Over population.

Okay. First and foremost, I believe I had a similar thread related to this that I was just going to update. However I cant seem to find it.

Not to make a big deal about it, I'm well aware that we clarified misuse of resources was definately tied to the 'overpopulation' problem.

These predictions though. If they're even remotely accurate. I'd say it's a problem and it's only going to get worse.

www.iflscience.com...

a reply to: ChaosruptureS420

Just how do they expect the population to continue at this pace for the next 85 years. It's insane. This cycle of human expansion will stop and soon. How can this be sustained? Suggesting a population of that size 85 years from now seems rather ridiculous to me.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

What would cause a decline or stand-still in population?
/besides the government of course.
I see where you're coming from, but tbh I don't see anything slowing us down.
Unless I've missed something important in the headlines lately?

I live in a country where we could handle a few more million.
In fact where I live we have a population shortage

There are two sides to this argument, would help if we were to familiarise ourselves with both sides of the issue and further our knowledge.

There is an imbalance of finances where the few greedy people own the majority of wealth.

The only solution to that is a 1 child per couple restriction. But no government enforces that rule. Governements are too afraid it will cost them votes at the next elections. That they won't earn that precious money anymore. That activists cry in anger about human rights and other stupid #. Even China removed that restriction.

Welcome to the decline... This earth cannot be rescued anymore.

a reply to: ChaosruptureS420
The only problem with population is how to control and tax it. There is plenty of room and space if only we shared the resources more. There is enough wealth and resource to sustain this population and more if only we did things for the right reason.

It is small areas that are overpopulated. I hear you all shout but we cant feed the population and give them clean water now how are we going to do it with more.
We could provide any service the world requires if we can pay for it. Look at Dubai. desalination plants creating lakes and fertile farmland.
No profit in sharing.

a reply to: ChaosruptureS420

Over population. The case for culling the population down to 500 m steps up a gear. In the not too distant future I foresee many sheeple agreeing to be put down because they have accepted the depopulation argument.

Depopulation is beginning with rational discussion using microbes as an example of population explosion.
then there will talk of using vaccines for widespread sterilization
then there will be talk about expanding the definition of terminally Ill and its treatment.
Then we will the emergence of quotas for health care for the poor but voluntry 'death with dignity' will become the catch cry by the rich for the poor just to get it started then the sheeple will take up the cudgels and get it realised
then we will see compulsory abortion of less than perfect babies
then 'death with dignity' will be extended to the long term mentally and physically ill.
war, war, war and more war ..... well it does play a role in population control doesn't it will become the catch-cry.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch the planners will quiet wars against blacks, asians, poor whites, middle class whites in all the major economies, all in that order

Then the sheeple will begin advocating that each other, him not me, get put down and that 'they' (them not me,) should demonstrate their commitment to the planet and to future generations and do the right thing and agree to be put down.

a reply to: ChaosruptureS420

This may cause some sensitive people to lash out however, I believe it may quite possibly be one natural cause of natural depopulation; homosexuality. I feel that humans in their arrogance often forget that they are part of nature even of they think they are smarter than everything. We are part of nature and nature will balance us out as nature sees fit.

Just a hypothesis….

a reply to: notmyrealname

It's true, but not about that homosexuality part, sure you may hear it more but with more people there are more of them and there is just allot of attention for homosexuality, also they can still make children or adopt children so basically it helps like 0 to stop population growth.

For me it's like the graph of peak oil, a very very sharp line upwards in a very short time then at some point it will go down as fast also.

According to many climate scientists as a result we are basically heading for mass extinction. Of course a mega quake or nuclear war could stop/slow it (a runaway climate change) but how big of a change is that. But the media isn't even reporting the problem about methane for example causing a very rapid climate change where it simply gets too hot for humans (could be in the next 50-100 years).

But like 0 funding goes to research trying to find a solution, like finding a way to get co2 out of the atmosphere or trying to stop methane stored at the artic/siberia (below the ice/frozen ground) getting released in the atmosphere. And again this could mean the end of humans but nothing serious funding/research trying to stop this is going on.. let alone serious media reporting. But more of the kardashians and the likes, yep we are doomed I guess.

ytube seems down?:

I wonder if someone read Dan's Brown "Inferno".
It's a frightening vision to live with; I planned to made a thread on this topic. I'm afraid that overpopulation it is a problem we are unable to face right now.
As I understand, the first shortage will be water. I can't even imagine how horrible that is.

And no, I don't think that depopulation is a viable solution. But some smart minds are needed to come up with something, and fast or we are gonna see the hell on earth for real.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I live in a country where we could handle a few more million.
In fact where I live we have a population shortage

There are two sides to this argument, would help if we were to familiarise ourselves with both sides of the issue and further our knowledge.

There is an imbalance of finances where the few greedy people own the majority of wealth.

I agree. This planet can handle far more people. The only real shortages & bottlenecks come from densely populated municipalities and our horrible distribution of resources.

We could end the very idea of "water shortages" if our leadership spent money on an international desalination system instead of war. Then our entire oceans would be our water sources, which would never run out.

We could end the very idea of "energy shortages" if our leaders spent money to convert small fractions of the world's deserts into solar energy power stations. The Sahara Desert alone could power our entire planet many, many times over.

And we could end the very idea of "food insecurity" if our leaders spent money on food security. I've seen estimates for what it would take to end world hunger. The different estimates usually ranged from $7 billion to $50 billion a year. Apple Inc made $10.7 billion in profits just last quarter! Not revenue, but profits after all expenses. And the company Pimco owns close to $2 TRILLION worth of assets. And the US govt alone spends between $2-$3 trillion every year. Yet we're supposed to believe there aren't enough resources for humans to survive?

But instead of talking about things like this, what do we get? We get people calling for mass genocide. Sorry, I mean "mandated depopulation of society's unsuccessful undesirables". After all, the people who call for depopulation never want to start with themselves, their friends, or their families. Instead they always tend to point towards "poor" people, "unwanted" minority groups, people convicted of a crime, citizens of countries they've been taught to hate or scorn, etc.

I did not read the Ops link: Many countries are suffering from a severe birth rate drop and an older population. That is one of the reasons immigration is being pushed in many countries.. You need young WORKERS to help pay for the social services of the old..

Japan has a serious problem but they are not wanting to open the flood gates to hell (for their society)l so they are investing in robotics on a massive scale as they have always restricted immigration.

It has been a while since I came across population growth figures but from memory Africa barring any epidemic or serious war expects to add another 2 billion in the next so many years. I thought that was very optimistic because in many places they can't feed what they already have.. not to mention tribal and religious wars..

So I am of the opinion the eugenics programs and propaganda that rears it's ugly head ever so often will be taken care of simply because either lack of food, water, war, disease, or natural calamities will have a large effect on population growth ... Many experiments with rats and over population certainly points to that hypotheses.

The one Child policy that China instituted resulted in 30 or 40% more male babies.. An people wonder why China has become more aggressive.. DUH !

Besides America is certainly doing their part if the 57 million babies aborted since 1973 or about 1.06 million each year is correct.

Depending on where you look it is estimated about 44 million are aborted each year. world wide.. That figure does not include the children found in trash dumps and flushed down the toilet or the ones that used to be called back alley coat hanger abortions..

originally posted by: Pluginn
a reply to: notmyrealname

It's true, but not about that homosexuality part

Is that your opinion or do you have some source from scientific study to come to that conclusion?

Back on topic, all these folk on this thread saying we have loads more room, do you all live in Narnia? Scientist have said that they think the world can only hold 9 to 10 billion humans.

"The constraints of the biosphere are fixed."

Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce, just as Malthus argued more than 200 years ago. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.

The 3.5 billion acres would produce approximately 2 billion tons of grains annually, he explained. That's enough to feed 10 billion vegetarians, but would only feed 2.5 billion U.S. omnivores, because so much vegetation is dedicated to livestock and poultry in the United States.

So 10 billion people is the uppermost population limit where food is concerned. Because it's extremely unlikely that everyone will agree to stop eating meat, Wilson thinks the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth based on food resources will most likely fall short of 10 billion.

Source

The only way for the human race to continue to grow and expand, is to colonise space and other planets,this is not going to happen before the Worlds Population hits 10 Billion People which is estimated to happen by 2100. Not really a problem for those of us writing in this thread today but will be a massive issue for your grand children's Children as they will be living in Hell ;(

a reply to: flammadraco

No but not long ago homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disorder. I bet many people think there are way more gays in Holland then in any other country, but most likely not the case but there started it seems more gay acceptance. In many country's you better not tell you are gay and in many country's people are just not very nice to them but at least there is progress.
But have you any proof there are more gays?

Based on the 2013 NHIS data [collected in 2013 from 34,557 adults aged 18 and over], 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% of adults identified as “something else[]” [0.2%,] stated “I don’t know the answer[]” [0.4%] or refused to provide an answer [0.6%].

But most american's believe the percentage of gays according to a study to be about 20%!! lol.

Did try to find some links with google if there are more ppl becoming gay but didn't found any.
So what proof is there expect of course simply because you have more and more people you have more gays and also more straight people. Just because you read it more on the news or because more people on the media seems gay? you see more gay people close around you? is that proof? Gays sure like it seems attention and whenever a known person comes out it may seems there are more gay but I doubt that.

But even if true it still doesn't help much stopping population growth, so lets say it doubled now!... you still would see a big rise in population growth. Pretty poor way of nature combating population growth and you really think nature would fight a population problem in such a way?

I don't think is about what population "the planet" can handle; it's about what we, as society can handle.
Even right now we have starving countries, a whole third world being born, living and dieing in extreme poverty.And we're not missing resources yet.

What chance do they have when the rich countries will go to war for water?
What chance do we have when things like food, water, housing, jobs are running out or become extremely scarce? Is western countries economy prepared to deal with a growth of population like that? For what I see so far their only way to handle it is not to talk about it.

And even if they would, I wouldn't trust any government to handle this situations for the people benefits.
Venezuela is just a little preview of how worse things can go.

a reply to: WhiteHat

If you want to fight serious problems you must come with dramatic solutions often, but for a political figure to do that, will make him or her very unpopular, let alone his fund raisers for getting his next election.
I'm not saying less people is a solution but lets say it is, even talking in politics is a no go. Talking about this subject is a no no no.
Everything is about money and economics it seems, and this is the problem, where the money is power and from there they try to do things but they only do stuff that is in the interest of that same money basically.
Just also see that Ytube video I posted above where they talk about our flawed economic system of more gdp growth > more, more and more.. this just won't work and is the cause of the problems which become bigger and bigger each year and at some point as you said hell basically.

Nature will always take care of itself and rebuild. It doesn't matter if we overpopulate...the earth will make sure that it survives itself and rebuilds after killing off most, if not all of the population of inhabitants. The nature of any being is to procreate, hence the overpopulation of many animals and wildlife in areas....they are always culled by nature in some way, whether it be disease, famine, or other.

I cannot embed this video. It's short but with a huge impact, maybe some will watch it.
Big Picture Small World.

Then think about few times worse.

Maybe things will happen much sooner than the song says

a reply to: Pluginn

Ok lets take the conservative view that 5% of the worlds population is gay, that's 5% of 7 Billions would equate to 350,000,000 people. I'd say if in fact Mother nature does make animals and humans gay to reduce the population, then 350 million folk not having kids would go some way to slow the population down, otherwise if we had no gay folk we would now have a population in excess of 7.35 Billion now.

The part where you said straight people out number gay people is not correct, Bi Sexual people out number gay and straights combined. Whether they act on their sexuality is another matter but there are just the same number of completely straight people on this planet as there are completely gay people, everyone else (6.3 Billion people) would be on the spectrum in between either completely straight or completely gay. Most if not all homophobes (hetrosexist) are actually bisexual and very vocal is their disdain towards gay folk due to them battling their own inner demons.

Anyway back on topic, I do believe what most scientist believe that the planet can only sustain up to 10 billion humans and that's only if everyone on the planet became vegetarian!