Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

how fast would it take for the world to over populate.
or how fast would it take to double the worlds population

starting from now?


their are what like 4 billion chinese and 2.5 billion give or take in the rest of the world.... hmm,... each person birthing 1 child within a standard generation i would say we would be over populated within 100 yrs... 60 yrs i say.. i really have no clue i am just guessing.

1st one to go would be china not enough resources they be screwed within 50 yrs

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
how fast would it take for the world to over populate.
or how fast would it take to double the worlds population

The world is already over populated.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The world is already over populated. ding, ding, ding...winner!!!

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
starting from now?


their are what like 4 billion chinese and 2.5 billion give or take in the rest of the world.... hmm,... each person birthing 1 child within a standard generation i would say we would be over populated within 100 yrs... 60 yrs i say.. i really have no clue i am just guessing.

1st one to go would be china not enough resources they be screwed within 50 yrs
That's the biggest exaggeration i've ever seen in my life, China is not more populated than the rest of the world combined.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's the biggest exaggeration i've ever seen in my life, China is not more populated than the rest of the world combined. my bad i should have said Asians and its continent not Chinese..,, damn my generalizing and slight racism... chinese make up like 1.5 billion i think...

the asian continent makes up 4 billion total.

No war
No abortion
No famine
No diseases

Hmmm...well, we would fill the earth and the ocean...most likely could dig deeper into earth and dwell.

That's just humans...imagine all the animals!!!! Just the Whales themselves would over populate the seas!

AND and...and...THE BUNNIES!!!!

we would change our eating habits to rabbits, fish, chicken in certain areas to keep population down...

may not be enough though since we still have roaches, rats and other creepy crawling we would over run within a century in my humble opinion.. the poor ocean would be full of life choking on it.. unless some of the larger animals with slower reproduction step up their game and eat them all..

it would be a horrible world to live in we would kill not for food but to keep ourselves alive.

My brain hurts

Originally posted by Deja~vu
My brain hurts BANkMaLJaY4

LOL

it would take a long while...

if everyone on earth was immortal id assume that regulations would be implemented to prevent breeding...

Realistically birth control would just become mandatory until we invented interstellar travel.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The world is already over populated.

it certainly is NOT

there are areas where the economic development is not sufficent to deliever the basic needs to so many people, but we have FAR more than enough space for 6+ billion people, and the most imposing factor in getting them resources is NOT scarcity, but mismanagement/no top-down plan to feed/house/heal 6+ billion.

Originally posted by inimalist
it certainly is NOT

there are areas where the economic development is not sufficent to deliever the basic needs to so many people, but we have FAR more than enough space for 6+ billion people, and the most imposing factor in getting them resources is NOT scarcity, but mismanagement/no top-down plan to feed/house/heal 6+ billion. That's what I keep telling people and they are like "No, I picked up this mindless notion some time and now I'll stick with it"

It's like the "you can only complain if you vote" idiocy...just not exactly.

Actually let's put together some numbers.

We have 6.5 billion people in the world today. Estimates say that 350000 people are born every day. That is one babies per day per 18571 in the world.

Now you need to find someone who can do calculus.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
my bad i should have said Asians and its continent not Chinese..,, damn my generalizing and slight racism... chinese make up like 1.5 billion i think...

the asian continent makes up 4 billion total.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia

some facts:

29% of Earth's land, 60% of population

a whopping 89 people per square KM

so, comepare this to Toronto, a city nobody would claim is overpopulated (with any credibility). Its population density is: 866 people per square KM.

Toronto has 10 times the population density of Asia

Problems with poverty and lack of economic development in Asia are certainly made worse by large population centres, however, it is certainly not the case that Asia is "overpopulated"

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's what I keep telling people and they are like "No, I picked up this mindless notion some time and now I'll stick with it"

It's like the "you can only complain if you vote" idiocy...just not exactly.

I don't know how often I come up against it, but I know what you are saying. Its such a cheap little meme that really doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.

Further, I have no idea what purpose it poses... "If you don't vote" at least is an attempt to get people involved in the political process. What the hell does thinking the world is overpopulated do?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
ActWe have 6.5 billion people in the world today. Estimates say that 350000 people are born every day. That is one babies per day per 18571 in the world.


6.5 b / 350000 = ~18571

18571/365 = ~50

so, just over 50 years before an additional 6.5 billion are born

if I understand the maths...

Originally posted by inimalist
6.5 b / 350000 = ~18571

18571/365 = ~50

so, just over 50 years before an additional 6.5 billion are born

if I understand the maths...

But as babies are born the population increases. So it would be slightly less than fifty years, probably closer to 40.

So, how would we feed 13 billion people?

Would we need to feed people if they could not die?

Would people who could not get food suffer, but not die?

What would we do with criminals? Sure we would not have murder, but rape, and other violent crimes would still be around. A life sentence is forever.

Originally posted by inimalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia

some facts:

29% of Earth's land, 60% of population

a whopping 89 people per square KM

so, comepare this to Toronto, a city nobody would claim is overpopulated (with any credibility). Its population density is: 866 people per square KM.

Toronto has 10 times the population density of Asia

Problems with poverty and lack of economic development in Asia are certainly made worse by large population centres, however, it is certainly not the case that Asia is "overpopulated"

Vast chunks of Asia are uninhabitable. Take the whole eastern expanse of Russia's Siberia. The Mongolian Desert is not sufficient for population centers. Western China is desert and only populated by nomadic peoples. We have billions of Asians living on the far eastern seaboard of China, the disease-infested jungles of Southeast Asia and on the islands in the Pacific Ocean.

Asia is a huge continent, but you have to take into account that it is overpopulated since large swaths of it cannot be lived on.

Originally posted by Moscow
Vast chunks of Asia are uninhabitable. Take the whole eastern expanse of Russia's Siberia. The Mongolian Desert is not sufficient for population centers. Western China is desert and only populated by nomadic peoples. We have billions of Asians living on the far eastern seaboard of China, the disease-infested jungles of Southeast Asia and on the islands in the Pacific Ocean.

Asia is a huge continent, but you have to take into account that it is overpopulated since large swaths of it cannot be lived on.

you are actually expanding my point

Asia as an entity is a total cultural construction, so it can't really be talked about as being "overpopulated" or not

but sure, lets talk about the cities. What you would describe as "overpopulation" I would describe as "underdevelopment due to weak top-down government power". We can quibble, but I really think, when it comes to things like this, overpopulation is, at best, describing a symptom, but is normally an empty term.

Any social problem can be construed as "overpopulation", as there would not be that problem if individuals were not "populated"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, how would we feed 13 billion people?

Not a problem people cannot die. Eating would be nothing but a pleasure activity.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What would we do with criminals? Sure we would not have murder, but rape, and other violent crimes would still be around. A life sentence is forever.

Tell people to suck it up when crime happens and shoot the worst ones into space.

Originally posted by Moscow
Vast chunks of Asia are uninhabitable. Take the whole eastern expanse of Russia's Siberia. The Mongolian Desert is not sufficient for population centers. Western China is desert and only populated by nomadic peoples. We have billions of Asians living on the far eastern seaboard of China, the disease-infested jungles of Southeast Asia and on the islands in the Pacific Ocean.

Asia is a huge continent, but you have to take into account that it is overpopulated since large swaths of it cannot be lived on.

But if we can't die, when why could we live in these uninhabitable places?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...Tell people to suck it up when crime happens and shoot the worst ones into space.

Wow! if they couldn't die, that would be very inhuman.

uninhabitable is also a development-relative idea

The irrigation project currently undertaken by the Lybian and other African nations is a good example of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Manmade_River

lets say there are no restrictions to babies being born.
and lets say if you dont eat you starve in great pain(turn skinny and deficiant looking and ugly) but do not die.
so i assume everyone would still eat.(dont try to get around this)
lets also say people are invincible(so you cant kill anyone)

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
lets say there are no restrictions to babies being born.
and lets say if you dont eat you starve in great pain(turn skinny and deficiant looking) but do not die.(so i assume everyone would still eat).
lets also say people are invincible(so you cant kill anyone)

Within a short time (like 100 years) it will be hell on Earth. However, colonizing other worlds would be greatly simplified.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Wow! if they couldn't die, that would be very inhuman.

Which is why we would only punish the worst criminals. Besides that life would be a free-for-all of sadistic hedonism.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Within a short time (like 100 years) it will be hell on Earth. However, colonizing other worlds would be greatly simplified.

Indeed! My glorious vision of a bridge between Earth and Mars built of human bodies could one day be realized.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
so i assume everyone would still eat.(dont try to get around this)

so like, is your question: "how do we feed 13 billion people?"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is why we would only punish the worst criminals. Besides that life would be a free-for-all of sadistic hedonism.



Indeed! My glorious vision of a bridge between Earth and Mars built of human bodies could one day be realized.

Oh My! If you do a crime, you get put on the bridge for a time.

is this assuming that these people are not only immortal, but impervious? i mean what would happen if you put one in an oven and disintegrated him? would swords and bullets bounce off of our bodies?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
lets say there are no restrictions to babies being born.
and lets say if you dont eat you starve in great pain(turn skinny and deficiant looking and ugly) but do not die.
so i assume everyone would still eat.(dont try to get around this)
lets also say people are invincible(so you cant kill anyone)

I can't really tell where you're going with this.

However, in these circumstances we would have to redesign the entire world. With the radically fast increase in population and presumed proportionate increase in food requirements we would have to devote a lot of space to multi-story hydroponic farms.

With everyone being unkillable war would be far more horrific (though S&M might be more fun).

Eventually desperation might force people to put the extremely elderly into medically induced comas. This will be fine since they'll be begging for death due to being trapped forever within their shriveled and useless bodies.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can't really tell where you're going with this.


i get the feeling that hes fishing for a specific answer...

Oh, I just remembered something. There's actually a specific "doubling time" equation.

Since about half as many people die each day as are born lack of death would increase the growth rate by 150%. The current world growth rate is 1.1%. So in your world the growth rate would be around 1.65%.

Using the doubling time table provided by Wikipedia the world population would roughly double every 40 years.

6.5billion today
13billion by 2050
26 billion by 2090

The world population would hit 1 trillion in 7.5 doubling times or in 2310.

That's assuming the current birth statistics would stay the same, which seems unlikely to me, for a couple of reasons. For example the doubling assumes that people want the same amount of children every 30 years, why would someone with already 4 children want another 4? Additionally why would they all want children as fast as possible, they are immortal, they got time for children later. Though I think your calculations at the moment still include deaths, no?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's assuming the current birth statistics would stay the same, which seems unlikely to me, for a couple of reasons. For example the doubling assumes that people want the same amount of children every 30 years, why would someone with already 4 children want another 4?

Good point. I have no idea how to represent that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Additionally why would they all want children as fast as possible, they are immortal, they got time for children later.

Women can't have kids for their entire lives.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Though I think your calculations at the moment still include deaths, no?

I estimated that. But on second thought since the number of people born every day is something like 20 and about 8 die that means that the growth rate would double.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Women can't have kids for their entire lives.


Yeah, though would that be true if we could live forever?

lol, yes! the discussion of reproductive maturity and optimalization in a fictional population of biollogically immortal/invincible people

would it ever get to the point under these conditions that humans would cover every inch of the planet and no one would be able to move?

... thats the answer you were fishing for?

lol

crylaugh

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
would it ever get to the point under these conditions that humans would cover every inch of the planet and no one would be able to move?

blah, i type this out this great response and then I realize you are talking about fictional invincible people....

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
... thats the answer you were fishing for? no, its just a question that came up

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
would it ever get to the point under these conditions that humans would cover every inch of the planet and no one would be able to move?

No. People would go into space and colonize other planets long before that.

If there's no death by natural causes, and colonizing other worlds is not happening fast enough, and we're still spreading like a cancer on this one, it will become necessary to kill people, for example, anyone over 29.

On the other hand, there'll be plenty of soylent green.

Originally posted by Mindship
If there's no death by natural causes, and colonizing other worlds is not happening fast enough, and we're still spreading like a cancer on this one, it will become necessary to kill people, for example, anyone over 29.

On the other hand, there'll be plenty of soylent green.

That's sick. Rather mandate abortion. Or kill everyone under 2. That stops new influx.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's sick. Rather mandate abortion. Or kill everyone under 2. That stops new influx.

Bardock42, trying to kill babies still, 5+ years and going.

Originally posted by inimalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia

some facts:

29% of Earth's land, 60% of population

a whopping 89 people per square KM

so, comepare this to Toronto, a city nobody would claim is overpopulated (with any credibility). Its population density is: 866 people per square KM.

Toronto has 10 times the population density of Asia

Problems with poverty and lack of economic development in Asia are certainly made worse by large population centres, however, it is certainly not the case that Asia is "overpopulated"

I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you actually making the argument that population density 89 people/sq km in Asia means that there cannot possibly be overpopulation?

Originally posted by Mindship
If there's no death by natural causes, and colonizing other worlds is not happening fast enough, and we're still spreading like a cancer on this one, it will become necessary to kill people, for example, anyone over 29.

On the other hand, there'll be plenty of soylent green.

He made everyone invincible. Killing excess population isn't an option.

So what he wants to know is how long it would take with current birth rates, and no deaths, to cover every inch of exposed land.

That's just some silly calculation that depends on a few values I don't know, and it is really incredibly dull, much duller than what we were talking about....I am not amused.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you actually making the argument that population density 89 people/sq km in Asia means that there cannot possibly be overpopulation?

I agree with you here. inimalist is using the word overpopulation incorrectly. It's not a matter of population density its one of how much population the planet can sustain. Because the economics of farming are insane, apparently burning excess food is better than selling it cheaply to starving people, there's no good way to resolve the problem of feeding increasing numbers of people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He made everyone invincible. Killing excess population isn't an option. disgust

Urine is sterile. That's right, you can drink it.

It'll warm up the pool, too.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So what he wants to know is how long it would take with current birth rates, and no deaths, to cover every inch of exposed land.

That's just some silly calculation that depends on a few values I don't know, and it is really incredibly dull, much duller than what we were talking about....I am not amused. no. that was just a question that came up.

what im asking is how would they world be and what measure would we try to take?

so 744 trillion people would cover the surface of the whole planet stading up straight and people cant move.

having that much people in 578 years based on the calculation is shoking, lol

Well... I suppose colonizing other planets wouldn't be terribly difficult if we couldn't die.

Also, we would have like an unlimited amount of times to experiment crazily on people with little consequence.

Once we successfully create a Hulk/Superman/Whatever, he will simply fly us to Mars.

On a slightly separate note, are we invulnerable, or just always regenerate? I suppose the latter could be like an unlimited food source...

Originally posted by Original Smurph
Well... I suppose colonizing other planets wouldn't be terribly difficult if we couldn't die.

Also, we would have like an unlimited amount of times to experiment crazily on people with little consequence.

Once we successfully create a Hulk/Superman/Whatever, he will simply fly us to Mars.

On a slightly separate note, are we invulnerable, or just always regenerate? I suppose the latter could be like an unlimited food source... invulnerable.

lol. i have heard about wolverine not starving by eating chuncks of himself, let it regenerate and repeat.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
how fast would it take for the world to over populate.
or how fast would it take to double the worlds population

It would probably only take a couple days to double the worlds population.

Originally posted by Original Smurph
Once we successfully create a Hulk/Superman/Whatever, he will simply fly us to Mars.

I don't think Hulk will fly us to Mars

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think Hulk will fly us to Mars

Originally posted by Original Smurph
Once we successfully create a Hulk/Superman/Whatever, he will simply fly us to Mars.
Get serious.

http://www.iainclaridge.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/silver_surfboard.jpg

This also permits excess population BFR via inboard trapping.

Maybe nature has a built in security valve for when a race gets too populious, ie releasing some nasty ass disease, letting a few mega volcanoes like in Yellowstone (or the other one) & the Eifel in Europe.

Not to mention the human built in " lets start a war " effect that comes up very often.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Maybe nature has a built in security valve for when a race gets too populious, ie releasing some nasty ass disease, letting a few mega volcanoes like in Yellowstone (or the other one) & the Eifel in Europe.

That doesn't seem very likely.

.

the build in safety measure... is called the hitler gene or extinction gene.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
the build in safety measure... is called the hitler gene or extinction gene.

You know what's hilarious? There's an entire series based around the idea of the Earth correcting the virus infestation of humanity: Blue Gender.


Quite good. I liked it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You know what's hilarious? There's an entire series based around the idea of the Earth correcting the virus infestation of humanity: Blue Gender.


Quite good. I liked it.

Also a movie: The Happening.

It sucked.

i got lost the minute i saw all that complicated math....

it should have bn more basic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Also a movie: The Happening.

It sucked.

Blue Gender is not original, by any means. It's really based off of the concept of a living earth: Gaia. That's been around for ages.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think Hulk will fly us to Mars Of course he will. Hulk will punch the silly logic that tells us otherwise. Originally posted by Mindship
Get serious.

http://www.iainclaridge.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/silver_surfboard.jpg

This also permits excess population BFR via inboard trapping. Touche. That requires Galactus' arrival first. We could repel him by throwing our excess population at him.

How many years for humanity to become large enough to cover Galactus? Get on the math, guys.

--------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by dadudemon

So, 585.5 years.

In other words, Bardock42, your numbers are correct and you did everything correctly. (Did you even doubt that? awesome )
Well, he said a number in the 570's. So there would be like, a mountaintop in Europe that we would be waiting for babies to cover and people would be celebrating way early. Numbers weren't correct enough. uhuh

Originally posted by Original Smurph
How many years for humanity to become large enough to cover Galactus? Get on the math, guys.


That's a much more difficult question to answer because of several reasons:


1. Galactus' size is variable.

2. Galactus' shape is not an easily definable geometric shape: similar to what archimedes did with a many sided figure, it would take lots of different shapes to get a more and more a accurate measure of Galactus....and even one square km could be a VERY significant difference in number.

3. Galactus isn't shaped liek a regular human, as well: he's got that armor and hat shit going on.





However...heh heh....it's something similar to what i did in a second year physics class when working with objects traveling through a fluid.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So it would take 578.5 years! Sounds plausible? Any problem with the calculation? Played too fast and loose with the decimals?

I guess we are assuming they are invincible, but there is an upper limit to the number of children a person is going to want to produce, even if not determined by age. In fact, I might argue that invincible people would be less inclined to reproduce than mortals.

also, it would be at least 12-13 years (if we assume child sex laws are relaxed) before the new population becomes fertile. The increase would come in generational cohorts, rather than as a linear function.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you actually making the argument that population density 89 people/sq km in Asia means that there cannot possibly be overpopulation?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I agree with you here. inimalist is using the word overpopulation incorrectly. It's not a matter of population density its one of how much population the planet can sustain. Because the economics of farming are insane, apparently burning excess food is better than selling it cheaply to starving people, there's no good way to resolve the problem of feeding increasing numbers of people.

fair enough, I may not have explained what I meant clearly enough.

'Overpopulation', to me (obviously), is a nearly vacuous term. At best, it might describe an epiphenomenon that occurs when infrastructural, developmental and scarcity issues are exacerbated by a growing population, but the population, imho, is not the problem, and it think phrasing it in such a way has a non-trivial effect on the way we interpret the problem.

So, for food, there are plenty of solutions. Some include not wasting 40% of the food bought in the West. Some might involve investing in technologies for higher yield crops in climates currently not suited for agriculture. Some involves reversing crazy IMF aide requirements that force local farmers to grow cash crops, and similarily, some involves reducing the international flow of drugs which produce another non-edible cash crop that takes up valuable farm land. And some might even involve a top down command economy with regard to basic food.

The problem with feeding people isn't that there are too many people. We produce more than enough food to feed the world's population as is, the issues are of an entirely different nature that, at least I feel, are totally ignored by conceptualizing the problem as "overpopulation".

the relevance of using pop density stats is basically that I wanted to show that places that are heavily populated though developed are not "overpopulated", though those that are less populated but under developed are "overpopulated"

Like I said earlier, what you call "over population" I would call "under development"

Originally posted by inimalist
I guess we are assuming they are invincible, but there is an upper limit to the number of children a person is going to want to produce, even if not determined by age. In fact, I might argue that invincible people would be less inclined to reproduce than mortals.

also, it would be at least 12-13 years (if we assume child sex laws are relaxed) before the new population becomes fertile. The increase would come in generational cohorts, rather than as a linear function.

Yeah, we disregarded those problems, although we are aware of them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, we disregarded those problems, although we are aware of them.

fair enough, its a good equation, lol, I couldn't do something like that

but, to tie it into something the OP said:

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
what im asking is how would they world be and what measure would we try to take?

There are theories that, as the standard of living of people increases, the population tends to plateau.

If we think about the growth of the population with regard to what measures would be taken to try and control it, it is at least worth noting that one option might be to do nothing, as people who live forever might eventually develop a culture of very few children and a nearly flat rate of increase (though, with no death, there is no actual plateau i guess).

lol, just trying to be relevant