What do you think is a comfortable population for our planet? and U.S.A. ?

Question

For those who think were not overpopulated, how do you explain long lines and traffic congestion?

Answer 1

your planet and the USA.

take it easy you people have NOT YET got Global control with your New World order,

this planet still belongs to a few other countries and species as well besides Americans .

Sustainability with out harming other species ,decides what is a correct number .

Humanity went way past that one hundred years ago.

so 3 billion may be a good number .

An American statesmen said at a Bilderberg meeting in Copenhagen in 1998 that their Agenda demanded a decrease of 60 % ,so your Government thinks it is a bit less than that

Answer 2

Earth: Maybe 200-500 Million

U.S.A.: 10-20 Million

Answer 3

Long lines....more cars and more bad drivers and nobody wants to walk.  

5 bil.

Answer 4

With a world population of 6.65 billion people, and a land mass area of 57.5 million square feet, we currently have 240,000 sq ft of room per person on this planet.  I explain long lines and traffic on the fact people like living on top of each other (you could move out to the country at any time if you like).

Answer 5

A GALLON JUG CAN ONLY HOLD A GALLON OF WATER. WE NEED TO QUIT LETTING PEOPLE IN. IT IS ABSURED THAT THERE ARE MORE ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE IN CHINA THAN IN AMERICA.WE NEED TO LEARN HOW TO RUN OUR OWN COUNTRY BEFORE WE TRY TO RUN THE WORLD.....AMEN!!!!

Answer 6

a few million less

Answer 7

If we had selfless people who cared for one another there is never enough of those people.  Selfish people who only care about themselves and materialism, one is overpopulation.

Answer 8

Earth population in the early 1950's seemed to be in balance with the overall environment, so that would be a reasonable starting point. 4 billion or so on the planet, 200+ million in the States.

Energy use was not as extensive then, but if we continue to curtail emissions and make piratical energy/environment decisions then we may still be at some reasonable level.

The "fly in the soup" is that at that time only we and Europe were "developed" -- if we elevate the entire global population to the energy demands and environmental destructive lifestyle we exemplify then we probably better keep overall global population around 1.5 billion, maybe 2 and US population in 150-200 million range.

Good question. It is interesting to note that global population is not a "big" issue -- it is not talked about much, but it really is the driving force of global warming. And we, head in the sand Americans, just had (in 2006) the largest number of babies born in country since 1961. The carbon footprint of each new baby is larger that the carbon footprint of its parents. How we ever suppose that "getting rid of plastic bags" will make a difference when we refuse to address the core issues of why there is global warming is pretty strange.

Most likely there will be a pandemic of vast proportions in the near future. If global population were reduced by a third it would probably slow down and maybe even reverse the impacts of global warming.

More critical than the actual population numbers is the lifestlye; ie the energy use and environmental damage -- that the population is responsible for. A focused small footprint global population could probably be fairly large, but considering our "ways" that is not very likely.

d