It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

How do we fix the population problem facing humanity?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   


posted by Scramjet76



Americans use 75 gallons per day, per person. All 300 million of us.


I'm not sure where you getting your data but I believe it. Me... I'm a spoiled american but at least I fess up to it! This is the environment I was raised in but I'm aware that my way of life could have a negative impact on the ecosystem." Geez... just because the truth hurts doesn't mean it's not true!


My gallons per person came from the AARP Monthly in June, 2006, but Ithrew the page away just a fortnight ago.

But see this
While the daily drinking water needs of every person is approximately four litres, ... Agriculture accounts for over 80 per cent of world water consumption. The average family of four consumes 6,300 gallons of water per month for indoor use. This works out to 53 gallons per person per day.

Only about 2.5 per cent of all water on the planet is fresh water—essential for most human purposes—and only about 0.5 per cent is accessible groundwater or surface water. The world's richest countries, with 20 per cent of the global population, account for 86 per cent of private consumption. Worldwide, 54 per cent of the annual available fresh water is being used. If consumption per person remains steady, by 2025 we could be using 70 per cent of the total because of population growth alone. If per capita consumption everywhere reached the level of more developed countries we could be using 90 per cent of the available water by 2025.

In the year 2000, 508 million people lived in 31 water-stressed or -scarce countries. By 2025, 3 billion people will be living in 48 such countries Experts have outlined a basic daily water requirement (BWR)—50 litres per capita per day for the purposes of drinking, sanitation, bathing, cooking and kitchen needs . . in 2000 there were 3.75 billion people in 80 countries below this level. The population of these countries will increase to 6.4 billion by 2050.

The quality of the available water is far from adequate. The World Health Organization reports that about 1.1 billion people do not have access to clean water..water withdrawal is up to 10 times greater in Europe and North America than in some parts of Africa and Asia...500-1000 litres per day in the industrially developed countries of Europe and North America, in Asia, Africa and Latin America, public water withdrawal is a mere 50-100 l/day. regions with insufficient water resources, it is no more that 10-40 l/day of fresh water per person.

www.unesco.org...
www.phys.ufl.edu...
www.mndaily.com...




posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Well, I think that the way we utilize resources is the real problem,
we can't support the amount of people we have, let alone more if
we continue down the path we are.

I think though to solve a real population problem we need to spread
out into space and colonize the planets, moons and asteroids, and
space in general.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   


posted by iori_komei

Well, I think that the way we utilize resources is the real problem, we can't support the amount of people we have, let alone more if we continue down the path we are.

I think though to solve a real population problem we need to spread out into space and colonize the planets, moons and asteroids, and space in general. [Edited by Don W]



Englishman Malthus became alarmed in the 18th century when he noticed that populations were growing geometrically but food production was increasing arithmetically. He calculated that by 7 more generations, the world would experience staggering food shortages. That would have been around 1910. Now the “God Will Feed Us” types are laughing at Malthus, but in fact, he was absolutely right in his observations, but he was wrong in his assumptions. We have had the agricultural revolution so that now less than 2% of America’s population is engaged in farming. Down from the 1800s 60%! I’m not counting our Mexican guests without whose good services we would be in deep do-do.

Then came the Green Revolution of the 1970s where we have made large advances in fertilizers which also has rased production per acre. But some observers say that is like blowing a soap bubble. The fundamental structure of soil is being changed. Temporarily production will rise, but when the bubble bursts, the result will be a rapid irreversible collapse of productivity, and it will come precipitously.

Scientists are warning us the oceans will be used up as a food resource by 2050 at current harvesting rates. If we don’t stop wasting money on F22s to replace F16s and planning on F35s to replace F22s and so on. If we can’t get ourselves under control and use our brains in the business of survival, then the future of human life on this planet is very bleak. China is adding one more carbon dioxide producing coal fired electric generating plant every week. We are in the licensing process for 50-80 new nuclear electric plants in the United States. We are like a drunk, wobbling around in a liquor store. It don’t look good. And the Pope says let’s have more children. Hmm?


[edit on 11/3/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Anabsolutecreation,

It really is easy to solve the population problem...
All we have to do is carry on behaving exactly as we do now-
Vote Bush back in...
A few more DU wars will sort us out.
A few more toxic additives in our food and water.
More polarisation of rich/poor/ethnic groups.
More globalisation.
One world government which will one day require a global draft.
More use of antibacterial agents,to give resistance to the bad bacteria,
whilst removing it from us.
More GM foods made to resist pesticides.
Bigger prisons/concentration camps to spread diseases faster.
More industry,to screw up the atmosphere.

Like i said,its easy...we`re doing fine already.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
A number of years ago, China brought out new guidelines that no more than three children from any one family was in China's best interest. Then a few years ago the amount of Children came down to one per family.

But that's China where the government has far greater influence on the personal, or what I'd call personal, lives of the people.

What will be the future of Population Self control eg conception protection or limited planned numbers of family?

Massive virus outbreaks, disease or wars or starvation?

Unwanted Planet ecological changes?

Overpopulation is a problem that's growing. The older are living longer and the birth rates are increasing.

Some info:

en.wikipedia.org...


Dallas



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Vote Bush back in...


George Bush cannot be re-elected. I wish people would understand that. George Bush cannot be re-elected!



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Sigh,I really hope you are correct on that Mr Philpott...
I realise that in theory he can`t be voted back in,but in theory he`s
not allowed to wage war under false pretenses,is he?
Or wiretap everyone phones?

Back to the population problem,compared to the dinosaurs,we have only been on the planet for a blink of time.
The fact that we are in danger of overpopulating the planet already,tends to make me think we are not playing by the rules.
On a planet jam packed with humans,diseases will spread faster andwipe out more of us.
Apart from this,look at the amount of people in the world now who are starving.
Imagine how many more will be starving as the population continues to grow.

I wonder then,are we a species designed to head for the stars,as our planet grows more overpopulated?
It seems the only way if we continue to multiply at this rate.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Sigh,I really hope you are correct on that Mr Philpott...
I realise that in theory he can`t be voted back in,but in theory he`s
not allowed to wage war under false pretenses,is he?
Or wiretap everyone phones?


It's not theory, it's the Constitution. The president didn't wage war under false pretenses, the Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq based on internationally-accepted intelligence and everyone's phones are not wiretapped.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled topic.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Ok,I conceed.
I should have written:
"Vote a corporate controlled,Bilderberg approved,war loving Neo Con back in."
I hope that is more fitting.

Mr P,as to this comment: "It's not theory, it's the Constitution."
Didn`t the president refer to that document as "just a G D piece of paper?"

www.capitolhillblue.com...

He did indeed it would seem,but that is a discussion for another thread.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Didn`t the president refer to that document as "just a G D piece of paper?"

www.capitolhillblue.com...

He did indeed it would seem,but that is a discussion for another thread.


It might seem, but that site is a flimsy reference and as far as I know, that's the only place it has ever been cited and even there it is but rumor.

The easiest and quickest way for a President to be impeached is to violate the Constitution. I don't think he said that, because I think the President is smart enough, or at least his advisors are smart enough, to seek legal counsel when confronting Constitutional issues and furthermore, I have never seen anything that indicates that the President believes that the Constitution is only a piece of paper.



[edit on 2006/11/3 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
For a long time, I have heard of China's efforts to gain control of the population growth. As an old real estate friend of mine counseled why to buy land, "That’s the one thing they ain't making any more of." China was faced with serious problems in the 1950s and 1960s. Part of the Revolution was the common ownership of the land. The dastardly part of that project was the decision to murder anyone who owned more than 1 hectare, as a way to avoid future troubles from them trying to get back their land. A 6.5 mm in the head nipped that in the bud. The second problem surfaced quickly, they had killed all the people who knew how to farm. Famine followed on and estimates varied in the several 10s of millions of peasants who died. China did not want to repeat the earlier experience of too many mouths to feed.

Aside from the expected but still disconcerting effects on the survivors, malnutrition is also symptomatic of a weaker, less healthy population, another thing to avoid if possible, in a highly competitive world. Where the strong survive and the weak perish. So China adopted its 1 child per family policy.

The capitalistic world quickly seized on the policy and rolled out propaganda by the barge load, mocking and denouncing the Chinese. Endlessly. They were called atheistic communists, or communist atheists. Implying that if you loved God you would have children which you could not feed and God would not feed?

For a fact, Chinese peasants were organized into farming communes numbering 300 to 2,000 persons each. The central planners worked out the number of “bare foot doctors,” the amount of food, the teachers, and other items needed to run a civilized nation state. Each commune would be allotted a certain number of children for the coming year. At open meetings of the members, women who applied would be granted a permit to have a child next year. When you are on a tight budget, people must respect the budget. When a woman decided to ignore the commune’s decision, if they became pregnant, they were advised to have an abortion. Hey, everybody slips up, now and then.

But if your group says “no baby” then it’s got to be “no baby.” Despite the mindless criticism of the Chinese efforts to control population growth, not one of the critics over here ever offered to send $10,000 to China to cover the costs of one of those unauthorized children. Why is that? Do they really love money more than they love a child?

So how is this program or policy working out? Let’s see what is going on in some other countries around the world. Follows an abbreviated list of Countries of the World by birth rate per 1000 population in descending order. (2006 est.)
— The World 20.05
1 Niger 50.73
2 Mali 49.82
3 Uganda 47.35
57 Bangladesh 29.80
106 Indonesia 20.34
122 Israel 17.97
134 Brazil 16.56
154 United States 14.10
163 People's Republic of China 13.25
165 Puerto Rico 12.77
170 Republic of China (Taiwan) 12.56
171 Australia 12.14
175 France 11.99
177 Cuba 11.89
178 Norway 11.46
186 Canada 10.78
188 Portugal 10.72
188 United Kingdom 10.78
189 Romania 10.70
191 Finland 10.45
193 Belgium 10.38
194 Sweden 10.27
197 Spain 10.06

European Union 10.00
200 South Korea 10.00
201 Russia 9.95
202 Poland 9.85
205 Greece 9.68
206 Bulgaria 9.65
208 Japan 9.37
209 Singapore 9.34
211 Latvia 9.24
215 Ukraine 8.82
217 Bosnia 8.77
218 Lithuania 8.75
219 Austria 8.74
220 Italy 8.72
223 Germany 8.25
224 Hong Kong (PRC) 7.29

You explain this to me, if you please. Why are all those good Christian countries having fewer children than those atheistic communist Chinese? Or has somebody been putting a snow job on us? Like a Tony Snow Job?


[edit on 11/3/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   
I find the lack of compassion and concern for the poor and uneducated of the world that I read in this thread quite depressing, but not too surprising. The value placed on human life seems to be dropping in cultures around the world, particularly the value of the lives of 'our enemies'. I wonder how many people are even aware of the souces of such views. One source is the philosophy of eugenics. See if any of this sounds familiar.

www.eugenics-watch.com...

For those wringing their hands over how many children others are having; not to worry, a nice nuclear exchange should do the trick, a prospect looking more likely by the day.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi


As for over-population, the easy way (but not very nice) is through war, famine, disease. The hard way (but more people friendly) would first require global government which then enforces a birth-rate law such as the one-child law in China.


That law has logic in it. China will eventually run out of land unless they enforce a population law. That one is a good idea in my views. If that law came to the US then I would support it.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Fixing the population problem is easy, we just continue Ignoring Irans Nuke ambitions and eventually they will cause a Nuke War, pop problems solved !!



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Fixing the population problem is easy, we just continue Ignoring Irans Nuke ambitions and eventually they will cause a Nuke War, pop problems solved !!



Who is the only country to use a nuclear weapon and annihilate entire cities? Yet you believe that countries rhetoric about irans nuke? iran is a completely western favored country in most parts with most young adults with college education. how dumb would they have to be to start a nuke war?

really think about it... it is beyond stupid. yet beliving it is exactly what they want you to think.

I thik the beetles said it best when they sang, "Image all the sheeple."

AAC



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Iran is run by Islamic nut jobs, hell bent on ushering in the Return of the 12th Imam of end times!!

The pieces are nearly in place !!!


BOOM BOOM BOOM



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Iran is run by Islamic nut jobs, hell bent on ushering in the Return of the 12th Imam of end times!!

The pieces are nearly in place !!!


BOOM BOOM BOOM


USA is run by neo-con pseudo-christian fascists hell bent on killing off all those that do not surrender. The peices are already in place!!!

No boom. Death breaks the speed of sound.

What would it take for you to see the truth? riddle me that.

AAC



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Well if the Iatolla nut jobs running Iran allowed Uranium to be enriched in Russia and the US still bombed the crappa out of Iran then i might beleive you.

Till then i beleive Iran is run by Islamofascist war loving Nut Jobs!!



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
[USA is run by neo-con pseudo-christian fascists hell bent on killing off all those that do not surrender.


What a load of crap!

Have you ever done your own thinking or do you just repeat all the nonsense you read and hear?



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   


posted by resistor

The lack of compassion for the poor and uneducated of the world that I read in this thread is quite depressing, but not too surprising. The value placed on human life seems to be dropping particularly the value of the lives of 'our enemies.' I wonder how many people are aware of the sources of such views. One source is the philosophy of eugenics.

For those wringing their hands over how many children others are having; not to worry, a nice nuclear exchange should do the trick, a prospect looking more likely by the day. [Edited by Don W]



We tried eugenics in the US in the 1920s and 1930s. In the case of young girls living in state facilities, and with great mental deficiency were surgically spayed. I do not know if the similarity situated males were surgically castrated, but as we had not yet developed the vasectomy, I would guess they were.

Our Supreme Court struck down those statutes not because they found violations of a right of privacy as was found 2 decades later in Roe v. Wade, but on the grounds the statutes did not have sufficiently detailed standards, leaving too much to the unguided discretion of the custodians. By that time, the popularity of eugenics had waned and so, the sterilization laws were not re-enacted. We still warehouse those people, but we use thorozine or methadone as our custodians. Understaffed facilities and under treated as the rule, no one mentions their plight. Victims of the demise of the extended family.

You know, back before the 1910s and maybe as late as the 1950s, when a severely handicapped child was born, it was expected of the delivery doctor that he set the infant aside, to die. The mother was informed the child had been still-born. As medical technology has advanced, we now routinely “save” infants born around 1 lb. At 2 lbs. a child is not particularly noteworthy. There have been instances where hospitals closed their maternity wards after having to bear the expense of one of those 24 week babies. Of course, our health care system is completely broken. Despite spending $5,500 for every man, woman and child in the country. And we go blithely on our way! If you say “social” and “medicine” in the same sentence, you must be a communist or maybe a terrorist! God Bless America!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join