Overpopulation is a Myth: Plenty of Food and Space Exists

a reply to: luthier

IIRC, there's 4-7 DIFFERENT ways to essentially provide all mankind with functionally unlimited energy. 3-4 of those ways might cost as much as about $0.50/YEAR.

That would solve a host of problems from watering the desert to transportation of food costs etc. etc. etc.

However, the ruling oligarchy has been convinced that providing such energy would mean a mushrooming of the global population to 25 BILLION and that such large numbers would sooner or later crash their tyrannical rule--depose them.

They are NOT about to tolerate that so are determined to reduce the population to a more !!!CONTROLLABLE!!! 200 million or so globally . . . under the ruse of saving the planet ecologically and mankind from himself.

That's the short of it.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Annee

I hadn't caught her age.

However, what she says is consistent with what I've read from credentialed scientists.

The ones you agree with?

a reply to: BO XIAN

Sure.

No arguement there

Just saying bucky fuller and the futurist had warned about this starting in the 40's.

We prob have already tipped the scales and will face a mother earth correction soon enough.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: BO XIAN

Arable land is not a political problem.

YES IT IS.

The political oligarchy is PREVENTING a list of energy technologies from being produced which would solve the watering problem.

The same energy solutions could afford any number of greenhouses virtually anywhere--even in Antarctica with suitable lighting when needed. But Antarctica's land mass is not needed.

www.arcosanti.org...

has demonstrated a much smarter way to manage cities and growing food.

It is NOT a technological, nor land area, etc. problem.

It IS a problem of political WILL.

And currently . . . and until after Armageddon, that political will is dedicated to forceably destroying, exterminating billions of people down to 200 million globally--all for the farce of a "reason" to protect the planet from mankind and mankind from himself.

When actually, all need protected from the oligarchy. Eventually, they will be.

It's a geographical and climatic problem.

Nope. Not with unlimited energy. They could even provide functionally unlimited with cleaner atomic power but THEY DO NOT WANT TO. It would erode their !!!!CONTROL!!!!

But there are better and essentially free energy technologies that would be better than atomic.

a reply to: Annee

The ones that are not spouting the

oligarchy's lies and charades.

You are welcome to believe their lies literally from hell, if you wish.

I don't choose to.

originally posted by: PeterHawkes
I was reading somewhere, some time ago, that if you took everyone on earth and gave them an acre of land to themselves, they would all fit in the a land the size of Texas.

Acres in Texas: 172,044,800 acres

World population: 7,400,000,000 billion.

a reply to: luthier

The oligarchy will implement more of Agenda 21 before then.

WW3 is slated to destroy 100's of millions, if not billions.

And they look like they are getting closer and closer to lighting that off all the time.

a reply to: Annee

The video above uses Australia . . . allotting every global citizen 1/4 acre . . . with a good chunk left over.

The Texas example may be a bit behind the current population. I haven't checked it.

a reply to: Annee

IIRC, The current population WOULD FIT in Texas. I just don't recall how many square feet would be left per person.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: PeterHawkes
I was reading somewhere, some time ago, that if you took everyone on earth and gave them an acre of land to themselves, they would all fit in the a land the size of Texas.

Acres in Texas: 172,044,800 acres

World population: 7,400,000,000 billion.

You late.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Annee

The ones that are not spouting the

oligarchy's lies and charades.

You are welcome to believe their lies literally from hell, if you wish.

I don't choose to.

No, I'm a realist.

Clean, unpolluted water would be my starting point.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Turn off the Alex Jones

originally posted by: Lysergic

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: PeterHawkes
I was reading somewhere, some time ago, that if you took everyone on earth and gave them an acre of land to themselves, they would all fit in the a land the size of Texas.

Acres in Texas: 172,044,800 acres

World population: 7,400,000,000 billion.

You late.

It happens.

a reply to: Annee

Tends to with you.

So I read this and researched it.

This is a Pro-Life - - Pro-Procreation based report by a teenager.

Biodiversity is FAR more important than "space."

Everything else is sales and marketing.

a reply to: Annee

Unlimited free to very cheap energy

would provide all the fresh water needed for any reason.

Again, we could have been doing that via much better designed atomic power plants decade ago.

THE POLITICAL WILL WAS NOT to do that.

a reply to: luthier

Alex Jones is a Johnny come lately.

I've studied it since 1965.

And, the idea to turn off a major

ASPECT OF REALITY as faces us daily

smacks me of either being terminally uninformed or willfully clueless.

YOU will be dealing with the decisions & actions of the oligarchy increasingly as the weeks and months race by toward Armageddon.

. . . in your daily life.

As will all on the planet.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Biodiversity is also solvable.

It might be a bit trickier here and there . . . but it is solvable.

It WON'T be solved. They are going the other direction with their WW3 plans etc. . . . but technically--it COULD be solved--with present tech, even.

However, there have been a number of EXTINCTION EVENTS occur on the planet . . . which didn't give a flip about bio-diversity and squashed tons of it.

We survived.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Maybe, but last time I read Genesis, the lord didn't grant Dinosaurs dominion over the earth. He granted that to us.

Check your translations. I'm pretty sure we have been "bad" caretakers.