How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?

Is that just a random three, or is there some criteria?

no, just a random three

Actually, there are criteria:

1) One must be male
2) One must possess the ability to make fire
3) One must be female

If you must. Try to resist shoving your way to the head of the line.

Malthus may have been wrong and a total dick but his claims about population aren't invalid.

Our population has expanded exponentially with regards to our food supply. More importantly, we don't have the infrastructure to support billions more people indefinitely.

Being dismissive on the basis of technology is a faulty argument. There's no indication that science is going to be able to save us and eve if it does, there's no indication how long that will last us before we have problems again.

It's not about food necessarily. It's about shelter, water, electricity, education, jobs, entertainment, protection, etc.

+^d

You know that would put them at about 6 inches of space apart from each other right?

Hurrrrrr, think a little harder please.

+^d

wow... she got muscles... where does she work out at?

That was a vacuous rant. -Vd

She doesn't work out, she just never carries signs with her left arm.

And then when we hit that amount we spin out of our present orbit and smash into the sun. Right?

You always make laugh! Thanks.

Cool, I can't wait I have my goggles already.

Read my post below for why we never will evolve again.

We have not evolved as a species. That is the problem. We inherently cannot share. The idea of personal ownership of our own little piece of the pie is the Western way. We need to learn how to share as though we are one giant family.

Oh well, I think we're cooked then as far as the sharing part goes. That would definitely take an epiphany of Mayan 2012 proportions to accomplish.

The "greatest good",....for the "greatest number",...has ALWAYS been an inherently self conflicted value axiom; we should LONG AGO have been asking- "What IS the greatest good,...and how many people are required to sustain it"? That is what the world should be trying to achieve. My take,....the greatest amount of "freedom",...combined with the greatest amount of RAW ENERGY at the disposal OF EACH INDIVIDUAL. (Something like that. )

p.s ---and I am talking "sustainably",...for more than a generation or two.

Peter the world will still need to curb birth rates by 75 percent to prevent overpopulation from occuring in the next one hundred years. Medical technology has allowed ever more people in developed countries to live into their eighties and even their nineties. Developing nations will need to cut birth rates substancially but the problem in developing countries is that most men refuse to even wear a condom. Birth control pills distributed in third world and developing countries might work but that will take a real effort by first world nations financing that distribution and educating women on responsible reproduction. A hard sell indeed.

Condoms cause erectile dysfunction impotence too from Bisphenol-A|BPA open pore saturation into the sweating hot penis skin. Besides, condoms are a white man's religion. Condoms cause late-life penis shrinkage. Men of other races are smart to avoid using what white men use because white men are going highway-to-hell insane from BPA-in-their-white-man-brain-tissue, whereas on the other hand lots & lots of great SEX does not make men insane... ranking right up there with cutting part of their PERFECTLY HEALTHY PENILE TISSUE that assaults the infant male nervous system and affects their future sexual powers from cutting off part of their body for no damn reason the infant can understand. At NO TIME should any scalpel touch a human being (circumcision, vasectomy, castration) until such time it becomes MEDICALLY WARRANTED and NECESSARY.

If SURGERY is "THE ANSWER" then whack off the infant female's breast buds at birth and clamp down the women's sex drive dead in its tracks for a change, replacing the violent male circumcision with female breast bud circumcision, see how far you can throw that discus. => I heard a radio report yesterday praising the lifetime contribution of a recently-deceased 93 year old Jewish woman => over 2000 great-grandchildren. She had stated her lifelong ambition was creating as many Jewish children she possibly could to put it in the face of one Adolph Hitler.

Come up with something else to sell preferably w/out containing penis-shriveling POISON~BPA.
Come up with something else to sell preferably w/out containing penis-shriveling POISON~BPA.
Come up with something else to sell preferably w/out containing penis-shriveling POISON~BPA.

You are right but it will be with human intervention.

The problem is that it has arguably happened already. Easter Island is a great example of a closed ecosystem where the population of humans became to great for it to maintain. The species diversity of both plants and animals is incredibly tiny for that island because the inhabitants overpopulated the island, were too much of a strain on the ecosystem, and almost destroyed everything other species while trying to find resources to survive. Yes, in the end the problem fixed itself and the human population of Easter Island found a sustainable number, but nearly everything else on that island had been driven to extinction long before that.

i.e. The grotesque operation that is Eugenics.

Human greed does not allow for relinquishing the power to nature's balancing. We must realize humans are not the mighty best creature and inventor. In my opinion this is a problem of society to take extraordinary steps to extend one’s life, to freeze the dead bodies in hope for future re-invention of life to invent many ways for the youthful look and feel of an old human body. We are a part of the living and dying cycle and must not change that.

Increasing the human life span really is not the issue. If it was then China wouldn't be the only developed nation with a population problem (though I'm not really sure if China with all of it's military might is considered developed or not). Many third world countries in Africa have terrible life expectancies, but they are incredibly overpopulated because people are use to screwing and having kids. Those children don't usually live very long lives, but they live long enough to have a few kids of their own, and the population problem increases.

Moving back though to your comment about Human greed not allowing for relinquishing the power to nature's balancing. There have been quite a few cultures in history that have found a healthy balance with the natural environment. Many Native North Americans had a healthy balance with the ecosystem that they inhabited. The point being, it is possible and it has less to do with how we are naturally hard wired and more to do with how we are raised. If we are raised to consume everything and breed like rabbits, then we usually do. If we are raised to conserve natural resources and only use what we need, and to only have enough children to assure that our DNA is passed on successfully, then we tend to do that instead.

I have high respect for Native North American culture and support returning to nature balancing upbringing. I am extremely disappointed with current cultural trend promoting nothing but to consume and multiply.

Well, that sets society on a slippery slope as well. Who gives you ( in general) the power to decide who is "intelligent" and who isn't? To decide what constitutes the worth of a human being?

Standardized intelligence tests would be an objective way of doing it. So the true deciders are the test takers that either fail or pass the tests.

No one would be killing anyone. Just using the laws of society to shape humanities gene pool in a positive way as opposed to the current system which rewards those that reproduce the most.

A population council? A group of people to decide how I should live my life, or if I should live at all?
What I choose to do with my life is my decision and mine alone.

It is disturbing to see how willingly you support Eugenics, it being a genocidal practice in and of itself.

You know Hitler tried to implement Eugenics. He and his Nazi government were the "population council" and it led to thousands of deaths of innocent people. All because they didn't think those people were fit to live.

Disgusting.

Hitler? Eugenics? what an absurd comparison.

Eugenics is always tied to race and Hitler murdered people based race and ethnicity.

No one is talking about that.

What I was talking about is licenses to breed based on intellect. If you are a dog breeder you breed the best dogs. You don't kill the deformed ones. You just don't breed them because their defects would continue to be in the gene pool. This is how you get a better breed of dog.

Likewise if we license the most intelligent people to breed, in couple of generations humanity as whole will improve and many of society’s problems would begin to be solved.

But please stop with the scare tactics.

What an absolute Joke of a post! your concoction is absolutely analogous to eugenics and Hitler you sick diluted fool. Your comparison of humans to breeding dogs further reveals how twisted your mind is.

Ironically your system would only perpetuate the reproduction of "Sarah Palin’s kids." If you honestly think setting up a system in which the government has the power to regulate breeding won't be grossly abused; then you ate too many paint chips as a kid. A system of licensed breeding would Not lead to a more intelligent populace. Simply because the Sarah Palin's of the world have more than enough money and influence to pay off the right people to get a license. It wouldn't lead to higher percentage of intelligent citizens, just allow affluent citizens like the Paris Hiltons of the world to reproduce while the lower class fades out and the middle class becomes the new lower class.

that is a very good idea however, This would not work, people would not accept this. I believe the best way would be to let everyone have children but only a limited amount, remember everything has to be fair.

And you are right we need to either educate the stupid or not fund them at all. I am currently a high school student and you always hear how people hate coming to school. and i see kids failing all there classes, and i honestly think people should not be paying taxes to kids who are gonna half ass it in school. kick them out let them leave and see how far they will make it in life.

I agree absolutely disgusting.

Who gets to decide what makes one be a "best human"?

This reminds me of Mr Smith in Matrix.

I don't know why people are saying that this is disgusting. You're simply proposing an idea and there is nothing wrong with that. That being said, your idea is stupid simply because it would never work. There are two things I'm certain of:

1. You cannot, under any circumstances, stop people from fucking or assume they will use birth control.
2. People will never accept other people dying, if they don't "have" to die.

For these reasons, it is unlikely that population control will ever work. The only method I can think of is putting a cap on the food supply. Stop increasing food production, you stop the population growth. After all, food availability is what drives population growth, not sex. However, this interferes with thing number 2. Yours interferes with thing number 1. So really my idea is stupid too, albeit slightly more logical.

Ultimately, the only thing that I ever see halting population growth is us reaching the Earths carrying capacity, and a lot of people dying at once. A short time after, it will probably start all over again. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Nazi;s killed over six milliom innocent people! Did you learn history or are you one of the deniers of the holocaust

Mr. Smith from the Matrix wanted to breed only the smartest humans? Odd, I thought that Mr. Smith compared every human to a viral infection.

The reason this reminds me of Mr. Smith is a scene when there are hundreds of identical copies of Mr. Smith.

No, i do not deny the Holocaust. That event is plain as can be.

that sounds like so much fun to look forward to .i always come here for my daily dose of sunshine

+^d

Population trends don't need to continue the way they've been going. Infact their no reason they can't move in the other direction and they are in especially European countries, but also China, and they have reduced drastically in almost everywhere except Africa. The reason being that as people urbanize kid's rather than being a source of labour become a cost. Population growth is still higher among the marginalized in developed countries, but the best way to slow growth is to ensure a basic standard of living and make sure that the poor are catching up rather than falling further behind.

Secondly, population eventually would and is a real problem but it pails in comparison to economic growth. Unless we figure out a way of raising the cost of unsustainable environmentally destructive consumption, we will destroy our planet.