keep multiplying as we do for another thousand years. It intentionally ignores the arable land required to grow crops, forests to provide O2 and animal life, psychological factors, etc.

[Bill Phil]

And that, my friends, is where space comes in.

[daniel l.]

And that, my friends, is where space comes in.

Yep

[Sidereus]

The "you can stuff everyone into Texas" statement is a rebuttal that is typically used to support allegations that the Earth still has nearly infinite space and/or resources, and we can keep multiplying as we do for another thousand years. It intentionally ignores the arable land required to grow crops, forests to provide O2 and animal life, psychological factors, etc.

Well, the OP was talking about physical space, so...

Actually, you can. You can fit (rather uncomfortably) over 100 people into the avarge american household. You could easily fit all of the UK's population in London, and all of China's in the Isle of Man.

Just so you know, I'm talking about cramping everyone together, not living space. If you had several 2 meter wide huts, about a meter apart, you could house the world's population in Texas. Probably.

Also, Japan has 123.7 million people as of 2013. And they all live in extremely dense cities, like Tokyo. And I don't think you can send 7 billion people into space. The earth's population is about 7.5 billion.

The population density would be about the same as New York City. Somewhat tight, but not anywhere close to unlivable.

[Wanderfound]

A few points:

1) The environmental impact of cities, as ugly as it can be in the areas where it's concentrated, is vastly less per capita than that of rural life. Five million people in a city do a lot less environmental damage than five million subsistence farmers.

2) Population is a problem that is solving itself:

3) All of the evidence is that the best way to reduce birthrates is to reduce infant mortality and increase civil rights for women. Do those two things, and birthrates plummet. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that most women actually don't want to give birth half a dozen times if they're given the choice.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Wanderfound

[Sidereus]

A few points:

3) All of the evidence is that the best way to reduce birthrates is to reduce infant mortality and increase civil rights for women. Do those two things, and birthrates plummet. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that most women actually don't want to give birth half a dozen times if they're given the choice.

Mmm, not quite. I would argue raising the standard of living is almost as important. A family in a wealthier society is far less dependent on child labor for survival, so the demand curve -- as it were -- for children goes down.

- - - Updated - - -

You cant fit the whole population into texas! Japan has less than a hundred million people and they are all practically living in closets!

As for getting the pop down to 500 million just send them to SPAAAAAAAAAACEE

And that, my friends, is where space comes in.

One more thing...this sounds nice, and I definitely agree that space is a convenient pressure valve, but what do you plan to do with the people already here? With your plan, you'll need to relocate approximately 6.5 billion people, and that's if you started now. By the time this could become technologically feasible (probably in several hundred years), you'll be dealing with a fair bit more. How do you plan on getting all of these people to willingly decamp the Earth?

[daniel l.]

Mmm, not quite. I would argue raising the standard of living is almost as important. A family in a wealthier society is far less dependent on child labor for survival, so the demand curve -- as it were -- for children goes down.

- - - Updated - - -

One more thing...this sounds nice, and I definitely agree that space is a convenient pressure valve, but what do you plan to do with the people already here? With your plan, you'll need to relocate approximately 6.5 billion people, and that's if you started now. By the time this could become technologically feasible (probably in several hundred years), you'll be dealing with a fair bit more. How do you plan on getting all of these people to willingly decamp the Earth?

By the time we manage to leave the earth will probably be a dead irradiated rock with very little life at all other than us just barely hanging on, By then Mars and titan would look quite attractive.

[Sidereus]

By the time we manage to leave the earth will probably be a dead irradiated rock with very little life at all other than us just barely hanging on, By then Mars and titan would look quite attractive.

That's a decidedly depressing take on our rate of technological advance, given that will be several billion years from now. It's also somewhat of a cop out, as you've basically just said "We have a problem! Here's how to fix it!...well, we could probably do it in 5 billion years, maybe!"

[daniel l.]

That's a decidedly depressing take on our rate of technological advance, given that will be several billion years from now. It's also somewhat of a cop out, as you've basically just said "We have a problem! Here's how to fix it!...well, we could probably do it in 5 billion years, maybe!"

I was actually thinking of within 50-100 years, A humanity destroyed earth would probably be far more toxic than mars or titan

[Wanderfound]

Mmm, not quite. I would argue raising the standard of living is almost as important. A family in a wealthier society is far less dependent on child labor for survival, so the demand curve -- as it were -- for children goes down.

That is the third factor, yes. It's generally the first and easiest to deal with, though; that sort of dependence upon child labor tends to only appear in the most impoverished societies.

The economic contribution of child labor is slight enough (kids are lousy workers; they're weak, fragile, unskilled and undisciplined) that it's only of value in the most marginal economies. And again, most people don't actually want to do that to their children if they don't have to. Child labor is much more poverty-driven than cultural, and has already largely disappeared [1] from most of the world.

[1] "Does farm chores before and after school" is not the sort of thing I'm discussing here.

[Sidereus]

That is the third factor, yes. It's generally the first and easiest to deal with, though; that sort of dependence upon child labor tends to only appear in the most impoverished societies.

The economic contribution of child labor is slight enough (kids are lousy workers; they're weak, fragile, unskilled and undisciplined) that it's only of value in the most marginal economies. And again, most people don't actually want to do that to their children if they don't have to. Child labor is much more poverty-driven than cultural, and has already largely disappeared [1] from most of the world.

[1] "Does farm chores before and after school" is not the sort of thing I'm discussing here.

Err, if by "disappeared from most of the world" you mean most of the industrialized world, then sure. It's still very prevalent in developing nations, though.

- - - Updated - - -

I was actually thinking of within 50-100 years, A humanity destroyed earth would probably be far more toxic than mars or titan

I don't really think that's very likely. It would take an all-out nuclear war for that, and the most likely period for that to have happened ended 25 years ago.

[daniel l.]

Err, if by "disappeared from most of the world" you mean most of the industrialized world, then sure. It's still very prevalent in developing nations, though.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't really think that's very likely. It would take an all-out nuclear war for that, and the most likely period for that to have happened ended 25 years ago.

Russia has apparently been rearming itself, Besides unruly and if i may say EVIL countries will eventually get access to nukes, And lets not forget the Hitler effect that a madman might get access to doomsday weapons.