That’s what they said in 1968. They were wrong.
Sure it will. The breaking strain of even thin ocean crust is way higher than the pressure that even a pile of bodies several layers deep would cause. Although it would make a great xkcd “What If?”
Oh, you want all 9.7 billion alive? That’s harder, but perfectly doable. Just get used to either a shittier environment & climate, or a slightly downgraded level of consumption.
There are many threads on this topic and no one answer.
People was saying 100 years ago we would have major food crisis and look we are in the year 2016 and no food crisis.
We have enough food to go around for everyone yes everyone!! But many people lack food because of a distribution problem. And war and politics get in way.
We have enough gas and oil to last 100 years from now and enough coal to last 300 years from now!!
All the people world can fit into state of Texas
**The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and it’d only have the population density of New York City! **
But I also hear if anyone was a middle class American live in house not a apartment, own SUV and drive to walmart and mall!!! Living in the suburb not the city than it would require at least two or three planets like size of Earth.
Here some interesting facts some problem.
**Marine crisis:
North Atlantic cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.
Pollution:
The United States places the greatest pressure on the environment, with its carbon dioxide emissions and over-consumption. It takes 12.2 hectares of land to support each American citizen and 6.29 for each Briton, while the figure for Burundi is just half a hectare.
Shrinking Forests:
Between 1970 and 2002 forest cover has dwindled by 12 per cent.
Endangered wildlife:
African elephant numbers have fallen from 1.2 million in 1980 to half a million now. In the UK the songbird population has fallen dramatically, with the corn bunting declining by 92 per cent in the past 30 years.
**
That’s not terribly reassuring to someone thinking of starting a family and hoping to have great grandchildren.
Don’t worry, the first couple of generations will be fine. After that, big shortages and energy crises, but, hey, in the short run, we’re just jolly.
In the last 35 years the number of people on earth has increased by about 61%. In that time calories consumed per person has gone up 10%. Total world GDP per capita has gone up by 128% during that same time. 9.7 billion is only a 31% increase from the current number. Why is the next 35 years going to be so much worse than the previous 35?
The doomsayers have always been wrong and they will continue to be. 9.7 billion people in 2050 will live better lives than the current 7.4 billion.
Yes, interesting for some problem I suppose. The cod estimate is very old, it turns out to be much worse than that factoid reveals. But never fear! There is new breeding ground for cod opening up every day as the arctic icecap disappears. Forest shrinkage of only 12% over 32 years starting in 1970 is pretty good! We could easily have hit 50% if we really tried. I don’t know what ‘corn bunting’ is but I suppose it has something to do with that weird form of baseball they play wherever it is that ‘hectare’ is a real word.
To sum up, all you’ve done is show that we can support increasing population while still destroying our resources.
I am not a doomsayer and I do think things CAN get better, but some of the numbers are a bit concerning:
*At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.
Number of children in the world - 2.2 billion.
Number in poverty - 1 billion (every second child).
Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
1.6 billion people — a quarter of humanity — live without electricity.*
I am not saying we can’t get more people living better, as you say, but we have work to do.
We may see widespread adoption of vertical farming (think skyscrapers full of hydroponics). It’s not economically feasible now, largely because it requires a lot of energy. There are some interesting high-tech farms out there already, though. They tend to be very water-efficient and require less in the way of fertilizer and pesticides compared to conventional farms, and that’ll be a big plus in the coming decades.
All of the poverty statistics are getting better even as the population is getting higher.
35 years ago 44% of the world was living on under $1.90 a day, today 10% are. There have not been this few people living in absolute poverty in two hundred years when the total population of the earth was just over a billion people. I am old enough to remember some very well respected people predicting hundreds of millions of people starving to death in the 1980s and instead we have seen the greatest decrease in poverty in the history of the world. Doomsayers are always wrong.
But those are very large countries with lots of arable land. Why do we need fewer Chinese, based on the arbitrary fact that China’s borders are really wide? Why not reduce the number of people we have in any number of other, more crowded countries? Why the hell do we need thirteen million Dutch?
The UN says global extreme poverty below 10% for the first time ever. The World Bank has the goal of ending poverty by 2030. Maybe they won’t hit it but even having a realistic chance at ending poverty is a good sign and certainly not worthy of doom.
Interestingly, no one apparently checks for newer information on these things. So let’s take a look at them one by one:
The cod stocks are rebounding quite nicely due to cuts in fishing. Linky.
This one is a bit harder to debunk as one would have to define ‘over-consumption’ but I will just ignore that piece.
CO2 emissions in the U.S. are trending down 10 percent in the last decade. Or so sayth the E.P.A. The real problem (assuming you believe that CO2 is gonna kill us all, a proposition I strongly disagree with), the real culprit is China. China is about twice the U.S. and India increasing. Of course, China and India want to feed their people instead of starving, those bastards!
Deforestation is slowing. Most of the deforestation is happening in Africa and South America. Linky.
The main causes of deforestation in these areas is to make cropland and pasture. Wanna fix this, get modern farming techniques in place that increase yield. Get good governments in place.
Wanna save the elephants? Get the people who live around the elephants to stopkilling each other.
The problem isn’t over population. Things are getting better in most places. In the places that it is not getting better the cause of the problems aren’t over population but rather politics/religion/hatred which lead to people killing other people and blowing shit up.
Slee
I imagine there were similar discussion when the population hit 1 billion. I also imagine there will be similar discussions when the population hits 10 billion.
The earth can support 500 billion people - it’s only a question of whether technology, medicine, finance etc can support that may, but if the growth happens at a natural rate, and not all at once, then I wouldn’t expect there to a problem.
Everything is getting cheaper, and with the availability of genuine 3D printers in the future, coupled with artificial meat, we’ll be able to ‘literally’ produce food and material from ‘thin air’.
It seems far fetched, but we’re talking 30 years tops for all of this new technology.
I thought the big reason people are cutting down the forests and jungles in Africa and South America is so they can build homes? Big reason is city sprawl. Getting land so they can build homes for all those people?
No, it is my understanding the forests are being removed to make way for food growing, such as cattle and crops, not commercial-level logging/lumber. The problem is much of the rain forest, at least, is of poor soil, so after the forest is removed and/or burned, they get 1-2 years of decent crops before they have to move on to another spot. What’s left is a scrappy piece of land with no trees and lots of erosion.
In Africa, large scale deforestation is often export-oriented commercial logging. Local-level deforestation is often from collecting wood for cooking fires in places where people can’t afford or prefer not to use propane. Climate change and erosion doesn’t help.
I’m not a South America expert, but isn’t the deforestation of the Amazon largely driven by commercial beef productions?
My understanding was closer to snowthx’s (commercial beef ranching being a subset of food production.) Do you have a cite that African deforestation is largely due to commercial logging? If that drives deforestation, what becomes of the land after the timber is produced?