Go out to your mailbox naked. If any one notices, your area is over populated.

A neat trick is that true over-population is intrinsically self-correcting.

It would suck to be one of the corrected though.

Aye.

The real problem is not overpopulation, per se (we'll know when that happens, and disease, famine, drought, territorial wars, etc will correct it).

The problem (if there is one) is quality of life, since outright extinction is extremely unlikely. I.e., do we want to have fewer children who live in a world more like the one we have now, or do we want to have more children who will live in (presumably) worse circumstances due to a more crowded world and the ancillary effects thereof?

There is an irony to population-control efforts, in that the children of those who keep reproducing will enjoy whatever benefit results from those who chose not to reproduce.

If there were peace on earth and everybody became enlightened and responsible and incredible new technology were invented by someone that would produce unlimited power with no adverse effects and industry miraculously became 100% efficient then humanity could support enormously more people than the ecosystem could. And of course the byproducts of all those people, e.g., shit, is dealt with in some manner that wouldn't require so much energy that the system would break down, and of course byproducts of the animals grown to feed all those people need to be dealt with as well (until amazing food synthesizers appear from somewhere and gobble up the shit and produce food, that is).

And make all this technology 100.0000000000000000% reliable because if it fails they we're going to be reliant on the natural ecosystem again and... that would be an amazing disaster.

So, 6,000,000,000 people is no problem, then is 12,000,000,000? 24,000,000,000? There must, rationally, be some limit, right?

Take one unlikely and rationally unsupported idea, multiply that by another equally or ever more likely idea and you have something that's really unlikely.

Repeat that process several more times and you're imagining something that's completely insanely wildly impossible.

My point here is, what are you talking about?

What people are missing - which is the most important thing, is how much slack is there in the system when things go wrong.

We need lots of slack in a huge feeding program, but we don't see that, we see less slack, so when there's a drought, or a war, or a volcano - the % of people who are effected is far more than a smaller system with more slack.

For example, if I wanted to start rioting in the UK - country wide - I would upset the petrol systems of the lorry network. The food distribution systems in the UK, where food is shipped to the supermarkets "JIT" Just-in-time, overnight based on the previous days intake means any problems with transportation, and people all over the country get hungry very quickly.

there IS an over population problem, the worlds population is going to hit 9 billions by 2050, more than one billion people are already starving, the world top soil is ruined because of stupid chemical farming techniques which is going to make things MUCH MUCH harder in the future. the world has limited fresh water resources water demand increases exponentially. 2 billions people live on less than 2 dollars a day every indication suggests humans are incapable of being bale to sustain such massive populations growth, human civilization is geared toward the minority the bigger minority is cannon fodder and pawns the rest are extra baggage the earth can sustain more people but we cant so what's the difference? whether its us or the earth its still a populations problem and the very way our civillization is run will have to change in order to correct things cuz at the moment the whole thing is a sham and wont last to see past this century.

i suggest you watch zietgiest addendum and collapse as well as money as debt full documentary to see how we living day to day on a house of cards.

Most of these issues can be solve by signing up to enviroment protocols, re-distribution of wealth and resources, immigration.

Please, don't be so naive, who going to give up their wealth?

Environmental protocols are BULLSHIT all of them they are their to make money only dont fall for the green bullshit. A lot of them do more harm than good, bio fuels helped in the food shortage of 2008 helping millions to die whilst a rich fucks in san fransisco felt nice and smug.

Your just assuming the world is going to open up its borders to millions of people from asia? come on whos going to pay for that? You cant just bring in millions of people with out spending billions expanding the infrastructure. Resources is about profit and wealth only, its dog eat dog no one is going to share were already at each other throats, you really think were going to pick up our guitars and hold hands all of a sudden?

The fact is there's a fundamental problem with our society that goes right down to the roots. The whole system needs to be turned up side down we need to start from scratch if we're going to have a chance at survival cuz at this rate its almost certain we are going to wipe our selves out.

Paragraph, ponctuate, capitalise.

when people having nothing to say why turn in to a grammer nazi? i have punctuated, that is a average sized paragraph, and i dont want to capitalize on reddit, you know its not that fucking important.

Dude I'm happy to have this discussion with you but look at this block of text! You have a 4 line long sentence, wtf?!

My eyes are tired just from the prospect of reading this, what do you have against paragraphs, full stops and capital letters? I'm not being a nazi I'm saying that there is no way in hell that I'm reading this, seriously LOOK AT IT.

Ponctuate correctly, there FITY.

just for you.

Well you pretty much have the answer to everything you said was impossible at the end of your post. (which I can now read, thank you so much, I appreciate it) Yes the system needs to be turned upside down.

That is what it boils down to, it has to change. Overpopulation itself its not an issue, the issue is how we are going to tackle it. I'm not being naive, I'm fully aware that nobody wants to give up their border controls or wealth. But as you pointed out yourself, this is something which will become incresengly necesary. I'm not a skeptical, on the contrary if anything I'm a little utopian. I have a Marxist view towards human history and I think the manner in which the system works its dependent on how intellectually advanced people are.

2 centuries ago, half of the world still thought slavery was perfectly acceptable. That mentality changed. And I believe this, I believe that we will keep on developing and by the time over-population might become an issue we'll be a lot more open to redistribution of wealth etc...

Not to mention that a drastic change on who has a big say in the world is going on. Countries which were often ignored are now having an even bigger say and their economies are groing all the time. I read a book about this a while ago, cannot for the life of me remember the author/title though, I'll see if I cna find it, it probably explains what I'm trying to say a lot better than myself...

Depends on how you define overpopulation, doesn't it? Should we push our world population to the maximum sustainable level or should we instead limit it so that more of the natural world might be preserved? There may be more options as technology and humans advance. Also, why is this in the conspiracy reddit? What conspiracy exists pertaining to overpopulation?

It all ties together. The overpopulation myth is a means for the ptb to depopulate the world like they've wanted for so long. It also ties in with climate change, because supposedly overpopulation is causing too much co2. Please don't fall for any of this nonsense, rises in co2 are following the rises in temperature making the rise in co2 seem like the effect not the cause.

OK, gokupop, use your mighty brain cells to solve the problem of dwindling resources. Take as long as you like. I'll check back periodically.

We will develop free energy and transmutation of the elements. People create their own limits.

We can double our population much faster than we can double our food production.

You're joking.....right?

He means by the time he gets a reply...

Still waiting.

I thought you said there wasn't an issue.

I don't think there is so much an overpopulation problem as there is gross mismanagement of Earth's resources. Is this because of a grand conspiracy or a collection of widespread ineptitude, I don't pretend to know. And, as so often happens, people are addressing the symptom and not the cause. Why so many are willing to accept that people must either be killed or controlled by the very people who are responsible for this generation's mismanagement is yet another part of the thinking that has allowed the problem to start, exist and continue into the forseeable future.

I'd rather accept resonsibility than place blame. It does no good to point out apathy and greed, when one is as entrenched as the other. In order to change anything we must expect more from ourselves and demand more from our representatives. Education and uncompromising long-term care of natural resources are a start. I accept that this kind of idealism can be difficult when reality clashes with our belief systems (God, science or other), so in the end we'll have to find out if our beliefs can sustain us.

There is an under population of people who are not smart enough to pitch in or solve the worlds issues.

is to say that we are running out of brain cells and cant figure out how to address the issue.

We use our brain cells to figure out that we need to reduce the population. You should ask yourself are humans smarter than yeast?

You are for reducing the population? Are you volunteering to help the many? Explain how you know we at our capacity?