What is the maximum number of people that can co-exist on this planet?

New species proliferate in isolation. We come into the world autonomously and leave the same way. These are questions that each must answer for themselves according to their own interests or it is up to us to inform ourselves and teach our children well. I can think of no other way to get from where we are to where we would all like to be.

As to population, our current population explosion is the responsibility of the economic model of wealth accumulation. To the impoverished more children means more labor or greater income. Higher personal satisfaction holds down birthrates. Sustainable growth relies on organic processes while economic growth relies on abstract accounting and dreaming of better days.

 

ya'll aint seen a goddamn thin i promise fuckit anyways

tru liffe dats all that matter

 

We should strive for quality over quantity. I think 7 billion probably exceeds the maximum for every person to ever reach a high quality comfortable healthy life. What Americans call comfortable living is absolutely dependent on the child and slave labors and poverty of the workers far east. On this planet of 7 billion it takes the suffering and poverty of 10 people to make one easy comfortable life.

If we could ever reach a fully sustainable society with everyone living a good healthy quality life, the population probably would need to be under 1 billion. For and kind of long term stability.

 

So,if that is the case,how do we solve this.Either mass genocide or we invest massively into research and development into space travel and colonise the stars? (Alternatively,we could build underwater cities...)

 

What the hell...We could have cities in the sky...

 

The weird thing about this is that we think it should be any different. Life survives by making many copies so that a few may survive to bear fruit. Take some fishes for example who lay hundreds of eggs to have but tens survive to maturity and all those ones that didn't make it survive to varying degrees short of maturity and contribute materially to the survival of those that do. Some people live for ten minutes and some live for ninety years. There is no right to life but there is a right being extant to create temporary conditions for ourselves to the extent we are able. Vanity is a great contributor to our lack of respect for pristine nature.

One variable in this equation that hasn't been assigned it's lowest common denominator is the word comfortable. If by comfortable you mean easy, local conditions and place of birth and the way you manage your nervous system have as much to do with comfortable living as slave labor does. Abundant relatively unclaimed natural resources played a huge role in the development of the united states and we probably shouldn't ignore the pioneering efforts of so many of our indigenous citizens. Then there is the fact of course that even with every material advantage there is no guaranty of staving off suffering or the feeling of impoverishment. I also know people of scant means world wide who would not trade their life for anything. The poor we have with us always. I think the only thing missing from the probabilities of this world is understanding.

 

Yes, what we need is an influenza virus with pandemic potential genetically combined with smallpox or any other number of pathogens such as ebola or marburg to produce a chimera with a mortality rate of at least 95%


Hotwater

 

So you think we would be better off if 95% of people were dead...you would only have a 5% change of living.

 

I was being kinda sarcastic...I don't advocate genocide.

 

Maybe you were bring sarky too.

 

I don't think we currently make very efficient use of the available resources when you look at the whole. Far too much is thrown away or forgotten. That is the way much or the work of society is, the current task only matters for about 5 seconds, but you get paid.