Overpopulation: unending growth on our finite planet is impossible.

Advocating for murder, eugenics, or culling people does not help make recognition of overpopulation more mainstream.

2021-08-12T00:28:58+00:00

I don't know how often I have to repeat this, but I'll say it again. If you think the way to solve overpopulation is to murder people en masse, advocate for any sort of forced program a la eugenics or forced sterilisation, then you're not helping.

Instead, you're actively harming the goal of making recognition of overpopulation mainstream. No one is ever going to agree with the terms or viewpoints you've laid out. The only way to get people to identify overpopulation as a genuine problem is to push solutions that a broad base of people can agree with.

Posted because there's been an uptick in comments espousing these views recently. If you want an instant, permanent ban from this subreddit, this is a great way to get one.

[link] [comments]

r/overpopulation open discussion thread

2026-04-01T16:01:14+00:00

What's on your mind? You can chat here if you don't want to make a new post. Or drop in and see what others are talking about.

submitted by /u/AutoModerator
[link] [comments]

The world is one giant blood sacrifice.

2026-04-22T11:57:31+00:00

If humanity cares about humanity then they would focus all their efforts on balance and collaboration. Without it there will be no life on earth or in the wider universe. Humanity has constructed a system where they're inefficient to conserving and spreading life. All the system does is invoke needless deaths and come up with more inventions to invoke in mass some more needless deaths.

Overpopulation makes sense as in the need to produce more supply for blood rituals. Life does not need all this. Life wants to survive the death of our sun and spread across the universe. Life wants to live. The only target audience this destruction of life could benefit from could be the forces in the spiritual realm. This does not benefit the living or your great mother, the mother, mother of where all life originates from. And i dont belief that people are summoning their own death for no reason. Our actions comes from a need. Abrahamic religions rule the world. The evil god that they serve wants this. The evil god promises their followers the end of all suffering to those who abide. In other words he will put an end to life as life itself brings suffering.

People dont just do things all willy nilly. That the world is the way it is right now is done on purpose.

The human world does not serve life. I hope that it ends soon for us, to then start participating in the living world instead.

submitted by /u/PurpleAristocrats
[link] [comments]

Andrew Garfield: “We're on a planet that has an abundance of resources and they’re just happen to be hoarded by a bunch of scared little men” Yeah we can all agree that billionaires are the problem, but this “abundance of resources” idea is just as bad as the billionaires.

2026-04-20T18:52:38+00:00

https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniesoteriou/andrew-garfield-scared-little-men-comments-reacts

We absolutely do not have enough resource to make sure all 8.3 billion live comfortably. It’s not just the billionaire who want to hoard resource, we can say the same about upper middle class liberal Americans who don’t want to gave up their life style as well.

Andrew, you are part of the problem too. It’s always celebrities with higher than average carbon foot print that preach about resource distribution. We also have middle class white Millennial and Gen Z Americans who suffer from first world guilt. So they go around calling people racist and fascist for pointing out that high fertility rate is bad for everyone.

In order to truly equally redistribute the global resource and be sustainable, we all have to live like peasants from the 1700s. We will have to ration everyones water, electricity, and food. People like the Amazing Spiderman here will never have a career because movie industry is a waste of natural resource. We can’t solve our energy crisis by simply building nuclear power planet everywhere. That is extremely risky and adds more burden to the water supply. Wind and solar are only sustainable if the global population goes down to below 2 billion.
The point is that we are suppose to keep everything in balance to the best of our ability. The first thing human should never do is fucking up the earth by breeding to the point of overshoot. Every natural resource we have should be cherished and used responsibly. Just because you embrace socialism and want to fight for social justice doesn’t mean you should place fertility rate above our stewardship of the earth. Environmentalism and natalism are mutually exclusive.

submitted by /u/UpperCalligrapher509
[link] [comments]

People act our medical technology is stuck in 2026 BCE when they argue that replacement rate has to be greater 2. People are living longer than ever. Heck, earth can barely support human population at a replacement rate of one.

2026-04-20T03:46:50+00:00

Anytime we see an article on drop in birthrate, we see the same comment about ”muh country’s replacement rate is no longer 6 like the good old days”. We have yet to see any rational argument for having a replacement rate greater than 1.

Please don’t use the we need young people to take care of the old argument, because there is no way you can justify bringing extra 5 more babies into the world for the sole purpose of being caretakers for old people. By that logic, you gonna need to bring extra 25 babies into the following generation just to keep up with this supposed demand for senior care.

“But our economy needs it!”..yeah uh we got pretty far as a species when earth was under 1 billion people. All of our major discoveries and technological advancements were achieved with less than 8 billion people.

I actually think that the average person want to believe in population collapse because it helps with them with their cognitive dissonance. Right now, every living and breathing human being can feel the end is near for our planet. Deep down inside, we all know our remaining resources and living spaces are shrinking by the day which is why anti-immigration is so popular right now. Despite all of these concerns, the average person still want to have kids to feel fulfilled.

submitted by /u/UpperCalligrapher509
[link] [comments]

Fertility in the context of climate change

2026-04-20T00:47:30+00:00

As the global population and carbon emissions increase exponentially, questions are being raised as to whether having children remains rational in an era of global warming.

This is a high-consumption lifestyle characteristic of wealthy nations (in fact, one might wonder if the extreme poverty in poor countries is the appropriate life), and it demonstrates that in these nations, the environmental impact is significantly greater with every additional child. This leads to the conclusion that deliberation regarding family size remains a critical issue.

Over the past two centuries, the world population has grown from 1 billion in 1800 to 8 billion in 2023, while carbon emissions have increased twentyfold. The exponential growth in population size and carbon emissions suggests that population growth is a major cause of rising emissions.

The rapid increase in carbon emissions since the 1850s has led to climate change. The global average temperature has risen by 1.48°C above pre-industrial levels, and sea levels are currently rising by approximately 4.5 mm per year, threatening all life on Earth. This pressure could be further exacerbated. Does this mean, then, that having children is no longer rational?

The IPAT equation also includes the letter T, which stands for technology. Such a highly optimistic view was formulated in the 1980s by Lucas and Romer in their endogenous growth models. These models argue that population growth can foster innovation. Esther Vosserup even called population pressure the "mother of innovation."

However, technological advancement is not a panacea, and birth rate control is being discussed again as a means of mitigating climate change, particularly in countries with high consumption levels. Indeed, philosophers Hedberg and Conley argue that limiting births is morally necessary in the context of a climate crisis. Ganivet advocates for a voluntary and rights-based reduction in birth rates.

Considering these factors, I believe that the more radical a country's policies are to encourage childbirth, the stronger the stigma of being labeled a "climate villain" should be.

submitted by /u/madrid987
[link] [comments]

Even without AI, there are still too many people with advanced degrees and overpopulation is making it worse. There is no labor shortage period. We are heading towards a point where fighting for any job will be as competitive as getting into professional sports.

2026-04-18T00:36:26+00:00

Forget about earth's carrying capacity, we already pushed beyond our civilization's carrying capacity. Civilization and society will only continue to function if the majority of us find a purpose to be productive. People who think society will function with UBI and daily rations of Soylent green are as naive as that couple who biked through ISIS territory.

submitted by /u/UpperCalligrapher509
[link] [comments]

"Japan and Korea are on the verge of collapse"

2026-04-16T19:00:29+00:00

Basic stats for the "collapsing countries"

South Korea HDI: 0.937 - 20th highest in the world

TFR: 0.8

Japan HDI: 0.925 - 23rd in the world

TFR: 1.15

Italy HDI: 0.915 - 29th in the world

TFR: 1.14

HDI definition: The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and having a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions.

Let's look at the highest TFR countries:

Chad HDI: 0.416 - 190th in the world

TFR: 5.96

Afghanistan HDI: 0.496 - 182nd in the world

TFR: 4.7

Somalia HDI: 0.404 - 192nd in the world

TFR: 5.5

So an example of three "collapsing" countries shows exceedingly high life expectancy, literacy and education rate, minimal poverty, starvation, and violence, and high economic and intellectual growth.

The three countries with the highest TFR have their population growth as their only real "positive" stat. Everything else, from life expectancy, to human rights, to poverty rate and literacy, is abysmal. There are more mouths to feed, backs that need clothes and sleepers that need beds, but not enough of any to go around.

So what the hell do people mean by collapse? If Japan turned into Chad, that would be considered a "collapse" as a total loss of infrastructure and societal stability. But the aging population and decreasing density all points to this becoming less and less likely.

submitted by /u/Zealousideal_Put5685
[link] [comments]

Obesity and people getting uglier is a direct result of overpopulation

2026-04-15T16:47:12+00:00

More people = farmers need to adopt more aggressive farming techniques to meet demand = less nutrients per calorie eaten from whole foods.

More people means food companies are also forced to take the already nutrient depleted whole foods and process them while adding empty calories with oils and sugars.

Less nutrients per calorie means people need to eat more to function normally so they get fat.

Soft foods (I think that lack nutrients is also a cause but not sure) are a direct cause of recessed faces and crooked teeth..

submitted by /u/Successful-Photo4381
[link] [comments]

Many users on this subreddit wonder why they want a larger population, but in the case of Koreans, it is as follows.

2026-04-15T23:42:40+00:00

This is because there is a notion that population size equals the level of a nation's power.

The funny thing is, i feels like the number of people pressuring others to have more children for the sake of the country is also increasing.

submitted by /u/madrid987
[link] [comments]

Faucets will run dry in Kearny by July 15, officials warn

2026-04-15T09:00:34+00:00

Town in Arizona only a few months away from no water; desert mayor never wanted to learn so much about water laws... 🙄

submitted by /u/Kind-Region-5115
[link] [comments]

Is overpopulation a weapon of the upper class?

2026-04-15T05:50:02+00:00

In the 13th Century mass migration was Genghis Khan hordes exterminating everything in their sight.

A bunch of Mongols on horseback killed like 15% of humanity going thousands of miles from one end of Asia to the border of Europe.

So people didn't really wanted that kinda migration right? It wasn't taboo to take swords and armor and actively fight those migrants...

Today it is not as brutal but the end result of importing people from places where the culture requires high birth rates, and the birth rate is even higher once they come into their host nations, is not exactly an improvement of the standard of living. Not to mentiojn the cultural issues.

Furthermore developed nations now have issues providing basic housing and employment to their own, mostly the youth, due to automation, robotic and AI taking over menial jobs that were once labor intensive.

They are not lands to immigrate into. Their population surely would shrink to the benefit of higher salaries, affordable housing and better opportunities.

So why this narrative and obsession of the Epstein class to "replace" the natives and make them a minority in their own countries? To continue the plague of overpopulation everywhere?

Is overpopulation a weapon of the upper class?

submitted by /u/Different_Peach99
[link] [comments]

I live in a city that inceased its population by almost 40% in just 20 years - its horrible.

2026-04-14T18:20:32+00:00

My city had a population of 1.5 Million back in 2006. Now it stands at 2.1 Million. Its hell. The parks that were half empty when I was a kid are now overcrowded.

Public transportation is a nightmare. The lines at the supermarket, or the drive through are brutal. Doctors apointments had a waiting time of a few weeks. Now its months.

On top of that the masses of tourists have trippled in this time. So theres probably another 100 000 to 200 000 tourists in the city at any given time.

Most of the new construction were housing units. Very few new hospitals or shopping centers were built. Practically no new parks. Every place that was previously empty is now covered with apartment complexes.

Public transportation was expanded by like 10-20%. At the cost of massive building projects that make certain segments unusable for months.

Community spirit and decency are gone. People are agressive, unfirendly, violent, stressed. Like crowded rats.

For the ordinary population, the population increase was a net negative. The city would profit tremendously if the population was reduced by at least 15% to some 1.8 Million.

But instead limiting the population growth, every Mayor wants more people. Its horrible.

submitted by /u/Largest-Planet
[link] [comments]

Jevon's paradox and resource consumption when not all reduce their birth rates...

2026-04-15T06:20:24+00:00

"The Jevon's paradox occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency of resource use, but the resulting lower costs cause consumption to rise rather than fall."

For example mass adoption of EVs will free up gasoline and make gasoline prices lower... for a lot of more SUVs / trucks to be on the road and paradoxically for pollution to increase.

Likewise one can conclude lowered birth rates in developed countries will free up resources and land and heal the ecosystem... For OTHERS to take over and use those resources to have more kids and use more resources as those will cheapen.

Follow the logic? we see exactly this playing out with some regions sending mass quantities of migrants to areas where the population is falling while absolutely not reducing their high birth rates.

Technically they may be falling but very slowly. Furthermore the safety valve offered by dumping their excess population into developed and high consumption areas not only wreaks the ecosystem more but gives them 0 incentives to reduce their birth rates and solve the problems at home.

The Exponential function and Jevon's paradox should be 2 key elements to teach everyone, with maybe the Tragedy of the Commons.

submitted by /u/Different_Peach99
[link] [comments]

For the 151,015th time, we are NOT at risk of extinction.

2026-04-14T17:35:13+00:00

Short rant, and this post will be deleted in a day.

The risk of human extinction is ZERO percent! If you ask any cons like Elon, they would say the reason is extinction. The actual reason is they want their race to outnumber other races.

submitted by /u/DutyEuphoric967
[link] [comments]

The new inequality seems to be between high birth rate and low birth rate places per Mathematics 101

2026-04-14T23:42:47+00:00

Interestingly and just as robotic and automation and AI is nuking the need for more warm bodies, I feel the biggest problem for low birth rate countries that will inevitably thrive and heal their ecosystems will be how to deal with a few outliers that will persist in massive population explosion.

The Exponential function is ruthless... all it takes is for 1% of the world population doubling every decade while the rest stays the same for this 1% to become the majority within 60-70 years (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64....).

If that proportion is 20-30% today... then within 20 years they will be the majority of the world and reestablishing high birth rates everywhere.

Darwin is brutal... those who breed the most will dominate ultimately. So I see a conflict between the haves (low birth rate high per capita wealth) and the have nots (high birth rate and very low per capita wealth).

Ecology 101 on top of Math 101.

submitted by /u/Different_Peach99
[link] [comments]

Malthus is always right long term

2026-04-14T17:57:35+00:00

https://archive.ph/c8zrq

All the current problems i.e crops dependent on finite resource oil (in fact 8 calories of oil for every calorie of food produced), housing crisis, employment crisis and the world devolving into a fight to the death for the table scraps of the 20th century can be traced to that little issue of the world now 100-200X more populated than in ancient times, say when Rome ruled 25% of the planet.

The ecosystem is also 90% collapsed so we won't have salvation from venison as a potential food source. Humans and their farm animals and crops are literally 99% of all the biomass, with only a tiny fraction left for the rest, and most of it ants.

We are Easter Island at the scale of the planet... And no amount of space colonies for the few rich or prepper idiots hiding in their survival fantasies won't make a difference.

Resources are finite and maybe can be grown arithmetically at the cost of massive upheaval of the environment, but populations grow exponentially.

Africa and some regions of the Middle East didn't get the memo and their refugees will flood the rest so I see no end in sight until Nature the dominatrix puts an end to this the not easy way: (Nuclear) War, pestilence and population collapse by sheer physical constraints on food and resources.

submitted by /u/Different_Peach99
[link] [comments]

Let's talk about Africa

2026-04-14T18:23:51+00:00

https://www.uneca.org/stories/%28blog%29-as-africa%E2%80%99s-population-crosses-1.5-billion%2C-the-demographic-window-is-opening-getting

100% of the population growth taking us to 10 or even 12 billion will be in Africa.

Where will they go? Low birth rate Europe of course.

This is a bio-disaster in the making. And for all the talk about low birth rates in Europe they will soon be high birth rates again once the native population is obliterated by those migrants.

submitted by /u/Different_Peach99
[link] [comments]

Some good news. We could all use some. Hopeful more countries will keep reducing their birth rates like this, too.

2026-04-12T18:30:12+00:00

submitted by /u/Routine-Bumblebee-41
[link] [comments]

Is car dependency a bad thing or we just overpopulated?

2026-04-12T10:58:30+00:00

I having been thinking: cars provide A LOT of travel freedom, such as to places where there would be no train tracks and airport. Now we are being forced/encouraged to live in cities for the sake of energy efficiency, and there are fucking cars and traffic everywhere! In my city, public transportation is garbage. It's obvious. Countries that are overpopulated are banning/limiting cars in cities. We lose more of our travel freedom as we get more populated. Environmentalists and politicians keep ignoring this obvious situation.

submitted by /u/DutyEuphoric967
[link] [comments]

US fertility rate dropped to another record low in 2025

2026-04-09T16:24:47+00:00

submitted by /u/nrverma
[link] [comments]

What on earth is the logic behind this?

2026-04-09T05:48:22+00:00

Quantum jump logic is used to deny overpopulation.

submitted by /u/madrid987
[link] [comments]

Didn’t the USSR already try to make everything equal without the Stalinist purges in the late 60s-80s? The general population was still not happy. How would that look on a global scale with like 10 billion people?

2026-04-08T18:14:28+00:00

Say what you will about Brezhnev, but he provided stability and bare minimum for the average Soviet citizen. By the time Gorbachev first took power, quality of life was more or less the same. There are still some really old Russians who did not like Gorbachev for disrupting that kind of stability. Even when people like Bernie Sanders visited the USSR in the late 80s, he praised the Soviet for its strong infrastructure and social safety nets/welfare. The USSR still collapsed despite all of their achievements in creating equality for everyone, apart from the elites in the Politburo.

Now, if we just humor the environmentalists and use their plan to equally distribute resource across the global in practice (honestly not seeing how that is going to happen), in the best case scenario, we are going to see the same stagnation and stability as the Soviets did under Brezhnev. You can argue that some people hated Gorbachev because they wanted things to be it was under Brezhnev. Nevertheless, we cannot deny that there was built up momentum that pushed for free market and the end of stagnation. In other words, there were more than enough people who were fed up with the stagnation. They were willing to trade stability for chaos. The other fatal flaw to this plan is that natural resource is finite. Even if we force everyone on earth to live like peasants under Stalin or Mao, we will not last long enough to make it past the next couple of decades. The reason is that this plan is calling for both quality healthcare for the elderly and increase in birthrate. So basically, we need to stretch our resources to support those who can live over 100 yrs old and more families with like 5 children. Consequently, for each generation, we are doubling our population. I honestly would like to see this plan being presented on national television. Frankly, a lot of people don’t know how many people we have now. I am really curious how many regular folks will be excited about hosting a trillion people on this planet within the next 100 yrs.

submitted by /u/UpperCalligrapher509
[link] [comments]

People over-estimate an average person's capability, productivity, and creativity. This is why we hear some many environmentalists and social activists still support population growth.

2026-04-08T02:56:20+00:00

So a lot of people hold this fantasy that we don't have to worry about overpopulation if we just replace capitalism with some kind of UBI based society where everyone will suddenly invent batteries powered by cold fusion. The thing is, we already have a good example of what a lot of people will do if they don't have to worry about food and housing. Just look at the basement dwellers from American suburbs/small towns.

These people are fed with home cooked meal by their parents. They never have to pay rent or do chores. Because they live in small towns, their expenses are pretty low so they can mooch off of their parent's social security until they pass away. They got all the time in the world and access to all kinds of free education online. What is stopping these people from just using their free time and solve something like the Riemann Hypothesis?

The truth is most of us are too mediocre to do anything meaningful. Most of us are born to get regular jobs and contribute enough to society so we can earn our fair share of natural resource. There is nothing wrong with that or inherently bad.

However, to argue that we need to increase our birthrate because we need more people to solve our problem is just absurd and delusional. We will be only adding more problem that we cannot solve or reverse if we continue our population growth rate. Planet earth is the only one footing the bill to our population expansion and its tired of our shit, both figuratively and literally.

submitted by /u/UpperCalligrapher509
[link] [comments]

"8 Billion Angels" - a film addressing overpopulation, now free to watch

2026-04-07T18:22:12+00:00

submitted by /u/ab7af
[link] [comments]