Is the world overpopulated?

[Saint Cy of JFC]

From a resource perspective the world could feed a whole bunch more people. About a third of the food produced in the world goes to waste. If you just captured that you would be able to feed the 900 million hungry people in the world plus an extra 3billion people. Advances in science will continue to make it possible to feed more and more people in a sustainable way.

From a my comfort level perspective, I've been to Walmart lately and can tell you there is definitely an overpopulation problem.

Also think if we had better mass long-distance transportation (trains) we would have less city overcrowding.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Thank you for clarifying that your are comfortable with the millions of starving people. It's good for you to show your humanitarian side.

As a percentage, there are fewer people starving now, living in poverty now, than ever in human history and the curve is continuing in the direction of global prosperity thanks to the global adoption of capitalism in the late 20th century. No other system is better at resource allocation or production, including food production, than capitalism. Those wishing for the return of 1930's socialist ideals rightfully have about as much credibility as flat-Earthers.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Also think if we had better mass long-distance transportation (trains) we would have less city overcrowding.

LOL. Sorry but the 1930's aren't coming back. Socialsim and trains cannot compete against capitalism and internet connectivity.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

LOL. Sorry but the 1930's aren't coming back. Socialsim and trains cannot compete against capitalism and internet connectivity.

ok bud

 

[LogGrad98]

LOL. Sorry but the 1930's aren't coming back. Socialsim and trains cannot compete against capitalism and internet connectivity.

Can't we have capitalism and effective public transport, or is there no way for a single guy to get insanely wealthy that way? That is usually the measuring stick for these kinds of things, can a politician syphon tons of money off of the project or can a single guy increase his wealth exponentially on the project. If not, it ain't gonna happen. No socialism for you!! We can't use anything that helps people if someone can't get rich from it!! "Socialist" trains that are better for the environment and help reduce traffic congestion and save people money getting to and from work?! "Socialist" medicine that allows someone to get needed medical care without threat of bankruptcy, unless they are rich of course?! The very idea! **** that noise!

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Can't we have capitalism and effective public transport

It is called Uber and Southwest, and it is far superior to socialist trains. You can even include the battery-powered scooters you can rent with your phone in that category.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Can't we have capitalism and effective public transport, or is there no way for a single guy to get insanely wealthy that way? That is usually the measuring stick for these kinds of things, can a politician syphon tons of money off of the project or can a single guy increase his wealth exponentially on the project. If not, it ain't gonna happen. No socialism for you!! We can't use anything that helps people if someone can't get rich from it!! "Socialist" trains that are better for the environment and help reduce traffic congestion and save people money getting to and from work?! "Socialist" medicine that allows someone to get needed medical care without threat of bankruptcy, unless they are rich of course?! The very idea! **** that noise!

If we could have a European like rail system in America right now, I'd sell my car today. Seriously.

And from what I gather, Europe's rail system sucks compared to the newer ones in Asia.

I thought the UK's tube/bus system was amazing. If I knew I could get from SLC to Los Angeles in 6-8 hrs in a comfortable and affordable train, there would be no need for me to have a car. Even locally, I'm finding myself use Trax/Frontrunner. And those suck compared to what they have in Europe and Asia.

 

[LogGrad98]

It is called Uber and Southwest, and it is far superior to socialist trains. You can even include the battery-powered scooters you can rent with your phone in that category.

Far superior? Did you say that with a straight face? LOL

Of course you find it superior because it proves my point. Someone can get rich off those "services" charging exorbitant fees, and they don't provide a public service. Who could possibly afford $20 each way to Uber to work and back every day? But hey, it gets people around and someone got rich, right? That is all that matters in the grand scheme of things. And it put a lot more cars on the road that might not otherwise be there, so that helps the environment somehow, right? And somehow Southwest gets people to work? um, ok. I really think you must be a troll.

 

[LogGrad98]

If we could have a European like rail system in America right now, I'd sell my car today. Seriously.

And from what I gather, Europe's rail system sucks compared to the newer ones in Asia.

I thought the UK's tube/bus system was amazing. If I knew I could get from SLC to Los Angeles in 6-8 hrs in a comfortable and affordable train, there would be no need for me to have a car. Even locally, I'm finding myself use Trax/Frontrunner. And those suck compared to what they have in Europe and Asia.

I was able to get back and forth to work within 10-15 minutes time of my coworkers who were driving, using the public transport in Germany, all for 80 euros per month for a city pass. (Not 40 euros per day with Uber, what a stupid comment that was.) I finally bought a car a few months in so we could have a bit more freedom in visiting friends and going to tour other countries, and because the American in me wanted a Mercedes, but frankly we could have done it with train everywhere. I would take a train were it available. I am tired of 1 hour 15 minute commutes in erratic traffic. I would be fine if it took an extra 15 minutes if I didn't have to deal with Inland Empire traffic anymore.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Far superior? Did you say that with a straight face? LOL

Of course you find it superior because it proves my point. Someone can get rich off those "services" charging exorbitant fees, and they don't provide a public service. Who could possibly afford $20 each way to Uber to work and back every day? But hey, it gets people around and someone got rich, right? That is all that matters in the grand scheme of things. And it put a lot more cars on the road that might not otherwise be there, so that helps the environment somehow, right? And somehow Southwest gets people to work? um, ok. I really think you must be a troll.

The socialist wanted trains that transported people long distances, as in from outside of a city and into the city for work. Trains are terrible for serving that role. You live in Riverside and should know that first hand. Trains, and any form of public transportation, do not work in medium or lower population density environments. It can be useful in urban centers, but in sprawl you need a car.

Even in providing passenger service between urban centers, it is less effective than airplanes as it evidenced by the debt issues threatening China's rail service.

China Railway's debt nears $900bn under expansion push

Support to boost economy drives state high-speed train operator deeper into red

asia.nikkei.com

Passenger train service loses money everywhere now precisely because on a cost basis it cannot compete with the more efficient and effective alternatives. It can make some sense inside dense urban environments, but in all other areas it is better to have an economy that provides a standard of living high enough to allow people to buy cars, or book tickets on airlines when they need to travel long distances.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I would be fine if it took an extra 15 minutes if I didn't have to deal with Inland Empire traffic anymore.

To be fair, I avoid the Inland Empire as if it were the epicenter of a plague outbreak all because of your traffic. Your local government ruined traffic flow by splitting I-15 into paying and non-paying lanes with transponder requirements. You could solve 90% of the Inland Empire's traffic problems overnight if they would rip down the pylons to make all of I-15 into regular lanes.

I also think the interchange that makes you exit I-215 to stay on I-215 is awful. Those are all public projects, and how you could see that at the same time wanting those people to have control over trains is hard to wrap my head around.

 

[LogGrad98]

To be fair, I avoid the Inland Empire as if it were the epicenter of a plague outbreak all because of your traffic. Your local government ruined traffic flow by splitting I-15 into paying and non-paying lanes with transponder requirements. You could solve 90% of the Inland Empire's traffic problems overnight if they would rip down the pylons to make all of I-15 into regular lanes.

I also think the interchange that makes you exit I-215 to stay on I-215 is awful. Those are all public projects, and how you could see that at the same time wanting those people to have control over trains is hard to wrap my head around.

It has been shown in many studies that adding lanes does not ease congestion, it is an issue of induced demand. And I fully agree they have not handled the IE freeway system well at all. the 60 and the 10 are simply overloaded and they have not kept pace with the increasing population in the area due to the warehousing jobs here. This is where some public transport would help. I commute from Redlands to Chino every day, and it is a minimum of 1:15 in the afternoons to go 32 miles. I would happily take the train even if it adds to that time.

The problem is America designed everything centered on cars, with little thought to the repercussions with increased population, even ignoring the great work being done in city design in other countries such as the Netherlands to worship the almighty car, and therefore it will take some heavy restructuring to get more effective public transport even in areas as densely populated as this.

Just check this out about stroads.

What's a STROAD and Why Does It Matter? | Strong Towns

Show this video to anyone who needs a crash course in what makes our streets dangerous and how to make them safer and more financially productive.

www.strongtowns.org

"Stroad" is a word we coined in 2013 to explain those dangerous, multi-laned thoroughfares you encounter in nearly every city, town, and suburb in America. They're what happens when a street (a place where people interact with businesses and residences, and where wealth is produced) gets combined with a road (a high-speed route between productive places).

They are enormously expensive to build and, ultimately, financially unproductive.

A good article about redesigning cities to be more pubic and non-car transport friendly:

The Reshaping Of City Cores That Were Designed For Cars

Our urban cores have to be transformed wholesale for our cities to remain relevant and vibrant in the 21st century. How do we encourage city dwellers to adopt all of the new mobility options?

www.forbes.com

The issue is not having any foresight or control or fundamental planning to control urban sprawl and make our cities people-friendly instead of car-friendly. But car-centric urban development was a direct result of the booming auto industry. So capitalism is why we have terribly designed cities and no effective way to change it. It was not a social structure issue, it was an economic one.

Capitalism is not the devil, I rely firmly on it for my livelihood and am a believer in the openness of entrepreneurship and businesses have the freedom to follow the market trends. However, completely unchecked capitalism naturally creates huge wealth disparities, as well as systems that are business-centric or product-centric and not people-centric, so it is not the most effective system for things that should be viewed as basic utilities, such as electricity, water and sewer service, health care, and city planning and development. Allow capitalism to control these areas unfettered and people suffer even if they might have more "stuff", as you create strata of those who can afford the basic utilities and those who cannot, as we have done in healthcare, which is a travesty in such a wealthy country.