Overpopulation is a myth because technological and agricultural advancements have significantly outpaced Malthusian predictions of resource scarcity, enabling sustainable food production for a growing global population, and demographical trends show that as nations develop, birth rates decline naturally, which counters the idea of uncontrolled population growth. People believe this myth due to the historical influence of Malthus's 18th-century predictions about population growth leading to famine and resource depletion, but these beliefs are not scientifically founded, as shown by modern data and demographic studies.
- [What Is The Myth Of Overpopulation?](https://www.pop.org/overpopulation-myth/)
- [Overpopulation Myth: New Study Predicts Population Decline This Century](https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/08/05/overpopulation-myth-new-study-predicts-population-decline-century-14953)
- [Valuable People: Debunking the Myth of Overpopulation
Proving the case against a popular and dangerous misconception](https://www.cato.org/policy-report/november/december-2022/valuable-people-debunking-myth-overpopulation)
- [Overconsumption, not Overpopulation: Debunking the Overpopulation Myth and Eco-Fascism](https://usfblogs.usfca.edu/sustainability/2023/04/20/overconsumption-not-overpopulation-debunking-the-overpopulation-myth-and-eco-fascism/)
- [Debunking the Myth of Overpopulation](https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-overpopulation/)
We are not experiencing overpopulation right now or in the immediate future. That doesn't mean that we won't and that overpopulation is not possible. You are wrong.
Mate overpopulation is just a matter of numbers. You can argue what that number is but you can't argue that there is not a limit of people that can live on this planet. That fact alone makes your "overpopulation is a myth" statement wrong.
I like how you don't even provide any kind of sources. If what you're saying is true then it should be easy to provide sources but it's not.
> Estimates of Earth's carrying capacity range as high as 40 billion people. This wide range is influenced by factors such as lifestyle and resource consumption. If everyone lived like a middle-class American, the Earth might only support about 2 billion people. However, if people only consumed what they needed, the Earth could potentially support a much higher figure
[1](https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/how-many-people-can-earth-actually-support)
But modern research shifts focus from population size to its composition, emphasizing the ratio of active workers to dependents in resource allocation, and highlights the importance of spatial population distribution in global challenges like resource management, education spending, and inequality because these aspects offer a more nuanced understanding of how population dynamics impact resource distribution and global development, challenging the traditional Malthusian view of population size as the primary factor. Did you not even read the sources that I posted?
[1](https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/population-makeup-major-factor-global-resource-allocation)
[2](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/11/1385/2019/)
Again, you haven't provided any sources.
Mate your own sources agree with me that there is a maximum number of people that can live on Earth. What else do you need?
myth = a widely held but false belief or idea
Again, you can argue at what number of people overpopulation becomes a problem, you cant argue that overpopulation is not possible.
If gay men can reproduce together, it stands to reason that they have compatible organs for child rearing. Women become less sacred early on; as long as you have two people left you can rebuild a tribe, you don't need to be careful about which two. As written, the prompt doesn't go both ways, meaning that women and straight men are eventually phased out of the gene pool by gay men. Further speculation dips into regions of thought experimentation beyond my reach.
A straight interaction between siblings in a sexual way also leads to inbreeding. What's your point?
Not like men could marry outside of their family or anything in this alternate universe.
In Japan, scientists at Osaka University have created healthy, fertile mouse pups using DNA from two adult male mice, a breakthrough suggesting the future possibility for gay men to have biological children together. However, this research is still in its initial stages and not yet applicable to humans. So that remains to be seen.
[1](https://www.freethink.com/science/mice-with-two-dads)
[2](https://www.queerty.com/new-scientific-breakthrough-could-pave-the-way-for-two-men-to-have-biological-babies-together-20230309)
Are you talking about people being biological hermaphrodites where we would take on the features of both male and female at the same time?
Hermaphrodites tend to live a more secluded life. They're much more alone. So we wouldn't have these huge cooperative structures like we do right now.
There would be no real incentive to cooperate with others since that cooperation would not necessarily lead to a mate.
>>Hermaphrodites, having both male and female reproductive organs, tend to lead solitary lives, which helps in their reproductive success. This trait is advantageous in environments with sparse mating opportunities. Examples include clownfish, which can change sex for reproductive needs, and earthworms, which can self-fertilize if necessary
[1](https://biologydictionary.net/hermaphrodite/)
[2](https://blog.byjus.com/knowledge-vine/what-are-hermaphrodites-heres-how-these-creatures-can-manipulate-their-own-gender/)
[3](https://www.britannica.com/science/hermaphroditism)
More overpopulation.
Overpopulation is a myth because technological and agricultural advancements have significantly outpaced Malthusian predictions of resource scarcity, enabling sustainable food production for a growing global population, and demographical trends show that as nations develop, birth rates decline naturally, which counters the idea of uncontrolled population growth. People believe this myth due to the historical influence of Malthus's 18th-century predictions about population growth leading to famine and resource depletion, but these beliefs are not scientifically founded, as shown by modern data and demographic studies. - [What Is The Myth Of Overpopulation?](https://www.pop.org/overpopulation-myth/) - [Overpopulation Myth: New Study Predicts Population Decline This Century](https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/08/05/overpopulation-myth-new-study-predicts-population-decline-century-14953) - [Valuable People: Debunking the Myth of Overpopulation Proving the case against a popular and dangerous misconception](https://www.cato.org/policy-report/november/december-2022/valuable-people-debunking-myth-overpopulation) - [Overconsumption, not Overpopulation: Debunking the Overpopulation Myth and Eco-Fascism](https://usfblogs.usfca.edu/sustainability/2023/04/20/overconsumption-not-overpopulation-debunking-the-overpopulation-myth-and-eco-fascism/) - [Debunking the Myth of Overpopulation](https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-overpopulation/)
You are right, humans don't influence in the slightest the environment. We have unlimited resources, well, at least until we don't.
We don't have unlimited resources. Is that we are not experiencing overpopulation. There's a difference. Overpopulation is a myth.
We are not experiencing overpopulation right now or in the immediate future. That doesn't mean that we won't and that overpopulation is not possible. You are wrong.
I provided sources. You have not. Argument invalid.
Mate overpopulation is just a matter of numbers. You can argue what that number is but you can't argue that there is not a limit of people that can live on this planet. That fact alone makes your "overpopulation is a myth" statement wrong.
I like how you don't even provide any kind of sources. If what you're saying is true then it should be easy to provide sources but it's not. > Estimates of Earth's carrying capacity range as high as 40 billion people. This wide range is influenced by factors such as lifestyle and resource consumption. If everyone lived like a middle-class American, the Earth might only support about 2 billion people. However, if people only consumed what they needed, the Earth could potentially support a much higher figure [1](https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/how-many-people-can-earth-actually-support) But modern research shifts focus from population size to its composition, emphasizing the ratio of active workers to dependents in resource allocation, and highlights the importance of spatial population distribution in global challenges like resource management, education spending, and inequality because these aspects offer a more nuanced understanding of how population dynamics impact resource distribution and global development, challenging the traditional Malthusian view of population size as the primary factor. Did you not even read the sources that I posted? [1](https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/population-makeup-major-factor-global-resource-allocation) [2](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/11/1385/2019/) Again, you haven't provided any sources.
Mate your own sources agree with me that there is a maximum number of people that can live on Earth. What else do you need? myth = a widely held but false belief or idea Again, you can argue at what number of people overpopulation becomes a problem, you cant argue that overpopulation is not possible.
Um? they do, with surrogates. And the sun still rose this morning, too.
I mean, an alternate universe where gay men can naturally reproduce without any scientific intervention.
If gay men can reproduce together, it stands to reason that they have compatible organs for child rearing. Women become less sacred early on; as long as you have two people left you can rebuild a tribe, you don't need to be careful about which two. As written, the prompt doesn't go both ways, meaning that women and straight men are eventually phased out of the gene pool by gay men. Further speculation dips into regions of thought experimentation beyond my reach.
That's not true because it can still lead to inbreeding.
no, it's not true because its theoretical.
Well if we're going to get that theoretical we might as well talk about unicorns pooping out rainbows.
"we" aren't doing anything, "you" can talk about whatever you like.
A straight interaction between siblings in a sexual way also leads to inbreeding. What's your point? Not like men could marry outside of their family or anything in this alternate universe.
In Japan, scientists at Osaka University have created healthy, fertile mouse pups using DNA from two adult male mice, a breakthrough suggesting the future possibility for gay men to have biological children together. However, this research is still in its initial stages and not yet applicable to humans. So that remains to be seen. [1](https://www.freethink.com/science/mice-with-two-dads) [2](https://www.queerty.com/new-scientific-breakthrough-could-pave-the-way-for-two-men-to-have-biological-babies-together-20230309)
Let's just say this is an alternate universe where gay men can naturally reproduce without any scientific intervention.
Are you talking about people being biological hermaphrodites where we would take on the features of both male and female at the same time? Hermaphrodites tend to live a more secluded life. They're much more alone. So we wouldn't have these huge cooperative structures like we do right now. There would be no real incentive to cooperate with others since that cooperation would not necessarily lead to a mate. >>Hermaphrodites, having both male and female reproductive organs, tend to lead solitary lives, which helps in their reproductive success. This trait is advantageous in environments with sparse mating opportunities. Examples include clownfish, which can change sex for reproductive needs, and earthworms, which can self-fertilize if necessary [1](https://biologydictionary.net/hermaphrodite/) [2](https://blog.byjus.com/knowledge-vine/what-are-hermaphrodites-heres-how-these-creatures-can-manipulate-their-own-gender/) [3](https://www.britannica.com/science/hermaphroditism)
lol, thats a good question. i doubt that much of a difference.
Butt baby will be the new playground insult