Both loudmouth, please include the current overall population of the world
Then add in my view many parts are already over populated
Continue to explore my view constant growth will make it worse
May be room left to consider pollution will it get worse? we fail to fix it now will we get that right if the population is ten billion
What [if it exists] is your view of the Goldilocks number, how many do you think we can manage?
Unfortunately if you post a number it supports my view there is a limit

Individual and Belly,

So population 'growth' by longer life expectancy is some sort of evil ? What do you propose to do with those (us) old bastards ? Solent Green ? Dog food ?

Joe

As old or older than you mate, nature may well be in play with me
Yes and you knew before you asked every measure of world population, in your case de-population must be considered
We differ on rate of over all growth

Belly,

'De-population' ? Who has to go ? What has to happen in your authoritarian scenario ? ? Compulsory birth control ? 'Subtraction' of older people ?

This is moronic: over-population is not happening, birth rates are levelling off and the world is approaching 'peak child' and the number of children being born will soon level off and then decline. But people are living longer than ever. More food than ever is being produced. Technology of food production is improving around the world. There will never be 'over-population'.

Joe

http://www.9news.com.au/national/judy-nunn-khaki-town-novel-wwii-true-story-revealed-a-current-affair/c4806294-cef2-4aa1-9ffc-fce7e9dcec73
Loudmouth the link is for you
It tells us just how rottenly filthy racist this country once was
It reminds me how racist some still are
But it too is my rebuttal that any form of racism lives in me
I never ever thought of or suggested removal of a single person to reduce the population
Never thought or suggested any race of faith be targeted
In fact war is one way the high and mighty may do it
Or letting mass deaths take place such as Ebola not treated
In fact my thoughts are a fair honest way to control this worlds population, I will never understand your point of view
This world has parts currently over populated and soon it all will be

Belly,

Please read at least the first page of this:

http://ourworldindata.org/peak-child

In short, we are approaching 'peak child', when the number of world-wide births will level off - perhaps less than five years away, if not already. After that, since mortality levels (numbers of deaths) are also declining, more people will stay alive and so the population will keep rising. After all, babies will still be born, adding to population, even though their numbers won't rise. Can you understand that ?

Europe, Russia, Japan, South Korea, have all reached 'peak child', sometimes decades ago (Japan). China will reach it very soon, if not already. India and most South American countries will reach it in the next ten years. Without immigration, the US and Australia have pretty much reached it.

So where is there 'over-population' ? If you're thinking of some very undeveloped country, then obviously you have to ask whether or not their economy can be improved, by better technology, irrigation schemes, etc. - and in the longer term, better education and higher status for women, which will mean fewer births and smaller families. What can't you see in all that, which can counter 'over-population' ?

If you think that a country must provide all of its own food to avoid being called 'overpopulated', remember that many European countries, as well as Singapore, Hong Kong, many Middle Eastern countries, don't produce all their own food, but import it in exchange for their export of goods and services, and they seem to do okay.

Certainly, in many African countries, interminable civil wars hinder agricultural production, so one outcome of that - as in any wartime situation - is the loss of production and food shortages, even famine. But sooner or later, those wars will wind down and production on that vast continent can improve.

So where is there unavoidable 'over-population' ?

Cheers,

Joe