My back of the envelope estimate is around 2.5 times the current human population, but that’s contingent on a significant redistribution of resources.
Of course, without that, I’d put it at 2/3 of what we have now. Those are kind of the options: less billionaires or less of everyone else.
Because people like you always suggest removing people as the solution.
Oh no, maximizing short term stockholder value doesn’t provide food or homes for everyone! I guess there are just too many people.
Oh no, maximizing short term stockholder value takes a dip if we promote social distancing! I guess we should just accept that this new deadly disease is here to stay forever.
Oh no, maximizing short term stockholder value is incapable of not burning resources even though doing so is destroying the very climate we depend on! I guess we need to just hope that future generations discover some miracle to save them or watch humanity go extinct.
Look, we already established the maximizing short term stockholder value is the best possible system to live under, and if that means everyone has to die miserably then that’s just how it has to be. 
Because you are quoting shit usually slung around by neo nazis. The developed world has shrinking populations. Its only by dint of immigration that they maintain a level number.
The problem is aggressive unchecked speculation and the use of residential property as a means of high end money laundering and exploitable commodity. Basically a lack of regulation
We’d be better off if housing were a “commodity”
Commodities are cheaply available and manufactured to meet demand
The problem is housing is treated like a security
Maybe look at the reasons people gave in their responses instead of just dismissing them…
Most people would agree that we have a consumption problem (and a distribution problem, actually), but that is a problem of capitalism, not of “overbreeding”… The argument is rooted in malthusian, racist nonsense based on entirely debunked “science” that was developed to justify racist policies at home, and imperialist policies abroad. If you don’t want people getting annoyed about that, don’t quote it as a solution to the problems we need to solve.
Not sure I agree… yes, commodity means something that is “cheaply available” but it also references how a particular thing is bought and sold in a market. Not all commodities are cheap. And treating housing like it should be sold on an open market ignores the necessity of housing as a human right (same with things like food, etc).
In the case of the US, it’s been seen as the primary way of building up generational wealth rather than a place to live. And now corporations have gotten into the game of buying up housing stock and reselling it or renting it out… Because of that, housing land gets speculated on and sold off at the highest possible rate. Since it’s now a marketplace, and the US government is loath to regulate markets now, speculators are buying up stock with each market crash, consolidating, and pushing out people without capital (most people just looking to have a place to live). Hence we have wealthy people buying up prime real estate, sometimes internationally, and raising prices across the board in desirable locations (which is constantly changing).
Plenty of air and water if we’d quit poisoning what we have and killing off the various species that produce it.
Citation Needed:
Here you go. 77% of the world’s agricultural space is taken up by meat and dairy farming, which is not even half of the world’s food consumption.
We could viably carry the population if we’d stop catering to “beef people” and try options like vertical farming (looking at you, almond farmers).
“The solution to overpopulation is not to force people to have fewer children. China’s one-child policy showed the futility of that experiment. It is to raise the poorest nations out of poverty through democratic governance, free trade, access to birth control, and the education and economic empowerment of women.”
That last one especially.
Funny how that topic just magically comes up. By one person.
Wait, you mean you brought this up before? Wow, looks like you did, and didn’t listen to the responses then either…to the point where you actually blamed overpopulation for building desert golf courses.
But clearly, the problem is everyone else here not entertaining your citation-free opinion. 
Argh, sorry. Got caught up in the argument and ran head first into a deadend in Mansplain Alley.
But again, that’s a capitalism issue - we make MORE than enough food to feed the entire planet - supply has kept up with demand. The problem is that we sell food in a marketplace that dictates prices and where food goes, rather than looking at NEED.
And we could certainly figure out more efficient ways of feeding ourselves, that did not put such a heavy toll on the planet. Part of that equation is certainly the over-consumption of the developed world, but as someone above noted, we have fall birth rates in places where we consume more of the worlds resources…
No worries!
They also continue to cite Paul Erlich, even though his claims about “the population bomb” have been de-bunked again and again.
Eco-fascists and doomers are too invested in their narratives to accept the truth you and others have pointed out: this is not a problem of scarcity but one of equitable distribution.
There are around 7 billion people who would like their basic needs met, and around 100 people who maintain their status by refusing them.
Look, I’d be willing to bet you aren’t a fascist or bigot - because otherwise I doubt you’d be hanging around these parts.
But 1. The idea you’re peddling has been pretty thoroughly debunked, so for it to be properly engaged with you’re going to need to bring some receipts on new information and studies that back it up.
Oh I know. That’s why I asked- because any answer is eco-fascism, and if the OP is going to come in with a position like that, I’m gonna ask them to name a number and defend it.
