Even World War III 'could not stop rising population'

a reply to: SLAYER69

I think a world war of a big enough magnitute could certainly decimate the population,and so could a pandemic of a big enough magnitude.

There are other ways we could be beaten back into stone age population levels as well:

Huge asteroid strike,
massive solar fart,
gamma ray burst from space,
a man made pandemic through a bio warfare lab leak,
supervolcano eruption,
a massive tectonic event(or series of),
mass methane release(like during the Permian triassic extintion event),
a few lines of code resulting in a rougue AI Internet which decides we humans would be better off as protein batteries,
hungry alien invasion,
nomad planet crashes into the moon,
global fungus takeover,
self replicating nanobots released into the wild,
anti matter experiment gone wrong,

to name but a few.
Plenty of potential doom out there.

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
a reply to: SLAYER69

I think a world war of a big enough magnitute could certainly decimate the population,and so could a pandemic of a big enough magnitude.

There are other ways we could be beaten back into stone age population levels as well:

Huge asteroid strike,
massive solar fart,
gamma ray burst from space,
a man made pandemic through a bio warfare lab leak,
supervolcano eruption,
a massive tectonic event(or series of),
mass methane release(like during the Permian triassic extintion event),
a few lines of code resulting in a rougue AI Internet which decides we humans would be better off as protein batteries,
hungry alien invasion,
nomad planet crashes into the moon,
global fungus takeover,
self replicating nanobots released into the wild,
anti matter experiment gone wrong,

to name but a few.
Plenty of potential doom out there.

You've listed everything but a nuclear disaster, which is what's actually happening.

Cancer rates are at 50%+ and rising.

And that's just one of the many fatal diseases caused by radioactive isotopes.

a reply to: SLAYER69

It all depend's on what weapon's they use, chemical area weapon's are outlawed but they still have stockpiles and in an all out atomic war the gloves will come off, so too the same for biological weapons, then there is the fallout of a true nuclear war and the reduced plant growth in most areas due to sunlight reduction with long term starvation and famine being the result so a true Third world war, especially one employing there stockpiles of ground effect nuclear devices (not the banned crust crackers but low altitude ones that throw up more debris) which would exacerbate the fallout potential and atmospheric dust level's even more.

It also depend's on who is targeted, regimented communist systems with local governance and in place military dictatorship would perversely weather the effects at a social level far better than would a democratic every man for himself society.

a reply to: Silcone Synapse

Most of those events would take us PAST the stone age and into extinction. By the way, this point:

a few lines of code resulting in a rougue AI Internet which decides we humans would be better off as protein batteries

is impossible. That is the biggest plot hole in the Matrix. Humans, or rather life in general, are MUCH better wasters of energy than producers of energy. So if a rogue AI got loose and decided that we weren't needed anymore, it would just eradicate us completely (probably with a bio-engineered virus, much more efficient than waging war on us like the Terminator or Matrix movies depict).

a reply to: SLAYER69

I think that what they are trying to say is just that based on the numbers (and I would add, human nature) policies of population control and reliance upon the usual historical measures that keep human population in check simply won't work.

Now I don't know if 10B people is unsustainable, so I'm not going to argue that point because that assumption is part and parcel to their research here. It could very well be true. I don't know. Having said that, it is difficult to discuss the death of billions of people in an analytical way without coming across as psychotic.

At the end of the day their message is simply... Maybe we should be looking at human innovation as a positive solution instead of focusing on negative solutions that inhibit liberty and/or kill a bunch of people. That's what I got out of it, but I've been saying that for years so I could just be seeing what I want here.

Perhaps a world war will not be enough but a drastic climate change can be.
Humanity faces a very tough time ahead and IMO it's like peak oil, the human growth looks similar and at some point it could go as fast down as it went up.
Right now its like invisible (the danger) but big problems ahead.
So in about 20-50 years you could see this very fast decline happening (hard to predict the right time), or we must come up with scientific breakthroughs where we can stop a rapid climate change and undo the damage but time is ticking (could be too late already).

a reply to: Plugin

In the past humanity as a species adapted to harsh times by increasing the number of children born to a family to compensate for high child mortality and also shorter life spans, there is no reason it would not do so again as we are genetically identical to the medievil period people who so lived.

Human beings are a scourge anyway. Everywhere we set up camp, we just destroy and poop on everything around us, literally poisoning our own air, water, and earth that is essential to our survival. Morally, we are by far the most despicable animal on the planet, and it's an absolute joke that we use our so called 'ethical sense' as a way of separating ourselves from the rest of the life on the planet. As someone else mentioned, any number of scenarios could doom us to extinction or reboot. Yeah, let's get off the planet, and start pooping all over and destroying some other beautiful world. No thanks. I'm fairly confident within my lifetime we'll see some mass die offs of our pathetically overrated species. Looking forward to it, myself. I'll dance like I've never danced before when the day comes that I see the global corporate machine come falling down like the house of cards it truly is. There's a scenario for you. Global economic collapse.

When the electricity goes out, you'll get a good look at just how civilized and evolved we really are.

a reply to: Calalini

Dont you more accurately mean we are not fully compatible with the eco system of this planet just like alien's marooned on a strange world or adapted to a different eco system and then having to both adapt here new eco system to themselves and themselves to it in order to survive?.
Humanity is not as bad as you believe (though many individuals are far worse) but it is simply not compatible, why do we wear clothing, why to we need to cook our food and why did our ancestors have such poor tollerance for the water they had to brew beer and drink that (the water could have killed them).
So if anyone is guilty of ecological vandalism it is the sod who marrooned us here.
Maybe we evolved on earth but in a different eco system and epoch, either something changed the eco system radically or we were somewhere else for a very long time living in artifical controlled environment's, the human race suddenly appears (forget a jigsaw piece puzzle of human like chimps that dont proove anything but merely support a notion of how humanity came to be) and struggles to survive but like foreign crickets released on a pacific island the consequence of there arrival is dire for so many fully adapted life forms and the ecological niche does not apply to them as they predate even the apex predator's.
Odd is it not, monkeys have predators and life adapt's together so that as the primate evolved so did it's predator, not human's.

Perhaps overpopulation is a myth perpetuated by a sect of people who wish everyone else to stop reproducing so that they can continue to reproduce in droves and take over the world.


Just a thought.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Here's the thing, though, at least in my opinion:

If there is a next world war, it will be on a scale so far greater than the last two combined. It would have to.

We live in a world of mutually assured destruction. No super power is going to let themselves be defeated without taking everyone else down with them.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Silcone Synapse

Most of those events would take us PAST the stone age and into extinction. By the way, this point:

a few lines of code resulting in a rougue AI Internet which decides we humans would be better off as protein batteries

is impossible. That is the biggest plot hole in the Matrix. Humans, or rather life in general, are MUCH better wasters of energy than producers of energy. So if a rogue AI got loose and decided that we weren't needed anymore, it would just eradicate us completely (probably with a bio-engineered virus, much more efficient than waging war on us like the Terminator or Matrix movies depict).

Well fair enough,and thank goodness for that-
I will sleep soundly knowing I can strike that off my list of things to worry about.

a reply to: Silcone Synapse

Yes, only an infinite more things to go (most of which we haven't even imagined or discovered yet).

a reply to: SLAYER69

Scripture indicates a great war at the end of the present age.

A war between an alliance of nations from the East called the "Dragon" and an alliance from the West called the "Beast".

In that war, scripture indicates, the death of 1/3rd of all mankind (current population = 7 billion = 2.33 billion deaths)

The scientists only indicated 80 million (WW2) + 37 million (WW1) = 117 million as the death estimates for WW3.

Changing 117 million deaths to 2.33 billion would impact the model.

Scripture also indicates further death during the 7 vials poured out on the day of Christ's return, possibly up to another 1/3rd. Reducing population from 7 billion to 2.33 billion would most likely alter the projection of the model as well.

My point is that the assumption on the relatively low numbers of deaths caused by a WW3 scenario is unrealistic in a day where mankind possesses enough nuclear weapons to wipe out all life on Earth 40 times over, and the nations with the power (USA, Russia) are the ones threatening full scale conflict (BRIICS vs IMF).

God Bless,

I think everything will fall under control in the next decade or so when economies start to collapse.

Economy fails, and money loses all of its value. People can't buy anything, and people will start to make runs on stores and shopping centers, mostly for food. Looting and riots ensue, lives are lost.... Mostly from people fighting over food and supplies, and protecting their stockpiles.

Once the dust settles, you will primarily only have the hunters, and well prepped remaining, which especially in reference to the developed nations, isn't a particularly large percentage (considering everyone living in our near cities who's idea of roughing it consists of camping in an rv and living off of TV dinners.)

A gloom prediction? Maybe.
Realistic? More than likely.

Just my 2 cents.....

a reply to: dothedew

You make good point's from a survivalist perspective, remember though that throughout the world even today there are society's we see as backward for whom there would be little or no change when and if this happened and they may then rise as the new superpowers with what today are regarded as backward country's able to draw on these still viable methods of hill farmer's, hunters and tribal society's who are less tied to our modern way of life.

There army's may one day roll in to the desolation you describe taking advantage of the power vacuum and the survivalists for all there preparation would not stand a chance if they opposed an army (Even with guerrilla tactics as there supplies and source of supply would be finite) even if they were an army unless they then came out not as all for themselves but as all for one, a coalition or militia intent on restoring that society all be to there revisionist view's (Assuming they could agree on them) of what it should have been all along and of course such a coalition would have to fight a civil war with it's own as separatist factions as they vied against federalist factions or against opposing doctrine's.

Better to save what you have and rebuild it before that happens, can you think of the power all those survivalists would wield if they got behind that idea as a community.

A house divided can not stand.

The elites have been obsessed with population control for more than a century. Rockefeller teamed up with Margaret Sanger to create the American Birth Control League(now called Planned Parenthood). Dr Len Horowitz puts Rockefeller at epicenter of the AIDS epidemic. Bill Gates loves vaccines as the best way to control population growth....John Holdren wants to put sterilants in our water supply to medicate us against our will or without our consent or knowledge.
And then there's Agenda 21, which has as it's goal reducing the population to a manageable 500 million. Thomas Malthus believed that the poor and the sickly should be left to die. Obamacare has some interesting end of life planning for us.
Ebola is the latest .... are they deliberately trying to start a massive outbreak to depopulate the world with all their ineptitude?

a reply to: AnteBellum

The above graphs show the area with the highest fertility also is the area with the highest mortality rate.

Now how about a chart which shows the population growth rate?


Funny thing about humans, the worse conditions are, the more kids they seem to have. More than enough kids to make up for the death rate. By a long shot. The younger they die, the more kids they have. Funny thing, that rapid population growth just makes things worse for them.

Funny thing about humans, the better their living conditions are, the fewer kids they have. They live longer too, but guess what, the growth rate is lower than those places where birth and death rates are high.


People dying does not lower population growth. Longer life spans does not increase population growth. Fewer children being born does. Improving living conditions in underdeveloped nations is the "key" to reducing population growth where it is highest and causes the most misery.

People dying does not reduce the population. Killing people does not reduce the population. Improving the lot of underdeveloped regions does.

One day after the aftermath when another sentient species has evolved further than ours there will be required reading courses(or something equivalent) on the most destructive invasive species to have ever walked the earth that being man.

a reply to: Phage

Funny thing about humans, the worse conditions are, the more kids they seem to have. More than enough kids to make up for the death rate. By a long shot. The younger they die, the more kids they have. Funny thing, that rapid population growth just makes things worse for them.

Funny thing about humans, the better their living conditions are, the fewer kids they have. They live longer too, but guess what, the growth rate is lower than those places where birth and death rates are high.

You are equating living conditions with birth rates and claiming that this is the causal factor. It may be! Or not!

Many other factors come into it. Religion is one! Societal norms is another.

I agree that there seems to be a relationship here, but then, only half a century ago in Australia, it was typical for us to have large families with 4 of more children. Living conditions were very good and still large families were the norm.

There are other factors. You need a science based investigation rather than straight assumptions.

People dying does not reduce the population. Killing people does not reduce the population.

Don't be silly! Of course they do! I don't know what you were trying to convey to us, but you missed. These two statements are just nonsensical.

P