Why is 500,000,000 the magic number for Earths population?

I was watching a video that a friend shared with me and 35 minutes in it mentions that 500 million is the target population level.

BUT WHY THAT NUMBER?


WHY THAT NUMBER?

Is that the number they think will be easiest to control while large enough to continue building future technologies for them?

Is that the number that allows for everybody to live in a eutopian like setting with adequate amounts of arable land for each..
or is it the number that can feed off of the worlds resources sustainably, allowing species and ecologies to survive and thrive? (if this it, then would the damage done to ecologies already kind of ruin it?, so many species lost, so many being lost every day)

Can I get a scientist to chime in with how "They" arrived at this number?

45 minutes into the video... a man tries to explain this number but his explanation is lacking quality information.

Well the top 10 percent of the world elitists would fill that from 5 billion people .

I guess they might think they can train monkeys to be the slaves maybe ..

I've heard the number 500 million referenced in a few different places. I don't really have any idea how they arrived at that number... it's pretty much just pulled from thin air imo. The world is fine with 7 billion people... if I were to come up with a number, I would say 10 billion is probably about the practical limit. We could easily sustain a population of 10 billion... but for it to work over the long term we'd need to take better care of the planet with greener technology and more sustainable ways of living.

reply to post by NJoyZ


The number 5 has a lot of sensitivity and balance to it, very intuitive and quick. Unfortunately, also very flighty and intense.

The people who came up with that number have also supported Keynesian economics and centralized control. They might be powerful but they sure are not smart.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NJoyZ

 

The number 5 has a lot of sensitivity and balance to it, very intuitive and quick. Unfortunately, also very flighty and intense.

If we are using the logic that's is simple, intuitive and quick... 1 billion would seem more appropriate. 1 billion is easily sustainable by any standard...

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


And from what experience are you speaking? Have you spent a lot of time managing a diverse population of 1 billion?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

And from what experience are you speaking? Have you spent a lot of time managing a diverse population of 1 billion?

Well the population reached 1 billion in 1800 or something... I'm sure if we can sustain a population above 1 billion for over 200 years, doing it with our current level of technology is more than plausible. It's a rather small number in terms of what we are dealing with now...

Interesting video...

James Lovelock - Population Reduction "max 1 billion"

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Earth can´t provide decent living to 7 billion people, we have allready made so much damage to this planet like over fishing, growing grain to meat industry, extinction of species and we have pretty much destroyed ecosystem allready. With population like this there is no going back, you can´t reverse engineer what we have done. I guess that 500 000 000 people would be number of the limit when earth can start healing and what she can handle.

The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.* These experts calculate that between 0.01 and 0.1% of all species will become extinct each year. If the low estimate of the number of species out there is true - i.e. that there are around 2 million different species on our planet** - then that means between 200 and 2,000 extinctions occur every year. But if the upper estimate of species numbers is true - that there are 100 million different species co-existing with us on our planet - then between 10,000 and 100,000 species are becoming extinct each year.

source WWF

reply to post by dollukka


Wow I'm usually the one being hounded for saying the Earth can only support so many people.

But I think you are wrong... we can support 7 billion people comfortably, we just need to be smart about it.

I can't really be bothered getting into specific technical details about what could be done... but it's possible.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Its very positive way of thinking you have although its also very naive. Worst thing ever happened to Earth is us.
There were very great video posted in one forum here so i bookmarked it, you may want to take a look at that. Its pretty much explains what is happening.


This video explains it in nutshell, but the truth is even worse.

YOUTUBE

I saw your post and it made me think about the Georgia Guidestones.




The first message says "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."

I think that may be your answer if this mysterious monument is right.

Georgia Guidestones

(Pardon me if your vids mentioned this... I don't have time to watch them right now).

I'm pretty sure the 500 million population number comes from the Georgia Guide Stones - but I hav no idea where whomever created these obilesks got that number.

ganjoa

reply to post by davcwebb

Excellent ! I totally forgot that number on those stones. There were great episode of these stones in Brad Meltzer´s Decoded, so my question is more like since when this number 500 000 000 as a limit of the population in this particular story of Rose Crusades has started, is there any older information of this number than Georgia Guidestones

reply to post by dollukka


Trust me... I am the last person you need to go lecturing about the damage we have caused to the Earth. Yes we have caused a lot of damage and we are quickly stripping the Earth of resources to meet our ever growing need for such resources. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to sustain our current population with balanced plans for growing food and fishing the seas and harvesting the forests. It's more than possible, it took me a while to realize it is possible, but I have come to the conclusion it's possible. Right now we're teetering on the edge of overpopulation... and as I said, I think 10 billion is the breaking point. It wont take much longer before we hit 10 billion either.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

And from what experience are you speaking? Have you spent a lot of time managing a diverse population of 1 billion?

Well the population reached 1 billion in 1800 or something... I'm sure if we can sustain a population above 1 billion for over 200 years, doing it with our current level of technology is more than plausible. It's a rather small number in terms of what we are dealing with now...

I like it. Plenty of elbow room. Plenty of work for everybody who wants it (the robots can handle the rest). Minimal impact on the environment.

It's the same with people as with anything else. Supply and demand. The more people you have, the less each individual is worth.

reply to post by davcwebb


I thought about that, and it does add more credence to the number, but it is not an answer! WHY DID THEY PIC THAT NUMBER. What evidence numerically brings them to that number?

Originally posted by NJoyZ
reply to post by davcwebb

 

I thought about that, and it does add more credence to the number, but it is not an answer! WHY DID THEY PIC THAT NUMBER. What evidence numerically brings them to that number?

Probably one of those things where they take the average square footage of land it takes to sustain one person and then divide it by the total amount of square footage available on all the continents. As if deserts and tundra and mountains are reasonable places for people to live, and it doesn't cost anything to get the food and water and electricity to them. Pure foolishness.

Some people really take "God" at his word when he said to be fruitful and multiply. But every good gardener knows that you gotta frequently trim back vines and bushes and trees or all you get is crappy fruit.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


In theory possible but then we are forgetting the main reason we have ended in this situation in the first place is our way of thinking, our need to power, possession and passion to make our own live better and easier. We don´t respect nature when we want something and when we want it now.

Such a consensus and idealism that is needed to make this planet healthier is impossible to us. And its getting worse as every year there are even more people requiring better lifestyle.

Lifestyle which means more energy, energy is not free. To make energy it takes energy. Green technology is not ready, its expencive and cannot be used in scale yet what 7 billion people need and want from the lifestyle. We are selfish beings.