I'm interested in your take on the population issue.
So on the one hand, your claim is a volumetric one. I don't know whether it is literally true that the entire world population could fit in the area of Texas. Maybe it is true, but is it vacuously true, like only in the case where we were standing nose-to-nose could we achieve that?
So the question becomes more complex, because on the other hand it isn't just about absolute space, but all of the consumable resources in that space and factors like quality of life and all of the social variables that are effected by human proximity.
I personally think everything to do with climate fear-mongering is baseless, but intuitively, I do perceive we have something like an ecological crisis. 8-9 billion people all consuming, and consuming, and consuming and throwing their waste and industrial byproducts into the environment without much forethought to the long-term sensitivity of the ecosystem to these changes.
I remember seeing it on VOAT in 2018 I believe. The graphic said that each person (adult) would get somewhere a fifth or quarter acre. Enough to build and garden.
Possible I went to far about the animals included. But it rendered me livid. I'm sure it's archived.
World population: 7,842,000,000.
Texas land area: 261,232 sq. mi. == 7,282,730,188,800 sq. ft.
That is 929 sq. ft. per person. (0.02 acres).
Hmm.
People need about 50 acres each to grow enough crops, fish, resources such as wood. as they consume.
The whole of mankind could live in Jacksonville county florida if we lived in the highest density seen in tokyo, it wouldn't be comfortable at all though.
Overpopulation is about resources not lack of space to put people.
The US could reasonably and sustainably fit 3 times its current population but we'd live as densely as central europe and most americans don't like ultra dense living.
If the left and right could see eye to eye everyone would see the solution to overpopulation and global warming is deporting all blacks to africa and withdrawing all non blacks, allow them to starve down to a sustainable population over the next 5 years then invade and carve up the continent between current global powers.
You could do a more aggressive biomass redistribution, throw all the billions dead into deserts and the sea and plant a bunch trees and plants by dropping seeds from planes.
The problem with Africa is it's full of Africans. But I agree with you about the situation.
I would actually like to say it actually doesn't become complex, or at least in terms of over population and space. It's simple because it's an issue of inefficiency. Especially when it comes to agriculture.
So in terms of agricultural limitation, would you say we are currently overpopulated, or is there a technological way to increase carrying capacity? Or, is carrying capacity not even an issue that's relevant at this stage?
No we are not overpopulated. The main issue is having a select few MASSIVE farms feed a whole country. As someone from texas, I shouldn't rely on california and mexico for produce. I shouldn't rely on Illinois or wherever the pork "farms" are. I don't need you driving 500+ miles to deliver food to me from another state. The inefficiency of agriculture is the locations. By the time the produce gets here it's lost half if not more of it nutritional value due to poor handling and storing. Farms are more like meat factories more than actual farms nowadays.
Sorry for the long reply. Agriculture is a big passion of mine
(post is archived)