What's the ideal world population

[Deleted member 21716]

imo between 250 million to 500 million is ideal. just enough people for the world to not be empty but also leaves just enough room for wildlife. plus there wouldn't be so many popes that the wages would be bad and people would probably live a much more elevated quality of life. plus it is easier to educated and feed a population of this size or smaller. with better education that means more people working elevated positions and ai can do the rest of the work.

we are currently at 8 billon people and growing which far too many and terrible for the planet.

 

[Deleted member 21716]

@MoggerGaston

 

[Deleted member 21716]

@cannotbeasked what's with the angry react?

 

[MoggerGaston]

<100 million so that there is less technological/scientific advancement which destroys the natural order of life

 

[futureashtray]

you have no say is that.

also since technology got better and will get better. The population will always keep growing.

There’s no balance to it

 

[Chadeep]

4 Billion is ideal.

 

[Deleted member 21716]

<100 million so that there is less technological/scientific advancement which destroys the natural order of life

I see your point since modern civilization has done a lot damage to natural order.

I was thinking with a smaller population of higher intelligent people that means more advancement except instead of using technologies in bad way the technologies will used to further advance society. sadly to many of the wrong people have access to such technologies and use it in degenerating ways.

 

[Deleted member 21716]

you have no say is that.

also since technology got better and will get better. The population will always keep growing.

There’s no balance to it

the most advanced you countries populate the least

what are you saying?

 

[Deleted member 21716]

View attachment 3019532
4 Billion is ideal.

way too many imo

explain more in depth why that is ideal?

 

[Chadeep]

way too many imo

explain more in depth why that is ideal?

You would've nuked India and China and whole of Africa. Less Subhumans.

 

[Deleted member 21716]

You would've nuked India and China and whole of Africa. Less Subhumans.

4 billion is still way too many imo

 

[SecularIslamist]

There's always a struggle between population and technological innovation. The technology and infrastructure today is way too much for 8 billion but sounds about right for 2 billion. If we had the same level of technology back in the 1900s we wouldn't survive at all.

Anyway population is sure to peak this century (due to life expectancy). Inceldom and feminism will ensure it keeps going down. Japan / South Korea and China leading the way.

 

[Deleted member 21716]

There's always a struggle between population and technological innovation. The technology and infrastructure today is way too much for 8 billion but sounds about right for 2 billion. If we had the same level of technology back in the 1900s we wouldn't survive at all.

Anyway population is sure to peak this century (due to life expectancy). Inceldom and feminism will ensure it keeps going down. Japan / South Korea and China leading the way.

That is correct considering I saw a study about how without electricity the world's population would go down by 90%

I notice with the higher the life expectancy the population slows down. 2 billion is still far to many imo since that s still a lot of energy and space being used.

 

[6PSLcel]

imo between 250 million to 500 million is ideal. just enough people for the world to not be empty but also leaves just enough room for wildlife. plus there wouldn't be so many popes that the wages would be bad and people would probably live a much more elevated quality of life. plus it is easier to educated and feed a population of this size or smaller. with better education that means more people working elevated positions and ai can do the rest of the work.

we are currently at 8 billon people and growing which far too many and terrible for the planet.

500 million I think is fair, what matters more is quality

 

[Deleted member 21716]

500 million I think is fair, what matters more is quality

yes, quality over quantity

plus around that number people can enjoy higher qualities of life without leaving lots of damage to the planet. plus higher wages since the higher the population of people in the workforce means lower wages.

 

[Deleted member 21716]

b

 

[lelouch]

you have no say is that.

also since technology got better and will get better. The population will always keep growing.

There’s no balance to it

funny enough developed countries birth rates are tanked and underdeveloped birth rates are still skyrocketing cant wait to have more indians

 

[Deleted member 46941]

500 million

 

[Deleted member 21716]

b

 

[Gargantuan]

500 million people, at least according to the Georgia Guidestones.

 

[emeraldglass]

imo between 250 million to 500 million is ideal. just enough people for the world to not be empty but also leaves just enough room for wildlife. plus there wouldn't be so many popes that the wages would be bad and people would probably live a much more elevated quality of life. plus it is easier to educated and feed a population of this size or smaller. with better education that means more people working elevated positions and ai can do the rest of the work.

we are currently at 8 billon people and growing which far too many and terrible for the planet.

2 billion is perfect.

 

[Tusseleif]

500,000,000. The world in 1500 just seem to have had the most perfect balance between civilization and nature. The fact Elizabethan London didn’t want to expand London much because they thought it would spread too much out and take up land when it was barely outside the modern City of London is cagefuel. Shows how much nature we have destroyed today because 8 billion people need a place to live

 

[Deleted member 21716]

500,000,000. The world in 1500 just seem to have had the most perfect balance between civilization and nature. The fact Elizabethan London didn’t want to expand London much because they thought it would spread too much out and take up land when it was barely outside the modern City of London is cagefuel. Shows how much nature we have destroyed today because 8 billion people need a place to live

exactly

plus higher qualities of life because higher salaries because less people in the work force. plus people can enjoy a more modern lifestyle without polluting the Earth to a damaging degree.

there is absolutely no reason for the world population to be this high since it has no benefit. there is literally less intelligent people now then there was when the population was lower. plus the amount of resources that are needed to feed all those people is crazy.

 

[Deleted member 54067]

no more than a billion

 

[Deleted member 6305]

4 billion is half of the current population so I think it's ideal, also people would need to Respect nature more

 

[Deleted member 21716]

4 billion is half of the current population so I think it's ideal, also people would need to Respect nature more

crazy to think the world population is 8 billion now

I remember less than a decade ago that is was 7 billion

 

[CoreSchizo]

I want all of the migrants executed, not the whites, so just around 100 million people with Aryan blood.

 

[Deleted member 6305]

crazy to think the world population is 8 billion now

I remember less than a decade ago that is was 7 billion

I blame Asians and Africans
Niggas be addicted to creampie

 

[Deleted member 21716]

b