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.

 

Earth population 'exceeds limits'

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 





Ah, sort of like how where many places are predicted to actually become even colder due to the effects of "Global Warming" when in fact a better term to describe the situation is Global Climate Change? Are all the people that use the term Global "Warming" also vile and evil?


"Global" Warming pertains to the mean average temperature across ALL environments on the earth. To claim that "some" areas are predicted to get cooler is fallacious, because you'd be comparing a local climate to a global temperature average.

Also, whether or not Wikipedia is accurate or not should not absolve an individual from their responsibility to clearly articulate the precepts of a theory in a forum which is not academically oriented and where a known misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the theory is known to thrive.




Well, you never answered me on that


Actually, I did. If I missed it, perhaps you'd be inclined to highlight your specific question. If it's in regards to "why don't I edit the Wikipedia entry", to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time you've proposed that to me. I'll go back and look over it again.

I don't mean to make this a personal crusade, but it was merely something which caught my attention because of how often the term is misused and misinterpreted here on ATS as a way to debase the theory of Evolution. I had no intention of flaming, and I tried to be courteous in my initial response to you.

Any hostility or perception of hostility is merely an emergent phenomena.

Edit: You are correct in that I did not address your question in regards to editing Wikipedia's entry. If you would like to enter into a discussion on the entry over at Wikipedia, please let me know and I'll sign up an account over there. You do need an account to make edits now, correct?

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Lasheic]




posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


I didnt want to clutter up the thread so I added a note on the problem with the term "adaptive" in my other post.


I think though, that introducing that males can force females to have sex in certain cultures and not others, is an important point. Which again is why religion has to be cut out of the reproductive game if we are to voluntarily lower birth rates.

Those are religious commands, that women must have sex when her husband wishes, even if she doesnt will it. Many cultures that lacked "the big three" religious philosophies have not similarly restricted womens ability to choose not only IF she mated, but whom she mated with.

One of my favorite comments on this is found in Cassius Dio's "Roman History,"

www.archive.org...


Apropos of this, a quite
witty remark is reported of the wife of Argentocoxus,
a Caledonian, to Julia Augusta, when the latter after
the treaty was joking her about the free intercourse of
her sex in Britain with men. Thereupon the foreigner
asserted: "We fulfill the necessities of nature in a
much better way than you Eoman women. We have
dealings openly with the best men, whereas you let
yourselves be debauched in secret by the vilest. " This
is what the British woman said.


Obviously, if we were to voluntarily lower the birthrate, religion would have to be dealt with. Or it itself would act as a selective agent. (not that it hasnt already) If lowering the birthrate was critical to the survival of the species, those who refused to cooperate would be acting like "kin cheaters" allowing others to make the sacrifices that would lead to their genetic domination. Clearly, this would not be in the interests of the groups willing to act altruistically. Any strategy of voluntary reduction would have to be wary of "cheaters."



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


"Global" Warming pertains to the mean average temperature across ALL environments on the earth. To claim that "some" areas are predicted to get cooler is fallacious, because you'd be comparing a local climate to a global temperature average.


Well that's true, but that was exactly my point. See, according to what you say, what people do is then they will post this link.
www.dailytech.com...

And they'll say see see. We've SOLVED GLOBAL WARMING! Well, doubt it, but even if they have that doesn't mean global climate change isn't still a problem.

There are other types of climate change is my point. Same as there are other types of natural selection. I didn't mean they were the same thing or could be compared. Actually the fact that they shouldn't be compared is exactly my point. They're not the same thing. That's why one term is better than the other. If they were comparable it might not matter which term you used. So, it was just like what you were saying, but a on a different topic. The terms aren't comparable.



You are correct in that I did not address your question in regards to editing Wikipedia's entry. If you would like to enter into a discussion on the entry over at Wikipedia, please let me know and I'll sign up an account over there. You do need an account to make edits now, correct


Yeah I think so. It's been a while. Anyway, I'm reading the current discussion page now over there to see what they're already arguing about before I even show up.

EDIT: Actually the last edit on the discussion page of SOTF is about this very issue. That the language needs to be simplified to further clarify that the term fit doesn't mean what most people think. So, looks like someone got to it before us.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by tinfoilman]

[edit on 1-4-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by LactoseIntolerant
 


Everybody, let's fast track to a money-free resource-based Venus Project.

1. Counterfeit money.
2. Crash capitalism.
3. Activate the Venus Project.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by LactoseIntolerant
 


Noah lived to over 600, Adam to 932, Methuselah to 956, Abraham over 400 so I disagree with longevity of life NEVER BEFORE SEEN. And you can't accept Darwinism without accepting the survival of the fittest, it is integral part of the racist theory. And if evolution is correct we should kill off the inferior to make the next evolutionary jump for mankind, can' have all those inferior types messing up the gene pool. Just ask Hitler who dedicated Mein Kampf to Darwin...

Everyone on the planet can fit inside Jacksonville county Florida USA, let alone Australia.

It has nothing to do with resource delivery systems either, we pay farmers here not to grow food. There are ample resources for all to live and all that they NEED to survive...


Do you honestly believe the figures above???



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I think the religion factor is going to be a tough one to tackle, and not just because of the zealotry and dogmatism it invites when it gains a substantial population of fundamentalists. The doctrines which demand that women must submit to their husbands can still be useful in many cultures which do not have the resources to industrialize and improve their society. Many third and second world nations are highly agricultural - some even still barely past the early Mesopotamian level of agricultural revolutions. Techniques such as irrigation are simply untenable given the proximity to a proper water source, and the research and technology needed to make it workable is prohibitive within the structure of baser tribal societies.

So it is preferable to have larger families in these societies, because without ample food, medicine, and security - mortality rates dictate that those with the largest families will have the best chance to pass on their genes. Further, it takes a large family to tend to the farms or gather resources for the family in order to make them more prosperous. This is causing a major problem in China, which has modernized very rapidly in some areas while remaining rather baser in many other areas. Population controls have been put in place, and because of the value a male child still has as a provider for their family - female offspring have largely been intentionally aborted or abandoned. This creates a morally questionable situation, but a somewhat self-solving problem as reproduction will be limited by the number of females in their society (coupled with the birth rate caps). In fact, China's government is aware and concerned about the problem enough to start offering compensation and perks to those families who have female children. I don't morally agree with their methods, but it's working.

This is detrimental in an industrialized and urbanized society, where said in earlier posts, it is largely being shunned. So I think religion does still have a place, but it needs to mailable to the situation. Rules which dictated how to live in tribal societies, does not necessarily work in industrialized societies. I don't think the Pope was necessarily wrong dissuading the use of contraceptives in third world countries, but he definitely IS wrong in dissuading it in countries like the US or the UK.

Insofar as the violence which religion can inspire, I don't think this is necessarily religion's fault. The people who wrote the world's holy books were human, and our evolution helped to shape our behavior. It's only natural that those who write their holy books in a tribal setting would incorporate tribalism - and we still buy into it even today. Religions are not a unifying force, because we are not a unifying people. We segregate and separate. It's the same factor whether you're talking about Roman Catholicism separating into Protestantism, Mormonism, etc... or Islam separating Sunni, Shiite, etc. Even in our modern societies we can see it's influence outside of religion by the divide between Republicans and Democrats... between fans of the Cubs and fans of Yankees. If you're into video games, it can be seen in the console wars. Alot of people took note of it after 9/11 when America stood together in our showing of sorrow and anger - regardless of race and creed.. because we had a common and outside enemy to our tribe. It didn't last long, however. But it was there.

It reminds me of Ronald Regan's speech about humanity unifying together after first contact with an alien race. I don't think he was so much "letting it slip" that we are not alone... but merely hitting upon a basic human behavior pattern. So long as we're alone (or perceive that we're alone) in the universe, we'll segregate into different tribes that compete against each other. Once we make contact, we will all become ONE tribe, competing against the "Alien" tribe.

This is a dual edged blade - as tribalism can promote diversity, which is what evolution does... diversify life. Violence, unfortunately, has been a major component of this competition. I don't know if we can escape it. Thus, it's also represented in religion.

However, it seems, that religion is a bit of a self-solving problem as well. The tendency for society is that as personal freedoms and education rise, violence and a dependency on religion decrease. America is thus far the most resistant nation to this - but even with our substantial religious population, we're seeing a sharp rise in the number of agnostics, deists, and atheists. At the very least, we're seeing a rise in secularism - which is why the religious groups are making such a stink in the last 40 years as they see America progressively "turning away from god". I would also argue that there are many out there who claim, but do not practice their religion.

I think that promoting tribalism and diversity of social groups is a good and beneficial thing, but we really do need to work on the mechanisms by which our tribal groups interact. I think we can try to curb violence and promote other evolutionary behaviors - such as altruism. Getting rid of religion will not solve the problem, because it will only manifest in other guises - such as, say, nationalism.

(Hah, but of course, nationalism will limit our altruistic aid to other nations - because if they modernize too much and become too powerful, they will be more capable of competing against our tribe for resources)

And you never know... religion may once again be useful should we find ourselves in a period of post-societal collapse. And please keep in mind that this isn't to say that I don't think there are better solutions than religion, only that it can have benefit - and that simply eradicating religion will not substantially improve humanity, only trunicate one avenue by which we express our evolutionary behaviors.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 





Population decline is an example of emergence within a complex system, a consequential response to modernization and urbanization. It's simply not economical to have a large family in an urban area - where 50% of our population now live. It's expensive, the children don't support the family as they do in rural farming communities, and they take too much time away from the parents who are focusing on their educations and careers


Thanks for posting that. Now I don't have to dig out my source.
To put it more bluntly, poor third world countries do not have tractors etc therefore children are a cheap labor source. Even here in the USA the Amish etc have large families so they have the labor to work their farms. Commercial farms use migrant labor instead.

And yes as you said the US population growth is close to zero, that is why we have immigration. I wonder how much of that population growth is due to counting immigrants and their off-spring. Latinos are supposedly the fastest growing portion of our population.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
This sounds awfully Bilderbergesque to me. “We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population;” ?? I wasn’t aware that “we” were doing this. Perhaps I’m mistaken, can anyone direct me to what she may be talking about BESIDES what the elite may be doing covertly? It’s interesting that genetically modified food is also something that she advocates in the same breath as her advocation of reducing the global population.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Traditional ideas of sustainable populations do not apply to the human species very well. We have the technology to push the limits of the earth's sustainability. We are not like other species that have no control over their environment.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic

I think the religion factor is going to be a tough one to tackle, and not just because of the zealotry and dogmatism it invites when it gains a substantial population of fundamentalists. The doctrines which demand that women must submit to their husbands can still be useful in many cultures which do not have the resources to industrialize and improve their society.


You would have to define "useful to who." Those same religions tend to favor the male and his reproduction over the female. "More" is not always "better." And it overlooks another evolutionary fact, monogamy or forcing women to marry one man, does not allow females to choose the best males to bear young with. (As you see in other animals.) This tends to ensure ALL male genes have a fairly equal shot at being propagated, as women are not allowed to maximize by choosing, as our British friend said in Cassius Dio's history, "the best men" to reproduce with. It is an unnatural system that serves men two ways, it allows them to pursue their volume based strategy with no check from the female, and it allows the least desirable among them genetically to reproduce too. (Thus alleviating pressure on the "top dogs" for that "top dog" position.) It doesnt serve nature. It doesnt serve women. It serves men.



Originally posted by Lasheic
Many third and second world nations are highly agricultural - some even still barely past the early Mesopotamian level of agricultural revolutions. Techniques such as irrigation are simply untenable given the proximity to a proper water source, and the research and technology needed to make it workable is prohibitive within the structure of baser tribal societies.


And people in these cultures are still and have been overpopulating throughout history. Migration anyone? Tribal war and conflict over resources? Killing each other for more space to support their excess population? Over population is not a new problem. What is new is that it is less acceptable to us to commit genocide in order to acquire the increased land that our breeding excesses make necessary. And even if we are willing to wipe out other groups for their resources, this strategy also has a natural limit as "we" fill in all arable lands.


Originally posted by Lasheic
So it is preferable to have larger families in these societies, because without ample food, medicine, and security - mortality rates dictate that those with the largest families will have the best chance to pass on their genes.


Of course if we as a species decided to maintain diversity, and each group reproduce at the level its own territory could support, we would not have to allow those "shortages" that dictate that "more people" means greater assurance of passing on ones genes to the future.


Originally posted by Lasheic
Further, it takes a large family to tend to the farms or gather resources for the family in order to make them more prosperous.


Does it take so many as we think it does? Again, we are overlooking the fact that we have been overpopulating the whole time. And having to move or fight for more land.


Originally posted by Lasheic
So I think religion does still have a place, but it needs to mailable to the situation. Rules which dictated how to live in tribal societies, does not necessarily work in industrialized societies. I don't think the Pope was necessarily wrong dissuading the use of contraceptives in third world countries, but he definitely IS wrong in dissuading it in countries like the US or the UK.


I think he is wrong everywhere. And if we do not dissuade people from overpopulating in the third world, all we will see is increased migration from those overpopulated areas into areas where populations have declined or become stable. As they move to escape the consequences of their own immoderate breeding. And if the immoderate breeding continues in lands where the native population has chosen a more moderate strategy, you will see loss of diversity as a result.


Originally posted by Lasheic
Insofar as the violence which religion can inspire, I don't think this is necessarily religion's fault. The people who wrote the world's holy books were human, and our evolution helped to shape our behavior.


We need to consider what the causes of violence are. And pressure to acquire more resources for differential reproductive success is huge among them. So any religion that says "more babies" and "my people are the chosen ones" is arguing that "we must wipe out all other people and take over as the dominant group." It is an evolutionary strategy. But it is one that has a natural limit in a finite world. And I would argue that since "more babies" requires "more resources" and "more resources" requires displacing other peoples, then yes, religions that promote high birthrates are at fault when it comes to the violence that accompanies them.



Originally posted by Lasheic
Alot of people took note of it after 9/11 when America stood together in our showing of sorrow and anger - regardless of race and creed.. because we had a common and outside enemy to our tribe. It didn't last long, however. But it was there.


I agree with your take on tribalism. However, as we have essentially covered the globe with people, we need to choose. Extermination of other races and peoples to continue the strategy that got us here? Which is "more of us." Or a new strategy that sees the species as "us" and seeks to maintain diversity within the species so that we have better long term chances of survival if some event occurs that makes some variants less adaptive? Which would require more moderate breeding and less attempts to wipe out competing groups.


Originally posted by Lasheic
Once we make contact, we will all become ONE tribe, competing against the "Alien" tribe.


We dont have to wait for aliens to become ONE tribe. We have managed to becomes nations of diverse people without aliens. What our "tribe" is is a decision. We can decide that we are one "tribe" and act in the best interests of that tribe without aliens.


Originally posted by Lasheic
This is a dual edged blade - as tribalism can promote diversity, which is what evolution does... diversify life. Violence, unfortunately, has been a major component of this competition. I don't know if we can escape it. Thus, it's also represented in religion.


Actually, tribalism does not seek to promote diversity. It seeks to eradicate others. It seeks to eliminate "others" and replace them with "us." If you are unwilling to see this within the species, look what we are doing to other species. We are getting rid of those that do not serve us, (or that we think dont in our limited view of the interconnection of things) and replace them with "us" and "those species we eat." It serves to undermine diversity, not promote it. Migration helped promote diversity, but where can we now go?


Originally posted by Lasheic
America is thus far the most resistant nation to this - but even with our substantial religious population, we're seeing a sharp rise in the number of agnostics, deists, and atheists.


I disagree that religion replaces violence. America is actually quite violent and quite religious. There is a high correlation between "tribal religions" who say "we are chosen" and violence. Religions that see all people, or all beings as the "tribe" without favoring "my group" tend to be less violent. I think what we are seeing in people moving away from these inherently violent tribal religions, and their "more babies" mantra, is a growing unconscious understanding that we need to consider "us" as a broader concept. Instead of "my group" "my species" or "the planet including us." I think we recognize on some level that we have hit a natural end to that strategy as being adaptive, and that there must be a shift to a new strategy. People are voluntarily lowering birthrates everywhere it is allowed. People are voluntarily thinking more globally everywhere the culture and religion is not successful in prohibiting it. We are trying to evolve past that strategy. We are seeing the wall it will run us into. We need to stop pretending that strategy is something it wasnt. It has always, and will always, lead us to overpopulation and violence, and we have run out of places to go, and we are collectively agreeing that we really dont think genocide is a solution.


Originally posted by Lasheic
I think that promoting tribalism and diversity of social groups is a good and beneficial thing, but we really do need to work on the mechanisms by which our tribal groups interact.


I think you can have diversity without tribalism. Like we do within our own bodies. We have diverse assortment of cells that form a diverse assortment of organs, that work together to maintain the unit. We do not think it is healthy when one group of cells decides "more me, screw everyone else." We call that cancer, and we recognize it as something that harms the whole, often fatally.


Originally posted by Lasheic
And you never know... religion may once again be useful should we find ourselves in a period of post-societal collapse.


And here we just disagree. I am assuming by "religion" you must mean the "big three," because the agenda of some of the others is quite different. And I do not agree that the agenda of the "big three" which is "more of me, screw everyone else, and screw the laws of nature too" is one that will ever be beneficial to the whole. It has served its own ends. But, like a cancer, there is a natural limit to how much "more me" can work at the expense of diversity and the whole.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LactoseIntolerant
As I reread the article, Clinton's advisor is suggesting that the population is growing at a remarkable expontentially rate. In other words, people are popping out kids like no tomorrow.

At the current rate of child births and mortality, it is apparently very unbalanced. But one has to think with common sense: advances in the medical field and scientific studies have prolonged life expectany to never-before-seen levels in our history. It's kind of a no-brainer."




[edit on 31-3-2009 by LactoseIntolerant]


China and India contain half the worlds population and also have very high child mortality rates. Infact most of the "3rd world" countries have high child mortality rates. So a low child mortality rate is not the cause of a high population. Consider also the low adult life expectancy of countries such as Zambia (48yrs) whose population growths stands at 3.3% and rising and compare this to Italy (74yrs) population growth 0.1% and it will soon become evident that mortality rates are not the cause of a growing population.

I do have a theory though, as to why this is.

Humans breed under great stress. Note the population explosion world wars one and 2. Even a city black out causes the population to jump.

It has been argued that these events lower inhabition, near death experiences do increase sex drive. But I believe it is part of our natural disaster recovery process.

Lets assume the plague strikes, within a certain period of time 1/3 of the population will be wiped out (this happened in europe) how will the population recover? By dramatically increasing the population and increasing the overall survival rate of the species.

The only way to slow down the population growth would be to reduce the stress factor (or near death/starvation) of the poorest peoples. In other words sharing the worlds resources with those most in need. Once the basic needs of the world is met then a quite dramatic reduction in the birth rate will follow.

One other factor is the low status women hold and the high life stress factor this has upon them. If poor diet, exposure to pollution and ill health reduce the fertility rate then why are so few women in the poorest countries infertile.

So to Italy a - catholic low abortion not much contraception being handed out country. And fellow catholic strong hold Ireland (Eire) both with high life expectancy low child mortality and a dramaticly reduced birth rate.

Italy was once know as a country of large families, not any more. The same applies to Ireland.

Disasters natural or otherwise do not reduce the long term population rate they only trigger population explosions.

One other point should be made, whilst it is true medical advances have reduced child mortality rates and death from common diseases your chances of reaching 100 are still less than 1% which has not changed. We see more pensioners (baby boom generation) as we have a larger population. The number of 60+yr olds, out numbers the current birthrate in healthier countries. We are not living longer (as in advanced years added to our potential life span) we just are not dying off as quickly.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
In the 1980's whilst I was serving with the British military I volunteered for Porton Down (the nuclear/chemical/biological warfare centre). I was testing NBC equipment and had contact with a number of scientists during the trials. One attractive lady who quite liked me opened up a bit about some of the other trials/tests etc carried out at the centre. In the middle of the grounds there is a rather small indescript building with a lot of security surrounding it (this in an already heavily protected environment). She informed me it was the biological research building and it was mostly underground. What sort of research goes on there was my enquiry. She told me they had all the diseases ever discovered by man and were "messing" around with them. They could produce a virus specific to a gene and target individuals, races, groups of people in a given area. I have often wondered about the information she gave me and in light of other discoveries I made during my service and recent events in the news and I would say it is most likely a population control program has started and biological weapons will be the principle means of extermination.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
First off, imho there's not "limit" in real terms to how many people we can sustain.

Secondly on the NWO and 'depopulation':

1) Programs have been in place for years that are helping their cause, but that really only has a slight 'slowing' effect. China is much more effective than the US at this. (Not that I agree, or condone, or want it). The US has planned parenthood, "safe sex" utilities (even though they don't do a whole lot for AIDS, etc), and harmful chemicals in our food.

2) The NWO doesn't have to do much to reduce population. They'll just start the catalyst for WW3, and let us kill off ourselves. We'll gladly nuke each other into desolation and starvation, then they'll just whip out their seed bank stash, and repopulate their own blood lines.

3) Soon you'll hear the montra even louder, "Save the world, Kill yourself!"

The bright side is, at least we know their goal is becoming more active. All the more reason to research and get active.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I doubt that depopulation has anything to do with the planet's ability to sustain large populations. Im sure it has its own ways of dealing with that. The most valuable commodity is and has always been human labour. This gives the majority a real power over those who would control them. Since the earliest civilisations there has been a conscious effort to demean this power and convince the average man (and woman) that they had no value. The Industrial Revolution (automated production with minimum human labour) was the first major step forward for elites in their quest to make the human race redundant. We are now on the threshold of reaching that goal with the development of advanced robotics. The replacement of human labour is most probably already here as most technology in the public sector is years behind what they actually have. This is not good news, once we become redundant those with the technology will want rid of us. I doubt they will use nuclear weapons due to state it would leave the planet (which they consider theirs by birthright) unlivable and though they have their underground bases I doubt they would risk having to spend the rest of their lives and their offspring stretching into the future down a rabbit hole. War isn't really an option for them, effective as it was with our ignorant ancestors at thinning the herd people just have more important things they want to do than get glory being slaughtered in a far off land. Mark my words, biological warfare will be the weapon of choice for the NWO.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
What dribble!
The Earth is way over populated. India and China need to control their populations. Its getting out of hand. Deal with it. I'm not a Bible Thumper but whats with all the Anti Religion slams?

This thread just goes on and on about anti Religion and lets keep breading





posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mandroid
 


condoms? are you serious? over population is not a problem, and shouldn't be for many thousands.

stop focusing on things that don't matter.

GREED is the probem.

As James once said,

"Don't these talking monkeys know that
Eden has enough to go around?
Plenty in this holy garden, silly monkeys,
Where there's one you're bound to divide it.
Right in two."



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
It's bull from someone who is dumb.

When a population exceeds it's natural limit, the environment collapses within a few short years, mainly because it's been going on for a while. Humanity has yet to exterminate most life on Earth, therefore, it is wrong.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
O yes I've heard somebody say on another one of these threads about "overpopulation is a myth" dis info threads that the earth can handle up to 20 or 25 billion, even if that so I don't want to live in a concrete and steal jungle.

I love the mountains, Trees and wide open land spaces.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SOXMIS
 


There are way too many people. I'm not sure about reduction but more for controlling the populations in certain countries that are WAY out of control.

We are headed for disaster unless we can STOP growing 6.7 Billion is enough already!



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


That's why space exists. Do you really think Earth will continue having natural places? I don't. People will move nature off the planet for our colonization/terraform purposes, and make the rest of the world a city.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join