Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso
The Western world has progressed massively technologically, achieved economies of scale, and it has under 1 billion. The argument is that an additional 6 billion people starting to consume more outweighs the benefit the world might accrue from that additional 6 billion people. At some point, the negatives outweigh the positives and we're well beyond that point. The world is better off with 1 billion wealthy, educated, technologically advanced people instead of what we have now: those 1 billion living in affluent nations + another 6 billion attempting to get there.
|
A billion Earth only with the wealthiest you're saying? They remain intact and the poorer are wiped out?
I understand 1 billion Earth with all parts losing population proportionally. Everybody sees 80% of population vanishing and that's certainly not a good thing. You, for one, are nationalist person and in several occasions manifested a desire twice as much as people in your country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor
I remember an old college lecture, where our prof highlighted that the Earth can sustain 30 billion people.The problem is human management..That's 30 billion people spread out and not concentrated. 30 billion people spread out and on the same page would be fantastic really!..Think of the innovations and creations that would come out of such a large pool of humans. but sadly we would screw it up, like we have done and keep doing.
|
I'd guess it would be the opposite: those 30 billion should be packed together in few high densities clusters leaving vast sections of Earth unscathed.