How many people do you think this planet can actually support?

>>77473868
I have no idea i'm not a scientist. Did you try googling it?

1 billion

Half a billion

Between three and four milliards. The current world population figures are worrying and only getting worse.

>>77474106
The worrying thing is where the population explosion is happening

Four billion is the ideal number.

File: U0F0vK4.jpg (35KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1280x720px

6 GORILLION

Overpopulation is a meme. Just the ZOG trying to keep white birthrates low.

>>77475007
Your fat arse is a meme, you hideous shit

>>77473868
I might need some more of this black girl to help me come to a decision

>>77475067
I am a twigboy and at least a 6.

File: image.jpg (150KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1280x720px

>>77473868
One

>>77473868
Do you want an ideal estimate that assumes all processes needed to keep a particular minimum standard of living are 100% efficient (ie all food produced is equally distributed to everyone and none is wasted)? In that case the Earth can easily support over 50 billion, perhaps even over 100 billion.

If you're more realistic about the estimate however I'd say we're at max if not a little over. Sweet spot I think is between 4-6 billion at the moment. Less than 2 billion is bad as is greater than 6 billion. Right now our the issues we are running into with population are entirely logistical. We just don't have an efficient enough society to sustain that many people at some reasonable level of comfort.

>>77475333
nigga we're destroying our arable land right now trying to feed the current world population, and you think we can handle more than 10 times as many people?
>>77475007
not having kids because of overpopulation is a zog meme yeah, but overpopulation isn't a meme. it's just the africans having 8 kids aren't going to listen to the guardian when they say having children hurts the environment, a stupid white liberal will.

>>77475155
then go and hang yourself edgemaster dumbfuck amerishart

It depends how far science can go in terms of crop yield and climate alteration. Thomas Malthus was obviously wrong so that question is really impossible to answer. Overpopulation isnt the issue, the issue is that the entire planet cannot live like we do in the west. My lifestyle is dependent upon other third world faggots living in poverty.

8.5 billion

Nuke Toronto

>>77473868
>8 milliards
If the American life style doesn't destroy us

sometimes I wonder

>>77473868
One fewer than there actually are. More than that isn't sustainable.

>>77477017
How do poor people help in your lifestyle?
Do starving people in Africa harvest food for you?
Do they build the robots that built your car?

>>77473868
Where can I find qts like that OP?

100 billion is doable.

Living under the sea...lol but seriously.

Living underground.

Very dense cities.

Its doable.

More people means more smart people and more workers etc.

>>77480289
Before you laugh remember the green revolution.

>>77480289
Birth rates will never get us there though. so fuck my idea of having as many people on earth as neurons in a human brain.

This world needs less 1984 and more Brave New world.

>>77480072
>Do starving people in Africa harvest food for you?
Actually yes, we get many produce items from there, cocoa is a big one
They may not be "starving," but the fact that they earn a very small amount of money is crucial for their being a part of trade with America. Do you think Americans could have cocoa if Africans earned as much as the average American? Of course not. The same sort of relationships exist in every aspect of our consumerist culture.

We do everything extremely inefficiently. Transportation is inefficient, food production is inefficient, city planning is inefficient. When you say "actually support" we can assume different levels of efficiency. If every country was actually developed, big dense cities were spread out over the globe, and resources were properly recycled, it could be 10s of billions easily.

>>77473868
>can
A lot more I guess, if we all just ate a bowl of rice a day and lived in tiny pods like bees, which is what /pol/ seems to argue for every time they insist on being contrarian and say that we're far from overpopulated.

>>77473868
Depends on the level of technology of humanity. With current tech about 12 billion, but on the way to that number we would increase our tech level which would allow a higher number which would allow a higher tech level etc.

>>77473868
I don't think world is overpopulated

Elite want's people to think so


Also starvation cancer and other stuff could be less.

File: nL8nIuM.gif (1014KB, 500x211px) Image search: [Google]

1014KB, 500x211px

>>77476464
>not having kids because of overpopulation is a zog meme yeah, but overpopulation isn't a meme. it's just the africans having 8 kids aren't going to listen to the guardian when they say having children hurts the environment, a stupid white liberal will.

The nignogs could have dozens of children (as if I care), they will never consume, pollute, or waste as much as a single white white person.

I hope the ZOG will fuck you all up.

Germany: at least 50 million more

>>77473868
At least 10 billion IMO. I think with current technology the limit could be ~13 billion before standards of living absolutely collapse. Without regard for either living standards or the environment, 20 billion would be doable.

In the mid-range future, around 200 years from now, I imagine planned arcologies will allow for greater maximisation of resources and space vertically, so if the world was crammed into vertical cities you could get away with 30 billion+.

About tree fiddy

>>77473868
if russia had the same density as bangladeshh
18.8 billion people will be living in russia now
hmm
i think the world can support much more people

To all the Malthusian retards in this thread: follow your creed and off yourselves.

>>77480072
yes? Workers in Asia produce all kind of shit for almost no pay and lots of ressources are harvested in Africa and other places with poor people.
If all the people in third world countries would suddenly increase their consumption to the level of that in the West there wouldn't be enough ressources. You can't have rich people without poor people.