/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5880452
Overpopulation, because we can fit all ~7billion of us in Australia (7,692,024 km2) alone.

7,692,024 * 1000 * 1000 = 7,692,024,000,000 m^2

7,692,024,000,000/7,000,000,000 ~ 1100 m^2 per person.

That does not include building apartments etc (the sky is the limit).

1100 m^2 per person is more likely more than any of you have at this point in time.

Now you're going to say "OMG BUT YOU NEED ROOM FOR ROADS AND STUFF AND WE CAN'T FEED ALL THESE PEOPLE".

You're right, we can't feed the americans who weigh 1000 "lbs" (lolwat) a pop, that over-indulge for whatever reason like in OP's pic. Wait, actually, we can. You have the REST OF THE PLANET TO CHOOSE FROM THE ABUNDANT FERTILE SOIL TO PLANT ON AND/OR BUILD SKYSCRAPERS DEDICATED TO GROWING CROPS. CAPS LOCK BECAUSE FUCK YOU, RETARD.

>>5880473
What about the inevitable? Are you just going to ignore it?

>>5880475
Your pic has axis labelled x and y, who taught you how to make graphs that provide no information whatsoever? Here, let me open up paint and draw some random batman symbol and label my axis "dick" and "vagina". That's the equivalent of the shit you just posted.

We already have a rover on Mars and we can get there in 6 months or less. Do you really think that by the time we hit this "inevitable", whatever the fuck that means, we won't be able to populate another planet? Get your head out of your ass and think about how quickly science is developing.

We don't need to control science we just need to prevent 'accidents' or just completely wipe out the niggers. Yeah, that'll do. Wipe dem niggas out.

Or not, 'cause you know, that's racist or something.

>>5880473
That's fine for you, but I'm not living in the Australian desert, get fucked.

>>5880473
The problem is you hit a point where the growth can no longer be contained.

The problem isn't stopping before there isn't any room/resources left. It's stopping before growth cannot be stopped.

>>5880482
I'm sorry. I thought that the logistic function was ubiquitous and that we didn't live on a planet of infinite resources. Mea culpa.

>>5880485
Retard, I was just giving an example of the amount of total land size this global population requires. you can choose anywhere else in the world but my point stays the same, we are not overpopulated.

>>5880482
/pol/ is over there.

>>5880482
Your plan is to live on Mars? Well fuck, problem solved.

>>5880493
Not infinite resources, but there is a lot of room to develop our efficiency in growing crops.

There exists already the technology to grow crops without soil, which we can implement in our cities through skyscrapers that will house these crops. A few skyscrapers can mostly likely feed an entire city.

Overpopulation could be a problem given the limited amount of fresh water that falls from the sky every day and land available for growing crops. It hopefully won't be a problem. Most projections suggest it will continue to grow until stabilizing at 11 billion in 2050. Population growth is decelerating. ( http://esa.un.org/unpp/))

However we don't need to just worry about how many people there are but how many resources each of them consume. The world can't even support its present population if they were to all live like westerners.

The only thing that's going to change is the amount of people who are going to die of starvation.

>>5880473
>SKYSCRAPERS DEDICATED TO GROWING CROPS

99.9% of the crops would be in shadow/darkness. You could fit these skyscrapers with lamps, but they need power. And then we start that whole journey.

>>5880482
>completely wipe out the niggers

Actually China and India are the big populators at the moment.

Black Plague 2.0 will spread like wildfire any year now.

invest in developing nations with micro lending and micro finance
bring everyone onto the internet and make farming resources readily available
make GMOs cheap to buy and plant

the american farm belt could very easily feed the world right now but government subsidies to farmers keep them from bankrupting the food market (which would be a really bad thing. subsidies are ok)

if all potential farmland was brought up to second-agricultural-revolution standards, i don't think a single damn person on the planet would go hungry. there'd just be too much food.

that said
>easy way to stop overpopulation; bring economic growth and eventually prosperity to high-birthrate nations. birth rates plummet entirely on their own. we good.

>>5880538
>bring economic growth and eventually prosperity to high-birthrate nations. birth rates plummet entirely on their own
I don't see the connection...

>>5880542
Educated content people don't want to have 12 children, they'll settle for 2.

>>5880542
basically every country that has ever transitioned from first to third world (in the past century at least) has seen its birth rates tank like crazy.
from 8 kids per parents to a much more reasonable 2 or 4

>>5880543
>>5880544
What is the cause of this?

A devaluing of traditional/religious/cultural requirements for lots of children? Education about overpopulation? Availability of contraception? All of the above?

>>5880546
People like money. Children cost money to feed and entertain. Less children more money.

>>5880552
Surely those in the third world would appreciate that more so than anyone though. But birthrates suggest they don't.

>>5880546
its lots of little things.
another factor is the mentality of poor people to "try a bunch of times for a bread winner", hoping if they have enough kids one of them will go to college, get a good job, and pay for the family or something.
and as you said, easy access to contraceptives is probably another larger factor

>>5880546

It is often said overpopulation is a symptom of poverty, not the cause of it.
Poorer nations still tend to be more dependent on agriculture so having a large family means more productivity.

Even for non-agriculturalists, having a large family makes sense when you're poor in a poor nation because you're not afforded social security. Your only hope of maintaining any livelihood when you get too old / sick to continue working is to hedge your bets by having many children in hopes that some will be successful enough to care for their parents.

Then, traditional culture in less developed nations tends to retain older value systems that see a large family as a sign of success.

Political forces often also favor larger population in a developing nation because it means larger economy and thus greater potential to remain competitive against modernized nations. Corrupt politicians also see lack of education as an opportunity to gain influence among the poorest who have the most children and to garner a larger voting bloc for their party.

Of course, availability of contraception is also an issue. But even with contraceptives available, if the other points aren't addressed, sustainable population control is pretty much a non-starter.

>>5880605
it's often said that overpopulation is a symptom of your mum taking too much black cock

>>5880504
Soil or land to grow on isn't really the limiting factor for growing crops though. It's having a steady flow of essential nutrients with which to do so.

>>5880452

We need to eradicate the sand people.

>>5880539

That says we're all going to die :(

>>5881021
And nothing of value will be lost

>>5880452

Your prevailing economic system needs perpetual growth. Obviously that's impossible while you remain squatting on the planet. So what must happen eventually is a fairly all-consuming war that does away with the billions of useless eaters. War, neglect and starvation. I anticipate the use of biologicals to make sure the death reaches where it needs to.

Have you ever asked yourself where this idea of perpetual growth being possible, came from? You're buried inside the propaganda and you can't even see it.

>>5880452
this is actually a non-problem

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate
fertility decreases in nations that have reached a certain level of industrialization and literacy...

most of the west and the east have a fertility rate below 2.1 (the fertility rate needed to keep population stable - meaning not losing people)

the only outlaw right now is the underdeveloped, undereducated part of the world called africa - but still there I expect that the fertility is decreasing - although it might take some time

in 50 years we might begin to think about how to increase population - as the hordes of old people will overstretch the social system... if we have luck, then robotics will take care of this... other than that, Europe, Asia and America will become wastelands of white haired pill swallowing elders

>>5880452 (OP)
this is actually a non-problem

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate
fertility decreases in nations that have reached a certain level of industrialization and literacy...

most of the west and the east have a fertility rate below 2.1 (the fertility rate needed to keep population stable - meaning not losing people)

the only outlaw right now is the underdeveloped, undereducated part of the world called africa - but still there I expect that the fertility is decreasing - although it might take some time

in 50 years we might begin to think about how to increase population - as the hordes of old people will overstretch the social system... if we have luck, then robotics will take care of this... other than that, Europe, Asia and America will become wastelands of white haired pill swallowing elders

>>5881152
+1, the only sign that humanity ever existed in 10.000 years will be the lifeform that we will create - the thinking machines...
but there's no reason to be sad, we will be the dinosaurs of the next age

>>5880528
What is Solar Power?

What are windows?

>>5881172
>So what must happen eventually is a fairly all-consuming war that does away with the billions of useless eaters. War, neglect and starvation.
>>5881203
It's already happening in the places it needs to happen. We just need to shift it up a few gears.

>>5880528
unstoppable faggot

>>5881618
this

>>5880528
Artificial conditions produce food more efficiently, and electricity is constantly becoming cheaper, by using solar power to cover less fertile lands, or by using fission, fusion, wind, water, etc. Especially fusion will make electricity dirt-cheap if it's government sponsored, rather than maintained by oligopoly. Converting grams of hydrogen plus tonnes of human waste into grams of helium plus tonnes of food is completely viable at that point.

>>5881209
nedgyn+2me
Humans generally like existing. When we use our technology to bend the future to our will, the only way we're not going to be part of that future is stupidity. We won't be dinosaurs, nor neanderthals, or even cromagnons compared to the future artificial lifeforms. We'll be considered infants, the childhood of the human race, as surely connected to the future as a child to its adult life.

>>5880452
Not if we stop being dickwads. There is so much un-utilized land on earth. More than 50% of Russia is uninhabited. If we get better technology, maybe that land could be more suitable.

>>5880531
But the chinese and indians are actually somewhat useful.

> dat racism