Overpopulation is a Myth: Plenty of Food and Space Exists

a reply to: Lysergic

Short a few acres there

Especially if you're from America

www.zo.utexas.edu...

Divide this figure by the current human population of 7 billion (that's 7,000 million people!) and you get just under one hectare (2.3 acres) per person. If all the habitable land on Earth were equally distributed among all human beings present on Earth, this is the per capita share of good land per person. Again, however, we have not allowed for any nice amenities such as roads, schools, hospitals, shopping malls, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, parks, golf courses, etc. Even so, could you live on 2.3 acres? Efforts have been made to estimate the amount of land needed to sustain an average individual human (link). A person living the lifestyle of an average American requires almost 24 acres, ten times the world per capita share.

a reply to: UMayBRite!

Certainly crowding is a huge issue in social stability.

Again . . . free/cheap energy allows unlimited water . . . allows a greater diversity of housing locations.

And,

www.arcosanti.org...

has a great innovative balancing of social density adjacent to vast areas of recreational and botanical diversity.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

All such calculations go out the window

IF

one has cheap/free energy, unlimited water etc. etc. etc.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I'm sure its been covered, overpopulation exists in the cities, people all jammed together, living on top of one another in 'stacks' called buildings.

The overlords like it just fine, they don't have to transport goods and services as far, they get to run everything, all the procurement and distribution of utilities, goods and services.

Sot they tell us the world is overpopulated, i.e., stay where you are-- in the city. You're more dependent on the system that way. Their system.

a reply to: intrptr

INDEED. WELL PUT.

Thankfully . . . their days are numbered.

Even in Roman times, wheat from Britannia and Egypt fed the people of Rome, so even in those days, farmers were over producing food stuffs.

Eventually, every city on the planet will have vertical farms, lots of them, for fruit and vegetables, while farm land will be for bulk crops, wheat, potatoes, sweetcorn, cotton, Rye, Barley, Oats, and meat for those than can afford it.

More food, more jobs, in the vertical farms.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Lysergic

Short a few acres there

Especially if you're from America

www.zo.utexas.edu...

Divide this figure by the current human population of 7 billion (that's 7,000 million people!) and you get just under one hectare (2.3 acres) per person. If all the habitable land on Earth were equally distributed among all human beings present on Earth, this is the per capita share of good land per person. Again, however, we have not allowed for any nice amenities such as roads, schools, hospitals, shopping malls, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, parks, golf courses, etc. Even so, could you live on 2.3 acres? Efforts have been made to estimate the amount of land needed to sustain an average individual human (link). A person living the lifestyle of an average American requires almost 24 acres, ten times the world per capita share.

That is because of the beef he eats, one acre of good land can grow eight tons of wheat, no one is going to eat eight tons of wheat each year, grow your eight tons one year, use it to trade for other food that year, then grow other crops until your eight ton are used up, start the cycle once more.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: intrptr

INDEED. WELL PUT.

Thankfully . . . their days are numbered.

Cities? How are their days numbered? I don't think the controllers will be happy until everyone is in a cage.

Weird western concept, jails, zoos, cities, apartment complexes. Everyone in their little space, where they 'belong'.

Damn control freaks.

originally posted by: pikestaff
Even in Roman times, wheat from Britannia and Egypt fed the people of Rome, so even in those days, farmers were over producing food stuffs.

Eventually, every city on the planet will have vertical farms, lots of them, for fruit and vegetables, while farm land will be for bulk crops, wheat, potatoes, sweetcorn, cotton, Rye, Barley, Oats, and meat for those than can afford it.

More food, more jobs, in the vertical farms.

Sounds like a perfect monoculture collapse model.

Plenty of space, plenty of resources. Just driving from city to city, country to country, the amount of sparsely populated land is immense. Issue is simply the abuse of natural resources to accelerate our own population growth. And while some few countries are now starting to try and turn that around, many countries are just hitting their stride for being wasteful. And it will happen time and again. China will eventually wean themselves off of energy resources that cause tragic levels of pollution, but.. then another developing country will simply take up their banner and start again.

People scoff at stuff like.. one world government, but in this case.. it might be the thing that can save the planet, and us from ourselves. It's unfortunate that we can't trust our own species to run the world properly.. without greed or self interest. If there could be a single government, run by a benevolent assembly of humans, the world could probably be a much healthier, happier place.

a reply to: BO XIAN

It certainly is a myth.

Overpopulation is a term those who wish to control us in a nice easy package use. It is their way of saying, 'well now we know where everyone is, let's do this to them.'

The world has 7.4 Billion and growing and still the world consists of beautiful lush green land, trees, nutrient soil and beautiful areas to walk amongst. Still they say there is no room? Madness.

Look at any city on any map, (google maps) and zoom out. You see 90% more green land unused ready for farming then the 10% you see for city space.

i have been preaching this since this myth was started! the problem is everyone is cramped into cities, while the while country side is left barren. you are not forced to live in a city, and you can grow your own food.

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
i have been preaching this since this myth was started! the problem is everyone is cramped into cities, while the while country side is left barren. you are not forced to live in a city, and you can grow your own food.

OK, and your water comes from where?

originally posted by: fleabit

People scoff at stuff like.. one world government, but in this case.. it might be the thing that can save the planet, and us from ourselves. It's unfortunate that we can't trust our own species to run the world properly.. without greed or self interest. If there could be a single government, run by a benevolent assembly of humans, the world could probably be a much healthier, happier place.

Not me. I'm pro One World Government (not NWO conspiracy).

We've (collective we) have polluted almost all water resources on this planet, including the ocean.

Even the Yanomami tribe of the Brazilian/Venezuelan rain forest who live completely off the land are now suffering from mercury poisoning - - from the water in the rain forest.

Safe water is essential.

Ever watched Blue Gold?

In every corner of the globe, we are polluting, diverting, pumping, and wasting our limited supply of fresh water at an expediential level as population and technology grows. The rampant overdevelopment of agriculture, housing and industry increase the demands for fresh water well beyond the finite supply, resulting in the desertification of the earth. www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com...

a reply to: intrptr

The oligarchy's days are numbered.

Every last evil doer will be removed from the planet. Probably starting, in some respects, with that stinking pile of lying ruthless jerks and satan worshipers.

a reply to: fleabit

There will be a successful and benevolent world government of peace and prosperity . . . under an incredibly humble Monarch . . . King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

However, He will rule the Nations "with a rod of iron."

He came once as a suffering servant. The next time it is as Conquering King.

The NWO's boss of the oligarchy knows this and is doing his ruthless best to destroy as many humans ahead of then as he can remotely accomplish and get away with.

Thankfully, his boundaries have been set . . . but that still leaves him incredible room to cause the blood to run as high as a horse's bridle.

The one world government they are building now and have been for 100's of years will bring on the absolute worst time the planet has ever known or will ever know.

Anyone that cheers for that is a terminally uninformed ignorant and clueless . . . propaganda lobotomized . . . character.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: BO XIAN

Truth.

As this video points out, the world is not overpopulated, its just very badly mismanaged.

I believe this a semantic argument. If the world has too many people to manage successfully, it's overpopulated. Let's keep twisting words and blaming it on corruption. Unfortunately, corruption in government is just as much of a certainty as anything else. So, back to my original point, I call semantic shenanigans on this entire premise.

It isn't a myth if overpopulation is already creating problems. Pollution, treatement of animals, quality of living, wildlife, ect..

There is no reason we need to keep breeding endlessly. I'm not for extreme depopulation measures and a NWO-like controlled world, however we are slowly destroying this earth because we can't stop popping about babies.

How many children are born into poor or unwanted homes? Many animals are being mistreated in favor of mass-production. Not only animals but insects are being hurt too.

We have to produce more plants with greater yeild. We do that by using pesticides for greater yield. Now the bees are being affected.

Can anyone give me one good reason for the continuation of population growth? Any reason that doesn't include the NWO. Thinking that the world is overpopulated does not mean one is for a dystopian future with only 500,000 million people on earth.

It is VERY easy to show the problems that overpopulation has created. Respect for life decreases as the demand for quantity increases.

a reply to: BlackProject

There is no room when our type of society exists. We simply can't manage pollution, quality of life and environment at this level. SO much evidence points to it.

The arguement that we can still cram people into every nook and crany of the wilderness is absurd. Unless humanity DRASTICALLY changes it ways, overpopulation will be a problem.

Quantity will always decrease quality.

originally posted by: blueman12
It isn't a myth if overpopulation is already creating problems. Pollution, treatement of animals, quality of living, wildlife, ect..

There is no reason we need to keep breeding endlessly. I'm not for extreme depopulation measures and a NWO-like controlled world, however we are slowly destroying this earth because we can't stop popping about babies.

How many children are born into poor or unwanted homes? Many animals are being mistreated in favor of mass-production. Not only animals but insects are being hurt too.

We have to produce more plants with greater yeild. We do that by using pesticides for greater yield. Now the bees are being affected.

Can anyone give me one good reason for the continuation of population growth? Any reason that doesn't include the NWO. Thinking that the world is overpopulated does not mean one is for a dystopian future with only 500,000 million people on earth.

It is VERY easy to show the problems that overpopulation has created. Respect for life decreases as the demand for quantity increases.

One good reason is that it's women's bodies, women's choice to plop out babies for special benefits and access to men's resources via the legal system.

Like that gal I saw the other day all pierced up and smoking a cigarette with an infant in the back seat of the car. Just another paycheck for her I guess though I would be pissed if that was my baby.