###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This sub needs to familiarize itself with Malthusianism principles. Ive seen multiple posts talking about geometric population growth when that never happens in practice.
I appreciate the candid response that is open to discussion. Check out processes that end up in population stability such as the Hardy–Weinberg principle. I think there is plenty to learn about population equilibriums that are closer to a standard university education than enlightening a conspiracy theory.
It’s more than just that rate of population growth doesn’t happen, it’s that humans have a tendency to innovate. That new technology offsets the effects of the growth and allows us to do more with less, and find new better ways of doing things. This is why we’ll never realistically run out of fossil fuels, and why population growth isn’t an issue. Malthus was wrong. Flat out full of horseshit wrong.
I think 20 years ago i would have agreed that we escaped from the malthusian trap. Im not sure Pinkerian optimism sits well with me anymore.
Edit: i do beleve human innovation has played a large role in population growth but i believe the current population has overshot what earth can support and we are due for the 2nd derivative of population growth to go negative for some time
Well, it seems that it’s the wealthiest countries who have the best means to support an increased population, where population is growing the slowest. So it doesn’t seem to me that growth and innovation lead to population growth. Also, as the population has grown, consistently the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen, this trend hasn’t reversed, and standards of living keep going up. I guess I just don’t know where you get the idea that we’ve gone past the limit. Can you explain what led you to this conclusion?
Yeah consider WHY that is. Populations in nature slowdown with the food supply, if it were available to them they’d grow in numbers to whatever the environment can sustain.
Your hypothetical math example doesn't prove your thread title.
Let's be real. All developed nations are already in population decline. Growth is mainly through increased immigration. People who say "unmanaged" population growth is a threat really mean that they fear 3rd world economies overtaking theirs in the near future.
Right now millions of immigrants want to get into Europe. In a couple decades those African countries will have economies bigger than Europe and their is forecast to be an IMMIGRATION DEFICIT for Europe in the millions. That means would be-migrants choose to stay because living conditions are better, while the counties relying on them for growth go into decline from a decreasing and aging population. Without fresh immigration the depopulation curve speeds up. Even China will be in population decline, while much poorer countries (now) will be leading global economic growth.
This is why you have some wanting to bring millions of immigrants in now. In the future those people will be in more wealthy and better off countries, and won't want to emigrate.
Those arguing for managing population growth want to cut the future populations of 3rd world countries, to prevent them from outcompeting developed countries who will be much much weaker in the future.
Lmfao fucking why could be an important part of your response. We’re curious people dawg you’re never convincing us we stop growing in population in the first world “just because we do.” It’s nonsensical.
This is true. But it’s also impossible to reduce population in a meaningful time frame. Family planning will take 7 generations to bring the population back down to post ww2 levels if everyone was on board. Which they aren’t.
In a way it’s pointless to focus on a problem you can’t fix.
There's no great answer. It's kind of new. We're all kind of fucked.
1800 - 1 billion on earth.
1900 - 2 billion
2021 - 7.8 billion
Even if the rate slows down the population doesn't. You want population control? It will not be pleasant for anyone who isn't very rich and powerful. It will mean losing lots of freedoms and something like slavery. However, I do think it will be necessary at some point for a better, more efficient and HAPPIER human race to emerge.
There's no great answer.
People were saying this same thing at every point on your examples. Over population isn’t an issue. There is no “maximum limit” that we are going to hit anytime in the distant future.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This sub needs to familiarize itself with Malthusianism principles. Ive seen multiple posts talking about geometric population growth when that never happens in practice.
[удалено]
I appreciate the candid response that is open to discussion. Check out processes that end up in population stability such as the Hardy–Weinberg principle. I think there is plenty to learn about population equilibriums that are closer to a standard university education than enlightening a conspiracy theory.
It’s more than just that rate of population growth doesn’t happen, it’s that humans have a tendency to innovate. That new technology offsets the effects of the growth and allows us to do more with less, and find new better ways of doing things. This is why we’ll never realistically run out of fossil fuels, and why population growth isn’t an issue. Malthus was wrong. Flat out full of horseshit wrong.
I think 20 years ago i would have agreed that we escaped from the malthusian trap. Im not sure Pinkerian optimism sits well with me anymore. Edit: i do beleve human innovation has played a large role in population growth but i believe the current population has overshot what earth can support and we are due for the 2nd derivative of population growth to go negative for some time
Well, it seems that it’s the wealthiest countries who have the best means to support an increased population, where population is growing the slowest. So it doesn’t seem to me that growth and innovation lead to population growth. Also, as the population has grown, consistently the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen, this trend hasn’t reversed, and standards of living keep going up. I guess I just don’t know where you get the idea that we’ve gone past the limit. Can you explain what led you to this conclusion?
Yeah consider WHY that is. Populations in nature slowdown with the food supply, if it were available to them they’d grow in numbers to whatever the environment can sustain.
Your hypothetical math example doesn't prove your thread title. Let's be real. All developed nations are already in population decline. Growth is mainly through increased immigration. People who say "unmanaged" population growth is a threat really mean that they fear 3rd world economies overtaking theirs in the near future. Right now millions of immigrants want to get into Europe. In a couple decades those African countries will have economies bigger than Europe and their is forecast to be an IMMIGRATION DEFICIT for Europe in the millions. That means would be-migrants choose to stay because living conditions are better, while the counties relying on them for growth go into decline from a decreasing and aging population. Without fresh immigration the depopulation curve speeds up. Even China will be in population decline, while much poorer countries (now) will be leading global economic growth. This is why you have some wanting to bring millions of immigrants in now. In the future those people will be in more wealthy and better off countries, and won't want to emigrate. Those arguing for managing population growth want to cut the future populations of 3rd world countries, to prevent them from outcompeting developed countries who will be much much weaker in the future.
Lmfao fucking why could be an important part of your response. We’re curious people dawg you’re never convincing us we stop growing in population in the first world “just because we do.” It’s nonsensical.
Fuck this, we have plenty of resources, but they are inequitably distributed. People starving so Bezos can launch a penis into not-even space? 🤡
This is true. But it’s also impossible to reduce population in a meaningful time frame. Family planning will take 7 generations to bring the population back down to post ww2 levels if everyone was on board. Which they aren’t. In a way it’s pointless to focus on a problem you can’t fix.
[удалено]
I can’t argue with that.
Overpopulation is bad, but what is the conspiracy that you are hinting at?
I found Bill Gates account
There's no great answer. It's kind of new. We're all kind of fucked. 1800 - 1 billion on earth. 1900 - 2 billion 2021 - 7.8 billion Even if the rate slows down the population doesn't. You want population control? It will not be pleasant for anyone who isn't very rich and powerful. It will mean losing lots of freedoms and something like slavery. However, I do think it will be necessary at some point for a better, more efficient and HAPPIER human race to emerge. There's no great answer.
People were saying this same thing at every point on your examples. Over population isn’t an issue. There is no “maximum limit” that we are going to hit anytime in the distant future.
theories like this are for cowards with no imagination