Why do population questions get deleted?

Question

It's pretty obvious, the connection between our human population and our earthly problems. Many, many people think so. Shouldn't we explore this question?

Answer 1

If you don't want to hear the truth about overpopulation, click the report button on Yahoo!Answers and the issue magically disappears...........

Answer 2

Human beings are the virus of the earth. Things like AIDS and cancer are the cure.

Answer 3

There is no population explosion  people been dieing through wars famine and Hiv

Answer 4

it can support a lot more than we have right now.  as technology progresses we will be able to do more with less.  and we may need to colonize antarctica as well.

Answer 5

Isn't there a section for Eugenics? Why is this in the environment section?

You know, Hitler was a big eugenics believer and look where his beliefs led him.

Answer 6

There are more people alive, right now, than have ever died in the history of mankind.

Answer 7

yes of course.

people dont want to hear it.

3 billion would be nice. it was that in the 50s. will take a while to get back to that level, couple hundred years, and it wont be pretty.

Answer 8

Did you know that you could put everyone in the entire world into the State of Texas and they'd be no more crowded than the single city of Tokyo is today, and you'd still have 240,000 square kilometers of empty room left in Texas? Did you know that Paul R. Ehrlich predicted this in his book "The Population Bomb" and not a single one of his predictions has come true? By now global pop was supposed to be down in the millions, instead it's still growing and the major cause of hunger is not lack of food. It's poor political leadership and the greed and corruption of dictatorial regimes. Switching to biofuel may doom millions to starvation but again, that's a political problem not a limit imposed by the Earth.

How many people could the Earth support? Probably 20 billion or so, it would be wise to limit those numbers but how do you propose to do that if someone won't do it voluntarily? Throw female babies down the village well, like they do in China? Involuntarily sterilization? Maybe death camps for anyone who has one child too many? Education and prosperity are the only fair solutions, the West now barely maintains it's populations, it's mostly the poor countries that have high birthrates. Educated people with some financial stability and good medical care don't feel the need to have 9 kids, they don't worry that 8 of the 9 will die before adolescence and know that having too many means too few resources for the rest of their family.

***edit

The point about Texas is to illustrate population density, the Earth is huge and people only occupy a small portion of it. Nearly all of California is off-limits for housing, which is one reason homes cost so much there.

We can and do engineer ourselves out of dilemmas all the time, starting with cavemen who found they could make their own fire to prevent freezing to death. How could anyone possibly calculate what population the Earth can support? To extrapolate out just 100 years you'd have to know what farm yields will be then, the same with energy production and water treatment, a long list of things that nobody can possibly predict. Could they predict anything we take for granted today back in 1908? Hardly, they were still predicting horse-drawn buggies would never go out of style.

If CO2 continues to rise, farm production will continue to go up even if we don't innovate any further, which we will do as always. What cracks are showing in our world? If the stupid and corrupt politicians would get out of the way, there is plenty of food to go around, waiting to be shipped where it's needed. Sadly, when it gets there it's often stolen by the government and sold on the black market. Sometimes not even sold in the country it was supposed to benefit.

If poor people are educated you don't need to sterilize them, they'll voluntarily limit the size of their family. I'm not saying you advocate eugenics or involuntary sterilization, but it's been suggested many times in the past.

Nature has it's own way of controlling populations and there is no reason to think that humans are exempt from that. The fact we've avoided the predicted catastrophes might indicate we're not doing too badly.

As to the claims about a pound of beef requiring 2500 gallons of water, it's a ridiculous claim. Follow the last link, which states, "The truth is it takes 2.6 pounds of grain* and 435 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef in the United States. The reality is that 85 percent of the nation’s grazing lands are not suitable for farming."

Answer 9

Our population will likely level off at about 9-12 billion people.

EDIT The fact that people "thumbs up" people like Moonfrog, who say things like he does, is an indicator of the grotesque level of ignorance on this board.  His statement is demonstrably false.  In fact, the number of humans to have ever lived is estimated at between 50 and 200 billion.

Answer 10

Good Question. It is an important topic to study. I do not think area is relevant. It is Food and Water that is the critical item. Look at many countries like Japan and many European countries. these countries can not produce enough food from their lands to feed themselves. Many countries must import a large percentage of their food to live. As the population increases, there is less and less to export from the few countries that produce excess food.

Answer 11

If everyone stopped eating meat and dairy, we could sustain as least 10 times the numbers we have already.  Since one pound of meat requires 16 pounds of grain and 2500 gallons of water.  If we didn't have all the animals to feed we could give all the food and water to starving, dehydrated people, therefore boosting how many people can survive on planet Earth.  

If we start living more simply, especially in Western countries, we could stop contributing to waste and have a cleaner, brighter future ahead.

I don't know for sure how many people the world could fit, but then again, nobody else does either.  It's all rough, rough estimation because there are so many variables involved.  All I know is that we are not living sustainably the route we are taking now.

Answer 12

That sounds a bit hypocritical

in 1998 an American Statesman announced In Copenhagen that the Agenda of the Bilderberg group demanded a cut of 60% in the worlds population

Bringing it down to around 3 billion ,which is the official figure for what the planet can sustainably support ,including other Earthlings .like animals

but

it is a sensitive issue ,

People do not like to be confronted with below the belt truths

its a natural reaction for A VIRUS

that only wants to reproduce  and multiply

In Nature all species follow the law of harmony or equilibrium

those who become a plague or are in excess have to pay the price .

And nobody wants to pay,so with a click they shove you under the carpet

To survive in Answers one has  to become diplomatic

which is a nice word for lying

People will not understand that vast areas of the planet are not fit to live in for us .

And that other vast areas are needed simply to be Environment,to produce conditions and resources the we as humanity need elsewhere such as water and air and clouds

And we are not the only earthlings ,although we are the most power full ones

We have to share this Planet with many other creatures,

Although many invasive personalities will disagree with that

and feel that we must conquer all for our selves alone.

This guy below me ,(literally and figuratively speaking)

wants to colonize Penguin Country.

Others have even suggested to live in the land of the crabs ,on the bottom of the Ocean in bubbles,

Why is it such a big deal to limit our numbers ,what is this obsession that all sperms must live.

History teaches us that the biggest risk of extinction occur when a specie is to small or to many

and we are running towards too many.

The inevitable results has to be Famine,disease ,War and shortage of resources (we already got some of that )

Does any one seriously believe that there can be peace on a crowded planet ,Wake up and look around you Mr,Wake up

Vegans dream on,there will not be a Vegetarian world population

,We all know that an acre can feed hundreds of vegetarians to a couple of carnivores.

But when the cows are gone,you will become dinner for those who will ONLY EAT MEAT,  .Like the Mexicans

A tree has more sense,of the billions of seeds they disperse into their surroundings ,only the ones who land  in the soil and  conditions that can support them will survive.

Answer 13

I asked that question several days ago and it wasn't deleted.  Be careful how you word it.  If it sounds like you have an agenda, people might be offended and report you.

Answer 14

I think we could live pretty comfortably in balance with nature with a population around 1.5 and 2 billion people.

It's sad that people still feel that many of the earths problems are not real. Too bad there's no way for those kinds of people to just disappear.

Answer 15

The Earth is estimated to have a carrying capacity of about 9 (omnivores) billion, we should be there by 2030.  But with all the optimistic corporate pro-GMO Monsanto supporters, who are looking for more power and money from wall-street, there is no arguing about over population with them. If you do, your a saten supporter or you must hate freedom. (that's why they are deleted)

Apres is right a total vegan  population is estimated to be around 22 billion.