Do not take medical advice from this man

https://i.imgflip.com/3y8fkv.jpg[/img

and the assh0le invest heavily in china labor.

is he wrong?

Overpopulation is a myth. 7,000,000,000 people in the world right now. The earth’s surface area (of land) is 196,940,000 square miles. Dividing the population by the area, we can see that we have about 35-36 people per square mile. That is not cramped. In fact, at that rate, each person would have allowed about 147 square feet of space. That doesn’t take into account that most people live with other people. It also doesn’t take into account that we have tall buildings that people can live elevated now. And it doesn’t take into account all the people who are on ships on a daily basis. There’s definitely room.

There are places that are extremely densely populated such as Shanghai, Boston, and Hong Kong, but there’s also places like Wyoming, Western Asia, and Alaska. A densely populated area always means there’s a sparely populated area out there somewhere.

It’s been shown that you could fit the world’s population on the state of Texas alone. Is there room for the human population outside of Texas? A little bit.

doesn't matter how cramped we are. what matters is how much resources we'll take.

You want to reduce the world’s population? You first.

yOu FiRsT argument lmao. that's not rare. your arguments went from ok-ish to terrible within minutes. record.

if we were to lower the population, we should start with the birth rates. while people die of old age in the masses, we could give birth slower than the rate they are dying. this isn't as a farfetched idea as it sounds because many millennials and gen z are looking to adopt pets rather than have children, and the generation that's dying out in the near future is probably the rightfully named baby boomers.

The “YoU fIrSt” argument is common because it’s what you want regardless of having less births. Lowering the population of the world literally means people dying. And if you’re not killing people to do it, you’re waiting for the older generation to die, which is not even close to a billion people. Your argument for this really is far fetched. Don’t pretend that the millennials who want pets make up even 50% of the average millennial population.

"it’s what you want"

oh no. gotta love the assholes who guilt-trip people for having a certain perspective on an argument

"And if you’re not killing people to do it, you’re waiting for the older generation to die, which is not even close to a billion people."

still a lot more ethical than killing people or killing yourself.

"Don’t pretend that the millennials who want pets make up even 50% of the average millennial population."

the population decline will need generations to take effect. millennials are a large population as well, and once they die out (which will be more than half a century later due to life expectancy rises), the decline will already be well underway.

If the world population is declining, then your argument along with Bill Gates’ is completely pointless.

dunno why but ok