You're viewing a single thread.
Can't think of any particular reason we need to replace the US population. It seems like we've done enough.
EXACTLY. The entire fucking world is overpopulated. This is like one of the only good things going on right now on a large scale.
This isnt actually true.
The surface area of just the land alone on Earth is more than enough to house every human alive right now. Its actually more than enough to house every human that ever lived since the dawn of human history on it with room to spare according to expert calculations. The global population didnt even hit 1 billion people until like 1800. Now, if you subtract out all the currently unlivable areas because of nuclear radiation and harsh weather and such, you're still going to have enough land for every human alive right now to live comfortably.
Its just that modern humans hate the idea of living so spread out, and apparently all want to be stacked into the same 10 miles of land. Also, governments charge money for land, they're not giving that away for free.
EDIT: In case you or someone else wants to check exact math, heres the data:
Earth Land Area: 148,326,000 square km (this is actually only 30% of the Earths total surface area, the other 70% is covered by water)
Human population (total since dawn of humanity, estimated): ~110,000,000,000
Human population (current) ~8,000,000,000
My estimations put it at around 15,000 square feet per person ever born, or approximately 200,000 square feet per person alive right now.
Two things to consider:
-
Humans need to eat. The land needed for agriculture already covers significant percentage of the habitable land. About half based on our world in data [1]. Yes most of this is due to livestock so this can be significantly reduced but still.
-
Other species also need space to live. Even if you look at it in s strictly selfish fashion and disregard the right of other species to exist - we are part of the ecosystem so if it dies we die.
-
The land's not the problem though. Sustainable development is, and larger populations inevitably contribute to global warming, waste etc. The fact that cities only account for a small portion of land doesn't change anything. They will continue to exist and are only manageable if the population is controlled
Doesn't it take into account a lot more than just land though? Obviously the planet is huge but just because it could fit everyone doesn't mean the Earth's ecosystems would support it.
It's much - MUCH - more efficient to have most people living in a small amount of land than all spread out, American style. Look up the massive dead towns of America if you want proof. The U.S.A. is killing itself by spreading people further from civil centers in the name of short-term profits.
Maybe it would be better to replace it with Europeans?
Oh wait, already tried that...
Maybe it would be better for americans to stop creating even more suburbia and increasing their resource consumption transporting tons of food and water away from city centers. As a bonus, vehicle dependency lowers dramatically.