When Is Enough Too Much? How Many People Should Inhabit Earth?

[Sea Save Foundation]

Discussing overpopulation is touchy. The subject is often considered callous to religious and/or ethnic sensitivities. The fact is that the number of humans currently alive on planet earth is more than can be sustained in a healthy manner.
What number of people need to inhabit the planet before we all can agree to openly discuss "human population management?"

 

[Georgienne Bradley]

This is an important discussion. A discussion that could lead to limiting people's right to choose the number of children they wish to have is oftentimes considered "dangerous" or "crossing the line" but when do we reach the point that Earth can no longer support our numbers? How do we approach this volatile subject? Overpopulation effects our oceans and all wild areas.

 

[Donny1]

We need to take this issue very seriously as the planet cannot sustain the pressure put on it by us humans. Less people less resources needed.

 

[lermontov]

I dont really know where to begin with this - Before we start talking about reproduction controls lets redistribute the wealth and resources, the core issue as far as Im concerned is human greed- wanting more and more . However thats not going to happen because the people who are controlling the resources and driving consumerism want a large population.
I find it nauseating for those living in a first world society to pontificate about overpopulation when those that enjoy a comfortable lifestyle are in the minority. Lets tun it around and ask the 90% of the worlds poor what they suggest - I bet its not human population management and I bet its not a better router so that they can get wifi or a better health care option from their employers. What bull****

Lets start closer to home - if people are so concerned about it commit to not having children and adopt a few - bet that will work!!

 

[Caveeagle]

@lermontov...

I find it nauseating that some people think redistribution of wealth is a real strategy for solving the problems of the poor and impoverished. It is ridiculous to compare standards of living between cultures as if that is some justification to steel wealth from one person and give it to another who has not worked for it. And it is very rare that sustainable change is made merely through freebies.

And please don't blather on with bleeding hart "bull****". I get that it is NEVER wrong to provide food for a starving child! But what about addressing the root cause? How do you really help a society rise up and provide for their own needs? The goal cannot be measured by our own "1st world comforts". The typical "poverty level" family in the US smokes, has air conditioning and cable TV, so comparisons are a non-starter.

I am particularly impressed by programs like: habitat for humanity that requires sweat equity before a recipient can apply for a home. PepsiCo's program to provide clean water sources to communities where none exist. And the Gates who spend time on site helping people.

 

[Kharon]

Few enough so that one tribe never comes into contact with another tribe.

 

[Bob DBF]

What number of people need to inhabit the planet before we all can agree to openly discuss "human population management?"

This has been discussed and acted upon throughout history. Too bad those deciding on the unnecessaries never include themselves.


Bob

 

[DennisS]

Will the US be able to support the population density of India. Certainly not with our standard of living. The density will just have to go up. Drive through the typical suburban area and you can see the wasted resources. What is the minimum square footage required for a family of four. How long will it take the US to reach the density of Japan, how long will it take Atlanta to reach the density of Tokyo. We've all seen the farmlands and pastures of our youth turned into sprawling suburbs with Mcmansions and three cars in the driveway. We need consumption control before we need population control.

 

[lermontov]

This has been discussed and acted upon throughout history. Too bad those deciding on the unnecessaries never include themselves.


Bob

exactly - this sort of ideology is driven by those wanting to protect their own interests i.e. those who are already comfortable and dont want it threatened

 

[lermontov]

@lermontov...

I find it nauseating that some people think redistribution of wealth is a real strategy for solving the problems of the poor and impoverished. It is ridiculous to compare standards of living between cultures as if that is some justification to steel wealth from one person and give it to another who has not worked for it. And it is very rare that sustainable change is made merely through freebies.
. PepsiCo's program to provide clean water sources to communities where none exist. .

who said anything and stealing im talking about things like fair trade and how about we not build another aircraft carrier. As I mentioned the core issue is greed and control and domination of another-at every level from media manipulation to sex trafficking right down to the oppression of villages in third world countries by some despot who wants power.
At some point we have to decide that we have enough and stop consuming - its starts with us

Please tell me your haven't bought into the pepsico branding image that tries to project that it really cares so much that they provide wells - if they really cared they wouldn't make that stuff