It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Population research institute a.k.a PRI

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
The Population Research Institute, will be addressed as PRI from this point forward, has a few videos on youtube.
I came across them, watched them, read the comments, then felt uneasy.

Now I plan to go over their actual data, and go thru their math, before which I wanted to see what people knew of them here.

What information I have now. I know they are an anti-abortion, anti-population control group that claims to be non-profit.
(I rarely trust non-profit Org's as someone has to fund them)


This would be the part where I post what information I have to help fellow researchers along the way.

PRI main site

PRI owned site dedicated to overpopulation

Sourcewatch on them

This site is dedicated to debunking their false claims


So this PRI is getting tonnes of views and is actually making people believe what they say, but is what they say right?
This is what I need your help with.

This group not only has influential youtube videos, but is also using its influence to get in front of the U.N. and other groups.
If you find any info please post it here.


*Personal opinion -I get a bad feeling when I watched the vids and looked at their main sites. Not yet based on too much except maybe my "spidey sense", that's why I brought it to you guys. I have looked into overpopulation a lot, and the biggest thing I got from
their videos was, people will watch one well made youtube video and then they believe whatever it says completely.
Also, if you do watch it, please keep an eye on their math as it seems.... "tricksy".
If I am wrong and they are great people denying ignorance then I will be the first to donate to them.




posted on May, 23 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I'm not too sure what to think tbh.


There sex-selective abortion map is interesting...

But I'd like to know where their Stats came from.



Pakistan is what made me wonder...

Because as a 95+% Sunni country, I can't imagine many abortions taking place there.


I could be wrong of course, but it doesn't sound very Sunni-like to abort a child.

Muslims can be as fundamental on abortion as the far right like Westboro, so it's hard to believe.



I wouldn't donate just yet KingAtlas.


As you said, any NP-Org is being funded by someone for some "agenda"...
Theirs may seem benevolent, but it's hard to grasp on just their website alone.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Alright so fun fact - PRI is a Christian group pushing against contraception.

They equate contraception with abortion. (I didn't think people still thought like that)

I said the Math was off, I was right. They are using Math tricks and Misrepresentations to make their point.
So either
A) They have simply made some mistakes (a lot of mistakes)
or...
B) They are deliberately creating ignorance to further their own intents.

If people only see their video's and don't do any research... not good.

If anyone knows a way to follow the money trail that would be great.


*Personal note- Little upset they turned out to be worse than I thought.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: KingAtlas

Hey, just a real quick look at their main site... Yeah. The thing about stats is you really have to bolt down what is meant. For instance, what does it mean that half the world has below replacement fertility? Does that mean that half of people (including non-breeding elderly, children, and single people) are not breeding? That's not relevant.

What's relevant is the rate at which breeding is occurring, the average amount of children that appear for every person on earth, every year. Given the assumption that there is such a rate, its modeled with an exponential function, of the form p*(1.02)^y, if there was a 2% growth rate in a year (it would be lower) where p is starting population and y is years. You can use an "exponential regression" on population charts to deduce these variables.

Population will go up whenever it can, that's how life works. Its deeply programmed into us. And populations do rise exponentially until something puts it in check. But something always does, which is my stance on this. Hard times will come, nature will control the population. Humans don't have to, and in the end, population control always comes down to a sort of eugenics. In China for instance, you hear about the one-child policy, but its actually market driven. You can have more, if you are rich enough, that's the selection criteria. (Which honestly isn't too different from the US, welfare cases excepted)
www.telegraph.co.uk...
I say stay out of it, and let nature itself select who's going to survive, just as it always has.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: tridentblue

Yes, its a little concerning.

As one commenter on their site said, at no point do they take proper carrying capacity into account.

I do agree with you that overpopulation will "check itself", it will just cause a lot of destruction and problems.
Like any one organism over replicating in an environment. (Unless it kills its environment completely)

But that's not exactly what I was worried about.

I am concerned more with the spreading of their views thru bologna maths and facts. (excuse my language)
I hate the thought that people are going see this and actually believe what they are saying.

To be honest when I first saw it, I almost believed it. If I was dumber or lazier about this subject I might have accepted it as fact. That is what concerns me.

(Luckily overpopulation theory is something I find very interesting, and possibly important)


*Personal opinion- Even more upsetting is that they claim to be religious but would lie so blatantly to people.
Nothing new I know, but still.
edit on 23-5-2015 by KingAtlas because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: KingAtlas

Yeah, that's my issue with it too. Like I said, I'm personally against population control: Let the S fly and let the F sort it out when SHTF. But S is going to HTF.


Really though, this group is part of a large chorus of voices going around saying nothing is wrong, nothing will ever be wrong, don't worry. But stuff is wrong in a whole lot of ways, and getting more wrong. The people who buy those narratives are going to be the most endangered when SHTF. I know for a fact that there are groups who look at this is a benefit, who believe that a culling of the human race is in order. Is that the motivation here? I don't know, but the effect is to make people blind to the future risks when you perpetuate ideas like that population can keep growing forever without nature checking it.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: tridentblue

What that means is that half the world is having less than 2 children per couple.

And they are correct in that. For most of the developed world, couples are averaging less than 2 children per couple. A lot of countries, say in Europe and even increasing the US, have attempted to compensate with lots of cheap, imported labor to try to offset their aging population.

Just on an anecdotal level, if you look at the group of college friends my husband and I hung out with, we are the only ones with a child, and we only have one.

If you look at our family, we are just barely at replacement and only because my sister has three to balance out our one.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

It still doesn't matter, that sounds like stats manipulation to me. Half of the world lives off less than $2.50 a day, yet the average global income is $50 a day. It doesn't matter if half the world is outputting 1.9 children for each couple, if the other half of the world is outputting 7. All that matter is the big picture. That picture is that every year, the population grows by 1.1%, which makes for an exponentially increasing population just like the OP is concerned about. Everything else is local and anecdotal.

edit: Here is some good data though:
www.geohive.com...
It includes projections till 2100, which include positive growth, but a constant decrease. Why is that, and what force is supposed to drive those numbers down?

My point is that if say, 1.2% is the rate at which people want to have children, why are they SO confident that rate will decrease? Interesting and creepy.
edit on 23-5-2015 by tridentblue because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: tridentblue
a reply to: ketsuko

It still doesn't matter, that sounds like stats manipulation to me. Half of the world lives off less than $2.50 a day, yet the average global income is $50 a day. It doesn't matter if half the world is outputting 1.9 children for each couple, if the other half of the world is outputting 7. All that matter is the big picture. That picture is that every year, the population grows by 1.1%, which makes for an exponentially increasing population just like the OP is concerned about. Everything else is local and anecdotal.

edit: Here is some good data though:
www.geohive.com...
It includes projections till 2100, which include positive growth, but a constant decrease. Why is that, and what force is supposed to drive those numbers down?

My point is that if say, 1.2% is the rate at which people want to have children, why are they SO confident that rate will decrease? Interesting and creepy.


*sigh*

It's not manipulation.

In a third world economy or nation, a couple needs to have as many children as possible in order to ensure that at least two or three survive to adulthood to maintain replacement level or a small growth margin.

If you go study the stats in many of these nations, the growth rate is either negative due to wars and other factors or very small.

In a second world economy is where things truly get out of balance. Society and social mores do not keep up with technology. Life expectancies and the ability to keep more people alive longer coupled with the old societal need to have a ton of children create population booms. You can see this at work in India and other modernizing worlds. In the past, this also happened in both Britain during the Industrial Revolution and in the US where it was somewhat mitigated by westward expansion.

In first world nations, the population settles into a new equilibrium where the costs of having and raising children more or less create negative pressures that lower the birth rate down to replacement levels or lower. If you look at the statistics, you see this now in almost all the developed nations.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

There is no *sigh* here. The total growth rate is positive, based on what I linked to. That is the natural state, and it will create population increase, period, until nature creates a situation where it can't continue. Anything else IS a manipulation of some sort (like eugenics). Evolution is a simple algorithm: each type of lifeform tries to increase its numbers as much as possible, and multiplies itself further by the amount that it succeeds. This applies to humans as well. Populations will not naturally stabilize without an outside influence of some kind, its a competitive game.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: tridentblue

Because of the developing world. What happens when the world is developed?



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Well what does development mean, ketsuko? Family planning? Because when I stand back and look at the big picture, that can only indicate a population reduction in the group of people who believe in it, and an increase in those who don't. A systematic reduction in the population of people who embrace those ideas. If that is civilization, nature will replace civilization with savagery, its spelled out in natural law.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join