How many billion of people earth could potentially support.

How many people earth can support.

  • 8

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • 10

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • 13

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • 16

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 20

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • 30

    Votes: 4 40.0%

  • Total voters
    10
Let me explain what sustainabilility is not, with an example

If you catch more fish than fish population increase in your local sea zone and after years, you have to go international zone. After decades you have to go other continental zone till there is no more space to go.

For more detail, search Somalia - European Fishers.
Good example. It means we should catch fewer wild fish and eat farmed fish or something else. For the same reason we have limits on hunting wild animals on land, and compensate by bigger production of domesticates. All fine. We found the way to sustain food production on land, we just need to do it in ocean.


I can't agree this argument. Big mammals and other big animals are clear sign of health ecosystems. If the top of ecosystem is ok, you can be sure that other levels are ok too.
In this case "healthy" ecosystem will be when people go back to Hunter Gatherer ways. Even if we let the big mammals to roam free through Europe and Turkey, their population will be in miniscale to original size of population before advent of agriculture.
Think this way. About 10 kya there were extra big mammals through Eurasia and America, from Mammoths, 2 ton Ground Sloths, rhinos, to saber tooth cats. Do you find fauna of Northern Hemisphere unhealthy due to lack of them? What would be the sign of nature being "unhealthy"?
Heck, the other big mammals moved from south to north when ice age ended, creating way different fauna balance than before. Is this unhealthy too?
Don't take me wrong, I'm not arguing against deer, wolf of bears living in forests or nature reserves. I'm just arguing subjective term "healthy" environment, and if nature could get away with them, without major hiccups.

The reduction of lions and leopards from areas of sub-Saharan Africa caused the baboon population to swell. This unexpectedly increased transmission of intestinal parasites from baboons to humans as the primates were forced to forage closer to human settlements.
The solution is to remove human settlements and all will be fine. ;)
You don't see the bright side. Population of seeded plants increased in that area, because baboons eat fruit and excrete seeds together with fertilizer. It is about new balance, nature will find the way, than about supposed "health" of environment. Which usually denotes the way nature was before people changed it. Sometimes, if people would run nature, they would keep preserving all the species from going extinct. People, with all their loving hearts for the nature, would stop evolution. It would be a just nature. Every species would have the same place in nature, like it used to be since people took control, and would be to the end of the world.

As large ungulates recovered from a devastating rinderpest epidemic in the Serengeti in Africa, herbivory increased, and the frequency of wildfire declined in that region. Wildfire frequency increased following the late Pleistocene/early Holocene decline of megaherbivores in Australia and the northeastern United States.
Fire is good, it recycles nutrients and starts new life. It is part of nature.
Industrial whaling in the 20th century resulted in the loss of large numbers of plankton-consuming great whales, which are now known to sequester carbon into the deep sea through deposition of feces. The result has been the transfer of approximately 105 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere that would have been absorbed by whales, contributing to climate change.
I don't get it. Phytoplankton is eaten by sea protozoa and microbes, protozoa by crabs and fish, which excrete them to the bottom of the ocean. If the whales went missing, other animals took their place at the plancton table and increased in numbers. Again it is about a new balance than things being wrong/right or healthy.
 
Last edited:
Why not 1200 or 1000 BC?



As usually, your information is wrong! It reminds me your assurance that US doesn't produce and export anything anymore. Except of course a little fact of 2 trillion dollars of exporting goods.


Europe food trade is balanced. And this in spite of agricultural land shrinking 20% in last 50 years!
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.ZS?locations=EU
350px-Trade_balance_in_agricultural_products%2C_EU-28%2C_2002%E2%80%9313.png

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Extra-EU_trade_in_agricultural_goods

And if needed, Europe is still in position to double food production. Half of European fields are underutilized because food prices are too low due to overproduction/not needed.



What are the signs of Germany "not holding" that you see? Do you have secret information?
First I am not from USA. The flag on the avatar is wrong and I am going to change it.
But the main source for sustainable population is arable land and its productivity. England and Germany have dense population and the farm land they have per capita is not enough. That was the main factor that pushed many Europeans to Emigrate to Americas. You dont see many Romanians, Ukrainians, Russians emigrating since they have enogh farm land to support the population
 
Europe population has already reached two three times over the sustainable population limit.

No, it has not. Europe can sustain herself. But the problem is not declining population. It is aging population.

When population gets old, there are proportionally few young people who can work to sustain retired people.

This is why Europe needs to get back to at least 2 children per woman fertility rate, which is the ideal one.

=============

Either 2.1 fertility rate, or no more things such as retirement, and maybe obligatory euthanasia at age 70.
 
First I am not from USA. The flag on the avatar is wrong and I am going to change it.
But the main source for sustainable population is arable land and its productivity. England and Germany have dense population and the farm land they have per capita is not enough. That was the main factor that pushed many Europeans to Emigrate to Americas. You dont see many Romanians, Ukrainians, Russians emigrating since they have enogh farm land to support the population
How come we don't see mass emigration from Germany and England? On contrary, we see mass immigration to these countries. To the countries which lack agrarian land in your view. Your supposition is wrong.
Did you have time to analyze the statistics I posted the links too? Obviously not, because you would notice that there is no shortage of food production in Europe, or that Europe can easily feed itself and more.
The problem is the poverty and insufficient food production in poor countries. This is the source of economic migration. Solve poverty problem and mass migration will go away.
 
No, it has not. Europe can sustain herself. But the problem is not declining population. It is aging population.

When population gets old, there are proportionally few young people who can work to sustain retired people.

This is why Europe needs to get back to at least 2 children per woman fertility rate, which is the ideal one.

=============

Either 2.1 fertility rate, or no more things such as retirement, and maybe obligatory euthanasia at age 70.
It doesn't matter, robots and other industrial machines will solve labour problem in next 30 years.
and maybe obligatory euthanasia at age 70
I'll remind you this when you are 70, lol.
Why not forcing women to have 3 or 4 kids, and only ethnically local kids.
Wow, now we are getting close to Nazi eugenics.
 
No, it has not. Europe can sustain herself. But the problem is not declining population. It is aging population.

When population gets old, there are proportionally few young people who can work to sustain retired people.

This is why Europe needs to get back to at least 2 children per woman fertility rate, which is the ideal one.

=============

Either 2.1 fertility rate, or no more things such as retirement, and maybe obligatory euthanasia at age 70.

I could not agree more, except euthanasia.
There should be other criteria for euthanasia except age.
I agree that it is useless and costly to lengthen the life of terminal sick people or people who don't function properly any more.
 
It doesn't matter, robots and other industrial machines will solve labour problem in next 30 years.
I'll remind you this when you are 70, lol.
Why not forcing women to have 3 or 4 kids, and only ethnically local kids.
Wow, now we are getting close to Nazi eugenics.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I was also about to ask how old his parents were and if they knew he was ready to ship them off to a gas chamber when they hit 70. Absolutely incredible.
 
LeBrok,

It doesn't matter, robots and other industrial machines will solve labour problem in next 30 years.

Will humans have enough time to invent such robots and other stuff before our intelligence declines back to Lower Paleolithic levels?

Who will build these robots if governments are continually dumbing down high IQ countries by importing millions of low IQ migrants?

Are engineers from Senegal going to build robots for us? Last time I checked, in 2013 they could not even repair a broken pipe - the President of Senegal had to call for international help (from France and China) in order to help them repair a water pipe. Reuters wrote about it - check the link:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-senegal-water-idUSBRE98Q0MS20130927

That broken pipe led to massive riots in the capital, because Blacks riot only when they have a good reason to (as we see also in the U.S.).

I'll remind you this when you are 70, lol.
Why not forcing women to have 3 or 4 kids, and only ethnically local kids.

The solution to aging populations is that once again people will live only as long as they can support themselves.

Just like it used to be in the past, before retirements got invented. It will be a less comfortable situation, but a sustainable one.

The problem is not declining population (Europe is overpopulated, as you say), but the problem is aging population. So if the generation of our grandparents & parents was reluctant to have children, then my generation will not pay for their retirements and healthcare. Who cares if they live 90 or 70 years - they had it coming, by not reproducing they made the system unsustainable, and will bear the consequences of their negligence.

New generations are growing up, and they increasingly despise "Flower Children Generations", what they did to our civilization.

Back in the old days if you were too old and did not have enough children and grandchildren to take care of you, you just died.

So people wanted to have families, wanted to have children, because they were afraid of being left on their own when old. Now "the state" is taking care of old people, so they no longer have this fear. And maybe it is bad, because this is one of reasons why Europe has so low fertility.

Destroy socialism, destroy retirements - and the majority of people will want to have at least two children per couple again.

We do not even need to destroy anything - just wait until it all collapses on its own, because it is unsustainable anyway. And Third World immigrants are not working, are not paying taxes - they are collecting welfare, so they are only facilitating the collapse of this system.
 
How come we don't see mass emigration from Germany and England? On contrary, we see mass immigration to these countries. To the countries which lack agrarian land in your view. Your supposition is wrong.
Did you have time to analyze the statistics I posted the links too? Obviously not, because you would notice that there is no shortage of food production in Europe, or that Europe can easily feed itself and more.
The problem is the poverty and insufficient food production in poor countries. This is the source of economic migration. Solve poverty problem and mass migration will go away.

How come you don't see it? There are about 100 million Brits in USA, Canada, all over!Would they been able to live in Britain? So are the Germans! Only in Latin America we have more than 20 million Germans in different countries. They all left because their country of origin could not support them. If they are not living now is because the industries they have build allows them to buy food to sustain the population. Imagine 200 yrs from now when fossil fuels are terminated their industries are not needed how is that population going to be supported? Don't forget, as time goes by the productivity of soil goes down since many minerals are used up. So the only way to keep the balance of life is by bringing the human population down to 2 billion worldwide.
 
How come you don't see it? There are about 100 million Brits in USA, Canada, all over!Would they been able to live in Britain? So are the Germans! Only in Latin America we have more than 20 million Germans in different countries. They all left because their country of origin could not support them. If they are not living now is because the industries they have build allows them to buy food to sustain the population. Imagine 200 yrs from now when fossil fuels are terminated their industries are not needed how is that population going to be supported? Don't forget, as time goes by the productivity of soil goes down since many minerals are used up. So the only way to keep the balance of life is by bringing the human population down to 2 billion worldwide.

We British Colonial Americans came to America because of Religious Persecution, I think I have a couple of Quaker ancestors that passed away in the Tower of London. My Paternal Grandfather was 100% British Quaker Heritage with a hint of Colonial Dutch. But yes, some Americans got here because of Famine also like the Irish Potato famine that destroyed their potato crop. So much for sending the hardy South American Potato to Ireland but there is always trial and error :). (You can copy the links and paste it to the Url ;) sorry for the tech inconvenience)

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

https://www.potatogoodness.com/potato-fun-facts-history/
 
LeBrok,



Will humans have enough time to invent such robots and other stuff before our intelligence declines back to Lower Paleolithic levels?

Who will build these robots if governments are continually dumbing down high IQ countries by importing millions of low IQ migrants?

Are engineers from Senegal going to build robots for us? Last time I checked, in 2013 they could not even repair a broken pipe - the President of Senegal had to call for international help (from France and China) in order to help them repair a water pipe. Reuters wrote about it - check the link:
I think you are going mad. Maybe you should invent these robots with your pure and high IQ! Before immigrants dumb you down. Did you noticed that most powerful, most inventive, most productive country in the world is built on immigrants? This in spite of being 20% black, and other 20% latino. Boohoo. Another most powerful countries like GB and Germany, awashed in immigrants too.

Stay pure, no robots for you. lol
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-senegal-water-idUSBRE98Q0MS20130927

That broken pipe led to massive riots in the capital, because Blacks riot only when they have a good reason to (as we see also in the U.S.).
Are you going to turn every thread here on Eupedia into racial hatred?

The solution to aging populations is that once again people will live only as long as they can support themselves.

Just like it used to be in the past, before retirements got invented. It will be a less comfortable situation, but a sustainable one.
As long as humankind existed compassion, and support for everyone in the tribe, was what made us humans.

The problem is not declining population (Europe is overpopulated, as you say), but the problem is aging population. So if the generation of our grandparents & parents was reluctant to have children, then my generation will not pay for their retirements and healthcare. Who cares if they live 90 or 70 years - they had it coming, by not reproducing they made the system unsustainable, and will bear the consequences of their negligence.
Could you explain how is it unsustainable? Who said that population can't shrink? Maybe it is a normal think, that population doesn't need to grow.
New generations are growing up, and they increasingly despise "Flower Children Generations", what they did to our civilization.

Back in the old days if you were too old and did not have enough children and grandchildren to take care of you, you just died.
Good you didn't live back then, or you would have killed them sooner. People should just die, as you said, without you executing them. Did you talk with your grandparents about their future you planned for them?

So people wanted to have families, wanted to have children, because they were afraid of being left on their own when old. Now "the state" is taking care of old people, so they no longer have this fear. And maybe it is bad, because this is one of reasons why Europe has so low fertility.
I'm sure your grandparents run away into goverment care hearing your plans of their early termination.

Destroy socialism, destroy retirements - and the majority of people will want to have at least two children per couple again.
I really think you are going mad.

We do not even need to destroy anything - just wait until it all collapses on its own, because it is unsustainable anyway. And Third World immigrants are not working, are not paying taxes - they are collecting welfare, so they are only facilitating the collapse of this system.
I had a good feeling about you going mad, now I'm sure you are in depression. Talk to someone about this.
 
How come you don't see it? There are about 100 million Brits in USA, Canada, all over!Would they been able to live in Britain? So are the Germans!
Lol, did you noticed that most of them left in 18, 19 and early 20th century when population in their countries was 3 times smaller than today? Now in 21st century, when according to you, they have unsustainable population level, they don't emigrate anymore.
Only in Latin America we have more than 20 million Germans in different countries. They all left because their country of origin could not support them.
And now Germany supports 3 times as many. And food production per capita still rising.
800px-Food_production_per_capita.svg.png


If they are not living now is because the industries they have build allows them to buy food to sustain the population.
I'm glad you noticed, and also notice that you used term "sustain the population". Other words, population of Germany is sustainable. Thanks for helping my argument.


Imagine 200 yrs from now when fossil fuels are terminated their industries are not needed how is that population going to be supported?
By making energy of solar, wind, nuclear, and whatever else people invent, and army of robots.


Don't forget, as time goes by the productivity of soil goes down since many minerals are used up. So the only way to keep the balance of life is by bringing the human population down to 2 billion worldwide.
That's why we are putting minerals back into the ground. Did you hear about fertilizer or even hydroponic food production without soil? Look at future fields in a city. Harvested and delivered fresh for your lunch in minutes.

vertical+farm.jpg
 
Dedicated to depressed posters here.

Someone smart said this about human condition:
[FONT=&quot]The reason people find it so hard to be happy is that they always see the past better than it was, the present worse than it is, and the future less resolved than it will be. Marcel Pagnol[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/marcelpagn402273.html[/FONT]
 
LeBrok,

most inventive, most productive country in the world is built on immigrants? This in spite of being 20% black, and other 20% latino.

U.S. population was between 80% and 90% Non-Hispanic White during most of U.S. history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...d_for_Hispanic_origin_.281610.E2.80.932010.29

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab08.html

https://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

Only after 1970 percent of Non-Hispanic Whites started declining and currently it is just 60%.

Another most powerful countries like GB and Germany, awashed in immigrants too.

Same case as above. They used to be ~99% White during most of history, until very recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHoG3KStuzc
 
Last edited:
And now Germany supports 3 times as many. And food production per capita still rising.


I'm glad you noticed, and also notice that you used term "sustain the population". Other words, population of Germany is sustainable. Thanks for helping my argument.

Good Try but Hell NO :grin:

to leave in France standard, we need 2,5 Earth in 2012, now we need 3 Blue Planet.

After thinking that you killed all big mammals in a few seconds. (You said "Keep in mind that existence of big wild mammals is not necessary for people to exist.")
I guess, definition of sustainability is really different in your head (y)
_83647604_ecological-footprint-by-country.png
160804_sri_graphic_earth_overshoot_earths_1.jpg
 
How come we need 1.6 worlds to live like World lives? If we do it with just 1 world?
Or that is like how much worlds we need to live like that for century?
 
I guess they mean we are currently using too much renewable resources, like ground water or lumber, and we really would need an extra 0.6 planet to still have something two centuries down the road.
 
So, planet could sustain us all if we had average quality of life as Indians.
That sucks. Besides you can't spend that little of resource if you live North of India. You need energy (gas, oil, electricity or good old trees) to survive winter and you need shelters.
 
We can live like the average Indian or we can get rid of 37.5% of the world population... :unsure:

More seriously, the countries which are the more resources waster are often those which the population growth is negative. Technology is getting better at doing more with less energy, oil or water. The late 20th and early 21st centuries will be a bit of drain to the planet resources, but we will find a new equilibrium after that.
 

This thread has been viewed 39244 times.

Back
Top