[Victoribus Spolia]

Similar to my opinion on peak whales. Oil production will peak someday, probably fairly soon, but by then it won't matter much. Burning petroleum for its energy content makes as little sense as burning whales for their energy content. It's far more useful as a chemical feedstock, for lubricants, etc.

Interesting comparison. Agree completely.

The solar energy received by the earth's surface in one day is greater than all the energy humanity has ever obtained from petroleum, or ever will. Solar is getting cheaper, and will continue to do so. Oil is getting costlier, and will continue to do so. Someday quite soon those price trends will cross, and oil will no longer be useful as an energy source except for aviation, at high latitudes, etc.

Also excellent. My home I am building in the spring is all off-grid and my electricity will be 100% solar provided.

[anasawad]

@Truth To Power
True, it'll be costly in terms of energy at first, but the more the world develops the more resources needed, and with climate change and the already existing environmental damage, those resources need to be found somewhere else, so there needs to be a more reliable method to transport large amounts of resources from other planets without having to wait several months for each shipment but a stable and steady stream of resources and raw materials.

[Oxymandias]

@anasawad

Why would it be impossible ? I don't see how a corporation wouldn't view it favorably to magnify their production and reducing the per unit production cost in the same time.
Isn't that what GMOs all about ? corporations spending 10s of billions of dollars just to improve production volume and efficiency ?

GMOs are completely different situations from vertical farms. Furthermore, GMOs were first used by the government and created by government funding of universities. Without government involvement, the market may not even have utilized GMOs.

First, lets explain what planned cities look are like, for this example, lets take Hong Kong.
Hong Kong is a city with lots and lots of empty areas around it that are viable for construction, yet the state artificially limit the access of investors to those area in order to boost the realstate market by increasing investment in some areas while cutting it short in others.
The government of Hong Kong plans ahead the development, construction, and expansion of the city, and then both private investors and the state itself act in accordance.
That is how cities are planned. Planned cities doesn't mean that the state is building a city from scratch.

Hong Kong is not a planned city by any means. In fact, one of the core ideology that permeated Hong Kong's government was the idea of having the least amount of government involvement in the economy. The point was to have as little planning as possible and let the market do whatever it wants. What you have described seems to be regulations and not a planned city.

For the need for political change, again, its not needed, the introduction of a new policy to go forward with such projects is needed if the state is the one doing them, or if private corporations are going with them, then a state permit is needed. The political system doesn't have to change entirely to go with large projects.

I never said anything about changing the political system.

Planned cities if built from scratch like some ghost cities in China do indeed tend to fail since the market didn't lead the decision, but in the same time for China and those ghost cities it doesn't matter, since those cities are being built to boost up the GDP by funneling money into the market through construction companies and whether the cities succeeded or not is a side effect not the main goal.

The market doesn't decide if people want to live there or not. The market follows society, not the other way around. Furthermore, the market isn't a homogeneous entity that decides anything. The market follows demand. If people want a city, then the market will build a city. The issue with market lead decisions is that the market isn't organized and is competitive by nature. The only way for the market to be organized if it is run under a monopoly but a monopoly doesn't need to follow demand. This means that cities must be built in coordination with society and the state. The state must incentivize individual people and communities to move or establish cities. Then the market will adapt to the demands of the individual people and communities that move to the cities.

Also in China, the state is currently planning to establish mega cities by connecting its main coastal cities both with other cities and the surrounding country side of those cities. The state is not building everything itself, rather it plans and supervises the expansion and give incentives for private investors to do the construction and new corporations to set up shop in those areas in order for the plans to go as intended.

Based on what you're telling me about these mega cities, they don't seem to be planned. This seems to be connecting various cities, not planning a new one.

If we are taking the US as an example, the US population in overwhelming population rejects Trump, the reason he became president is because the establishment is incredibly corrupt, and the choice in the last election was either the establishment (Hillary Clinton) or a dumb as hell lunatic (Donald Trump). So most people threw a wild card and picked Trump. If Bernie Sanders wasn't cheated out of the election, then he'd have won easily.

Well I guess I have been exposed to too many right wing lunatics and just thought that most of America thought like that.

And while political change does follow social change, its not just a "little late", its way too late.
And even in republics (note I said republics not democracies, big difference and most of the world countries are republics) where there are "democratic" elections, money plays a much bigger role than social changes, but it may seem from afar that social change leads to political change because social changes change market demand patterns and behaviors which changes the economy and the economic changes make political changes happen. This is a feature of capitalism, and even in non-capitalist countries, since they're part of the world, and the world order is capitalist, then the same applies to them.

By political change, I don't mean change in the political system itself. It's much more broader and more narrower than that.

Many people like the idea of space elevators for example, but when the pay time comes, people in general wont pay for it, an example of this is NASA which everyone in the US likes and wants to go to Mars and all, but when the funding part comes in, 50 billion dollars is already considered too much for tax payers to pay and they prefer it goes somewhere else.
So wanting a space elevator is one thing, and paying for it is another. If the people want and are welling to pay for it, then it'll happen. If not, then no.

That's kind of what I was talking about but I also included social commitment as well. We need society to be committed to the idea of the space elevator, not just pay it lip service. We need less people talking about how good something could be and more people making that something. Also I'm an advocate for Modern Monetary Theory so taxation is irrelevant to me although that is a completely different discussion.

So if we were to say, we need to put this amount of money to establish this project, but in effect the price of food for example will drop by this percentage, people are going to say yes do spend that tax money there.
And in a capitalist economy, a corporation that does find a way to massively boost production will have much more competitive advantage and burn out competition which will give it even bigger advantage and leverage. Which is why, as stated before, corporations in the agriculture sector already spend 10s of billions of dollars on research in GMOs.

That's kind of dangerous since it gives that corporation leverage over a significant portion of society. This means that corporation has hold over the government. I think it's better if the government hires a corporation to build the vertical farms and then give the land on those farms to local farmers or, more preferably, botanists.

Vertical farms and GMOs and others are some of the solutions thought of to solve the problem.
Infact, the idea of vertical farms came up due to the government trying to find a solution to the problem of inflation in Iran and how to provide better accessibility to basic products in the country. (it was in 2014 during the sanctions, and now the sanctions are back on, its even more likely to see those coming back, since we're already stuffing mountains with nuclear reactors and military basis and weapons factories, why not farms. )

There's probably loads of other even better ideas we simply haven't thought of yet. We're going in the right direction but we need to widen our options and thus, opportunities.

Actually, to be honest, this is one of the biggest reasons why I want sanctions. It gets people creative and makes the government more willing to listen to unorthodox or weird but genius ideas since the government desperately wants to keep the population happy.

Dude, almost all cities in the world are planned, the state plans it, introduce the policy and incetivize investors, then supervise the development. Thats how cities are built, pretty much all of them. The development and construction of what the people want is based on market demands.

Alright, let's settle exactly what a planned city is. A planned city is any community that was carefully planned from its inception and is typically constructed on previously undeveloped land. Based on this point what you are describing can be a planned city. However, not all cities are planned. Most of them are emergent. They result from a certain set of circumstances (such as Shanghai being a trading hub or Baghdad being the center of the government) and emerge as well-known cities. Paris was originally like this as was London, Madrid, Monaco, etc.

You are right in one thing that emergent cities have though. Their development is significantly based on market demand.

When a state is planning an expansion for a city lets say, they don't say we want a night club here, and the bar over there, etc. Those are called residential, business, industrial or financial hubs or areas and they are built inside or near an already existing city.
What the state does plan is how the infrastructure, building distribution (i.e how the buildings are organized next to each other), roads, railways if included, subways, utility centers, etc. They say this area is residential, the invested construction company then decides what type of residential complexes to build there based on the market demand. If they said this area should be where the businesses and corporations are, the investors whether private or state owned corporations decide independently where to set their offices, what type of offices or facilities they want to put there or in general what to invest in in that area.
Thats how cities are planned, and all of them are planned.

What you are describing is zoning. Simply because a city has zoning doesn't mean it's planned.

And you're giving them all more resources, simply the share of each class of the overall income changes.
This is the purpose of income taxes, to redistribute newly created wealth to other classes, and all countries do it. Again, this is why European major countries have better living standards, they improve production and efficiency then introduce a legal system to fairly distribute the newly created wealth and countries with small or no income tax don't.
Though some countries fail in that due to corruption. Namely the US, Since they have legal bribery there (lobbying) and you can already see the results.

Wait are you agreeing with me or disagreeing here?

Unless you have bigger plans than just staying exactly where you are without progress.
If you haven't noticed in the case of Iran, the goal is building an empire, and you need more productivity and progress to do that, and to have that you need to improve living standards.

I think you misunderstood my point. I don't think Iran isn't progressing, I was simply playing devil's advocate.

Part 2 is coming up. I don't have the time to finish addressing your points now.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
True, it'll be costly in terms of energy at first, but the more the world develops the more resources needed, and with climate change and the already existing environmental damage, those resources need to be found somewhere else, so there needs to be a more reliable method to transport large amounts of resources from other planets without having to wait several months for each shipment but a stable and steady stream of resources and raw materials.

Supply obtained by orbital changes can be just as stable and steady for ensuring supply as ion beams, just not as quick. Remember, lead times for these projects are probably going to be very long anyway -- years if not decades -- because of the inherent limitations of interplanetary distances. That is one of the things that makes space exploration hard: the timelines of such projects are irreducibly much longer than the typical lifespan of the governments that initiate and fund them. But I think you'll find that the energy cost of what you propose is so great that it will basically never be competitive with other sources of supply, including terrestrial mining and recycling.

[jimjam]

If the earth's population went from 2,000,000,000 to 7,600,000,000 in one generation, it will undoubtedly grow exponentially over the next generation to …….. 20,000,000,000. What would life look like under these dynamics, if anything?

[anasawad]

@Truth To Power
True now the energy cost could be too much, though I'd say by that time we probably would have developed a much more power energy systems.
Though to be honest I don't really know. The space comment was just thrown in there as a little joke with @Zionist Nationalist and it dragged me into an entirely different conversation.

@Oxymandias
Ok, 'll respond when you finish your next part, but before all, it appears that we really aren't talking about the same terms and talking over each other, so;
This is the definition of zoning:

Zoning is the process of dividing land in a municipality into zones (e.g. residential, industrial) in which certain land uses are permitted or prohibited.[1] The type of zone determines whether planning permission for a given development is granted. Zoning may specify a variety of outright and conditional uses of land. It may also indicate the size and dimensions of land area as well as the form and scale of buildings. These guidelines are set in order to guide urban growth and development.[2][3]

Areas of land are divided by appropriate authorities into zones within which various uses are permitted.[4] Thus, zoning is a technique of land-use planning as a tool of urban planning used by local governments in most developed countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning

City planning is a much broader field than it seems to be acknowledged.

And Hong Kong is planned this way BTW.

[Truth To Power]

If the earth's population went from 2,000,000,000 to 7,600,000,000 in one generation, it will undoubtedly grow exponentially over the next generation to …….. 20,000,000,000. What would life look like under these dynamics, if anything?

Life looks a lot better with 7G people than it did with 1G, so maybe 20G will be even better. The number of people won't be the determining factor. Institutional arrangements will.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If the earth's population went from 2,000,000,000 to 7,600,000,000 in one generation, it will undoubtedly grow exponentially over the next generation to …….. 20,000,000,000. What would life look like under these dynamics, if anything?

Except the stats don't show that happening, population rate is actually dropping. The exponential rate increase happened in the late industrial revolution through the early-to-mid 20th century (due to public sanitation and antibiotics mostly), then stabilized, and now the rate of growth is dropping off sharp and fast.

Life looks a lot better with 7G people than it did with 1G, so maybe 20G will be even better. The number of people won't be the determining factor. Institutional arrangements will.

Correct. Well said.

[Drlee]

Same thing, this does not mean we don't have enough food, lumber, and space for the population, we have that in spades, this is a question pertaining to whether first-world lifestyles are good and sustainable. I boldly say that they aren't, but you are confusing different issues.

Like one poster said above, if we all lived like the amish there would not be any problems worth discussing.

I agree with this. First world population growth is far more important than the number of farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. (For example.)

Look at energy consumption per person by country. These figures are really not comparable. Canada, for example consumes more per person than the US does. But why? Perhaps it is because they lack a temperate zone as we have? Or they drive further? Or they have huge transmission losses because they service smaller populations over a greater area? Or they play their radios louder? Whatever.

As VS said, current first world lifestyles may not be sustainable.

But that begs the question. What has to change? Certainly we have to stop the reckless destruction of our environment. We have to cut greenhouse gasses. Of course the Trump administration and republican party have taken money to deny this but the science is pretty clear.

I think though, that the assumption that consumption = happiness is what has to be challenged. I live in a far smaller house than I can afford. It is on a bigger piece of property than it requires. We xeriscape, use solar, capture our meager rainfall for watering the container plants we have, share with the javelinas, coyotes, rabbits and birds. We are probably more efficient than a city dweller in an apartment. It is not about space or even population as much as it is about unchecked consumption.

[jimjam]

Life looks a lot better with 7G people than it did with 1G, so maybe 20G will be even better. The number of people won't be the determining factor. Institutional arrangements will.

I guess this depends on who is looking and where they are looking. Things don't look so good in the Horn of Africa these days: The region was hit by an 18-month drought caused by El Niño and higher temperatures linked to climate change. Now, in the midst of even more drought, the situation has become catastrophic, causing crops to fail and cattle to die. In addition, the lack of clean water increases the threat of cholera and other diseases.

Across Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, and the autonomous region of Somaliland, 10.7 million people are facing severe hunger. There are increasing concerns that the situation will get much worse, as rainfall in March and early April was very low in places. Poor rainfall is forecast for April through June, the end of the rainy season.

I agree with you up to a point but doubt that the human race will be experiencing ecstasy when global population hits 100,000,000,000.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I agree with you up to a point but doubt that the human race will be experiencing ecstasy when global population hits 100,000,000,000.

Sure, but at some point every hypothetical breaks down.

Thats like asking someone who supports welfare in a fiscally responsible context if they would still support such with a population that was 100% disabled.

It kinda misses the point.

The issues we are facing right now are not population based, they are resource mismanagement based. The reality regarding space and food is that we can easily sustain far more people than we currently have. Obviously, if we have more people than the earth has sitting-room, then yes in that instance the issue might be population, but that isn't even part of the discussion.

Right now everyone could live comfortably in the state of texas and be fed from a single plateau in africa. That being true pretty much spells out that overpopulation hysterics are a bunch of horseshit.

Which in turn means that if your big policy initiative is to save the world from starvation by sending condoms to the Congo and encouraging childlessness in the continental U.S., then you're basically retarded.

[Suntzu]

Sure, but at some point every hypothetical breaks down.

Thats like asking someone who supports welfare in a fiscally responsible context if they would still support such with a population that was 100% disabled.

It kinda misses the point.

The issues we are facing right now are not population based, they are resource mismanagement based. The reality regarding space and food is that we can easily sustain far more people than we currently have. Obviously, if we have more people than the earth has sitting-room, then yes in that instance the issue might be population, but that isn't even part of the discussion.

Right now everyone could live comfortably in the state of texas and be fed from a single plateau in africa. That being true pretty much spells out that overpopulation hysterics are a bunch of horseshit.

Which in turn means that if your big policy initiative is to save the world from starvation by sending condoms to the Congo and encouraging childlessness in the continental U.S., then you're basically retarded.

Why are Africans starving?

[jimjam]

It kinda misses the point.

what is the point?

Right now everyone could live comfortably in the state of texas

You are scaring me. Define "comfort". "everyone".

if your big policy initiative is to save the world from starvation

I have no policy initiative and, if "overpopulation" problems do arise, I doubt their primary manifestation will be starvation.

I simply threw this out as a result of some personal observations. here are two:
1) We are destroying the environment with a by product of abject greed ….. pollution.
2) Global warming is rendering ever larger areas arid and unable to produce food for the growing numbers of people living in proximity to these areas. For this and other reasons we now see millions of people migrating to and fro simply looking for a decent standard of living. The atmosphere of hatred and violence directed at these "illegals" grows by the day and gives wannabe dictators what they need to scare people into giving them power.



I do not share your optimism in the wisdom of the human race to effectively implement the solutions you suggest. We are incapable of large scale management for the common good over a long period of time. We will kill the goose that is laying the golden egg.

I hope you are right and I am wrong.

[anasawad]

@Oxymandias
ok, since 'm bored and it seems you're running late on the second half, 'll respond to this half now.
Cant let you have the last word.

GMOs are completely different situations from vertical farms. Furthermore, GMOs were first used by the government and created by government funding of universities. Without government involvement, the market may not even have utilized GMOs.

Not really, they're in different fields of science and technology, sure, but they're both solutions to the same problem.

Hong Kong is not a planned city by any means. In fact, one of the core ideology that permeated Hong Kong's government was the idea of having the least amount of government involvement in the economy. The point was to have as little planning as possible and let the market do whatever it wants. What you have described seems to be regulations and not a planned city.

Their policies and laws says otherwise.
Much of Hong Kong's economy is highly affected by government policies regarding development and growth.

I never said anything about changing the political system.

You said political change, not policy change.

The market doesn't decide if people want to live there or not. The market follows society, not the other way around.

True, I doubt I said otherwise.
The point this way in response to was regarding Chinese ghost cities, and the fact their purpose is not specifically about people living there but rather to buff up the GDP and growth.

Furthermore, the market isn't a homogeneous entity that decides anything. The market follows demand. If people want a city, then the market will build a city.

Its a two way street, the market also has corporations that uses propaganda (i.e marketing and advertising) to affect people's opinions.
And the government can institute policies to incentivise corporations to go a certain way, and themselves leading the market, and thus the people to follow suit.

The issue with market lead decisions is that the market isn't organized and is competitive by nature. The only way for the market to be organized if it is run under a monopoly but a monopoly doesn't need to follow demand. This means that cities must be built in coordination with society and the state. The state must incentivize individual people and communities to move or establish cities. Then the market will adapt to the demands of the individual people and communities that move to the cities.

Exactly, and this is what planning development and expansion in cities looks like.

Based on what you're telling me about these mega cities, they don't seem to be planned. This seems to be connecting various cities, not planning a new one.

Its planning for existing cities to merge and create a much larger mega city.
And yes, it is planned.

That's kind of what I was talking about but I also included social commitment as well. We need society to be committed to the idea of the space elevator, not just pay it lip service. We need less people talking about how good something could be and more people making that something. Also I'm an advocate for Modern Monetary Theory so taxation is irrelevant to me although that is a completely different discussion.

And if an idea that the scientific community of a certain field agrees its helpful and would work and it was publicized and "sold" to the people, then you can generate that commitment.
For MMT, that is indeed a different topic, but as a quick note on it;
Even if we were to take it as the norm, which isn't true in all countries since not all countries have their own currency nor is global trade done in local currencies, but if it did turn that way in the future hopefully, taxes are still needed.
Even if taxes aren't used to pay for things, they're still relevant in regulating the market.

Taking the US for example;
The US does have MMT applying to it, however the consequences of applying the same logic which is that taxes aren't all that relevant so it should go down for the rich turned the US into an oligarchy as rich people kept getting richer and richer to a point where they became way too powerful and influential, and to limit their power and go back to a more democratic system the US either has to print massive amounts of money to inflate the currency and weaken the oligarchs, or it would have to start taking their money by excessive taxes which wont happen legally since they gained too much political power to prevent it, and so a revolution is needed to rebalance things and restore democratic order.
You see, all that could've been avoided if income taxes remained high for rich people. But they applied the logic of "taxes are no longer relevant to cover spending" and so they reached this place.

That's kind of dangerous since it gives that corporation leverage over a significant portion of society. This means that corporation has hold over the government. I think it's better if the government hires a corporation to build the vertical farms and then give the land on those farms to local farmers or, more preferably, botanists.

Such facilities cant be ran by regular farmers, so the second options is not available.
Either the government does it as part of the public sector, or encourage multiple corporations do it to maintain competition.

There's probably loads of other even better ideas we simply haven't thought of yet. We're going in the right direction but we need to widen our options and thus, opportunities.

Actually, to be honest, this is one of the biggest reasons why I want sanctions. It gets people creative and makes the government more willing to listen to unorthodox or weird but genius ideas since the government desperately wants to keep the population happy.

Agreed

Alright, let's settle exactly what a planned city is. A planned city is any community that was carefully planned from its inception and is typically constructed on previously undeveloped land. Based on this point what you are describing can be a planned city. However, not all cities are planned. Most of them are emergent. They result from a certain set of circumstances (such as Shanghai being a trading hub or Baghdad being the center of the government) and emerge as well-known cities. Paris was originally like this as was London, Madrid, Monaco, etc.

Disagree.
This is not the commonly used definition of city planning.
This is how certain areas or hubs are planned as part of larger cities, but not entire cities.

Wait are you agreeing with me or disagreeing here?

Not sure, it was 2 days ago and I forgot what this point was about. LoL

Part 2 is coming up. I don't have the time to finish addressing your points now.

Will be waiting for it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Why are Africans starving?

Not from overpopulation, most of the poorest countries in Africa are some of the least densely populated regions on the planet.

Compare poverty and population density between Netherlands and Democratic Republic of Congo sometime and then tell me the issue is population.

Like I said, the claim is literally retarded.

You are scaring me. Define "comfort". "everyone".

Family of four in a decent sized home with a yard.

what is the point?

The point is that overpopulation isn't our current problem. Full-Stop. Thus, to say that overpopulation could be a problem with 200 trillion humans in some hypothetical is irrelevant to this FACT.

1) We are destroying the environment with a by product of abject greed ….. pollution.
2) Global warming is rendering ever larger areas arid and unable to produce food for the growing numbers of people living in proximity to these areas. For this and other reasons we now see millions of people migrating to and fro simply looking for a decent standard of living. The atmosphere of hatred and violence directed at these "illegals" grows by the day and gives wannabe dictators what they need to scare people into giving them power.

Not a population issue. Even if I accepted ALL of your points, it still wouldn't be because we are overpopulated.

I do not share your optimism in the wisdom of the human race to effectively implement the solutions you suggest. We are incapable of large scale management for the common good over a long period of time. We will kill the goose that is laying the golden egg.

I hope you are right and I am wrong.

Its not about optimism, its about properly diagnosing the problem and discussing the solution.

Let me illustrate what you are saying with an analogy.

Lets say we knew the cure for cancer was eating a bowl of spinach every day at exactly 1pm, and I presented this against someone who claimed the solution to cancer was to cutoff our right thumbs.

the analogy for your argument is that "Well that solution is unrealistic, so we should just continue cutting off our right thumbs....after all, its easier to just cut-off our thumbs than to make everyone eat spinach."

A solution to something that is not the problem, isn't going to fix the actual problem, the problems of the world are manifestly not issues regarding overpopulation, so taking measures to solve overpopulation will do little to nothing to solve the actual problems the world is facing, including some (possibly) of the ones you mentioned.

[Suntzu]

Will Earth be a better place with more people or less people?

Why do some populations have so many children?

Even if we could feed everyone by turning ever square foot into farmland, is it desirable. Is there any place for wilderness in modern society?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Will Earth be a better place with more people or less people?

Depends on how we handle ourselves. Both could be bad, both could be good.

If more wasteful and stupid people breed, that means things will get worse, if more intelligent and efficient people breed it would be good. But that is because there is inefficiency; however, if we solved the problems of mismanagement, increasing population would not be much of a factor on overall quality of life so long as X population did not exceed P (space and food to support etc).

Why do some populations have so many children?

Because they have less state welfare and higher religiosity in tandem.

Even if we could feed everyone by turning ever square foot into farmland, is it desirable. Is there any place for wilderness in modern society?

Except you wouldn't, you could feed the entire population on a relativity small area of pure farmland (literally a single plateau in Africa).

Plus, you can be entirely self-sufficient on a 1/3 of an acre if you farmed for your own family, which means that we could fit everyone on a single continent and not dedicate anywhere else to farming at all.

[jimjam]

Is there any place for wilderness in modern society?

Apparently not. In the view of some, simply existing is the goal. Forget about a walk in the woods. Only delusional liberals espouse such frivolity.

Family of four in a decent sized home with a yard.

Revolting. No thanks.

our current problem

Please do us the favor of defining what "our" current problem is.

[jimjam]

double post

[Victoribus Spolia]

Revolting. No thanks.

I don't like that either, its just to illustrate that we can fit everyone in a small space, if you want some acreage, everyone can fit in a single continent with enough land to be self-sufficient.

In the end though, its a bit disturbing if you think that who should live and who should die should be determined by your personal preference to go to a state park without having to be interrupted by pesky human beings (not that would be a problem anyway, see below).

Apparently not. In the view of some, simply existing is the goal. Forget about a walk in the woods. Only delusional liberals espouse such frivolity.

Except under my view, if the entire population lived in one place, you would have the entire world to take a stroll, you would have more woods, not less, but that is besides the point.

The point is that overpopulation is a myth held to by naive people. That is true and it cannot be refuted.

Please do us the favor of defining what "our" current problem is.

Any problem that overpopulation tin-foil hatters claim is caused by overpopulation; like crime, starvation, poverty, disease, environmental damage, etc.

They are claimed to be caused by too many people, but they are not. That is a FACT.

They are caused by people being stupid, which is true irrespective of population size.

ALSO, in response to your picture posting, I can post pics too.