Overpopulation is a Myth: Plenty of Food and Space Exists

originally posted by: stabstab

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.

It takes a man choosing to impregnate that woman who is plopping out babies ya know. Fact is there are some men who skip around from one woman to the next making babies.

What's up with the "access to men's resources" BS??? Sounds like a personal issue.

Do you really think a little government paycheck is enough to live on easy street with a kid or that it alone is an incentive for having to raise a kid alone???

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: stabstab

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.

It takes a man choosing to impregnate that woman who is plopping out babies ya know. Fact is there are some men who skip around from one woman to the next making babies.

-They certainly are lovable douche bags are they not?

What's up with the "access to men's resources" BS??? Sounds like a personal issue.
-Everyone is entitled to their opinion and yes I do have a personal problem with the way my countries legal system encourages single parent families and rewards bad decision making.


Do you really think a little government paycheck is enough to live on easy street with a kid or that it alone is an incentive for having to raise a kid alone???

-They certainly are lovable douche bags are they not? These guys who do this sort of thing tend to get a lot of attention from the ladies since most guys actually know about consequences and obstacles to breeding and heed them. I met a guy in Montana who fits that bill with the whole bad boy thing going on like dealing meth, safe trails drug task force snitch, and yet this guy has kids all over the reservations and different towns along the Highline. Seems to me women are selecting him for some odd reason...could it be that women love bad boys and do not select for more conservative traits most of the time producing a glut of "thugspawns".

-Everyone is entitled to their opinion and yes I do have a personal problem with the way my countries legal system encourages single parent families and rewards bad decision making.


Perhaps it is not enough to live high on the hog but it certainly is more than enough to feed addictions and unfairly burden men with excessive child support obligations and penalties with no guarantee the money is spent for the child's actual welfare.

Last time I checked though women are the gatekeepers of sex period in western society so yeah they pick with whom, when, and where they have kids.

I will concede though that men,women, and the societal systems (now decayed) we had in place to keep these things in check are all to blame for the over breeding problem.

a reply to: blueman12

That's not the point.

Yes, there are problems with population--artificially created problems of horrendous proportions.

The oligarchy has been ruthlessly cruel for hundreds of years building to this point deliberately.

It is an incredibly horrid and massive coercion, manipulation.

Yes, the problems are real--but they are exceedingly solvable with free/cheap energy.

I don't have any big investment in a big population. I had a vasectomy early on in my life after I was married and wanted no children to carry on any of my family craziness.

I just hate the oligarchy's lies about it all and their using it to manipulate the global population into Draconian genocidal strategies to deal with their artificially created horrific population problems.

This thread is incomplete. Overpopulation is not a problem RIGHT NOW. But it WILL BE. Exponential growth is the missing factor. Our population doubles in size every X number of years... period. In the past 100 years, the world population has more than TRIPLED. Now, at steady growth, that would mean we will triple in size AGAIN in the next 100 years... but even so, that is NOT exponential growth... exponentially, we should grow even more than that!! So, for the sake of argument, let's say all the people in the world take up the equivalent size of Australia... in 100 years... we will need 3 Australias.. then in 100 more years, we will need 9 Australias.... in 100 MORE years... 27 Australias.... see the pattern here? Yes, right now, we are fine... but as you can see, it's not gonna take long for there to be a HUGE problem! The system needs to change. We need to focus on each other, and GROW as a PEOPLE. I believe we need to set an 'ultimate goal' then place all the steps that come before it, and advance TOGETHER. This slaving away 60 hours a week to survive, is just BS. It can't be why we're here. I KNOW it isn't. People are good inside. We ALL know we are good inside. (Barring those that have been deranged by traumatic events in their lives.) I feel we are capable of so much more. Nothing is truly accomplished without a goal. Greed is a result of time (or the lack of) Eliminate time = eliminate greed. So we need to live longer. A LOT longer. We need to get our time BACK. We need to figure out replication and free energy. I should save all this for a thread I guess.

Check out One Minute To Midnight by David Suzuki
www.youtube.com...

Best Regards ATS

a reply to: BO XIAN
I think Earth can handle at least three times more of the current population without too much stress to earth. Only if they find new source of energy without having to drill the ground for oil.

...but finite resources on this planet is not a myth. By 2050 at the rate in which the population is growing AND consuming (Thanks monetary economics) we will NEED the equivalent of three planet earths.

So overpopulation? Yes, in the current model we are living in, there most certainly is overpopulation.

If we did away with cyclical consumption, monetary economics and overall top down governance to better manage what finite resources we do have, there probably wouldnt be a population issue. Also there probably wouldn't be poverty, war, greed, hunger, mass crime, corruption or low standards of living for the masses.

We only have ourselves to blame for not avoiding these issues which are common to every person on this planet.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
cyclical consumption,

Well I sure do need my noms on a cycle, but I'm guessing your more referring to planned obsolescence and marketing nonsense that brings hoards of yuppie fools to the apple store every year for the newest iphone.

originally posted by: groveacc
a reply to: BO XIAN
I think Earth can handle at least three times more of the current population without too much stress to earth. Only if they find new source of energy without having to drill the ground for oil.

No, this is literally a myth you speak of. How will replacing oil usage slow down the waste this world creates? Oil is not the centre of the issue. Over consumption of finite resources IS the issue.

Over consumption has a trickle down effect as it touches all facets of life on this planet. Over consuming unsustainable products which cause MASSIVE amounts of waste will limit the viability and survivability of a certain number of life on this planet. It does not just effect humans, it effects all life on earth.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: blueman12

That's not the point.

Yes, there are problems with population--artificially created problems of horrendous proportions.

The oligarchy has been ruthlessly cruel for hundreds of years building to this point deliberately.

It is an incredibly horrid and massive coercion, manipulation.

Yes, the problems are real--but they are exceedingly solvable with free/cheap energy.

I don't have any big investment in a big population. I had a vasectomy early on in my life after I was married and wanted no children to carry on any of my family craziness.

I just hate the oligarchy's lies about it all and their using it to manipulate the global population into Draconian genocidal strategies to deal with their artificially created horrific population problems.

You are on the right track, but...

Again, free/cheap energy is not the fix all to the MAIN issue causing overpopulation...which is over consumption of finite resources.

Explain to me how free/ cheap energy would even begin to alleviate this issue of over consumption? If anything it would make it worse if ONLY that were to change and the rest of society stayed the same.

Capitalism has failed. All the ism'shave failed. It may not seem like it just yet, but give it about 20-30 years...

We need to rethink how we, as a planet, want to live and survive, without taking everyone back to the darkages. And the changes need to start happening yesterday.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
cyclical consumption,

Well I sure do need my noms on a cycle, but I'm guessing your more referring to planned obsolescence and marketing nonsense that brings hoards of yuppie fools to the apple store every year for the newest iphone.

Bingo

a reply to: BO XIAN

The concept is pushed in order to eventually have a smaller and therefore easier to dictate to new concepts

Just came across this a minute ago on Drudge. Kind of conflicts with the OP

motherboard.vice.com...

There is more than enough room and resources on this planet for everyone. Especially if you consider the fact that the most important basic nesesities for life are renewable. Imagine if we learned to create structures on water or better yet under water... we would have more space than we could possibly ever need.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
However, the dust throwing naysayers can begin their wailing whines. They will not be any surprise.

It's not about quantity, it's about quality.

Sure, we can pack ever square inch of the planet with people -- keep stacking them higher and higher -- and we can use every inch of arable land not occupied by people to grow food to sustain them and use every bit of fresh water in the process. Stack us all up. We don't need wilderness areas for wild animals. Put them all in a zoo.

That will work until something bad happens. With no elbow room, and no margin for error, if we get slammed with a drought or continuing climate change, then many people will die from no food and water in a very unpleasant way. "God's will," which is almost always horrible.

And just what are these billions of more people supposed to DO? What jobs will they have? Are they just supposed to be supported by the government so they can breed more children? That sounds great. Sounds to me like breeding more mass murderers, who feel alone and unremarkable among billions, and want to lash out.

MORE shouldn't be the goal. It should be BETTER.

originally posted by: Annee
You do understand this is a paper from an 11th/12th grader.

I love the enthusiasm and idealism from youth - - - but, maybe she should have a bit more Life experience.

Rather than attacking the author of the study, why not try to disprove the study instead. To simply discredit it based on that alone is silly, and short sighted to say the least. If you think she is wrong, then to put it simply, research and write your own paper on it for review. That way we can compare the two and decide who has a better understanding of the topic.

originally posted by: looneylupinsrevenge
Rather than attacking the author of the study, why not try to disprove the study instead.

Fine, then let's do that.

It's all comes down to numbers folks. Population Growth is exponential not linear. Linear is like counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... Exponential is counting like 1, 2, 4, 8, 16.....In other words we're talking about doubling times.

So let's look at the numbers:

1950 2,556,000,053
1960 3,039,451,020
1970 3,706,618,163
1980 4,453,831,714
1990 5,278,639,789
2000 6,082,966,429
2010 6,848,932,929
We hit 7 billion somewhere around here. Depending on who you ask we hit 7 billion between 2010 - 2013.)
2020 7,584,821,144

From 1950 to 1990 we doubled. We doubled our population in just 40 years. They predict by 2050 it will have doubled again. That's means it will double again in just 60 years because it has slowed down a bit. But we are in 2016 already. That means in as little as 34 years you're going be on this planet with another 3 billion or more people from what is here today.

The standard of living is also increasing world wide as is the use of resources and stress on the planet.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I have no children of my own, although I have done much during my life to help children.

I'm doing my part.

a reply to: mOjOm

Correct me if I am wrong, because hey it's possible, but I think you failed to actually accomplish much of anything with you post. You showed that there is over 7 billion people on this planet, and briefly explained that population is nonlinear in its growth. Both are fair points and correct in the way you explained them (if slightly simplified). However, you didn't seem to actually touch on the topic of the paper, is the world truly capable of supporting in excess of 40 Billion people, and is overcrowding really even a thing or is it merely a sign of poor land/resource management and corruption?

Plus I directed that at Annee not because I believe what the person wrote in their paper to be correct, instead I directed it at her because she insinuated that the paper was worthless because it was written by a high school student. Which isn't at all a fair to do given we know less than nothing about the person who wrote the article other than that. True it might be a meaningless paper wrote purely to elicit a higher grade, but it might just as easily be a pet project from some highly intelligent person who only just happens to be still in highschool. Now I don't know about you but I'm honest enough and (I like to think) humble enough to know and admit to myself that I am not the smartest person in the world. That there are countless people in this world far smarter than I am. Some are older than me, sure but some are younger than me (perhaps much younger). However, just because they ARE younger than me, that doesn't make what they have to say any less valuable nor does it give me the right to discredit what they have to say based purely on their age.

a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

I see your point. But if you think 40 billion people on earth will ever work you're crazy. Estimates by people who study this stuff say we should start leveling off somewhere between 7 and 10 billion. Other experts have it going over and under that. So who knows. All I know is that when you look at the graph below, ask yourself if what you see as the trend in the graph seems even remotely sustainable.

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.

simple google search

I need to know because my mom says that everyone in the world could go in texas and each own an acre. Here are the numbers I came up with: Acres in Texas: 171,904,640 Human Population: 6,602,224,175 Im pretty sure that means my mom is wrong.