Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why Aren't We Talking About OVERPOPULATION??

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Popeye, I think the most humane thing for man to do is to try and find other planets in space that may be able to sustain life and migrate to it. Like I said, we can have a population elsewhere in conjunction with life here on earth. Unfortunately, I don't think the powers that be see the wisdom in this. They will probably try to kill us off rather than whisking a bunch of people off to some far off planet.




posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Popeye, I think the most humane thing for man to do is to try and find other planets in space that may be able to sustain life and migrate to it. Like I said, we can have a population elsewhere in conjunction with life here on earth. Unfortunately, I don't think the powers that be see the wisdom in this. They will probably try to kill us off rather than whisking a bunch of people off to some far off planet.


We're working on it. Aside from screwing around with Mars (which probably won't work with our current understanding of how things work), where else are we going to go?



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

We're working on it. Aside from screwing around with Mars (which probably won't work with our current understanding of how things work), where else are we going to go?


JohnMike, Mars would be fine. We just need another planet that would sustain maybe a couple billion people. Considering the fact that our knowledge of other planets in the solar system, much less the galaxy is limited, I think right now, mars is our only option. My question to you is, do you think the powers that be are earnestly trying to do anything or is it just a facade?

[edit on 9-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I think at this point it's not a priority because there's no viability. NASA has done some research and developed plans for Mars, but it's really beyond us at this point.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Popeye, I think the most humane thing for man to do is to try and find other planets in space that may be able to sustain life and migrate to it. Like I said, we can have a population elsewhere in conjunction with life here on earth. Unfortunately, I don't think the powers that be see the wisdom in this. They will probably try to kill us off rather than whisking a bunch of people off to some far off planet.


Even though I'm a student, I research about clues on other worlds. Unfortunately, I have no leads yet, and Mars might not hold up if we are concluded to the fate of either the Big Freeze(the universe keeps expanding, the planets reach the temperature of absolute zero) or the Big Crunch(the universe stops expanding and caves in, thus crushing the planets). At least, that's what I've read from Michio Kaku's Parallel Worlds.
But if we DO find another world (or worlds), the question is perhaps WHO we are going to save. It's not like we'd bring mass murderers or people who're completely full of themselves, right?



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by org.membernaminemelfina

But if we DO find another world (or worlds), the question is perhaps WHO we are going to save. It's not like we'd bring mass murderers or people who're completely full of themselves, right?


Well, that is the major decision. Who is to decide is of major concern to most. If it is up to the political fat cats, it'd probably only the wealthy who'd survive. As far as "people who are completely full of themselves," I want to know how we make that distinction. I mean, is it the guy or girl who has the confidence to put you or me in our place? Is it the guy or girl who just seems to "act" like they think they are better? How do you identify someone who is "full of themselves." To me, it's by actions... However,I doubt if everyone agrees.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
We should be. Currently, we are overfishing the oceans. Several fisheries have collapsed and more will collapse in the near future.

We are cutting down the rainforests in south america in order to expand our farmland.

I just don't think that a planet our size was intended to support the population that we currently have let alone what it will be in the next couple of decades.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by org.membernaminemelfina

But if we DO find another world (or worlds), the question is perhaps WHO we are going to save. It's not like we'd bring mass murderers or people who're completely full of themselves, right?


Well, that is the major decision. Who is to decide is of major concern to most. If it is up to the political fat cats, it'd probably only the wealthy who'd survive. As far as "people who are completely full of themselves," I want to know how we make that distinction. I mean, is it the guy or girl who has the confidence to put you or me in our place? Is it the guy or girl who just seems to "act" like they think they are better? How do you identify someone who is "full of themselves." To me, it's by actions... However,I doubt if everyone agrees.


Anyway, if the only hope for humanity is to go elsewhere, because we mess this planet, that tell a whole lot about us. Obviously if we mess this planet, what are the chances that we will not mess another planet, none.

I think, we better take care of our spaceship (earth), since we might not have another one, for anytime soon.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I'm still not buying the argument that there are not enough resources. How much food do you throw out? Look at the problem of obesity. These are indications that we have an excess of resources - we are just wasting them and throwing them out.

We have become a disposable society and then some people advocate that there are not enough resources for the growing population. It is still my opinion that we are not overpopulated we just need to make some changes in our attitudes to consumption.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   
There's more pollution of our environment than we even know. Not only is there fluoride being purposely put into the water, but now there are trace amounts of pharmaceutical drugs being found in the water because so many people are taking them.

Antidepressant drugs found in drinking water; pharmaceuticals have now become environmental pollutants

I'm not sure even mother nature can clear that up anytime soon.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Peak Oil will solve the over popultaion of the earth with extreme prejudice and will impact all countries.

Those areas with large populations that live on the edge of starvation such as Africa, India and China will face mass starvation.

Without Oil the agricultural miracle can not continue. The US will no longer be an exporter of food. Mexico will be devasted with poverty, the border will be militarized and a death zone.

China will split into fiefdoms and India and Bangledesh will see the worst starvation ever witnessed by man as hundreds of millions parish.

The big die off is coming, sooner rather than later.

I hope that I am wrong!


Die Off!

It can be managed, but not avoided, unfortunately in my humble opinion!


[edit on 4/9/07 by mel1962]



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Forest Lady, a lot of people fear this topic because they believe the powers that be are planning to spread disease and such to rid the world of a large percentage of the population.


Mother nature has historically done a pretty good job of keeping the populations in check with diseases and whatnot. But as we've progressed medically we have gotten pretty good at if not vaccinatting against a disease, then at least being very good at stopping the spread of diseases.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   
I'm pro anything that will create a general decline in the human population, especially in third world countries. War, famine, natural disasters, abortion, death penalty, etc. The US needs to stop giving out so much foreign aid. The numbers in these third world nations are growing and they can't even feed themselves. Most often, they also have no concept of self-control or priorities which is achieved through education, and that requires a much higher investment....something I doubt we can afford when our own educational system is in need of a check up.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady

Lastly, I'm talking prehistoric people, like cavemen. They had a type of condom but it didn't work very well. They used various methods, one of which was for the woman to try to cause herself to miscarry either thru using herbs or beating on her stomach. Sometimes, several people would get together and jump on the woman's stomach to cause her to abort. I know all these sound barbaric and I'm certainly not advocating them, but I am saying, if the ancients knew about overpopulation and that there wouldn't be enough food for the tribe to eat if there were too many people, why don't we know and understand this? Why aren't we seeing it?

[edit on 9/4/07 by forestlady]

[edit on 9/4/07 by forestlady]


I can agree with this concept, partially. I'm not totally sold on the idea that there is not enough food to go around to actually feed the world but rather a lot of the world can't afford the food it needs to feed themselves and therefore the demand isn't present to have the food grown.

Those cavemen knew they could bring in only so many offspring at a time depending on what resources they had available locally.

What gets me with "overpopulation" is the number of people who have large (5, 6 or 7+ children) families but don't have the means to really support them. Don't get me wrong, I would deny no one the joys and love of raising a child ... but if you can barely scrape by with one or none why then do people keep reproducing and having so many??

Even if you can afford so many children, what need really is there to have so many? In the old days people had large families out of neccessity, ie the farmer running a few hundred acres needs a lot of hands and if they're family then they're free.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by deessell
I'm still not buying the argument that there are not enough resources. How much food do you throw out? Look at the problem of obesity. These are indications that we have an excess of resources - we are just wasting them and throwing them out.



I don't think obesity has as much to do with quantity as it does with the hormones and things that the powers that be are putting in our food.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Overpopulation is a misnomer. Poor people have many children to maintain a large household in which the many children can work and help support the parents and one another. In this sense, the family can become richer than if it were just a man and a woman, who may just countinue to be poor by themselves.

Most of the world's population is concentrated along the Chinese coast and in India. I think Jakarta, Phillipines, Japan and central western europe are the next most densely populated areas. But there are is a great quantity of forest to be cut down to make room for farm land.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Overpopulation is a misnomer. Poor people have many children to maintain a large household in which the many children can work and help support the parents and one another. In this sense, the family can become richer than if it were just a man and a woman, who may just countinue to be poor by themselves.

Most of the world's population is concentrated along the Chinese coast and in India. I think Jakarta, Phillipines, Japan and central western europe are the next most densely populated areas. But there are is a great quantity of forest to be cut down to make room for farm land.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by etotheitheta
Most of the world's population is concentrated along the Chinese coast and in India. I think Jakarta, Phillipines, Japan and central western europe are the next most densely populated areas. But there are is a great quantity of forest to be cut down to make room for farm land.


Here's the problem with overpopulation - what do we do when all the forests are gone? They're rapidly getting there already.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
Here's the problem with overpopulation - what do we do when all the forests are gone? They're rapidly getting there already.


Did you know that there are more trees in the United States now, then there were 100 years ago? I am not arguing that deforestation is not a problem because it is, but I was just wondering if you knew this little tidbit of information.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I agree that the problems with the Earth lie in the fact that there are to many humans..

Maybe getting rid of a few wouldn't be such a .. bad idea?



Also, stupid people breed twice as fast as intelligent people..


[edit on 4/10/2007 by Rockpuck]





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join