Is world over-population really an issue?
83533
yes, but the way we americans like to respond to things we won't do a thing about it until america is overpopulated. Look at california, population around 27 million. Japan is roughly the same size as cali and has 140 million people. China has over a billion, and India is supposed to overtake china within the next 25 years...
128442
It's virtually impossible to know the actual population of the earth. Even if you somehow managed to count 6 billion + people, there would be more being born in the process than you could keep up with. Our best method is to do very well-calculated statistics and baset the population on that.
471202
Very bad...I sonetimes wonder if we have methods of indirect populatin control....attacks..diseases..cause their are only so many resources.....for so long...\n\nAnd with the rate of growth..its going to be interesting in 30 years..
215108
Good question but I have to say that messing with the universe is rather impulsive and risky. Perhaps we should look to simpler projects like over population or world peace?\n\n*wink*
116876
It is a symptom of a much bigger problem, namely overpopulation. This world is finite and if humans don't find a way to thin the herd mother nature will.
875281
Well, you would need more space for a big population. But, there are still some small countries and states that have big populations, which are somehow overwhelmed by the amount of people there. Some places like Asia, even with having a lot of land, have too many people in their population, and have to have many people leave.\n\nI hope this has helped you!
278808
I would go. It would be extremely exiting to live on and explore another world. I would go to an asteroid if they told me. Even that would be fascinating. \n\nAs for migrating off world to reduce the population of the world; let´s do some math. Earths population increases with about 100 million per year. With our current level of technology pushed to the limit we could only send out about 100 people a year. So even if we could increase that rate by a million we would only reach zero population growth. Birthcontrol is the only method for keeping the world from getting catastrophically overpopulated. Today the most developed nations in the world already have a near zero, or even negative, population growth.
504863
Overpopulation is one of the worst problems in India. India has very high Gross Domestic Product value but beacuse of overpopulation India's per capita income is quite low. Population growth according to some recent research can also be positive for India. Europe, Japan and China are losing people and that will create a workforce shortage. Number of elderly people would increase and they will demand their pensions. That would actually be bad for their economy. However, I believe that India will overcome all this challenges, like it always has. For example - countless number of invasions and tremendous ethnic diversity.
55977
Of course there are. There are millions all over the world :).
513651
Japan´s population has very low population growth, and has been going on for 20-25 years. \n\nChina is not overcrowded. Have you seen the amount of land they have? But yes, population grew at very high rates, so since the 1970, goverment has been teaching about birth control and forcing just 1 child per family.
1008896
It is the theory that - and pardon the layman's use of terms and simplification - man's population growth will overcome the ability of its agricultural resources to feed it. Given two groups of roughly equal people, the one with superior agricultural resources will grow faster than the one without (or with fewer) resources. \nThe theory appears to hold validity when applied to the animal world, but becomes more difficult to predict when the point of overbudening will occur with human beings. This may be due to a number of reasons, not the least which of them are technological advances in agriculture.
835888
Basing this on rough statistics you'd be looking at a maximum current population of about 60 million, give or take a million.  That is of course assuming that all other aspects remain the same.
609691
Billions and billions of people
429242
Everyone has a different idea of what a beautiful world would be like.  I can already tell you that if you are striving for world peace, your idea will never work.  If you think world-wide peace is a possibility, then you have a seriously skewed view of reality.\n\nCooperation can and will occur when natural resources are abundant.  When resources are scarce, competition increases and you will see more conflict.\n\nBut, I am an optimist and am curious.  What are some of your ideas?
60937
I agree with the ruling but could never do it myself. Lets face it overpopulation is the root of all our problems. pollution, hunger, disease, war. So it is a necessary evil. Unwanted babies very sad.
268152
It's a LOT more complicated that a maximum number of people per square mile.  You'd have to take into account how the land is being used.  And even when you fill the land you have, you can build up instead of out (if they can stack people 50 stories high, you've got a lot more people per area).  Ultimately, the number of people a country can support will depend more on other resources (like) than on surface area, and this is constantly changing, and a larger population will tend to produce more, too.  There's no really maximum occupancy of a country.
604184
The current world economic system is not sustainable. There must be a limit to the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, both between and within countries. Also we are using up irreplaceable natural resources (including oil but not only oil) and it has at last become obvious even to the most blinkered politicians that we are risking catastrophic climatic change by excessive use of resources.\n\nOur world leaders know all this, but do not know what to do about it. Also, short term greed prevents essential changes being made to address long-term problems. Computerized systems make things worse when they are used to intensify social control instead of listen to people's expressions of their needs.\n\nThere are two possibilities. Firstly, our leaders can evolve systems which are more responsive to economic imperatives and human desires. Secondly, there could be catastrophic breakdown, probably resulting in widespread war, competing localized political dictatorships and many people dying of starvation and other needs which cannot be met in the absence of effective government.\n\nThe human population is exploding in numbers. We are seeing many features, such as widespread psychological stress, defence of territory (elite nations and luxury houses) by dominant individuals within the species and changing birth rates, along the lines of experiments carried out years ago by biologists investigating overcrowding .\n\nBiologists provided rats in a cage with all their needs so that the only limitation on breeding was limited space. They biologists found that the population grew and grew until there was a sudden collapse to leave just a few survivors. A parrallel could happen in the human world with a pandemic such as "bird flu". I don't want to die in a pandemic, nor do I want the enormous human misery it would bring to those who did catch the disease. But the reduction in population a pandemic like the fourteenth century Black Death would bring (particularly if it killed off MORE than the quarter of the population culled by the Black Death) would make the economic and social systems more stable. Scarce labour would also reduce inequality. A major conventional world war could have similar "benefits" and, I emphasise, objections.