So why is anybody worried about over-population...

When if you could take EVERYBODY in the world, and fit them into the space of Texas, with the population density of New York. You would still have the rest of the world to still work/farm on. Pretty crazy if you think about it.

Because the stars at night are dull and dim?

but then you would have a city the size of TEXAS.

thats some chernobyl-tier levels of pollution right there

Yes, but that's hypothetical, and that's if it was the density of New York. Imagine if instead everybody were to only live on one continent, it would be manageable. I can't imagine that the crime rate would be pleasant though.

If you were to localize the entire population, you'd have unheard of levels of pollution over that settlement, and since it would be completely focus, there would undoubtedly be a terrible effect on the atmosphere. Sanitation would basically go out the window, as would any sense of management. Finally, and most importantly, one disease could sweep through the entire population without a problem. That many people in close proximity? Viral/bacterial paradise. If one of those people had MRSA and it started spreading, you could say bye-bye to the human genome.

Sounds clustered. I'm not saying that every human being needs acres and acres of space to live in, but all of the population in one place would probably constitute a living space freakishly similar to a prison cell.

Pariah wrote:If you were to localize the entire population, you'd have unheard of levels of pollution over that settlement, and since it would be completely focus, there would undoubtedly be a terrible effect on the atmosphere. Sanitation would basically go out the window, as would any sense of management. Finally, and most importantly, one disease could sweep through the entire population without a problem. That many people in close proximity? Viral/bacterial paradise. If one of those people had MRSA and it started spreading, you could say bye-bye to the human genome.

Well it's not to imply that everyone HAS to live all in Texas. It's just an example to give the scale of earth's population and point out if we HAD to we could use up Earth's space a lot more efficiently.

Resource to population.
Food to population.
Fresh water to population. This is really what determines the population ceiling. Water sources.

Putting everyone in Texas would be a quick way to kill off the majority of the planet in just a few days though.

Duck wrote:

Pariah wrote:If you were to localize the entire population, you'd have unheard of levels of pollution over that settlement, and since it would be completely focus, there would undoubtedly be a terrible effect on the atmosphere. Sanitation would basically go out the window, as would any sense of management. Finally, and most importantly, one disease could sweep through the entire population without a problem. That many people in close proximity? Viral/bacterial paradise. If one of those people had MRSA and it started spreading, you could say bye-bye to the human genome.

Well it's not to imply that everyone HAS to live all in Texas. It's just an example to give the scale of earth's population and point out if we HAD to we could use up Earth's space a lot more efficiently.

I didn't mention Texas anywhere in my response. My argument holds up regardless of location.

I don't want MegaCity 1 to be a thing...just saying

Pariah wrote:

Duck wrote:

Pariah wrote:If you were to localize the entire population, you'd have unheard of levels of pollution over that settlement, and since it would be completely focus, there would undoubtedly be a terrible effect on the atmosphere. Sanitation would basically go out the window, as would any sense of management. Finally, and most importantly, one disease could sweep through the entire population without a problem. That many people in close proximity? Viral/bacterial paradise. If one of those people had MRSA and it started spreading, you could say bye-bye to the human genome.

Well it's not to imply that everyone HAS to live all in Texas. It's just an example to give the scale of earth's population and point out if we HAD to we could use up Earth's space a lot more efficiently.

I didn't mention Texas anywhere in my response. My argument holds up regardless of location.

No, but you're implying that in this scenario everyone has to live extremely close together, as in, all of those new york sized units are squished together some place like texas.

You could just divide each country into new york sized population units and have them all live 100 miles apart. The total area would still be the size of texas, but you wouldn't have those proximity issues like sanitation or disease taking out the whole human race.

Duck wrote:You could just divide each country into new york sized population units and have them all live 100 miles apart. The total area would still be the size of texas, but you wouldn't have those proximity issues like sanitation or disease taking out the whole human race.

so... kind of like the multiple cities that already exist in each country, all of them pretty large?

Duck wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Duck wrote:

Pariah wrote:If you were to localize the entire population, you'd have unheard of levels of pollution over that settlement, and since it would be completely focus, there would undoubtedly be a terrible effect on the atmosphere. Sanitation would basically go out the window, as would any sense of management. Finally, and most importantly, one disease could sweep through the entire population without a problem. That many people in close proximity? Viral/bacterial paradise. If one of those people had MRSA and it started spreading, you could say bye-bye to the human genome.

Well it's not to imply that everyone HAS to live all in Texas. It's just an example to give the scale of earth's population and point out if we HAD to we could use up Earth's space a lot more efficiently.

I didn't mention Texas anywhere in my response. My argument holds up regardless of location.

No, but you're implying that in this scenario everyone has to live extremely close together, as in, all of those new york sized units are squished together some place like texas.

You could just divide each country into new york sized population units and have them all live 100 miles apart. The total area would still be the size of texas, but you wouldn't have those proximity issues like sanitation or disease taking out the whole human race.

Duck gets what I'm saying. I'm just saying that over-population isn't an issue because there is a lot of room left in the world.

Kitsune wrote:Duck gets what I'm saying. I'm just saying that over-population isn't an issue because there is a lot of room left in the world.

room is not currently the limiting factor for population.

Yeah food and water is/will be our main problem.

The Adli Corporation wrote:

Kitsune wrote:Duck gets what I'm saying. I'm just saying that over-population isn't an issue because there is a lot of room left in the world.

room is not currently the limiting factor for population.

Room has almost nothing to do with overpopulation.

Metalzoic wrote:

The Adli Corporation wrote:

Kitsune wrote:Duck gets what I'm saying. I'm just saying that over-population isn't an issue because there is a lot of room left in the world.

room is not currently the limiting factor for population.

Room has almost nothing to do with overpopulation.

I'm just quoting metal since his response makes sense.

And Hydra is correct, the limiting factors are food, water and unrenewable resources. Theoretically, we have enough room for everyone for the next millenium (fingers crossed for the ultropolis), however we don't have nearly enough food and water for everyone. Especially the way we waste it now.

The Adli Corporation wrote:

Duck wrote:You could just divide each country into new york sized population units and have them all live 100 miles apart. The total area would still be the size of texas, but you wouldn't have those proximity issues like sanitation or disease taking out the whole human race.

so... kind of like the multiple cities that already exist in each country, all of them pretty large?

But human's living spaces currently do not take up a land area the size of texas. Everyone doesn't live at the population density of New York. There's a lot of private property, people with big houses, etc.

In an emergency, we could have everyone move to a greater population density and use the land left over from everyone leaving it to produce more food.

That's really the only thing trying to be said here. It's not disputable. The only argument is whether or not the extra food/utility produced off of this gained land could be used to such a great extent that over population would be a non-issue.

Room where people live has a lot to do with over population because land where people are living is land we are not using to make food or produce energy or purify water or whatnot.

Frostbyrn wrote:Anyone else notice Kitsune quoted Spongebob?

No, they got their serious pants on too fast