OVERPOPULATIPON

[Anonymous No.9025358]

Let's face it, there's way too many people on this planet and they're draining our resources and destroying our habitats. It's also the biggest cause of extinction of many species.

How do we reduce Earth's human population to a more manageable size? How do we do it quickly?

[Anonymous No.9025362]

Actually, Earth can sustain the humans, not the system... It only consumes and destroys

[Anonymous No.9025367]

I agree man. As a white man, I think we need to urge other whites to stop having kids and shit so we can support our African brothers and other peoples of color. And if that don't work then shit, maybe us whites need to get smoked, you know what I'm saying?

[Papa bear No.9025369]

A lot of people need to die. Like 66%

[Anonymous No.9025373]

>>9025358
dumb.


Have you done any homework at all?


the WORLD isnt overpopulated you turbocuck

Regions of the world are overpopulated.

Those regions are excessively poor areas where it makes sense to have 17 kids because most of them are going to die anyways and you need someone to take care of you when youre old.
how do you solve this problem?

add infrastructure into these areas at the expense of otherwise wealthier areas until the region can produce its own wealth.

[Anonymous No.9025375]

>>9025358
>How do we reduce Earth's human population to a more manageable size?

By getting rid of white people. First only the men, and we can keep the women to be breeding farms. If after killing the men there are still too many of us then we can kill the ugly women too. No one really cares about them.

>How do we do it quickly?
Just push the idea that if you are white and you do not kill yourself then you are hurting the environment, muslims and black people and that makes you racist.

[Anonymous No.9025377]

>>9025373
>Regions of the world are overpopulated.
There's a reason for that: other regions cannot sustain population well.

[Papa bear No.9025385]

Fuckin... massive terminal virus outbreak, flooding due to melting of ice caps, tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, and nuclear war

[Anonymous No.9025386]

>>9025358
"we" can't do anything about it except wait for the wars and dieoffs that will result from us running out of important resources

[Anonymous No.9025390]

>>9025377
Well, i would say its mostly because people are not incentivised into having 36 kids in say, houston texas, as opposed to say, eastern india.

[Anonymous No.9025401]

>>9025358
Kill 1 billion niggers by any means necessary. Everyone else is at or below 2.1 children per woman (give or take .5).

Biological weapons are the best choice.

[Anonymous No.9025403]

>>9025358
No such thing for humans. We will all be high rollers soon and our birth rates will drop and level out.

[Anonymous No.9025435]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348&t=18s

[Anonymous No.9025438]

>>9025358
We need more deadly viruses.

[Anonymous No.9025451]

>>9025358
Birth rates are below the replacement rate and falling, most of the world is uninhabited, and quite frankly you're just retarded.

[Anonymous No.9025470]

>>9025451
do you want the whole world to be filled with low IQ retards that keep on migrating and breeding like rats?
you're the one who;s retarded.

[Anonymous No.9025477]

>>9025470
That's precisely why overpopulation is a meme and you should start having more children.

[Anonymous No.9025478]

>>9025401
I WANT ONE BILLION NIGGER SCALPS NOW REEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.9025484]

>>9025478
can you go back to /pol/?

[Anonymous No.9025485]

>>9025477
you can't fuck your way out of overpopulation you mouthbreathign retard.

When in a hole, STOP DIGGING (or fucking in this case).

[Anonymous No.9025489]

>>9025358
[citation needed]
Malthus was wrong. We could easily supply everyone with a quality life given existing resources. Some choose to not have a quality life, even if it is handed to them by flawed policies, some are denied it by flawed policies, not any true lack of resources.

[Anonymous No.9025495]

>>9025485
But there is no overpopulation that's the point. You're just another underage >>>/pol/ summerfag that's using this thread as an excuse to shitpost.

Here's a conundrum for you: if white people are so racially superior then why do Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ one whole standard of deviation higher than white people? Honestly we should start exterminating useless white people too while we're at it.

[Anonymous No.9025501]

>>9025358
>How do we reduce Earth's human population to a more manageable size? How do we do it quickly?
Consider learning anything at all about sociology and demographic changes, rather than making thinly-veiled "how do we kill the niggers?" threads on /sci/.
Also, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9025513]

Populations stabilise after regions reach a certain level of education and economic prosperity.

[Anonymous No.9025528]

Overpopulation is a myth perpetuated to shift the blame off the biggest consumers in the world, onto the most numerous group on the world. A poor african doesn't consume 1/100 of what a lower class american does.

[Anonymous No.9025530]

>>9025358
The problem is overconsumption a lot more than overpopulation. Until we rich fat fucks get out ducks in a row, we should shut up and just give the 3rd world whatever tiny crumbs it takes to improve women's education and subsidize condoms.

[Anonymous No.9025532]

>>9025358
The problem is overconsumption a lot more than overpopulation. Until we rich fat fucks get our ducks in a row, we should shut up and just give the 3rd world whatever tiny crumbs it takes to improve women's education and subsidize condoms.

[Anonymous No.9025538]

>>9025513
...and a functioning pension system, that is the basic reason for having many kids.
Religious reasons merely make a virtue out of a necessity.

[Anonymous No.9025544]

>>9025358
>How do we reduce Earth's human population to a more manageable size?

[Anonymous No.9025547]

>>9025477
A population exploding into infinity is a meme, but the 10-12 bn we are now stabilizing towards is too damn high.
A long term stable max is 3 billion, about where we were after ww2.

[Anonymous No.9025549]

>>9025547
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.9025606]

>>9025547
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Milestones_by_the_billions

https://youtu.be/ezVk1ahRF78?t=10m

[Anonymous No.9025634]

>>9025606
>wikipedia
>TED talk
hahaha anyone can get a TED talk and say whatever garbage they want

[Anonymous No.9025644]

>>9025367

[Anonymous No.9025646]

>>9025644

[Anonymous No.9025649]

>>9025358
"theyre draining our resources"
don't you mean you are draining my resources you littering scum

[Anonymous No.9025650]

>>9025634
since you can't into math, fuck of to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9025651]

>>9025646

I'm surprised Shareblue still has funding left to operate this late.

[Anonymous No.9025654]

>>9025634
since you can't into math, fuck off to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9025656]

>>9025654
"when you run out of arguments, shout pol.jpg"

[Anonymous No.9025657]

>>9025654

>>9025435

[Anonymous No.9025660]

>>9025651
Shareblue? Is that some dumb reincarnation of the JDIF for you people?

[Anonymous No.9025667]

>>9025358
>How do we reduce Earth's human population to a more manageable size?
A fully automated economy where there is only work for 5% to 10% of the population to do. The other 90% to 95% will starve to death because they cant compete with robots for jobs.

[Anonymous No.9025669]

>>9025656
You can't math
so go to hell

[Anonymous No.9025681]

>>9025358
Have you ever heard of the concept of carrying capacity?

[Anonymous No.9025688]

It's a self correcting problem and really only a problem in a small corner of this planet (India/Asia .. soon to be Africa)

The real issue is developed countries being full of inexperienced, idealistic idiots who have become comfortable in the wonderful world their forebears created for them and in that comfort and complacency are going to allow the swarm to eat them up first before that problem completely self corrects

[Anonymous No.9025697]

>>9025688
>It's a self correcting problem
so if 70% of the animals and plants on the planet go extinct because we kill them all or burned/plowed under their habitats will they become un-extinct when the problem "self corrects"?

The answer is no, obviously.

[Anonymous No.9025706]

will it be possible for some madman to use CRISPR to make some virus or something and kill off half the planet?

[Anonymous No.9025708]

>>9025706
>will it be possible
if you freak out about all the shitty things that are possible (yes that one is) then you will cower in your bed every day because the world is a fucked up place.

[Anonymous No.9025715]

>>9025708
isn't this CRISPR shit an existential threat type of tech? like nukes and AI?

[Anonymous No.9025729]

>>9025377
Its a distribution issue. The world produces far far more food than is eaten. Something like 50% of all food rots in the fields, distribution centers, and store shelves.

[Anonymous No.9025756]

Food is not the only issue. Most of this board accepts that global warming, pollution, animal extinctions, overfishing, etc... are happening as a result of, or exacerbated by human activity but whenever the topic of overpopulation comes up these issues are entirely ignored and everyone acts as if the only, easily solved, issue is food or space. If our population doubles then obviously our energy needs will also increase, aggravating these issues further. Instead of addressing those we get responses like "the entire population of earth could fit into texas!".

[Anonymous No.9025776]

>>9025667
This is at the root of the societal values we have pushed for with capitalism. "You've got to go to work if you want to go to town."
What I predict in the coming robot workforce overhaul is that companies will be required by law to have like 70% human labour, not out of necessity but literally gimping themselves to not have a 90% unemployment rate, because any other option will invariably lead to "universal incomes" and that'll get completely outcried as communism.

[Anonymous No.9025784]

>>9025776
>by law
>thinking government can continue to exist in a highly digital world

[Anonymous No.9025832]

>>9025358
The retards answering you dont actually know anything about the environmental problems with overpopulation. There are the things you mention as well as the bigger issues like competition for resources and collapse of societal stabilizing factors such as culture and partitioned tradition. We already see a bit of backlash from the latter, today. People, although social creatures in nature, desire similar and familiar faces to socialize with. Competition for resources is a whole other topic. The distribution of people is just a minor detail to the 2 larger problems stated above which will ultimately lead all of humanity to either start eating each other or killing each other for the purpose of cheap fertilizer ingredients.

[Anonymous No.9025845]

nuke everything not canada, england or australia and the entire world's problems are solved

new zealand can stay too I guess

[Anonymous No.9025853]

>>9025832
this guy knows. overpopulation will destroy us all.

[Anonymous No.9025897]

>>9025358
start with yourself

[Anonymous No.9025910]

>>9025358
desu we could probably fit and feed 20 billion on the planet easily, we just have to ditch some ideas like suburbia unless we want literal continental megasprawl. America doesn't even come close to its full agricultural output, a lot of the corn crop for instance is wasted or grown only for corn syrup. Africa has a huge amount of land fit for agriculture currently unused because Africans can't into agriculture. Beyond 20 billion we certainly have the room, but at that point we might not have the agricultural space without creative solutions.

[Anonymous No.9025914]

>>9025358
Get it going.

kys

[Anonymous No.9025920]

>>9025845
Yet another genocidal nazi cartoon idiot, screaming from his mom's cellar.

If India and Pakistan go to war, and blow up just half of their nuclear weapons, it would fuck up the whole world's (yes yours too) food crops for a decade at least - you wouldn't survive.

[Anonymous No.9025964]

>>9025358
>they
>our
>they
>our

it's ALWAYS the same with you overpopulation jerks: YOU are never part of the group that needs to be culled.

how about you stop being part of the problem and kill yourself, faggot?

[Anonymous No.9025972]

>>9025964
Well, given there are specific groups currently breeding like rabbits and one or two not, I'd say the ones overbreeding need to be fixed.

[Anonymous No.9025992]

>>9025920
>If India and Pakistan go to war, and blow up just half of their nuclear weapons, it would fuck up the whole world's (yes yours too) food crops for a decade at least

>set off over 2000 nukes, sometimes upwards of 100 in a single year all around the world
>world doesn't even know until the the information is finally unclassified
>20 years after signing of CTBT nukes are obscure black magic that will blow up the world, like in some bad CGI, or at least bring about another ice age or similar ridiculous shit

[Anonymous No.9025993]

don't worry
mummy nature has got this
10 degrees warmer and most of the world becomes a heat death

[Anonymous No.9025999]

>>9025358
In most of the West, population is already in decline. Economically that may be bad but for the environment that is good.

In some developing countries, the situation is really bad. In 1950, there were 200 million people. In 2000, that was 800 million. Today, it's 1,2 billion. In 2100, UN predicts that there will be 4 billion people in Africa. I don't know how many people that continent can support but I doubt it's 4 billion

[Anonymous No.9026010]

>>9025964
/thread

[Anonymous No.9026017]

>>9025972

Not him but the "rabbits" as you refer to expends and consumes 1/5 of the resources a first world nation populace goes through.

As the previous Anon point out a major problem with this overpopulation argument is that advocators don't look in the mirror and realize they're part of the problem.

[Anonymous No.9026024]

>>9025999
>In 2100, UN predicts that there will be 4 billion people in Africa.
That's a pure wild speculation, not a prediction.
I will eat my fucking shoes, if anyone can seriously predict - with any solid degree of accuracy- what will the situation on African (or any) continent be like 8 decades from now.

>I don't know how many people that continent can support but I doubt it's 4 billion
Africa is 2nd largest continent by landmass and counting out about a quarter of it which is desert, it's pretty much entirely arable. If India which is 1/20th the size of Africa can handle 1.5 billion, Africa should be able to handle 4.
That is, unless everything between Cancer and Capricorn tropics becomes a
fucking oven.
↓
>>9025993

[Anonymous No.9026087]

>>9026024
I'm mostly concerned about the fresh water reserves. That might turn out to be a local problem at least

As for the population growth, we know how many children women in Africa have per person. Would it be reasonable to assume that that won't change very fast?

[Anonymous No.9026120]

>>9026087
>Would it be reasonable to assume that that won't change very fast?
we pretty much went from 5-10 kids per family to less than two in less than a century
there is nothing preventing Africa and southeast Asia from doing the same
all depends on the pace of soc/econ development

[Anonymous No.9026121]

>>9026087
>As for the population growth, we know how many children women in Africa have per person. Would it be reasonable to assume that that won't change very fast?
Definitely not.

[Anonymous No.9026130]

>>9025358
>OVERPOPULATIPON
it's teh OVERPOPULATIPON meme again!
KYS faggot pls

[Anonymous No.9026181]

>>9026120
>there is nothing preventing Africa and southeast Asia from doing the same
they're niggers, if you give them condoms they use them as hats

[Anonymous No.9026196]

>>9026087
Subtropics, latitudes 23.5 - 40,
will see 50% to 75 % failing rain as GW approaches the 450ppm / 2C level

[Anonymous No.9026198]

>>9026196
is that increase or decrease?

[Anonymous No.9026199]

>>9025992
>thinks underground test explosions are the same as in war

[Anonymous No.9026202]

>>9026198
decrease

[Anonymous No.9026204]

Why did all those green deep ecology think tanks stop considering overpopulation a threat a while back?

There's no way this bullshit is sustainable I don't care how many videos commissioned by the UN that argue fertility is leveling off and that everything is going to be okay are made.

[Anonymous No.9026242]

>>9026204
your opinion is irrelevant
you did not even bother stating what is it based on

[Anonymous No.9026245]

>>9026242
Woah nice rebuttal there bro.

[Anonymous No.9026275]

>>9026245
the most appropriate rebuttal for "there is now way" with nothing to support the claim is "go fuck yourself, faggot"

[Anonymous No.9026277]

>>9025358
Anime. It worked for Japan.

[Anonymous No.9026278]

>>9026017
>realize they're part of the problem
I recycle.

[Anonymous No.9026319]

>Behavioral Sink
we'll just self-regulate

[Anonymous No.9026322]

>>9026275
7 billion people and growing is the root cause of all ecological issues and there are no two ways around it. Ecological sustainability is impossible without a massive culling.

[Anonymous No.9026328]

>>9026322

>Ecological sustainability is impossible without a massive culling.

Or you know we can be more resource efficient.

[Anonymous No.9026335]

>>9026322
ramblings
not only does fraction of humanity completely dwarf the hulking majority in both carbon emissions and resource consumption, who the fuck are you to say who gets to go and who can stay?
How about amerifats stop eating 50,000 kcal a day, drive 6 liter engined cars and watering their fucking lawns with perfectly drinkable water. They could feed India with their fucking leftovers, yet numbers and niggers always get the blame.

[Anonymous No.9026355]

>>9026335

Clearly we need to wipe out all non-whites then

[Anonymous No.9026375]

>>9026335
I'm a white American man, but I drive a Jetta, work from home, don't water the lawn, probably waste less food than average and I don't buy a new iPad every 2 years.
Most importantly though, I don't have any kids.
If you decided to have children, you've chosen to have more impact on this planet than I ever could, even if I ate a cow a day for the rest of my life.

[Anonymous No.9026379]

We can easily fit trillions into various mega structures that are buildable with today's technology. That can include all the indoor farming you could ever want to sustain those trillions. This is really a non-issue.

[Anonymous No.9026437]

>>9026375
>Cows can contribute positively to more efficient use of resources the same way a well educated human child can
Moo lad

[Anonymous No.9027924]

>>9026379
yeah, but you can't feed all those people and all these people leave a huge environmental footprint.

we need one child policy for the whole world. especially for 3rd world shitholes.

[Anonymous No.9027951]

>>9027924
One child policy is completely shit and I know Chinese people who had kids and we're kids under the system.

[Anonymous No.9027958]

>>9025373
It's actually much more accurate to say underutilized then overpopulation honestly.

[Anonymous No.9028170]

>>9025369
more like 80-90
over 1 billion was a mistake

[Anonymous No.9028175]

Not my problem

[Anonymous No.9028212]

>>9025375
>we can kill the ugly women too.
keeping nigger alive = produce an offspring ugly woman.

nice plan you got

[Anonymous No.9028230]

>>9025358
Nuke China and India

[Anonymous No.9028234]

>>9025972
The thing is that Indians and Africans don't consume NEARLY as many resources as you do as a first worlder.

[Anonymous No.9028261]

>there's way too many people on this planet and they're draining our resources and destroying our habitats. It's also the biggest cause of extinction of many species.

A bold claim anon, Im interested. Where do you suppose we start, any data of this 'overpopulation'. I look forward to seeing your proof and sources for this shocking info requiring the removal of a large percentage of all human life.
>source: Let's face it
Oh

[Anonymous No.9028264]

>>9025358
>overpopulatipon

[Anonymous No.9028271]

>>9025451
>most of the world is uninhabited,
Most of the world is uninhabitable.
Most of the habitable world is unproductive.
Most of the productive world is utilized.

We can increase our food supply by either clearing areas in suitable terrain - which mostly includes ancient forests - or by further intensification of agriculture, meaning more industrialization, more fertilizers, more pesticides. Either way is environmentally destructive.

Just look at what human food demand has done to the oceans, for example. There's far too many of us - it's just not us that are in immediate danger, but much of the rest of life on earth.

Chances are that when we finally reach the point where our civilization collapses globally, there will have been a great extinction among all multicellular lifeforms, all due to us. Our civilization will not have a successor for a long, long time, maybe never.

[Anonymous No.9028275]

Larry Niven's idea for controlling the population was pretty cool, make the right for having a child a lottery.
>rights to have a child is controlled by governments
>everyone is allowed to buy tickets for the chance to win the right to have a child
>people with good genes or high IQ will be given free rights
He never mentioned what would happen to people to tried to have a child around the system, but if someone were stupid enough to try that the child and parents would most likely be executed.

[Anonymous No.9028277]

>>9028275
>>rights to have a child is controlled by governments
Umm... no?

[Anonymous No.9028279]

>>9025528
>A poor african doesn't consume 1/100 of what a lower class american does.
The argument is that he will stop breeding once he does, though, and by that point there will be 10+ times as many Africans as Europeans, all consuming and demanding their share.

This isn't desirable in any way, shape or form. Lifting up the poor is the fastest way to finalize the complete wrecking of Earth's biosphere and resource base, given that we already, today, consume more than we should.

[Anonymous No.9028287]

>>9028277
That's one hot argument, my dude.
Feel free to try again.

[Anonymous No.9028293]

>>9028279
Because if fertility rate reduction hit Asia, Latin America and more it will hit Africa roo. Africa is just society wise making a big transition and even now fertility rates are lowering on par with other nations in their early development years.

[Anonymous No.9028297]

>>9028287
Because see >>9027951
Also extremely and massively prone to abuse by people in the government alongside massive adding to the bureaucratic red tape.

Think this through please next tine

[Anonymous No.9028301]

>>9028293
Growth rates don't matter at all. Numbers do.

[Anonymous No.9028303]

Really, what governments would be angry if Africa was wiped of human life?

[Anonymous No.9028319]

>>9028303
Canada

[Anonymous No.9028347]

>>9025358
Places like Kenya will have more population than US soon. The only race not overpopulating is Caucasians and a few else. Women have like 7 kids north Africa because they don't care.

[Anonymous No.9028368]

>>9028301
Now the fertility rates are what matters. Only plebs would only focus on the flat population number itself because they completely miss the point.

[Anonymous No.9028369]

Anyone care to substantiate "world can't handle this many people" arguments with evidence? It's well established world population growth is declining, and this is true of most countries

[Anonymous No.9028371]

>>9028347
Kenya's contraceptive usage rate are pretty high for a poor nation.

[Anonymous No.9028375]

>>9028368
Do rates consume resources, or do actual people?

Rates only matter insofar as they lead to the numbers that really do. When you say "the rates are stabilizing", but the stabilizations happens when the absolute numbers have reached a level with a disastrous ecological and societal impact, you're just obfuscating the real issue.

[Anonymous No.9028378]

>>9028375
Because the rates are pretty indicative if the development levels of a nation.

[Anonymous No.9028380]

>>9028378
Also not all populations consume the same contrary to popular alarmism

[Anonymous No.9028381]

>>9028378
>>9028380
I don't think you're even trying to understand my point, so I'll leave it there.

[Anonymous No.9028386]

>>9028381
Most of the consumption comes from the developed world. Even as poor countries develop like japan and south Korea dud they'll implement modern innovations/planning into their society that they are able to since unlike older nation's they start from scratch so to speak.

[Anonymous No.9028388]

>>9028386
The recent developmental history of China and India disprove what you claim.

[Anonymous No.9028398]

More concerned about us killing the environment with trash and pollution in general.
Wish we had thought about the importance of recycling and bio degradable things from the start before the chemical industry took off in the 1950s.
>dude have you heard about plastic
>you can make ANYTHING with it
>also it can't be degraded in nature
>and it's super fucking cheap to make
>dude let's mass produce it and let people throw it wherever the fuck they want lmao

[Anonymous No.9028407]

>>9028388
They aren't developed and they are very industrial so of course they'd get pollution but they are making changes China more faster and punctual because if it's totalitarian nature. There's a reason we shifted manufacturering away from our homes once the benefits of it was not worth the cost to the environment as people grew more aware in the western world.

[Anonymous No.9028421]

>>9028388
China and India are on their way to becoming fully industrialized.

[Anonymous No.9028505]

>>9028303
China, they're working so hard to develop it into a coal-powered continent.

[Anonymous No.9028549]

>>9025367

Still having a hissy fit over those race threads I see.

[Anonymous No.9028859]

>>9028549
Do not respond to shitposters

[Anonymous No.9028910]

>>9028230
this

[Anonymous No.9028914]

>>9025992
Test explosions don't set fire to densely packed cities and woodland

[Anonymous No.9028919]

>>9026181
And yet a video from this very thread >>9025606 shows that birth rates have already declined to ~2 children per woman across Africa and SEA
Perhaps you can give the human species some credit and retire your furiously misanthropic, inaccurate world view

[Anonymous No.9028922]

>>9028230
Sure, as long as you're ready to say goodbye to
>almost all of the world's manufactured goods
>sunlight

[Anonymous No.9028946]

>>9025358

Only a virus would do it cleanly. A virus that sterilizes people.

[Anonymous No.9028966]

The problem is most people will stubbornly continue having children we need a 0 child policy I think that the government should heavily regulate reproduction it's like bacteria in a Petrie dish another problem is if we stop Africa wont

[Anonymous No.9028968]

>>9028946
How do we make one?

[Anonymous No.9028978]

Limited space=limited population
What is so difficult to understand

[Anonymous No.9028984]

>>9028968

I dunno

[Anonymous No.9029019]

>>9025358 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#Proposed_solutions_and_mitigation_measures

Education, health, birth-control, poverty-reduction.
Potentially: long lifespans & new approaches to genetics over fertility/reproduction.

[Anonymous No.9029022]

>>9029019
>Education, health, birth-control, poverty-reduction.
we need something faster-acting.

[Anonymous No.9029023]

>>9029019
Would a lower population prolong human survival because we would be less likely to trash our environment

[Anonymous No.9029027]

>>9029022 But these *can* be relatively fast if done right. Surely not in the ways they have been approached so far.

[Anonymous No.9029030]

>>9025544
Reducing earth population implies a negative growth rate; on your graph it's still positive for year 2040, so you're quite retarded yourself.

[Anonymous No.9029057]

>>9029027
>relatively fast
2-4 decades is not fast. in that time, we'll lose tons of endangered species.

[Anonymous No.9029075]

>>9029057 But it'll decrease already earlier and some of the measures could be implemented within years, not decades. This would require:
* structural changes and fundamental changes to approaches made
* usage of new technology - especially ICTs
* more research & development into what effective and fast measures could be taken
Furthermore we might do damage-control of ecological disturbances caused by these extinctions to mitigate detrimental effects.

[Anonymous No.9029267]

Why are these threads still appearing every once in a while? Overpopulation is one of the biggest memes that there is.

>Sure, there are too many people

>Whatever, technology is increasing at a rate to at least sustain humanity even if the environment is fucked.

You either get trees and forests (which you probably will still have in 1st world countries like the US and most of europe), or you get to keep on having kids.

[Anonymous No.9029275]

>>9025547
the entire worlds population can live in alaska.
The earth can support this

[Anonymous No.9029294]

>>9028978
the entire earths population can fit into texas.
If the earths population reaches 50 billion, we'll talk

[Anonymous No.9029302]

>>9029294
they can fit in the grand canyon

[Anonymous No.9029304]

>>9029302
yeah so space isn't a problem.
Neither is food. We can grow algae in bioreactors and they don't require too much space to be grown.

[Anonymous No.9029322]

>>9029275
>>9029294
>>9029302
Are you having a contest about who has the shittiest metric for overpopulation?

[Anonymous No.9029326]

>>9029322
go away you lying cheating spook.
Overpopulation doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.9029327]

>>9025358
I am confident to say that this was figured in the 20th century by multiple people.

The answer is and has always been: genocide.

Just kill the dumb fuckers with no mercy. Simple as that. Before the inevitable demolish of themselves you can make them do some free and necessary work in different factories.

Oh, wait a minute, we have that already. We just give a longer life expectancy, thus a longer period of the workforce.

[Anonymous No.9029375]

>>9029326
It's you idiots who think overpopulation is about physical space who should stop and reexamine your position. Of course we could fit countless times the current population into arbitrarily small regions if we squash and stack them like sardines.

But each human has an agricultural, environmental and economic footprint to support himself. For a life in squalor, this footprint isn't very large. But do you think humans should have access to electricity? To cars, computers or soft drinks? And maybe some leisure time? Maybe at the same level as people in the US, or Japan, or Europe? All of them? Because we're already running low on a whole lot of things - fish, water, oil, metals, forests... - in the present, where only a small fraction of all people make up most the demand, that current consumption levels point toward depletion within the near future, often already within the scope of a human lifetime. And just so you don't misapprehend ANOTHER term, "depletion" refers to rarity and economic viability, mostly (sometimes extinction).

An Earth with 12bn people is utter madness. An Earth with 7bn people is madness, too. It's like the difference between driving your car into the wall at 200 km/h, or 160.

[Anonymous No.9029377]

>>9028369
sloppy wording

When overpopulation is brought up, it's not about the 'planet collapsing at the weight of humans'. Fact is certain environmental stresses are exacerbated massively due to overpopulation, which in turn highly endangers the human use of that environment (agriculture etc.).

Look at critical zone observatories and how overpopulation affects them.

It's a somewhat simple fact that substantially relieving the stress due to overpopulation on certain environments would make life for the rest of the population much easier.

Not even going into pollution and air quality issues..

[Anonymous No.9029384]

>>9025358

mystery virus that targets specific populations. made to look natural. we'll probably see this in our lifetimes.

[Anonymous No.9029388]

>>9029375
Electricity, computers, food, and water can be produced like sardines.
Just be more efficient with your production and transport and there's more than enough resources to use

[Anonymous No.9029420]

>>9025646
E T E R N A L A N G L O

[Anonymous No.9029430]

>>9029377
Completely ignoring the advances humanity is making

[Anonymous No.9029442]

>>9029384
It will actually probably be natural. We can't keep on like we're doing. Hundreds of thousands people a day hopping between massive population centers.

[Anonymous No.9029476]

>>9029388
So it's all well and good because in your fantasy scenario it all works out? Overpopulation is a myth tards are far worse than climate change deniers.

[Anonymous No.9029477]

>>9025358
The best way of getting rid of useless people should solve war between countries like India and China, Nigeria and Niger. You get the point. Most populated countries and countries with really high natality.

[Anonymous No.9029488]

>>9029476
I don't deny climate change. But I also believe overpopulation isn't an issue if we just build apartments and use technology to recycle water and produce electricity from sunlight and grow food in greenhouses stacked on top of one another

[Anonymous No.9029494]

>>9029430
Name them, and explain what they actually solve.

[Anonymous No.9029495]

>>9029477
>The best way of getting rid of useless people should solve war between countries like India and China, Nigeria and Niger
those countries aren't gonna war together because it's too expensive

[Anonymous No.9029496]

>>9029442

i'll call it now: the target will be india due to their exploding population and the convenient fact that antibiotic resistance is already a growing problem there.

[Anonymous No.9029503]

>>9029476
>Overpopulation is a myth tards are far worse than climate change deniers.

Because malthus has been wrong time and time again over many many years to the point it's a meme.

[Anonymous No.9029504]

>>9025358
The left stopped talking about overpopulation because it is only nonwhites who are growing rapidly in population.

[Anonymous No.9029523]

>>9029504

lol, i believe it. fewer humans would be the best way to reduce pollution.

[Anonymous No.9029558]

>>9029504
>The left
aka the cancer of the world.

[Anonymous No.9029619]

>>9029503
Why are you bringing up Malthus when nobody has been citing him? Everyone in this topic has been arguing that our current population already leads an unsustainable lifestyle, as is evident by trends such as global warming, extinction events, and overfishing. Do you not believe that more humans will result in more demand for energy and food? Are you assuming that we have a fantastical solution ready to be implemented(i.e., detonating bombs to create a global cooling effect?

[Anonymous No.9029681]

>>9025358
No its not overpopulated, and it wont be until we have Kowloon walled city levels of population density on land (and even then we can expand over or into the oceans)

[Anonymous No.9029686]

Wipe out anyone without a STEM degree, including all these dumb /pol/ tards

[Anonymous No.9029711]

>>9029681 this.
The issues are actually overconsumption and other similar effects.
One way to solve overconsumption would be more efficiently sharing the resources we have, transforming culture and creating a socioeconomic system not based on consumption but on sustainability and efficiency.

[Anonymous No.9029758]

>>9029711
Sounds simple enough

[Anonymous No.9029780]

>>9029619
Because humans will shift to other foods for the nutrients and Only Canada+U.S.A are really big. EU actually has regulations and measures to keep a lot of it's pollution, and air quality control in check alongside a much better transportation culture then the U.S.

India and China are developing but due to sheer size pollute on par industry wise with developed countries on the higher end.

Also we overproduce some much food in the developed world because of industrialization AND the Green revolutions.

[Anonymous No.9029928]

>>9025358
Go vegan and stop hoarding cattle, or just start farming insects for animal based protein.

[Anonymous No.9030442]

>>9029928
it's much easier to just get rid of 50% of the population through restrictive reproduction

[Anonymous No.9030443]

>>9030442
>it's much easier to just get rid of 50% of the population through restrictive reproduction

That not even possible in any reality whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.9030554]

>>9029686
Bazinga!

[Anonymous No.9030566]

>>9025644
>not a .gif
>shekelstein has cum spots in his beard

0/10

[Anonymous No.9030675]

>>9029780
>India and China are developing but due to sheer size pollute on par industry wise with developed countries on the higher end.

And it's going to get a lot worse, there and in other developing countries. And all this development requires energy. So far, we have managed using coal and oil. Nothing else comes even close. Then there are rare earths and other mineral deposits with limited access and availability. Hell, even fucking sand is getting scarce (because not all sand is equally useful). But unless you believe that these are virtually infinite, the exponentially growing hunger for resources and energy will deplete reserves and drive up prices so that a high standard of development will be impossible everywhere, except for the elites.

Pollution is a problem, but only a small aspect of the complete issue. The others have already mostly been named - decrease of biodiversity, deforestation, desertification, eutrophication, climate change, fresh water etc.
What all of these aspects have in common is that every human is a consumer. Human population is the one scaling factor connecting them all. It is impossible and deluded to argue that we have a problem regarding these matters, but that a near doubling of the human population in a few decades is A-OK.

Human industrial civilization as we know has always been running on borrowed time, and we are doing our best to shorten its life.

[Anonymous No.9030682]

>>9030675
>but that a near doubling of the human population in a few decades is A-OK
What's more, the advocated solution to containing a population explosion is to elevate everyone's standard of living, further multiplying the needs and demands of all these humans and therefore their individual impact.

[Anonymous No.9030688]

https://youtu.be/ewZnrXEZGOg

[Anonymous No.9030991]

>>9029928 Synthetic meat ftw
>>9029523 Structural changes to how humans interact with their environment including resources would be the best way. Also fewer humans don't come by disasters but by changes in technology, biology and psychology.

[Anonymous No.9031492]

>>9025369
Apres vous.