Topic: World population is very small. (Read 488 times)

It's not really a question of whether or not the human population is growing. It is certainly growing. The thing is that it's growth is slowing. The total fertility rate in the world has been going down constantly since the 1950s, according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate). There are projections there that should that by 2050 almost all regions of the world will be close to or below 2. If we aren't having more than two children per woman, we almost definitely won't have our population grow. Unless the trends all change, it looks like we won't have such a big probably with overpopulation.

I totally respect your point of view, however, remember that these almost 8 billion people you are talking about are also the ones responsible for the climate change that is happening everywhere. And humans are growing exponentially. If human population is not growing, then we will not need Family Planning anymore. But we do. Every country does.

if you think growth in the world is as great as the growth of the human population I think it is wrong, if the population manuasia higher than the growth of the world may be more social inequality in this world.
because technology growth will be higher than the population growth to balance the world economy

We are obviously capable of destroying the earth, but I think we are also capable of restoring it. In most fields there is technology to make what we are doing sustainable. For example, if you cut down trees, plants new trees. Unfortunately, it seems to usually take some very bad things to make us realize that we should do something different. Sometimes it even goes too far and we have plants and animals going extinct.

Why do you think that the increase if population will lead to an increase in misunderstanding and war? Do you think we'll have new groups of people starting new wars?

I do not think that the world population is too high --- and I believe that it does not need to. Well, first, I like to say that I agree with you about your point when it comes to 'imbalance' of the world's population and its money and other resources. However, money isn't what only people need. Humans needs an environmental exploitation for us to get the majority of the resources that we need. If today we only have 7.6 billion people living on the Earth, and yet that number is already enough to greatly destroy our planet, then I think it is not a good idea to make those numbers larger. Moreover, although large population may also mean great productivity that can lead to an increase in economy, still, we will experience scarcity and shortage in the future if we do not sustain well our avaiable natural resources. Lastly, I think that the increase in population will also lead in increase also of misunderstanding and war.

I'm not sure if I understand your thinking 100%, but I agree that the world population is not that big. It certainly has grown exponentially in the past couple centuries thanks to modern medicine, but it's still not that much. I've traveled around the world by land through over 30 countries and everywhere I went I was so amazed that there are really not that many people. There is so much land everywhere with no people, even in China and the United States. I found this really interested article that showed that at the population density of NYC, everybody in the world could fit in the state of Texas! (https://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/at-nycs-density-the-worlds-population-could-live-in-texas.html) Of course, we have to think a lot about waste and resources, but we can do a lot better than we are. Whenever you hear about scarcity of any resource, remember that capitalism doesn't function without the idea of scarcity.

The world population is way too high! Our earth once was a beautiful place until we started to pollute it. We are creatures that use up a lot of resources and space. Our oil supply is already running low and with our population constantly increasing every natural resource will be used up.
We also are killing animals, more people need more space so we just destroy the homes of others. We definitely should control our population and keep it at the same level.

 
We have a lot of money, a lot of data etc. It's true.
But, firstly, material resources are distributed very unevenly. And the abyss between the rich and the poor only increases.
In addition, money is a consequence of peoples' existence. People are animals, part of nature. And natural resources can disappear becourse of humans. I think this is the main point in problem of overpopulation. Sorry, maybe I did not quite understand your idea.

If we can compare between the total population and earth land large is not comparable. The total population is around 8 billion people in the world. While the earth land large much bigger from the total population. The earth land large is around 36,8 billion acres. Moreover  the sea water large is much wider around 89,2 billion acres. It means that the world population is very small.

We are in fact, overpopulated. This accounts for most of our environmental issues such as global warming and shortage of resources. The survival of Earth, our home, is at stake.

This is a very subjective thing. The world is not overly populated, it is just that we are all gathering in cities in small pieces of land. Also ownership of land is not distributed equally, so a few people have a lot of land, slightly more people have adequate land but the majority of people are living on land that they have to rent etc. Yes, the world population is small.

Why can’t compare with data?
We losing data all the time too.
We loss a lot of data due to hardware failure, fire damage, software bug, virus, aging and unsupported data, vhs, video tape, floppy disk, books, vintage software, vintage hardware, vinyls disk etc, all are valuable data, they are not duplicated data, we create new data also we loss data, overall we create more data than losing them.

With all due respect sir, i pretty much believe that we populate the planet way more faster than the past 50 years. The worst case scenario of this uncontrolled and rampant rise of population is the over-exhaustion of our own natural resources with the overused of fossil fuels that would someday kill our atmosphere, global warming/climate change. Not to mention all kinds of Pollution cause by us.
If i were you, i would worry about how to save the planet or even how to find another planet like ours in the cosmos, possibility of interstellar travel.

I don’t know if it was we never take it seriously. We looked at the number we think it is okey, we think the population is fair enough, we don’t have any problem today, we live a complete life, very fulfilling life, we enjoy every second of our life has to offer. Ok enough of the dream, come to reality, deep inside us, we know everything is not okey, we keep hearing people telling us we have too high population we should reduce it. We shouldn’t use flying car b cause it is blah, we shouldn’t make money because it is evil, we shouldn’t have kids because it is expensive, we shouldn’t retired because we can’t afford it, we can’t afford house, we blah blah. I don’t know if it sound completely normal but we are working for what? Back to 30 years ago, we are doing fine, and we aim to be better, we want higher growth, in everything, higher living standard, higher population, higher wage, higher survival rate, higher interaction among human, higher economies, everything higher, we even expect to go to moon, it is not happening, everything just turn ugly, everything is become worse, we don’t want growth now, we want to de-growth now.

Your OP would be funny if you didn't mean it seriously. Your vision of things seems a bit distorted IMHO. And as it regards money, I don't know how I should explain you that that money does not really exist, that's just numbers in computers which people believe, and that if you add also the bubble of the derivatives you'd have even much more money in the system. But all that is all very virtual, while humans are quite real on the contrary.

If I had to sort through population by a country, by age gap, etc, it will be more disturbing, poor country usually had higher population while wealthy country has lower population, and the population gap is huge between them, I dunno how it would happen since they are so poor to feed a family but they somehow survive. Capitalism also usually come from wealthier country, the purpose of capitalism is believed to distribute wealth fairly, but I don’t know what is happening since the capitalism was found until it is today, everything didn’t turn out to be what we expected to be, we expect flying car by now, higher standard of living where we should never need to work again today, it is not happening, instead it turn out we gotta work more harder than ever, it become working poor, and long hours of working, i don’t know who promise the capitalism would work, to improve life, but I don’t see how it work today, everyone would just use capitalism to benefit themselves now, we are not working to become flying car nation, we are working to become the ultimate poor, also aging nation, I don’t know if aging nation isn’t serious enough because I don’t seem anyone care about it. What will be different if communism would to replace capitalism, I think it would just be another self-enriching governing used by the self centric corporation.

The peak will be 9 billion, then hopefully it will decrease, it's a hell lot of people and it only makes life hard for everyone, the only environment where 9 billion people alive is healthy is a utopia where everyone's life is perfect, the world is already too small for me.

The world population is rising at a rate of 100 million per year and the wars are not even eliminating 1% of this number. So you can't really say that it is some hidden agenda to reduce the world population.

Nope, this planet is already overpopulated, and its expected to reach 11 bil till 2100. Thats why there are so many wars currently, the hidden agenda is depopulation.

More wealth does not mean all those 7.6 billion people has contribution in it. Most 3rd world country is suffering from poverty because of over population and that is a fact.

it is quite true that when an imbalance between human populations on employment lands there will be social inequality, and this is not good in a country when social inequality occurs, and we know that the number of Indonesians is 266,456,180 in 2017 and its growth rate is 1, 10% but the level of prosperity of a region can not be measured from the population of people, there are still many who have not felt the joy of happiness and I am this overall percentage is not an individual,

population statistics : http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/indonesia-population/

Are you joking? The magnitude of the number is not the "big" thing here. It's the problem around this number of people causing the threats.
There are millions of people aren't fed every year, millions of children dont have enough water to drink, this is all because of the tremendous number of people around the world. Food supply and accommodation here. I think.

this is a thorough data in this world, but not for my country indonesia, in my country the population is very big, even because the density of population so to look for land of work only very difficult get, in can be very little and difficult to get it, so the assumption that will get a lot of money it is something very sulut in my country, hopefully this problem is resolved

I think that the world population isn't very small, it is somehow right at some point. Comparing the world population to money and data isn't a right comparison. Yes there's a lot of money because everything now has an equivalent to money value. There's also a lot of data stored because people stores it. It is not a problem to be talked about. Also, we can see that technology is advancing every minute, so we can came to a point that we can still stored a lot more. Population is a big issue to some and we should more see the problems attached to it than complaining how small it is.

LOL... do you know that Vatican is one of the most densely populated countries in the planet? The population density there is close to 2,300 people per square kilometer, which makes Vatican one of the top 10 most densely populated countries in the world.

i don't think the population is small compared to the land mass

Such a bizarre post, relating the population to the amount of money and concluding that there should be more people because there is more money. Aside from the fact that I don't know where you got these figures from, it is a strange way of looking at it. Surely if the number of people increases at a lower rate when compared to the amount of money, then it means (ignoring the disparities of wealth throughout the world - which I realise is an important distinction) that the average person's wealth is growing, and therefore a positive. Poverty worldwide has been decreasing for a long time now, although there is still a long way to go. This is an interesting article on the decline on world poverty https://singularityhub.com/2018/01/02/will-the-world-ever-be-free-of-extreme-poverty/

As far as I know, it is worse for our world if the population grows. That is because the problem of environmental pollution is growing with the population.
I've also heard that there is a theory called the 'golden billion' or something like that (sorry, I can't remember the name of it correctly). In this theory, it says that the world can't have more than a billion people.

What's your IQ OP? Just because you don't think that's a lot of people doesn't make it so.

I remember when we were in the 5 billions and then in the year 2000 it hit 6 billion. Now we'll pushing 8. Unless someone is very young, like 24 and under, they won't realize how fast 15 years go by.

Statistics indicate that most people would rather use these less populated places for a remote vacation while continuing to live in populated countries. Aside from a few countries like the Vatican

I don't think we should worry about Earth's population being too small before we can comfortably support everyone that's already here, and we're still a ways away from doing that. Can you elaborate on how you think more data and more money will negatively effect us in the future? Do you think there won't be enough people to manage it all?

I believe if we manage to make more people then we can have more money and more bytes of data which can contain more coins which means more = prosperity. So 7.6 billions times 10 equals 10 times more profit from the coin which allows us to get more bytes eventually. I f we look at the world today 1,000,000billion byte not that much

It may be a small amount of number when comparing to other things but if you think of it, a lot of specialists are saying that our world is overpopulated and it is just starting.

Datas will be always way more than the population since we are also safe keeping the datas of the past. And our work datas and personal and public datas will always be included in that occupying more data. Don't compare data with population since there is a lot of multiple data in one person meaning most of that datas are the same.

The surface of the earth has about 126,041,600,000 acres on it.
Of this, about 36,806,400,000 acres are land, and...
... about 89,237,760,000 are water.

Lets give every person on earth 10 acres of land for his very own. This means that there is room for about 3,680,640,000 people on the land. That's over 3 and a half billion.

People are very ingenious. They can figure out many ways to make many levels for people to live on. We do this already. They are called highrise apartments. We can easily support multiples of the above 3.5+ billion.

In addition, there are such things as subterranean floors. We have these already. They are called basements. We can easily support many more multiples of what we have listed above already.

People are very ingenious. They are figuring out ways to live on the surface of the ocean - https://www.seasteading.org/. Once this becomes completely perfected, we have room for countless billions more people to live on, above and below the surface of the oceans, while harvesting an abundance of ocean-grown food.

There won't be even a hint of population problem for 500 years or more into the future.

Current population problems are government greed problems.

Oh, wow, you must be kidding.
Planet Earth is not only about humankind, there are many species disappearing each day due to the overpopulation. Humans and their economy mean nothing in comparison with the balance of the planet, which is dangerously damaged, once more, due to overpopulation.
Money is a human invention, and, even when earth can give all the humans food, what happens with the other species??

This is called anthropocentrism, man.

Gow can it be "okay"? OK in a way it could be less, or more?

Don't forget, the population numbers are rising. Is this okay too?

So the total amount of fiat cash available is around $10,000 per person? ($72 trillion / 7.5 billion). I would say that it is normal. But there is wide disparity between the countries. In the developed nations, this will be close to $100,000 per head, while in the third world this figure will be closer to $1,000 per individual.

I think the population of the world is okay. It's not small.

The number of population does not directly relate to the amount of welath created.
You are forgetting about the resources needed to creat actual wealth.
Resources are limited and some soin will be depleted on earth.
What then?

In fact I think we should redistribute wealth to the poorer countries in the long run, so they can get up to speed with the western countries. This will result in less wars, less poverty, more wealth for everyone.

To make this happen though, we have to change the way we think. Egoism and greed habe to be replaced by solidarity and the will to make everyones lives better.
You should read marx!

He foretold the current situations. capitalism will destroy itself and a real communism will replace it. Not the way we had in he ussr or china. But more like in startrek. Gene roddenberry had a very clear and concrete vision on how such a world would look like!

The purpose is that there's more wealth per person than there used to be, thus increasing the wealth and quality of life of each individual person. What you're suggesting boils down to "There isn't enough poverty in the world! We must increase the world population to fix this!" which is a despicable idea and you ought to be punched in the face just for thinking it.

It’s actually not really that small with the way that people are currently giving birth I am sure that the world would be very crowded in about 50 years. And Thanos would be using the infinity gauntlet very soon.

Well I cannot argue with your feelings 
But just because there are trillions of fish in he ocean, doesnt mean theres enought to eat for trillions of people!

You cannot just compare any number with another number. Heck, there are even different infinities, like the amount of all even integer numbers is infinite, but it is less then the amount of all real numbers, which is in fact infinite too!

Aslo just because there is a land where no people live, doesnt mean people could even live there.

Btw, with free speech I meant, the possibility to talk freely about what you think, even if its towars your government. In many countries this is not common and you can get arrested, when you critize the president/leader or whatever.

I dunno what can I used to compare the number, may be I can use number of fishes inside the world ocean? But I dunno how many fishes are there, but I believe it must have more than a few billions fishes inside it, some predict it to be 3.5 trillions fishes inside the sea, that will be more than enough to feed all the people in this world, harvesting fish from the sea would be another story, but we will soon turning into vegan because of food crisis. But property sound like a real issues, people aren’t afford to buy house, may be we have not enough house, but that’s may not have to be the reason to low population. Freedom of speech, I think it is about how much we can speak, I think we can speak as much as we can, I like to speak to my wife all the time I dunno if I have not enough of it, may be because we have too few people to talk to it will be then a problem. What should be a fair number to be consider overpopulation? I think when a small area of land filled with enough people it become overpopulation, it definitely not going to happen as we have a lot of empty land, but we may have not enough people to fill all the land. I was raised in a small town in some Asia country, it has more than enough resource for everything, when I grown up I moved to town, and I can tell there is overpopulation, that’s when I thought this world has to much people, until I got the number of total world population, I was shock it is not what I thought it should be, I expected it to be more.

I think you are mixing up a few things. Jusdt because the magnitude of numbers is different doesn‘t mean there’s a problem.
There are various calculations on how many people earth can feed, and we are beyond a certain limit - if every peson would live like in a western country.
It only works because so many people around the globe live in poverty.

But wealth and a number like xxxx worth in money doesnnot mean anything at all. money is virtual. Real wealth, like freedome of speech, food, housing can be expressed in those numbers, but is the actual wealth.

I used to think this world has a lot of people. We have only 7.6 billions on planet earth.
But we have a lot of money, 72,000 billions worth of money, we have a lot of data, petabyte is 1,000,000 billions byte? I don’t know what happened to my brain, I just can’t get excited over the number 7.6 billions, I think it is too small. And what is more terrifying is we are not getting more human in the next xx years, we are going to get a lot more money and more data in the next xx years. I don’t think it look healthy at all, what is the purpose of high growth when our population isn’t growing high?