Humans and entire domesticated population was less than 30% in 1500s and now, it is 96%.

Wild mammal population has plummeted to historic lows and this clearly implies the overpopulation of humans and human domesticated animals.

Some people say that we could "EaSilY" feed 15 Billion people or something. I think that having 8-9 Billion was only possible by going 150%. In the future we will be glad if we can feed 5-6 Billion.

I’m reading that some powerful lobby close to Canadian government is pushing to increase the Canadian population up to 100 million people by the year of 2100.
Is that feasible or is just wishful thinking?
P.s. I am not in to conspiracies.

My thinking is that way back in the day as long as you made it to around 18-20 you would usually have already passed on your genes and had kids so there wasn’t too much evolutionary pressure, but now the average age to have children is like early 30s so if you don’t live to around then you are much less likely to have children at least in the West.

I believe it's very important to spread awareness about it. While women's rights are regressing globally, many men holding power are openly against them. It is not an accident that Musk is so loud about pronatalism. One of the biggest lies to be ever told is that high fertility makes society stable/wealthy/happy. Humanity had high fertility for most of our history, and how did that play out? The majority of people struggle to survive due to hunger, illness and colds. Most children didn't even survive childhood. The only ones that truly gained from high birth rates were the elite. Because more people meant more people to tax and more low-paid workers and meat shields to use in war. And, of course — more breeding vessels to produce more taxpayers/workers/soldiers. Normal people do not benefit from high birth rates in any way. It was hell for women who had been born predetermined as incubators with no autonomy or legal personhood back then. Our female ancestors were raised to be breeders — not to be people. Childbirth was the main cause of women's death along with its complications, but what men like Musk won't tell you is that even regular men do not have an easy life. A regular man was an animal to the system too — one that had to work a lot, only to be paid a little. All so whoever ruled at the time could stay rich. So they have as many people to tax, exploit and use as possible. That's why men like Elon Musk are loudest about low birth rates right now. Because it is men like him who benefit from high rates greatly. Not regular men like our fathers, brothers or husbands. And especially not use, women who paid for high birth rates while being objects and economic infrastructure for thousands and thousands of years. Elon Musk and elites like him want regular men to hate women — to blame us for not having children. To call us spoiled/hedonistic/selfish. To make regular men believe that women not having children somehow makes their lives worse. That's why so many regular men scream about low birth rates — because they feel for propaganda. Their lives would be exactly the same in high fertility society — because that's what it ALWAYS looked like in human history. It's men like Elon who need many low-pay slaves to stay rich, to stay in power, to stay "on top." That's why they see women as infrastructure for their demographic goals. That's why he keeps portraying women as infantile creatures who should not be trusted to make important decisions. He teaches men to believe that we are "traitors" to humanity for not having children. He wants regular men who never benefited from high fertility to believe that we need that breeding factory horror to be reality again. He needs men to believe that WE make their lives worse — not the elite who use this system to stay rich. They need men to see us as an enemy — because otherwise, they will see them as enemies. Musk and people like him are a danger to the safety of all women and girls on Earth, because he has countless men who adore him and see his words as sacred. If men like him continue spreading this — that our freedom is "civilizational sabotage", there will be no place on Earth or beyond where we are not seen as economic infrastructure instead of humans.

I have tried search for more details on the topic but there are not much data on how Europe contributed to the population expansion during the colonial era.

Can anyone share any leads on where this data can be found?

There are studies on population in increasing in the colonised populations themselves but no data on the people who were colonising and how colonisation changed population in their home country as well as colonies.

This is important considering how much of the would population in countries are descendants of these colonial nations e.g. British, Spanish, Portugese etch.

https://www.sociostudies.org/almanac/articles/the_demographic_transition/

Do you guys think overpopulation is the reason for people dying of hunger ??

Start a debate guyss

Nepal. It's very sad and god rest their souls. The human body was never design to with stand being swallowed in to concrete with boulders in it. See the bodies washing up on the beaches. So many bodies fast burials. Rotting corpses. And now they say the inevitable second and third wave lakes are growing. I fear the loss of life is not over.

Still, after the last wave there won't be much more glacier left and things will settle down. The mud will dry. It will become a new Pilgrimidge. The new highly fertile soils that will exist will boost the valley into lush growth of crops with all the perfect growth nutrients. They probably won't need to add more blood and bone. Some lucky farmer will get a cheaper crop. Everybody wins.

Born to be free, Forced to wear chains
Born to nurture, My purpose ripped away

Live for society, the only species that pays
Live with anxiety, when all my needs go away

Traffic gets worse, day by day
This hellish rat race will never go away

I want to run away, yet the swarm of society comes my way

Now all of our food is fake, because all we do is take

Mother earth might kill us all, for her own sake.

A baby bust is coming - and faster than researchers realize. Economic growth will slow down. Lean into that. #degrowth

https://degrowthistheanswer.substack.com/p/the-economic-implications-of-a-baby?r=28wskx&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

I know population control is one of those topics that immediately becomes political, but I genuinely think India needs to have an uncomfortable conversation about this.
I’m increasingly convinced that India should consider a time-bound one-child policy for at least 5–7 years, with the goal being to slow population growth and give the country some breathing room to catch up on housing, education, healthcare, employment and infrastructure.
This isn’t about blaming people for having children. It’s about asking a basic question:
Can India realistically provide a decent quality of life to the population it already has, while continuing to add tens of millions more people?
Look around.
Our cities are already struggling with housing, traffic, pollution, water availability, waste management and basic urban infrastructure. Government schools and colleges have enormous demand. Healthcare systems are stretched. Good jobs aren’t being created at the same pace as the number of people entering the workforce. And even when GDP grows, per-capita gains are diluted when the population denominator keeps getting larger.
And before someone says “But China tried a one-child policy and look what happened”, I don’t think India-China comparisons are that simple.
China’s one-child policy eventually contributed to a severe demographic imbalance, including an ageing population and a shrinking workforce. That is a legitimate warning for India.
But that doesn’t automatically mean population policy is irrelevant to India.
India has a different problem: extremely high population density in many of its most economically important regions, enormous pressure on urban infrastructure, and huge disparities in access to quality education, healthcare and employment.
We shouldn’t copy China’s policy blindly. We should learn from both its successes and its mistakes.
For example, a policy could be:
Time-bound: 5–7 years initially, rather than permanent.
One-child norm: with a clear sunset/review clause.
Strong exceptions: genuinely necessary medical, humanitarian and special circumstances.
Non-coercive incentives/disincentives wherever possible, rather than criminalising families.
Massive investment in contraception and reproductive healthcare.
Better education for girls and women, because fertility tends to fall when women have greater educational and economic opportunities.
A serious review before extending the policy, using actual birth rates, dependency ratios, workforce projections and regional demographics.
And there is another point that gets lost in this debate.
Population isn’t just about how much land we have. It’s about how much usable infrastructure and productive capacity we can create per person.
India isn’t running out of geographical territory tomorrow. The problem is that building enough high-quality housing, schools, hospitals, public transport, water systems, sewage networks and jobs for another huge wave of population is incredibly difficult.
A country can have a large landmass and still have overcrowded cities. It can have a huge economy and still have insufficient schools. It can have a growing GDP and still have millions of people competing for relatively few good jobs.
The objective shouldn’t be “fewer Indians because Indians are the problem.”
The objective should be:
Give the Indians who already exist a better life.
If slowing population growth for 5–7 years gives India time to build infrastructure, improve education, increase productivity and raise living standards, I think it’s at least a policy worth seriously debating rather than immediately dismissing.
And yes, there are serious risks. An overly aggressive policy could accelerate ageing, create gender-selection problems, distort demographics between states, and create a future labour shortage. That’s exactly why I would support a limited, data-driven policy with periodic review, rather than blindly implementing China’s model.
But doing nothing isn’t automatically a neutral choice either.
At some point we have to ask:
Is India’s goal simply to have a larger population, or is it to give the people already here a genuinely good quality of life?

Used ai to structure my thoughts

For anyone who has not watched this.

This BBC documentary hosted by Sir David Attenborough in 2009 explores whether Earth is becoming overpopulated and what its ultimate carrying capacity might be.

Iceland is beautiful country and so much nature for which they even care about .And their Population density is low .They should stabilize their Population now .Like I think it is only country in world which needs to stabilize its Population other just need to decrease it over long period of time ig .They have higher incomes everything a healthy Population needs .So much energy per capita .But like not increase in real terms it will take away the advantage its Population has given it .

Do you agree with me if not why ?

Around the world each day, roughly 4.1 million pigs, 822,000 cattle, 1.4 million turkeys, 1.9 million sheep, and 1.4 million goats are slaughtered for food. Chickens are on an entirely different scale, with hundreds of millions slaughtered every day worldwide.