It’s funny and ignorant that you think think the issue with population has to do with immigration. Resources are finite GLOBALLY. The earth isn’t a plane that extends on infinitely. It’s round and finite. Only non-manmade environmental problems aren’t the result of overpopulation. That’s as undeniable as saying a triangle has three sides.

Yeah, resources are finite in terms of feeding people. But what about our current system makes you think we're operating at maximal efficiency?

For a very brief overview, I thought this was good coverage of the major hurdles


What Americans dont understand about Public Healthcare

Starvation is an INEVITABLE conclusion to exponential growth but...

Nutrition hydration shelter health care comfort entertainment and luxury all demand resources that are finite.

I never said that we’re operating at maximum efficiency so what made you make you think that I think that?

It's the only assumption a person came make if you're bringing this up now. We don't know how many people the planet can hold. For all you know, we currently have 10% of the maximum capacity.

We are the midst of a mass extinction.

There’s under a 1000 mountain gorillas and nearly 8 billion people.

We’re destroying the seas, the forests, the lakes and rivers, the aquifers, the ****ing sky but still people don’t get it.

The counter arguments are so ****ing stupid. Oh but there’s land without people on it derp derp.

The alternative to taking a sane approach to population growth is technology will solve every problem forever derp

Whatever maximum efficiency is we’ll never achieve it without functioning ecosystems to live in. The ecosystems cannot survive because our existence DEMANDS we encroach on them.

And I know for a FACT that the earth cannot hold 80 billion people. Not opinion. Fact.

The same way I know dead people aren’t reading these forums.

Why is it always assumed that population growth has to be exponential? Why must the specter of Malthusianism still haunt us?

Malthusianism is founded on assumptions of people's choices based on their standard of living - it's not a sure thing that those assumptions are valid. Out of curiosity, OH, how old are you? I know that they were teaching about the dangers of overpopulation based on exponential growth models back in the '60s and '70s. I don't know if they still teach it. I don't think I was ever taught about the possibility and dangers of overpopulation in my public schooling.

People don't have kids in the numbers that they used to for a variety of reasons, but it's a trend that you see in most developed nations like the US and Japan. I believe it was Walter Greiling who predicted in the 1950s that we would eventually hit a peak of 9 billion in the 21st century and then stop growing - (this idea assumes a readjustment of the third world nations). He could be correct. If he is, then your idea of exponential growth is bunk. Rather than an exponential curve, it would be a logistic curve.

Develop the economy in a third world nation and heighten people's standard of living and empower women (give women equal rights to men with ready access to birth control, and allow them to work and support themselves if they choose) and I think you'll eventually see a declining birth rate.

We've been over this so many times. As countries become industrialized the birth rates eventually slows to even below replacement rate. So the very premise of endless exponential growth is faulty, mr Malthus.

the mass extinction is due to climate change, not lack of resources. Yes, the giant population contributes to climate change but with better technology a lot of the emissions could be avoided even with a bigger population than we have now.

Your argument is actually the foolish one since you want to fixate on one fact that we can't even change without a massive genocide rather than maybe focus on the technology which at least there's a possibility we can change it.