Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 03:00:46 UTC No. 16250269

>>16250209
>but it would be impossible
Why? Birth rates in all countries are falling down, most are already way below replacement rate. Half a century more and all the stragglers like African countries are also gonna go through the demographic shift. Unless stuff like artificial wombs is created and widely deployed to give birth to more humans humanity's gonna face a population collapse

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 03:25:28 UTC No. 16250296

>>16250269
Huh, well I mean what are the expectations or consequences of a lower population if it was like 3-4 billions consistently as time moved on to the likes of the 2000-2010s?

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:13:57 UTC No. 16251462

>>16250209
>I'm considering a hypothetical idea of a world holding about 3-6 billion people
18 million people is the only completely ecological answer. The natural state of Homo sapiens in its natural environment and in balance with its natural habitat.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 23:52:53 UTC No. 16251885

>>16251462
>18 million people is the only completely ecological answer.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 05:38:26 UTC No. 16252221

>>16251462
I believe though that is WAYYYY too much and nearly at the end's limit for a overpopulation.

I suggested 3-4 billion like I mentioned

sage at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 06:55:05 UTC No. 16252277

>>16250209

What problem do you want to solve by reducing the number of people living on Earth?

>Lack of food?
The food industry already produces far more than we consume, and waste is a scourge.
>Lack of space?
The vast majority of our land is empty.
>Pollution?
It's companies and industries that pollute.
>Energy?
It's the oil industries that are raping the Earth and preventing the development of clean energies that would be enough to serve 100 times the human population.

You see, it's not the human population that's the problem, it's capitalism.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 07:03:54 UTC No. 16252281

>>16252221
>I believe though that is WAYYYY too much
18M people is too much?!?
I wasn't expecting that, lol.

Well, it doesn't matter, it was just an exercise in ecological sci-fi.

3-4 billion people would be a very modern society. That was basically the population around the 1970s.

So the world would have a bit less manpower. but on the other hand we now have much more knowledge and improved technology, so I would guess we'd be equally as productive, if not more. But probably more.

We'd probably keep on consuming absurd amount of natural resources/capita, unsustainably so.