What's the optimum human population of the Earth?

[Bosh]

I think a little over a billion would be good. That's what it was at the start of the industrial revolution...

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
It its like humans always fill the empty space

That's what organisms do. We fill space. It's our biological imperative.

I'm for as many people as we can fit. If technology progresses to the point at which 100 Billion can live here comfortably, then bring on 100 Billion. Each new person brings the chance for a new Da Vinci, a new Einstein, and one step closer to discovering a way off of this rock.

[GePap]

Whatever the population of earth is today - anyone asking this question or giving "serious" answers.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by GePap
Whatever the population of earth is today - anyone asking this question or giving "serious" answers.

I think a few words are missing in here, or maybe I'm just tired.

[Kuciwalker]

- = minus.

[Dinner]

'What's the optimum human population of the Earth?"

0

[Ned]

This question is almost like saying that we want to declare sub-Saharan Africa to be a wild-animal refuge, and moving its population to Siberia.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Spiffor
2.

Myself and the best woman in the world

This is a small thinking.

Why just the best? Why not the best, the second best and the third, just as a backup?


Seriously, I read an article once (I don't remember where, or when) talking about 1 billion. Seems fair to me...

[Ned]

The question itself implies government power to effect the result. I wouldn't want to live in such a world.

[Lancer]

It's a simple question.

[Ned]

Lancer, I don't even like it when people think that way.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Aro


This is a small thinking.

Why just the best? Why not the best, the second best and the third, just as a backup?

I agree with that. There's always a 25% risk it's the wrong time of the month. Why do you think a good muslim has 4 wifes, no more, no less?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ned
The question itself implies government power to effect the result. I wouldn't want to live in such a world.

You wouldn't

[Donegeal]

To be in a situation where we can control the population to an exact degree, we'd be much better off tech-wise. With better tech comes better recycling and such (why else would we be getting +1 health and +1 happy for every future tech?). This means the earth would be able to sustain a very large number of people.

100 billion sounds good.

[Lancer]

This planet is like a spaceship for humanity. There's nothing wrong with determining the optimum size of the crew. If mankind colonizes Mars won't we set a population limit that can be sustained? Earth is a finite thing on which we can't expand infinately. For instance, the population of the Philippines is killing the reefs upon which they depend for life. This means the optimum population is lower than it currently is. A correction caused by starvation and disease will likely bring it lower than optimum due to damage to the environment. From there the survivors may have gained the wisdom to control their population in order to prevent such a calamity happening again.