Africa is not a trash pit, we have so much unused land that we could probably fit 2 billion people in just delta state( a state in nigeria) which is currently where I am and all aroud I see land and Trees just beautiful vast green land as far as the eye can see and we have 30 more states just like this in nigeria alone minus the city states Nigga we blessed.
Yes, but people are so poor they wash dishes with sand which clogs sewers. When people can't even afford dish soap, how can you stop disease and pandemics with your clogged sewers?
People piss in the street, do recreational rape. A mosquito infested trash pit, with cannibal mentality. No public health system except for voodoo witch doctors.
Africa should be quarantined from the rest of the world. It is a disgusting, puke your guts kind of place.
Africa is bad because a lot of the land there isn't suitable to grow crops because 25% of the land of Africa is desert that combined with the fact that most of the countries in Africa doesn't have the same technology as the rest of the world makes it harder to live there. India is bad because of how densely populated the country is. They have almost 1.5 billion people living in a country that is only 2% of the earth's land mass, of course they are gonna have trouble providing for themselves.
You question though asked what would be a stable population size in 2800. By then it is my belief that the human race will become much more advanced and with those advancements be able to better support themselves without harming the environment. We are always making advancements and are always looking for ways to limit pollution by limiting the amount of green house gasses that gets into our atmosphere and by finding new ways to reuse waste products.
My question was IDEAL population. A stable and affluent population will be smaller than a population that is stable yet impoverished. I'm thinking by 2800, 500 million would be a good critical mass to have enough geniuses born to find solutions to difficult problems. A higher population than that would be more dead weight than is required, hence a drag on the standard of living.
That's not how things work though. Limiting the amount of people would not make people smarter especially if the cause of which was something outside of human control. If the population was 500 million most of those people wouldn't have the time to spend on innovation and as a result things would take a lot more time to get better. Part of the reason humans are so advanced is because we have so many people in the world. The more people you have the greater the chances of someone coming up with a new idea.
Think of humans as one big artificial neural network. In a neural network the more nodes the better the chance of solving whatever problem is given in a shorter amount of time. You have to also think that almost all of the innovations done are done by specialists in their respective fields. If you lessen the population that lessens the amount of people who are gonna be able to devote there time to a specialized field.
Except in the year 2800, production and service jobs will be almost all automated. This will enable far better leveraging of intellectual talent. For example, say 2 million researchers are doing biomedical research right now. With no production or service jobs in the future, 2 million biomedical researchers can easily be supported in a population of 500 million.
Your neural network analogy does have some merit, tho. In the next 80 years, dumb people will continue to multiply. Smart educated people, drowning in student debt will opt to not have kids they can't afford. The drop in intelligence means that humanity's neural network will flicker, and perform poorly.
There are other problems with your idea though. The first of which is what would have brought a decline to the human race. If it is a world wide epidemic, like you say it will probably be, then there is no telling who would have survived or the intelligence of those that survived not to mention that with only 500 million people the survivors would most likely be very spread out. 500 million is only about 0.07% of the current population. At that low of a population survival would be the number one priority not scientific discoveries if any scientists are even left alive.
No, 500 million is 7% of the current population. Remember, this is for the year 2800. The population does not need to drop in one event. If the reduction is due to disasters, social chaos will have time to fix itself. There would be plenty of scientists still alive, probably 7% of them. The road to an ideal population functioning well in the future is not necessarily a smooth one.
What is the ideal population for Planet Earth?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Africa is already a trash pit. India is getting there fast. The oceans are overheated. The world is fucked.
--
Susancream
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
xxLucifer
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Africa is not a trash pit, we have so much unused land that we could probably fit 2 billion people in just delta state( a state in nigeria) which is currently where I am and all aroud I see land and Trees just beautiful vast green land as far as the eye can see and we have 30 more states just like this in nigeria alone minus the city states Nigga we blessed.
--
Anonymous Post Author
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, but people are so poor they wash dishes with sand which clogs sewers. When people can't even afford dish soap, how can you stop disease and pandemics with your clogged sewers?
--
Susancream
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You Ignorant fuck.
--
Anonymous Post Author
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
People piss in the street, do recreational rape. A mosquito infested trash pit, with cannibal mentality. No public health system except for voodoo witch doctors.
Africa should be quarantined from the rest of the world. It is a disgusting, puke your guts kind of place.
Africa is bad because a lot of the land there isn't suitable to grow crops because 25% of the land of Africa is desert that combined with the fact that most of the countries in Africa doesn't have the same technology as the rest of the world makes it harder to live there. India is bad because of how densely populated the country is. They have almost 1.5 billion people living in a country that is only 2% of the earth's land mass, of course they are gonna have trouble providing for themselves.
You question though asked what would be a stable population size in 2800. By then it is my belief that the human race will become much more advanced and with those advancements be able to better support themselves without harming the environment. We are always making advancements and are always looking for ways to limit pollution by limiting the amount of green house gasses that gets into our atmosphere and by finding new ways to reuse waste products.
--
Anonymous Post Author
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
My question was IDEAL population. A stable and affluent population will be smaller than a population that is stable yet impoverished. I'm thinking by 2800, 500 million would be a good critical mass to have enough geniuses born to find solutions to difficult problems. A higher population than that would be more dead weight than is required, hence a drag on the standard of living.
--
xxLucifer
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That's not how things work though. Limiting the amount of people would not make people smarter especially if the cause of which was something outside of human control. If the population was 500 million most of those people wouldn't have the time to spend on innovation and as a result things would take a lot more time to get better. Part of the reason humans are so advanced is because we have so many people in the world. The more people you have the greater the chances of someone coming up with a new idea.
Think of humans as one big artificial neural network. In a neural network the more nodes the better the chance of solving whatever problem is given in a shorter amount of time. You have to also think that almost all of the innovations done are done by specialists in their respective fields. If you lessen the population that lessens the amount of people who are gonna be able to devote there time to a specialized field.
--
Anonymous Post Author
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Except in the year 2800, production and service jobs will be almost all automated. This will enable far better leveraging of intellectual talent. For example, say 2 million researchers are doing biomedical research right now. With no production or service jobs in the future, 2 million biomedical researchers can easily be supported in a population of 500 million.
Your neural network analogy does have some merit, tho. In the next 80 years, dumb people will continue to multiply. Smart educated people, drowning in student debt will opt to not have kids they can't afford. The drop in intelligence means that humanity's neural network will flicker, and perform poorly.
--
xxLucifer
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
There are other problems with your idea though. The first of which is what would have brought a decline to the human race. If it is a world wide epidemic, like you say it will probably be, then there is no telling who would have survived or the intelligence of those that survived not to mention that with only 500 million people the survivors would most likely be very spread out. 500 million is only about 0.07% of the current population. At that low of a population survival would be the number one priority not scientific discoveries if any scientists are even left alive.
--
Anonymous Post Author
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No, 500 million is 7% of the current population. Remember, this is for the year 2800. The population does not need to drop in one event. If the reduction is due to disasters, social chaos will have time to fix itself. There would be plenty of scientists still alive, probably 7% of them. The road to an ideal population functioning well in the future is not necessarily a smooth one.