patrick.net

:
Just becasue it's way way less dense outside of major metro areas. What does that have to do with the sustainability of much higher populations ? Our oceans are already polluted and over fished, with growing "dead zones." Not to mention global warming and other pollution.

Even just having the current global population, do you think it would be sustainable to have all the worlds people now consuming the way Americans do ?

https://inhabitat.com/dead-zone-near-african-coast-shows-lowest-oxygen-levels-ever-recorded/

This is silly:
1 - there are large inhabitable areas: mountains, deserts, etc... Of course no one is living there.
2 - every human being in a city still requires a large amount of farmland, large forests to produce enough wood for building and furniture, large ocean areas to provide the fish, etc... the land used is just no where you live.
3 - hopefully after all this is counted there would still be space for a lot of wild areas.
4 - the current population is already overshooting the earth capacity on a lot of variables. Oil production will start to decrease within a couple decades. Most fish species are overfished. Most large animals are threatened with extinction because of lack of space. The current population is fed through intensive mono-culture requiring massive pesticide usage, etc, etc...

All this for what? So we can keep growing a few more decades? Wouldn't it be better if the population was stable and smaller?

Almost there is no more prime land in the world to add for agriculture. Quality water sources are already peaked way before. Global pollution is getting out of control. Average human foot print is still growing. Unless we reduce the population growth soon, we may collapse the ecosystem sooner than later.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is silly:
1 - there are large inhabitable areas: mountains, deserts, etc... Of course no one is living there.
2 - every human being in a city still requires a large amount of farmland, large forests to produce enough wood for building and furniture, large ocean areas to provide the fish, etc... the land used is just no where you live.
3 - hopefully after all this is counted there would still be space for a lot of wild areas.
4 - the current population is already overshooting the earth capacity on a lot of variables. Oil production will start to decrease within a couple decades. Most fish species are overfished. Most large animals are threatened with extinction because of lack of space. The current population is fed through intensive mono-culture requiring massive pesticide usage, etc, etc...

All this for what? So we can keep growing a few more decades? Wouldn't it be better if the population was stable and smaller?

China, India all have way more people than US. And now US is sponsoring Africa to grow.

I saw a video on Youtube that said every structure in every city in the world could fit in Texas, and every human being in the world back to back, belly to belly, side by side, could fill up Manhattan.

The point was the Earth is still a big wide open place.

We need to eat the babies!

FortWayneIndiana says

China, India all have way more people than US. And now US is sponsoring Africa to grow.

That is true. But each person in US have 10x if not 100x or 1000x global footprint than people in those countries.

Blue says

That is true. But each person in US have 10x if not 100x or 1000x global footprint than people in those countries.

The Liberals are free to jump off a high cliff if it's too much to bare.

Blue says

each person in US have 10x if not 100x or 1000x global footprint than people in those countries.

What do you mean by "global footprint"?