Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Estimated World Population to Pass 6,666,666,666 Today

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the you're-special-and-unique-just-like-everyone-else dept.

Earth 645

suso writes ""The estimated population of the world will pass 6,666,666,666 today. No doubt an interesting number for people everywhere (not referring to any religion connotations). 5,555,555,555 was passed about 14 years ago. You may not realize that only 80 years ago, the population of the Earth was only around 2 billion. This shows how the population of the world has increased at an alarming rate in recent times, although the growth rate is almost half what it was at its peak in 1963, when it was 2.2%. Unrelated but also an interesting coincidence, the estimated number of available IPv4 addresses is getting very close to 666,666,666. It should cross over today as well.""

cancel ×

645 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

An update (4, Informative)

suso (153703) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353450)

The two counters just crossed over each other about 10 minutes ago (2:42:36pm EDT). I estimate that the population counter will reach 6 repeating at approximately 11:30pm EDT.

Re:An update (4, Funny)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353500)

6 repeating? How do you have 2/3 of a person?

Re:An update (5, Funny)

Drooling Iguana (61479) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353654)

Use an axe.

Re:An update (1)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353668)

With an IED?

How do they know? What about Burma? (5, Interesting)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353856)

Didn't that put a dent in things? I don't want to be crass but the disaster in Burma isn't even countable. I know they can do estimates and such but major events like Burma should be accounted, are they? What about Iraq?

Besides, whats the fear? Its not like this planet cannot support double that if not more. Do people realize just how much arable land is not in use? Hell on my recent 1600 mile trip to and from Ohio I can tell you this, this country is empty in many spots and I am sure it is in others. Hell I know there are substantial areas of Europe that are essentially empty. Yeah there are villages and towns nearby but its not like we even try to exploit the lands we have. Look at Africa! How much of that is still like America of a hundred if not two hundred years ago?

One thing I have learned in my short time on this planet. Every doomsayer's predictions of over population and food shortages comes to nothing. We always shift how things are done and accommodate it. If we didn't we would not be here today. Food shortages are all the rave now but forever in our history some groups have been short of food but this is how we progress. If the population cannot create more food then it supports less people. Its a horrid fact of life but it happens. We actually do very well in this day and age from allowing nature to takes its course.

It all comes down to need. When the need arises we always step up.

Re:How do they know? What about Burma? (2, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353986)

Agreed. Wake me up when the rest of the world reaches the population density of Japan.

going to hell! (4, Funny)

SkankinMonkey (528381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353464)

looks like ipv4 is the antichrist, three times over...

Re:going to hell! (1, Informative)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353892)

Judging by the sheer amount of porn, violence, and other forms of immorality on the internet, I would tend to agree with you.

Re:going to hell! (4, Funny)

SkankinMonkey (528381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353944)

i always thought that porn was a redeeming factor for the internet!

Re:going to hell! (2, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353976)

*Judgemental stare*

For those of us who have some self respect and respect for women, porn is a bad thing.

*Continuing judgemental stare*

N-n-n-number of th-th-the b-b-b-beast (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353476)

Lucifer has a stuttering problem.

Satanic (1)

Zibri (1063838) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353478)

666 is the number of the beast. Whose number is this?

Re:Satanic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353528)

Prince Charles of Wales.

Well. (4, Funny)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353542)

Probably a meta-beast.

Or a meta-meta-beast.

Re:Satanic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353552)

It's a new sitcom - "3 and a Third Beasts".

Re:Satanic (3, Funny)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353572)

Need you ask? It's Anonymous Coward.

Re:Satanic (5, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353590)

666 is the number of the beast. Whose number is this?
The Super-Devil. He is at least six inches taller than the regular devil, rides a flying motorcycle, and carries a jar of marmalade that causes adultery.

Re:Satanic (4, Funny)

Mr. Bad Example (31092) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353776)

> [...] a jar of marmalade that causes adultery.

So, uh...do they sell that at Tesco?

Re:Satanic (1, Redundant)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353872)

really? um an I borrow some of that Marmalade? There are a few Mom's out there that are really hawt.

Re:Satanic (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353596)

According to CmdrTaco, #666 is AC. too lazy to find the link but I remember that post from the /. 10th year birthday hoopla. Maybe he was joking.

Re:Satanic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353648)

Al Gore's number...

Re:Satanic (4, Informative)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353708)

Not to be pedantic, but the number of the beast is actually 616... they have a wikipedia article about it here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast [wikipedia.org]

Re:Satanic (5, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353774)

I think the Beast can have any fucking number he wants.
Hell, he can probably have two!

Re:Satanic (more accurate quotation) (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353722)

"666 is the number of the beast. Whose number is this?" - by Zibri (1063838) on Friday May 09, @02:55PM (#23353478)

Actually, the quote I have seen (which looks quite a lot like THIS number) from the Bible is:

600 threescore AND SIX

Specifically, from REVELATIONS (St. John/Holy Bible of Catholicism):

"Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six"

(Correct me if I'm wrong fellas, thanks!)

APK

P.S.=> The way things keep going in this world today, man... it's getting to look MORE & MORE like the "Revelations" of St. John... apk

Re:Satanic (1)

coren2000 (788204) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353938)

Miroslav Satan wears number 81 now.

666 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353480)

Praise Hail Satan \m/

Re:666 (1)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353674)

I think his name is written "Stan".

Re:666 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353934)


Actually, Stan is the perfect name. One letter away from Satan, and one letter away from Saint.

Stan :)

In an unrelated note (5, Funny)

doubtless (267357) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353482)

Slashdot comments passed the 66,666,666 mark, and CowboyNeal was passed over by 6,666 women.

Re:In an unrelated note (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353834)

Slashdot, doing its bit to keep population down.

huh (0, Redundant)

omeomi (675045) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353484)

Well, that's certainly arbitrary, and almost certainly completely incorrect...

Re:huh (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353630)

It is not arbitrary, and it says in the title it's an estimate.

Re:huh (1)

omeomi (675045) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353990)

How is the number 6,666,666,666 not arbitrary? It's just a number. It doesn't have any special meaning. If we all counted in binary rather than decimal, it would be 110001101010111010100001010101010...whoopty doo!

Does this mean... (0)

Kazymyr (190114) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353496)

... not everyone on Earth has their own IPv4 address? Aaagh, my brain hurts!

Re:Does this mean... (1)

suso (153703) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353930)

That's not how many are used, that's how many are left. Although no, not everyone has their own IP. Out of the 4 billion possible IP addresses, only about 3 billion or so could be used, so there is about a 1 to 2 ratio of ips to people.

wake me when we assign... (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353502)

the IPv6 address of the Beast.

Re:wake me when we assign... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353650)

:dead:beef

Did you know... (5, Funny)

Daniel Weis (1209058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353504)

Did you know that 6 to any power other than zero produces a 6 in the resulting number?! It's just as arbitrary as this...

Re:Did you know... (4, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353840)

1.5, -2, etc. Apparently any positive whole number power.

Re:Did you know... (2, Funny)

Spacelem (189863) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353954)

6^-2 = 0.02777777...

Okay, this is a rational number with an infinite decimal expansion, but the last digit to any precision is 8.

(Sorry, pedant).

Re:Did you know... (2, Funny)

eikonoklastes (530797) | more than 6 years ago | (#23354000)

6 ** log_6(3) = 3.

No 6 in that resulting number!

It is "you are", not "your"! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353506)

You "schuttleMonkey"!

Re:It is "you are", not "your"! (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353636)

That's because scuttleMonkey is an actual monkey, on loan from the Microsoft QA department.

Someone care to estmate (2, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353508)

...when is it that we're totally screwed?

Re:Someone care to estmate (5, Insightful)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353584)

Probably no time soon. The recent population boom wasn't caused by an increased birth rate, but rather by increased longevity. Birth rates are down in most of the first world, to the point that Japan is worried about a dropping population.

Re:Someone care to estmate (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353692)

Wouldn't the US and most of Western Europe have declining population if not for immigration?

Re:Someone care to estmate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353896)

I can only speak for what I know, and Canada would be shrinking if not for immigrants. I am wondering how many more generations until there are no more white people and everyone has brown skin and slanty eyes.

Posted as AC to avoid being labeled as a recist/bigot.

Re:Someone care to estmate (3, Informative)

syrinx (106469) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353964)

Europe yes, US no. Last I checked, US birth rate was barely at "replacement level" (~2.1 babies/woman), Western Europe as a whole was slightly below, with variation between countries (some countries were well below, others at or slightly above). So without immigration, the US would basically remain at the same population, and Western Europe would slowly start declining. As it is, population is growing in both locations.

Re:Someone care to estmate (1)

SBacks (1286786) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353966)

Actually, a good portion of Europe is in population decline even including immigration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate [wikipedia.org] Germany, Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Romania, Russia, etc are all in decline. However, most of these other than Germany would be considered Eastern Europe. (US growth rate at .97)

Re:Someone care to estmate (1)

Daniel Weis (1209058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353694)

When IPv4 addresses run out and IPv6 still hasn't been rolled out.

Re:Someone care to estmate (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353696)

Looks like most of us have been getting screwed repeatedly for a long time. That seems to be the primary cause of the problem.

Re:Someone care to estmate (1)

DarthJohn (1160097) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353996)

only about half

Re:Someone care to estmate (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353726)

Impossible to say, not that this has stopped pundits from predicting impending collapse due to over-population for centuries.

Humanity is pretty good at outrunning the hangman, apparently...Advances in food storage, production, etc have kept up with increased demand pretty well.

Re:Someone care to estmate (1)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353738)

Speak for yourself....

My thought is that this growth will create huge profits for entrepreneurs who develop solutions for all the problems that these new people will cause... :)

Re:Someone care to estmate (1)

Vampo (771827) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353800)

I read somewhere (citation not required, this /. after all) that 20% of all the people that ever lived are actually still alive today. If that's remotely true, the earth must be, or soon will be, looking very much like a petri dish. So not too long now then.

7,777,777,777 Get! (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353520)

Come on slashdotters, we can make it

Re:7,777,777,777 Get! (5, Funny)

Daniel Weis (1209058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353614)

Disclaimer for /.: You can't impregnate your left hand.

Re:7,777,777,777 Get! (1)

mattgoldey (753976) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353688)

I'm right-handed, you insensitive clod!

Re:7,777,777,777 Get! (0)

Daniel Weis (1209058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353838)

Meaning you'd most likely be using it to grab your mouse instead. :-)

Re:7,777,777,777 Get! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353714)

Hmmm... then I'd better get this lump checked out.

Re:7,777,777,777 Get! (2)

Thornburg (264444) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353734)

Disclaimer for /.: You can't impregnate your left hand.
But it is possible to impregnate your right hand?

Is the resulting offspring some kind of hand-monster like in Vampire Hunter D?

Re:7,777,777,777 Get! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353842)

Great show. I loved the palm pilot.

Re:7,777,777,777 Get! (3, Funny)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353820)

what if you use both hands? will you have twins?

Re:7,777,777,777 Get! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353710)

As a solipsist, I'm finding it difficult to push the world's population above 1.

Re:7,777,777,777 Get! (2, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353784)

I'm glad I thought you (and that joke) up.

Re:7,777,777,777 Get! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353854)

"Come on slashdotters???" You seem to be new here...there's nothing much 'we' can do about it. One needs a mate for this kinda stuff, remember? Unless of course we perfect human cloning or something...Then we'd rock the world! Hell yeah!

Sigh...

Population Control & Modern Views (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353524)

You may not realize that only a 80 years ago, the population of the Earth was only around 2 billion.
I think it was in Billions and Billions by Carl Sagan that I was first exposed to this idea that poverty and illiteracy could be linked to high birth rates. Since then I have read articles by Paul and Anne Ehrlich as well as Collapse by Jared Diamond. I had been exposed to the Chinese way of economically pressuring citizens to have only one child. I ignorantly thought this was a form of extreme fascism.

But a key difference at that time was I was still Catholic.

One of many reasons for divorcing myself from Catholicism was its stance towards birth control. Iâ(TM)m not talking abortion (or âoebaby killingâ as some of them like to refer to it)â"Iâ(TM)m talking about preventative measures like condoms and Plan B. For some reason, the Vaticanâ"the organization that is the Catholic Churchâ"took it upon itself to stop the use of preventative measures. In pre-industrial times, this may have been advantageous to a religion and even a people. However, as it stands now this attitude results in a powder keg leaving the populace open to drought, famine, disease and brutal warfare (probably as a result of the famine) to keep the human population in check. Just look at the enterovirus (EV71) in China [google.com] .

I think a lot of the responses are going to be along the lines of what Iâ(TM)ve said so far; that if we donâ(TM)t start to pay attention to population and think of non-intrusive non-immoral ways to keep it in check then weâ(TM)re in some serious trouble. Instead, Iâ(TM)d like to relay some views Iâ(TM)ve heard from people quite close to me on this issue. Iâ(TM)m not sure if this will become a political issue in the near term but I know that, at least in the United States, there are people with conflicting views.

A close friend of mine who is a Christian and a bit conservative voiced concern that the United Statesâ(TM) population growth is lagging behind many other countries. Many of the Western countriesâ"such as those in Europeâ"are also lagging behind those of Muslim nations like Turkey and several others in the Middle East & Africa. He claimed (or âoefear mongeredâ if you will) that if the current trend continued the end state of the world would most certainly be Muslim Dictatorships everywhere. I would like to quickly point out that I do not share his ideas in this Christian Vs Muslim war he believes has been going on since the crusades. I am merely relaying what many conservative Christians in the world are probably subconsciously thinking.

Now just last week my uncle sent me an e-mail that was along his thinking of people should have to have a license to have children. They should have to pass tests demonstrating they can provide food shelter clothing water all the basic life necessities before they can start to procreate. This would require a source of income to sustain a child ⦠he also has said that criminal record and health history should be taken into consideration. He linked an unfortunate story [foxnews.com] and was perhaps half joking.

Are either of these ideas the future? Is the idea of a procreation license issued by the state an unfortunate reality? Is it my friend wrong to push to close the âbirth rate gapâ(TM) between West and East?

Personally, all I can do is rail for education worldwide for all and, with that, the power to do what is right for us and the future of our children.

Goddamn Microsoft Word 2007 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353634)

So I notice the text editor I was using on my friend's laptop (MS Word 2007) took the liberty of encoding my " ; -- symbols into some bullshit characters. Great, way to go Windows. Looks like it's time to throw the stand alone binary of emacs for windows on this laptop to avoid that for future posts. I apologize for the funky characters above ... OT eldavojohn

Re:Goddamn Microsoft Word 2007 (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353942)

Word is doing what it should - turning the ' character into an apostrophe. Actually, it's kind of lunacy that Slashcode doesn't support opening and closing quotes. The same thing will happen on the Mac version of Word - and probably on any OS with a decent word processor. You can turn the behavior off, too:

Opening double: âoe But you can type “: “
Closing double: â But you can type ”: ”
Opening single: â But you can type ‘: ‘
Closing single: â(TM) But you can type ’: ’

Re:Population Control & Modern Views (5, Funny)

roystgnr (4015) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353766)

Iâ(TM)d like to say â"great postâ", but somehow Iâ(TM)ve found I canâ(TM)t focus on the âbirth rate gapâ(TM) discussion therein. Weâ(TM)d all appreciate it if your future postsâ(TM) punctuation was âoevalid HTMLâ ⦠thanks.

Re:Population Control & Modern Views (1)

Iberian (533067) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353802)

Good luck with the licensing system. California hands out drivers licenses to illegal immigrants and people trying not to have kids have them. Combine the incompetency of the government with the reality of birth control* and you have a another broken program.

*Short of just killing newborns/aborting unborns which is pretty barbaric and probably won't fly without revolution.

Re:Population Control & Modern Views (3, Informative)

gnuman99 (746007) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353948)

They kill newborns and have sex selection abortions in China and India. Especially girls are affected since they can't "work as hard". So, now they have a few million males that will never be able to marry. Kind of a problem, I'd say.

Licensing would only work if there were consequences, like putting children up for adoptions and sterilization. But that would not fly, even in countries like China. It would definitely not fly here in western nations because both religious sects and politicians want more, MORE people. Reasons are similar, more people => more money from taxes and "donations". There is no regard for long term sustainability.

And sadly, there is very little public forum for this. We, as a population, are not evolved enough to think rationally about real world issues. The only discussion about facts like overpopulation and global warming is emotional tantrums in spite of reality.

No, we'll just have wars... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353810)

over resources: fresh water, protein (wars over fishing rights for example), and any other non-renewable resource that humans need. That'll reduce the population.

Re:Population Control & Modern Views (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353864)

What the hell is wrong with your apostrophes?

Re:Population Control & Modern Views (1, Insightful)

thePig (964303) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353912)

Now just last week my uncle sent me an e-mail that was along his thinking of people should have to have a license to have children.
Whatever the case, the right to have children is/should be a fundamental right.

Even if they did not take care of their earlier children, even if they are criminals or whatever, similar to their requirement for food and shelter is the requirement to have children. In fact, I consider that this right jumps over everything everything else and should occupy the top spot, even above a persons right to live.

The reasoning is that the basic reason for any living being to exist is to prolong its/its species/lifes (in ascending order of priority) span in this world. Whether or not a person chooses to is another matter. What matters is the right to do it.

As an aside, this is one big gripe that I have about prisons everywhere. It doesnt allow for creating new life.

Re:Population Control & Modern Views (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353970)

Population tends to be self-regulating. Most first world countries have very low (or negative) population growth.

Third world countries have much higher birth rates, but those rates level off as the country becomes more developed...Both India and China have taken (are taking) extreme measures to curb their birthrate.

I doubt we'll end up with a state eugenics, err, I mean "child licensing" program. We're about to have a relatively significant demographic slump in the US; we're more likely to have the government encouraging people to reproduce [mnweekly.ru] (SFW). As for other countries; China already did their draconian population curb (the official one at least; their pollution problems may actually be equally effective).

I suppose other states with similar styles of government may institute similar measures, but I doubt it'll ever come to licensing. Prohibiting every couple to one or two children would be received far better by the population than anything that singled people out, and there is no good way at this point to figure out who will produce "better" kids anyway.

In pure C3PO style... (1)

pete_norm (150498) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353534)

We doooooooooomed!

Re:In pure Bender style... (1)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353716)

*deep breath* Doo-ooo-oo-ooo-oo-ooo-oo-ooo...

It seems like just yesterday... (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353556)

... that we reached 6 billion. I looked it up to refresh my memory and it seems that happened on 12 October, 1999.

Still, almost 700,000,000 more people in just 9 years is an awful lot. Certainly can't help with environmental or economic stability, though I'm not sure there is too much we can really do about it.

Ok, I'll say it (0)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353562)

It's OVER 9000!!!!

Sorry, I'll leave now

I don't habeeb it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353576)

>>6,666,666,666

It's just another stupid ModGET.

What about...? (1)

Soiden (1029534) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353604)

Wouldn't it be more interesting when the population reaches 6,969,696,969? That day I'll see your face =)

My special and unique what? (1)

Robotech_Master (14247) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353610)

Hint: apostrophe not optional.

Glitch in the matrix. (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353612)

Unrelated but also an interesting coincidence, the estimated number of available IPv4 addresses is getting very close to 666,666,666.

I, for one, welcome our hexcentric overlords... (1)

liquidMONKEY (749280) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353632)

From the your-special-and-unique-just-like-everyone-else department? I think your grammar is in the kitchen baking cookies. It's "you're", as in you are, not your as in it belongs to you.

Unnecessary Particles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353656)

In a completely unrelated, but coincidental event, the number of unnecessary particles in Satan's rectum is expected to go past the 666^666^666 mark today.

Correlation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353664)

If this has any correlation with that 666-legged millipede, then we're in trouble.

6,666,666,666 and 666,666,666 eh? (2, Funny)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353682)

Dear me, it's a good thing I keep a chainsaw gased up and ready to go next to my shotgun.

*Cue's the E1M1 midi*

-100,000 from the Myanmar incident (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353742)

surely that would make a small dent. I say it's time for another world war.

Today Numerology ... (4, Funny)

jamesl (106902) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353754)

Tomorrow Phrenology. Coming soon: Tea Leaves, Entrails, Astrology and Tarot Cards.

Alarming? (1)

whitespiral (941984) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353792)

"at an alarming rate" Why "alarming"? It doesn alarm me. It alarms ignorant people, or idiots with malthusian complexes. Earth can still support several times that number, but of course, some changes would be needed, such as enough nuclear plants to generate cheap electricity, enough plants that would convert sea water into tap water, dedicating more land in Africa for farming, and some more. Whole countries waste their lands doing nothing with them! Take a trip between most latinamerican cities, for instance, and you'll find plenty of... nothing! If they were to take advantage of every single square meter of land, like they do in Japan or the Netherlands, there would be plenty of food for humanity, and the animals that feed them.

This is going to sound cold (4, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353808)

But considering how distracted and divided humans still are, the earth will likely fix this load we are putting on it's resources. It has been known to erase lives hundreds of thousands at a time. In the USA alone there is a super volcano about due, and a few plate movements are overdue. A lot of people take issues with the population control methods utilized by the Chinese -- how much more densely populated would China be without those measures? What's point of a new bouncing baby girl if there isn't enough food available to feed her?

And yet the developed nations carry the guilt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353818)


And yet the developed nations carry the guilt and responsibility for food and resource shortages, famine and poverty

I'm not that hungry (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353846)

I just don't see how were ever going to eat this much Soylent Green!

Population increase is decreasing... (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353858)

...In other words we're reaching the population peek slowly, it is expected to be around 9-10 billion by experts.

Good thing (4, Insightful)

El Cabri (13930) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353876)

I resent people who are stating that 5, or 6, or 7 billions is too many and that the growth of world population should make us worry. I would like to point out that, compared to the era when world population was less than 1 billion, the average life expectancy, quality of life and, yes, access to ressources and opportunities has dramatically increased for our species. How far is the time when a single pandemic, natural disaster or mass migration would wipe out a third of a continent population and make whole civilization disappear from History ? Notwithstanding the current price fluctuations that call for natural adjustments in production and distribution systems, REAL hunger, the one where the basic intake of food necessary for survival simply isn't available within reach, has been reduced to cases relatively limited in scope and mostly due to geopolitical circumstances rather than natural resource limitations.

This is why I don't want to see cancer cured. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23353884)

This is why I don't want to see cancer cured. It's why I don't want to see ANY of the good diseases with high frag counts cured. It's why I don't care about the war in Iraq and the climbing death toll. It's why I don't care about starving kids in third-world nations. It's why I'd like to see all the warning labels taken off of just about everything.

Mark my words, planetary overpopulation will be the cause of World War III. Until selfish plebs quit plopping out their 2.5 kids, we really shouldn't be concerning ourselves with lengthening the average lifespan.

Cancer, President Bush, African warlords, and Darwin Award hopefuls: keep doing your thing!

Just goes to show.. (4, Funny)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353932)

..God is a sixist bastard!

Don't worry - they'll all be dead soon. (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353952)

Guaranteed. The question is how many feeders they leave behind.

Hardship and misery from Peak Oil will cull millions. Climate change will take out millions more. If the economies tank hard enough, then disease will take out a bunch more - perhaps a billion or more.

They will all die. It's just a question of how and when.

RS

Number of the Beast (1)

cerelib (903469) | more than 6 years ago | (#23353998)

Yawn, call me when it hits 6^(6^6) [wikipedia.org] .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?