Maybe in Beijing and a couple other large cities but India has an overall population density of 386 people per sq. mile while china only has 142 per sq. mile
That's because they have huge uninhabitable areas with close to zero people per sqm.. I've been to china for business a few time and had a lot of night flight all across mainland china, and it's mostly either completely dark or huge areas lit as if it was one single lantern. The areas actually inhabited have just a slightly lower population density than india. However, the indian birth rate is way higher. Btw. the average population density in holland is about 25% higher than india.
1Reply
·
Edited 7 years ago
deleted
· 7 years ago
vhemt.org: if one of us are the problem we are all the problem.
Why is it that whenever this comes up on this site, everyone immediately results to "cleanse the earth of millions of humans!" You would all make great(?) villains.
The population is declining. To maintain the population each family needs 2.1 children and Europe and Asia are far below that, Africa is falling a bit and the US is dropping a bit too. Once baby boomers start to die off we will see a population drop of ten billion to three billion
Haven't you heard they're booming babies in good old Arabian world. They are kinda still at war. And I don't buy that baby boom in Europe and North America. My grandparents had 12 siblings as all the ancestors before them. They were first to have 2 or 3 kids . Like we didn't have wars before '45. And like my ancestors didn't have 36 children in peace times.
want this Booming has nothing to do with the end of World or any other war. Settlers of the west had dozens of kids. Free land, money, or job and there's a boom boom. Which sometimes happens with war ending. WWII end meant sharing everything (communism)so my grandparents had only 3. Before that was "You want this land? Can you work it? It's yours" in peace times. It was empty a lot. You didn't lose that many people that you needed to repopulate. MT. Kozara region in Serbia haven't had males for 13 generations. In WWI 2/3 Serbs died (it's their own fault they started it)
I honestly cannot figure out you point here. Not trying to be an arse or anything. I am interested in your argument and just don't see the correlation or point you're trying to make.
I used to think this, until I learned about psychopathy. They inhibit the rest of humanity's ability to deal with problems and our ability to progress. Remove psychopathy, and the solution to every other problem will fall into place.
Psychopaths are uniquely suited (and motivated) to attaining power and manipulating people, inevitably in bad ways, and completely lack empathy/guilt/shame/remorse/fear and the ability to understand consequences (in fact, they can't consider the future at all, beyond a very basic understanding). Once in power, they corrupt the people and systems around them, eroding trust/faith/efficiency/etc and making terrible decisions (they will always choose the short-term benefit even if the long-term consequence is apocalyptic). Without fail, the systems they infect (like, say, a government) will crumble and fall apart in time.
Imagine if every single person in every position of power everywhere in the world suddenly grew a conscience if they didn't have one already, and began considering the consequences of their actions. Really sit and consider the chain of events that would happen next.
I wasn't replying to your comment, but it's interesting anyway. The problem with your assertion is that moral compasses aren't objective. The problems in the world stem far more from differences of opinion than from powerful psychopathic people. There's no reason to assume that every vicious ruler was a psychopath.
"Vicious" is not the problem. Sadism and psychopathy aren't necessarily mutual.
Also, morality was never mentioned in my post; I only talked about empathy/etc. The vast majority of humans are born with empathy for others; psychos aren't.
My point is that the vast majority of people in power do have a conscience and do consider the consequences of their actions. There's no reason to believe that there's an epidemic of psychopathy among people in power.
Watch vsauce or minute physics they talk about it another guy is Randal Monroe he did the book what it? Shoulder to shoulder every single human could fit in Los Angeles. If instead of shoulder to shoulder we did an actual population we could all fit in Texas with a population density of New York
Just googled it and that's true! Pretty interesting. The thing with overpopulation isn't only about space though. Resources will run out faster, more forests cut down, and the list goes on
We aren't losing much there
Imagine if every single person in every position of power everywhere in the world suddenly grew a conscience if they didn't have one already, and began considering the consequences of their actions. Really sit and consider the chain of events that would happen next.
Also, morality was never mentioned in my post; I only talked about empathy/etc. The vast majority of humans are born with empathy for others; psychos aren't.
B: we have enough food
C: our biggest problem is disease