This is fine, it's a small blip. Millenials and Zoomers and some Gen Xers will do the environment a huge favor and keep the birth rate trending down.
How's the birth rate in India or the african countries?
World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)
21–30 of 191 posts
Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)
#22This is fine, it's a small blip. Millenials and Zoomers and some Gen Xers will do the environment a huge favor and keep the birth rate trending down.
How's the birth rate in India or the african countries?
Maybe google it. Trending down also. World population will max at around 10bn
Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)
#23Happy to see the world population growing. Unlike many here I don't believe the world is overpopulated and that we need more people to grow and expand beyond the planet. Located in the U.S. where we could double the population without starting to feel cramped. We can and we should.
Because you live in the wealthiest country in the world (over 100 continuous years of highest GDP) with high salaries and lots of habitable space (from exterminating the native populace). But that's not sustainable - the US has the highest CO2 emissions per capita when you factor in imports, etc. nevermind other environmental damage. And is also dependent on terrible conditions in Asia, etc. to produce all the cheap…
Americans are saints when it comes to environmental destruction. Many African countries have very high birth rates and they do whatever it takes to survive, environment be damned, such as pouring used motor oil on the ground without batting and eye or thinking twice about the effects to their own health. Don't even get me started about the mining and deforestation.
Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you live in the wealthiest country in the world (over 100 continuous years of highest GDP) with high salaries and lots of habitable space (from exterminating the native populace). But that's not sustainable - the US has the highest CO2 emissions per capita when you factor in imports, etc. nevermind other environmental damage. And is also dependent on terrible conditions in Asia, etc. to produce all the cheap…
We’re on track for electric cars to overtake gas cars in twenty years. Nuclear power is making a comeback. Even electric planes are in the wings. Best of all, lab-grown meat is here now and we’re just waiting for the price to come down. It seems as though we’ll have solved our emissions issues by the next generation. Would you still argue against a higher population once we largely solve the emissions issues? Or is t…
We consume many resources and we won't consume less of them just because cars become electric. Emissions are just one of many pressures we out on the environment.
I think it's better to ask why should population keep growing? We don't need it and it physically has to stop growing at some point.
It seems much better to focus on growing quality of life and quality of environment rather than growing number of people.
Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)
#25Happy to see the world population growing. Unlike many here I don't believe the world is overpopulated and that we need more people to grow and expand beyond the planet. Located in the U.S. where we could double the population without starting to feel cramped. We can and we should.
Because you live in the wealthiest country in the world (over 100 continuous years of highest GDP) with high salaries and lots of habitable space (from exterminating the native populace). But that's not sustainable - the US has the highest CO2 emissions per capita when you factor in imports, etc. nevermind other environmental damage. And is also dependent on terrible conditions in Asia, etc. to produce all the cheap…
All the issues you mentioned are problems we can and we will solve. Population growth is the best thing that happened to humanity. "Soon" we will become an inter-planetary species so it will get even better and exciting!
Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you live in the wealthiest country in the world (over 100 continuous years of highest GDP) with high salaries and lots of habitable space (from exterminating the native populace). But that's not sustainable - the US has the highest CO2 emissions per capita when you factor in imports, etc. nevermind other environmental damage. And is also dependent on terrible conditions in Asia, etc. to produce all the cheap…
We’re on track for electric cars to overtake gas cars in twenty years. Nuclear power is making a comeback. Even electric planes are in the wings. Best of all, lab-grown meat is here now and we’re just waiting for the price to come down. It seems as though we’ll have solved our emissions issues by the next generation. Would you still argue against a higher population once we largely solve the emissions issues? Or is t…
I'm pretty skeptical on electric planes (it's hard to generate that much thrust) but the others are all great improvements.
Still slowing population growth would be the easiest gradual way of dealing with resource and environmental issues. It also helps to spur automation and innovation by reducing the amount of cheap, desperate labour available (which is not a fulfilling existence for the workers either).
It can also be tied into ensuring that children have a good upbringing - introduce a child licence with requirements for raising a child to ensure some stability and responsible parenting - e.g. mandatory parenting and nutrition classes, $10+k in savings, living space requirements, etc. - this would help reduce crime and poverty and improve everyone's lives.
Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
How's the birth rate in India or the african countries?
Maybe google it. Trending down also. World population will max at around 10bn
Last I heard though, in Africa, population decline was due to endemic aids/hiv, and no real inexpensive treatment.
And some refusal to use condoms.
If this changes, the trend will sharply reverse.
Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you live in the wealthiest country in the world (over 100 continuous years of highest GDP) with high salaries and lots of habitable space (from exterminating the native populace). But that's not sustainable - the US has the highest CO2 emissions per capita when you factor in imports, etc. nevermind other environmental damage. And is also dependent on terrible conditions in Asia, etc. to produce all the cheap…
Americans are saints when it comes to environmental destruction. Many African countries have very high birth rates and they do whatever it takes to survive, environment be damned, such as pouring used motor oil on the ground without batting and eye or thinking twice about the effects to their own health. Don't even get me started about the mining and deforestation.
Yeah, I agree, that's why we need population control everywhere.
The US is at a huge scale though, and that mining is probably going towards building American SUVs, military equipment, etc.
Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)
#29Happy to see the world population growing. Unlike many here I don't believe the world is overpopulated and that we need more people to grow and expand beyond the planet. Located in the U.S. where we could double the population without starting to feel cramped. We can and we should.
Because you live in the wealthiest country in the world (over 100 continuous years of highest GDP) with high salaries and lots of habitable space (from exterminating the native populace). But that's not sustainable - the US has the highest CO2 emissions per capita when you factor in imports, etc. nevermind other environmental damage. And is also dependent on terrible conditions in Asia, etc. to produce all the cheap…
> But that's not sustainable -
100 years ago people were saying we would all die from starvation after a few billion more people. Doom sayers have zero credibility.
Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Located in the U.S. where we could double the population without starting to feel cramped. You're already running out of resources: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-11/californ...
In that case the population is dominated by the suicidally bad water management in CA. You could cut the population by 99% and you would still have a looming water crisis there. If you build a solar energy farm on the dark side of the moon you shouldn't be blaming the people who want to use the energy, you should be blaming the people who managed the project.
I assume you mean the far side of the Moon.
A solar panel on the dark side wont be much use.
But then people have discussed landing on the Sun at night.