Is Overpopulation a Myth

[rj144]

Hey this isn't some theory, its been observed in multiple different countries over the last few decades. Its a combination of induced and latent demand that causes this. Instead of adding mroe lanes city palnners should invest in alternative transportaiton like public transit.

Again... You're misunderstanding what you're quoting. Adding more lanes solves traffic problems.

 

[rj144]

I’m not buying it. I think the premise is that more lanes will attract more drivers and more possible delays. Yes but it’s more drivers on that street. This will still reduce the cities overall traffic density and therefore travel times. So the answer to reducing traffic cannot logically be to close lanes.

You're correct. He's misunderstanding.

 

[Smokes]

Induced demand is not a particularly novel idea; Robert Caro's The Powerbroker describes exactly this problem showing up in New York following Robert Moses' bridge-building in the 1930s; back then it was called "traffic generation." Researchers started collecting hard data on the problem toward the end of the 20th century, and in the past few years more and more studies have confirmed the fact that when you build more lanes on already-congested roads, traffic simply grows to fill those new lanes as well.

When people know a particular route is congested, some of them will choose not to drive. But once you tell everyone that you've added more lanes to that road, that latent demand has an outlet—at which point the traffic jams return, but now with even more cars in them.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/0...-lanes-to-busy-highways-it-doesnt-help/?amp=1

 

[The HAMA]

Yep. Go forth and multiply.

 

[Mike]

The overpopulation side is arguing something that hasn't happened yet despite the fact that its been talked about for over 150 years while the other side is simply pointing to our history.

Malthus' theory of overpopulation has been debunked and isn't taken seriously by any reputable academic as far as I know. Turns out humans aren't like other animals and we can innovate to find ways to better exploit our existing resource reserves.

You seem to be making an assumption as to what the other side is arguing. I don't even know who that guy is you're referencing and have never heard of him outside of this thread. Everyone I've ever talked to concerned about population,was worried about our carbon footprint, decreasing quality of life as people are jammed together, and the difficulty of fighting population density.

There's plenty of space in the middle of nowhere where nobody wants to live and companies and the government don't want to build infrastructure. But that doesn't really solve those very real issues.

 

[Mike]

And I don't think anyone defines overpopulation as can the earth possibly hold more humans. That's a pretty obvious yes.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Again... You're misunderstanding what you're quoting. Adding more lanes solves traffic problems.

But no not really.

 

[Deleted member 499399]

Hey this isn't some theory, its been observed in multiple different countries over the last few decades. Its a combination of induced and latent demand that causes this. Instead of adding mroe lanes city palnners should invest in alternative transportaiton like public transit.

Or a generation or two could suck it up and not drive around in gas guzzling SUVs or live in McMansions. I prefer that idea over willing entering a Children of Men dystopia.

That's true to some extent but even without downsizing housing units you can fit a lot more living space if you have more high density housing as opposed to low density suburban sprawl.

The way I see it they are claiming that the travel time or traffic density doesn’t lesson with more lanes. But even if that’s the case there is still a demand for those lanes that would not be met if they weren’t open. The important thing is the total amount of transportation available. Of course if you are only interested in reducing the density or total amount of cars on a road you could just close all the lanes and there would be 0 traffic.

 

[Captain Sausage]

7 billion of anything is ridiculously huge amount.

And you compare that to other animals. I think we're the highest population.

There are 1.6 million ants for every single human alive today.

 

[Hung Like a Hamster]

There are 1.6 million ants for every single human alive today.
View attachment 931262

but but ants are tiny and compact...

 

[Phlog]

There's an upcoming food shortage that will answer your question.

That's a distribution problem rather than a resource issue. And that is usually the arguement of those who tout over population, it's not that there isnt enough, it's that people ain't prepared to share it.

Current food production could support 50% bigger population.

 

[Phlog]

There are 1.6 million ants for every single human alive today.
View attachment 931262

There are more bees than stars in our galaxy.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The way I see it they are claiming that the travel time or traffic density doesn’t lesson with more lanes. But even if that’s the case there is still a demand for those lanes that would not be met if they weren’t open. The important thing is the total amount of transportation available. Of course if you are only interested in reducing the density or total amount of cars on a road you could just close all the lanes and there would be 0 traffic.

But you can meet that demand without adding more lanes via alternative means of transportation like public transit.

 

[pakimahi]

7 billion of anything is ridiculously huge amount.

And you compare that to other animals. I think we're the highest population.

There are more then 37 trillion cells in your body alone. It consists of 7 octillion atoms.

All of the humans on earth could fit into texas.

All that said, I still think we should put a stop on the population increase