It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


When was it that the world would end if overpopulation continues?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 08:46 PM
Hello I need some help.I remember reading somewhere that if overpopulation continued the world would end.I am uncertain but I think I remember hearing a year like 2030 or something does anyone know?
Please help me out.

posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 11:11 PM
No one (reasonably anyway) ever predicted that overpopulation would 'destroy the world'. But there were projections that it would be a real disaster.

Paul Ehrlich is a whipping boy in this respect

Not only was the world headed for catastrophe, but there was little that could be done to avoid it. Some parts of the world might see some minor and temporary recovery, but "a minimum of ten million people, most of them children, will starve to death during each year of the 1970s. But this is a mere handful compared to the numbers that will be starving before the end of the century" (emphasis in the original).

He probably is who you are thinking of tho, he didn't say that the world would end but that it'd be a huge disaster/catastrophe, and was quite well known because of his predictions and their failure. 'He's so famous that he is iiinnnfamous' sorta.

posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 11:19 PM
A lot of madmen have said, at various times throughout history, that the earth could not sustain all the people living. Usually this was a pretext for Hitlerian extermination programs against native peoples.

Our earth could sustain many hundreds of billions of people if we were to live in a responsible and low impact fashion. Of course, many discard that idea without even examining it. Humanity has a number of naturally evolved defenses against overpopulation. Things like war, homosexuality, disease, and infertility curb population growth when critical thresholds are neared. If said thresholds were to be passed, starvation would quickly and quietly reduce the population size to manageable levels. Within a matter of months nature could accomplish what no human tyrant has been able to finish, the culling of the herd.

The plain truth is that this planet can be paradise or hell, and we have all the power.

posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 12:23 AM
well.. overpopulation could eventually destroy the world... but i think before the world is destroyed... a few billion people will be sacrificed... sad to say that... but if you think about it.. instead of all of mankind being destroyed.. why not just take out a few billion to lvl off the population... the question will be... who is to be chosen to be sacrificed.. i mean you dont want anyone to die... but in this scenario people would have to...

i hate to bring this up too.. but if you look through the bible the 7th seal that has to occur before jesus christ returns.. states that a third of mankind would be slain ... this could be reference to a way that god has chosen to stop overpopulation from happening..

Now im not a religious type person .. and do not actuallly believe that a third of mankind will be slayed..

posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 12:35 AM
Actual and estimated human population growth 0 - 2050 AD

Scientists estimate that the human population will continue to increase until the year 2050 at which time it will level out at between 8 and 15 billion (Figure 3.4-1). The two extremes of this estimate represent the optimistic and pessimistic views of future fertility rates in developing countries

Not so bad after all.

Even if the population went far higher it wouldnt cause the world to end. It could lead to large spread famine and kill many but not everyone. Also technologly is always getting better with time so we are able to grow more and more food.

posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 12:48 AM
Overpopulation is normally in check with nature, as resources only support what it is able to, but one thing you might want to consider is that today's society is largely based on an oil economy, which is a rich source of free energy. Oil resources are not entirely free to me and you, but it is the single most important economic factor in our society that has made our modern way of life possible to support the current population. It is theoretical that we could all live now without all that we have, but many people cannot do so, because of many factors.

I am not trying to make this post into a debate on the oil shortage, but I am just pointing out that the oil age that we now live in has boosted the population by having an easy means of cheap energy. Oil is like an energy 'bank', in that the energy content in oil is a potential energy that has been stored over many years by biological means from the sun.

This energy provides a cheap means of progressing society many times fold in what we can do. Oil is non renewable, but some could argue this. Current organic fuels are only renewable at their present rate of growth. For example, corn fuels can only grow once a year at a certain volume, but you can grow another crop next year. Without fuel to burn for energy, much of our current society would collapse and cause total chaos.

Besides energy, the other resources we have are mostly recycleable, like steel. These things are not required for humans to live on, but only support the industrial age, which is just an enhancement of creating things to make life easier. Everything produced, whether mining stone, growing crops, or running your car requires more energy than man can make. It is ultimately down to having the energy to do so, which for now is stored energy in fossil fuels. When these decline, mankind will have to either find another source as good or start working our arses off. Most people in 1st world countries have lost the ability to chop enough wood for the winter and frankly their isnt enough forests to heat our homes without oil based fuels.

posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 12:58 AM
Good point ben91069 though personally I dont see this as a problem. If the oil companies put a tenth of their money into developing renewable energy sources we wouldnt need anything eles. You would see solar cells with 80 percent efficiency, better wind generators and wave generators. Combined more then enough energy for everyone.

Then there is always the chance of a brand new energy source anti-matter,fussion,zero point ect..

But theres alot of money to be made off that oil and dont expect any changes until that changes. Big Oil companies will not want to lose their money and power with the end of Oil. They will become Big Hydrogen, Big Solar or whatever


log in