Our problem, our real problem, actually, the ONLY problem we have is population growth.

It´s impossible to have any environmental measure to work wuile we are constantly in need of more and more space for crops, pastures, roads, housing, mining, etc...

But it´s a taboo to even mention it, so, I bet even here among a more educated audience I´ll have someone writing things like "why don´t you kill yourself than?"

I don´t kill myself because it would not work, we are severely overpopulated, no less than reducing our current population for a small fraction of current numbers would work.

And since it´s a forbidden subject, god forgive me if I talk about population, so, scientists instead talk about nonsense such as climate change, recycling as if it made any difference and reducing carbon emission as if nature care about carbon emissions after we turned it´s forests into crops.

In time, I have no children, not going to have any, doing my part even if it means nothing.

There are a number of issues here:

1. A significant number of people in the worst polluting nations (looking at you, USA) don't believe that there is actually a problem or don't want to believe that there is a problem. I suggest that this is largely a combination of ignorance, anti-science paranoia, and economic self-interest.
2. Short-term economics are almost always prioritized over good long-term environmental stewardship. Eg. Foam factories using CFCs because they're cheaper, ignoring the fact that they destroy the ozone layer if they get into the atmosphere.
3. People don't want to give up their standards of living for the sake of people "over there" (it's likely that climate change will disproportionately affect developing nations and coastal regions) or even for the sake of their children's standard of living.
4. People think it's "somebody else's problem."
5. Organizational inertia. It's entirely possible for even a small company to recognize that something is a problem, study in depth how to solve the problem, and then still not do anything about it because individual employees just keep doing things the way they've always done it. Now imagine the same thing happening with entire countries.

10 minutes ago, Luis Carlos Zardo said:

In time, I have no children, not going to have any, doing my part even if it means nothing.

This is part of the self regulating system that I mentioned.

So many people nowadays have decided to not have children or to only have one child that our population growth from 2017 has started to slow down to a point where it is affecting other parts of the economy.

A huge factor is low pay. So many new employees aren't earning enough to have huge families so they have only one child if they even have one. If you read some of the popular news channels you will have seen the headline "millennials aren't having babies" a few times now.

The statistics show that our population growth is very-very low compared to what it has been +/- 0.1%. We now have a similar growth rate of the medieval ages with only wealth countries showing any real increase.

Although if we do destroy the world we will not be the first species on earth that caused a mass extinction.

Quote

 

So many people nowadays have decided to not have children or to only have one child that our population growth from 2017 has started to slow down to a point where it is affecting other parts of the economy.

A huge factor is low pay. So many new employees aren't earning enough to have huge families so they have only one child if they even have one. If you read some of the popular news channels you will have seen the headline "millennials aren't having babies" a few times now.

The statistics show that our population growth is very-very low compared to what it has been +/- 0.1%. We now have a similar growth rate of the medieval ages with only wealth countries showing any real increase.

 

Not enough people have decided to not have children, the population keeps growing, the pace is not accelerating, but it´s also not stopping, each year we added a population the size of Germany to the world, more or less 80 million people, and, this number is only getting bigger because it´s a percentage of the entire population.

The only thing, apparently, capable of slowing our population growth is hunger, or, in its modern form, low wages, I agree with that, but, it´s a paradox, we pursue economical gains at the same time we pursue a large family, we can´t have both, and, specially, we can´t have both AND a healthy planet to live in.

I don´t really know where you got those statistics, because there´s a lot of very poor countries with very large population growth, most of Africa, Asia and Central America for starters...
 

The only way a declining population actually affects the economy is that it would force corporations to pay MORE, because workforce would be more valued.

58 minutes ago, CrazyCdn said:

What other species has caused a mass extinction on Earth?

Well OK, to be fair we will be the first single species that causes a mass extinction but it can be argued this is only because we don't classify humans as we do other animals and plants.

Two other possible mass extinctions caused by pollution from living organisms are: Late Devonian Extinction and ordovician–silurian extinction.

It seems to be a very natural thing for a dominant life form to overpopulate and pollute the world, only to kill itself. We are the first species (as far as we know) aware of the fact that we are killing our self.

1 hour ago, CrazyCdn said:

What other species has caused a mass extinction on Earth?

The cyanobacteria that caused the Great Oxygenation Event, presumably. Though, it may be a stretch to assume that it was all a single species doing that.

Not going to dive into this too deep but I don't quite see how so many people can claim that the world is overpopulated. As a matter of fact, there is just a lot of uninhabitated space on earth. Hence, the population is rather very badly distributed. This (bad/unfair distribution) is imo a common phenomenon in our modern societey (I am for example thinking about the fact that we have been exploiting an entire continent for centuries or the pareto-like distribution of wealth).

In terms of growth... the relative growth has actually been declining since the 70s. Of course, due to the baby boomers boost this does not mean that the absolute growth has been declining significantly. So yeah, this might become a problem but still, I would not claim that the earth is overpopulated just yet.

Quote

In terms of growth... the relative growth has actually been declining since the 70s. Of course, due to the baby boomers boost this does not mean that the absolute growth has been declining significantly. So yeah, this might become a problem but still, I would not claim that the earth is overpopulated just yet.

Your perception of overpopulation is the same as the vast majority of mankind, overpopulation has absolutely nothing to do with space, yes, there´s a lot of space, and, according to the Duggars we can fit the entire human race in the state of texas alone. They are not wrong, we could put the entire human race in a much smaller space if we really wanted to.

A population is overpopulated when its existence cannot be perpetuated etternaly keeping the same QUALITY of life and PRSERVING the environment that supports it´s existence.

Our life quality, for those of us that are not part of the 1% is obviously declining and our environment is about to collapse, major ecossystems are already destroyed beyond any recovery.

That´s overpopulation and we are grossly overpopulated for more than a century.

From what I've read, we've mostly got a distribution problem, followed by energy and economic problems.

We've got enough resources in play globally for about 2x the current global population. Food, potable water, clothing, housing, etc. People with resources throw them out and waste them due to abundance. Ugly looking food is thrown out, perfectly good food is allowed to rot on shelves because nobody has need to purchase it, electricity is generated and wasted because it is cheap and available, clean and treated water is dumped or used for irrigation.  But in other places those same resources are scarce.  We cannot easily re-distribute resources from resource-rich to resource-poor areas.

Using current technology we could redistribute resources from resource-dense to resource-lacking locations, but the cost to do so is enormous. We could arrange for continuous resource drops globally where goods are flown around the world but it would be at a tremendous energy cost for fuel.

And then of course there is the economic side effects of redistributing goods on a large scale.  Both the sources and destinations will have changes to supply and demand, so changes to either can completely destroy economies. Bringing in cheap resources from elsewhere undermines local economies, getting rid of excess resources lowers demand and increases costs. Both the giver and receiver suffer.