I think it is.

i have to agree with you

compared to what? and if you want to talk environmental damage then maybe it should be phrased like the omni suv people are overpopulated.

hot vegan girls, still way underpopulated IMHO

LOL at otomik

Our planet is clearly overpopulated. Not a whole lot to be done about it really, but it's hard to think of a serious case for needing lots more people at this point.

(Anyone care to present one?)

compared to what? and if you want to talk environmental damage then maybe it should be phrased like the omni suv people are overpopulated.

hot vegan girls, still way underpopulated IMHO

Well there's about 10 billion people in the world, and it's goin up. In the future, we will be too big 4 earth.

I would say that ther eis a cas eof overpopulation. Or at least I speculate that in later years, the population will grow to an amount that we cannot sustain, or that circumstances will change and mean that we cannot sustain present population levels.

My relatively unresearched guess is that it is not so much a matter of overpopulation as it is a matter of overconsumption. The earth can support a lot more who live simply than it can when a percentage overconsume.

Yes, we are overpopulated on this planet. But what can we do? Mass Genicide? I think NOT!
I think that the problem isn't so much as space for the people, but the ammount of resources that we have avaliable to us. Think about this, in about 50 year, when many of us will still be alive I can only assume, there will be way more enviornmental problems, and I think that water will be harder and harder to come by, not necisarly in 50 years, but think about it, if things keep heating up like this, the time will come...

Should we factor in the current rate of growth? The rate of acceleration thereof? If not, well, humans currently produce enough food to feed themselves (but there are some pesky issues with distribution). I'll have to give a qualified "sorta".

ebola

Well there's about 10 billion people in the world, and it's goin up. In the future, we will be too big 4 earth.

Just to nickpick there are actually about 6.5 billion on the earth.

hot vegan girls, still way underpopulated IMHO

If that is all you want, move to Portland, you will be a busy man indeed.

My relatively unresearched guess is that it is not so much a matter of overpopulation as it is a matter of overconsumption. The earth can support a lot more who live simply than it can when a percentage overconsume.yeah, more girls with shorter hair, less power needed for blowdryers. petite girls favoring highyield grains (indian, asian and italian girls). I could really go for this, nice to see everyone sees it my way.

Hooray for the petite girls, we're more enviromentally friendly. :cool: As long as we don't have hair to our knees.

I don't think the earth was really meant to hold as many people as it is. Does anyone have any statistics on whether we're still having as many babies as, say, 50 years ago?

Fetch me my semi-automatic weapon. Ill fix this over population sh!t.

I don't think the earth was really meant to hold as many people as it is. Does anyone have any statistics on whether we're still having as many babies as, say, 50 years ago?if by "we're" you mean developed western countries then the answer is "no" if by "we're" you mean humanity as a whole then the answer is "kind of, not quite but certainly more people are surviving than used to"

http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html

I don't think the earth was really meant to hold as many people as it is.or have as many people living as long, which is why we all need Logan's Run style ritual suicide at the age of 30 :idea:

Well considering that there are statisticians specifically in the field of determining earth’s rate of overpopulation and when/how much damage will occur assuming we continue at the rate we are, I’d say it’s definitely a problem.

I don't think mass genocide is best... how about getting spaded/neudered and stop having so much sex. ;) Down with hoe houses!lol :lol:

stop having so much sex.
:surprised: surely you jest? :p

...but a little less procreatin' would be nice.

>>how about getting spaded/neudered and stop having so much sex. Down with hoe houses!lol >>

There exist vasectomies, condoms, etc. :)

ebola

if by "we're" you mean developed western countries then the answer is "no" if by "we're" you mean humanity as a whole then the answer is "kind of, not quite but certainly more people are surviving than used to"

http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html

or have as many people living as long, which is why we all need Logan's Run style ritual suicide at the age of 30 :idea:

Err, yes, sorry, I did mean the developed western countries. I said more originally, then edited it. I actually meant Canada and the US specifically.

There exist vasectomies, condoms, etc. :)every sperm is sacred:angel::hump:

the overpopulation problem isn't in the developed world, look at that list again
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html

sterilization gets contraversial real quick
with these government incentives are you trying to exterminate marginalized minorities by targeting the underclass with these financial incentives?

I don't know about you but all that politics gives me a headache, a more practical solution would be a doomsday weapon unleashed upon the surface while me and a few thousand hot vegan girls hang out in my lunar base for a few years. we can decend to the surface in a few years, wipe out a few remaining mutants and zombies with kalashnikovs and settle down for some serious baby making.

Yeah, there are a couple different ways I imagine one could interpret this. There's the "are there more humans than our natural environment would suggest", for which the answer is obviously yes. Then there's the "are there more humans than our planet's resources and infrastructure can potentially support", then the answer is mixed, but in general no. If the question is, "are there so many humans our planet can't possibly support this many and a global die-off is in the works", then I think the answer is a pretty secure no, assuming our infrastructure advances in step with our population.

>>Originally Posted by Gnome Chomsky
There exist vasectomies, condoms, etc.
every sperm is sacred

the overpopulation problem isn't in the developed world, look at that list again
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2054rank.html

sterilization gets contraversial real quick
with these government incentives are you trying to exterminate marginalized minorities by targeting the underclass with these financial incentives?>>

well, yes, on all counts. Reply to people's jokes seriously.

ebola

well, yes, on all counts. Reply to people's jokes seriously.well I did think there was a serious element to it, India's strategy involves sterilization with incentives, it's viable but contraversial.

I'm sure we could stand to have less humans, but I don't think we're all going to die (for that reason, anyway).