Overpopulation

Casey J. Monahan wrote:

> Bucky also said that the conventional view of the 'problem' of
> overpopulation was a myth.

And it is. And Fuller also explained that in his books... The conventional view comes from the intense overpopulation of small areas through concentration of population for economic reasons, and the limiting of human habitation to just the surface of the planet. He pointed out that if all the people in Manhattan, New York, were suspended in the air in a one mile cube, each person could barely see the next in any direction.

A Skysphere City would provide a lot more living area for each person than a city of equivalent population and diameter could on the ground. Overpopulation is not the result of coming up with an arbitrary number of people and declaring that all the people beyond that is causing unacceptable damage to the ecosystem...

Overpopulation is a complex equation which must include overall density of the human population, the kind of environment in any given area, the level of technology which is in common use in the area, (Above the level of harmonic tribal technology, the lower the technology, the worse the ecological damage.), and a lot more.

If one says that any human or technological impact is too much, then they deny the reality that humans are also 100% part of the environment, having evolved from it, having applied knowledge learned from it, and being totally sustained by it. We have a place in it, including the technology we learn from it, but we have to find a harmonious niche in it also, or like all species which do not adapt, we will die.

And, of all people, Bucky Fuller made that the most clear to me.