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: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   


There are already too many people living on Planet Earth, according to one of most influential science advisors in the US government.


Source




posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I've always thought that too, but I am glad to be here though. I hate to say it and I don't believe that the governments should be involved in things like this but people having 5+ kids needs to be stopped. Most people with big family's (well I wouldn't call them family's) but all those kids depend on the govt. so much so why not put a limit as to how many brats you can have. I mean with the technology today you can have 8 at 1 time, but that's a different story. Me personally think that two kids in a household is enough.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I thought that Prince Charles of Wales said the same thing a little while back in the papers . And how does he or anyone else pose to solve this problem. You could have wars and more wars. Or diseases spread out on this world and kill about a half of the peoples. The question is whom do you save and whom do you not. I"m sure he and his family would like to be the ones saved. If the world would be half then who will do the work that the other half was doing. In other world, there would be half as much products being produced and the companies will scream that they are not getting enough profits. As you know, money seems to be the one that moves this world and makes it what it is. I, for one, would not be the one to make that kind of decession.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I don't believe for a second there's too many people. There's too much waste and if the powers that be wanted it any different it would be so ...



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dmorgan
 


Along time ago a couple REAL EXPERTS ( non govermental) had a bet for $20 about the Balloon Theroy. Reference that yourself.
One guy said in 20 years the end will occur (the bubble will burst)
His opponet won hands down. Yep they were both there 20 years later shaking hands and looking foward to the future.
Look you are apart of this ball of wax.
Do you want to give up your kids bio-space for some cockaroaches or locasts.
Of course you could donate the space you occupy.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Who determines what magic number exceeds limits? Who put limits on population? If I recall, the Bible even says go forth and multiply.

I also believe humans on a level they are not aware of, are populating so much in this period of history because there may be an ELE coming down the pipes, and there needs to be some of us left over to survive our species.

My opinion, anyway.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Yes, too many people for the elite masters to control.
That's why they are taking our money and our resources now because they are planning on starting another World War that will kill off 2/3's of the worlds population.
Kinda like eminent domain for the NWO because the destruction of our domain is eminent.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, to truly "cull" the population down to a livable size involves killing lots of people or restricting their right to breed, etc. No government or society has the moral ability to do that...such acts are simply inherently immoral in my view.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that there are too many people and that we are in an unnatural situation. If we don't take care of the problem, mother nature will, and she's pretty cold and unforgiving about such processes.

For those who say we still have room for "plenty more," I'd reply: yeah, sure the world can hold 15 billion of us or whater...if we want to live stacked up in cages with tubes down our throats like factory-farmed chicken. Already people in China are living in chicken coops and dog cages on the roofs of apartment buildings...sure its "doable" (maybe) but is this really a road we want to go down? Seems a lot of people don't wan't to admit to population explosion because it involves tough moral choices. Far easier to just deny the whole thing..."everybody on earth could squeeze into the Grand Canyon..." yeah, sure, but have you taken into account the space and specific resources needed to feed, clothe, house, and employ them, to say nothing of buying them all Xboxes and iPods?

One thing is for sure: when you look at any trend in the universe, be it species population or pulse cycles of earthquakes, sharp spikes are always unnatural and unsustainable. They might show upo now and then but they don't last long. Just take a look at the chart below and try to tell me this is a natural, lasting state of affairs. No, this is the first half of a trasient data spike. The second half is just as steep and quick, in the other direction. This is not going to be a plateau; its going to be a needle:
wilderdom.com...



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Can someone do the math? All people that live on planet Earth could be put in one American city. They could live in Texas. All of them.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
From what I understand, all of the current Earth's population can live comfortably on a 1/4 acre of land in Australia, and the territory/state of Queensland would still be 1/2 open/free. As for the rest of the world, it would be desolate of people. In my opinion, we just need to take better care of our surroundings (i.e. litter control, recycling, and whatnot). I don't know about you but a 1/4 acre isn't really huge, but it is big enough to build a small house, have a small yard, and a tree swing (hehe).



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   


GM Foods 'needed'

A National Medal of Science laureate (America's highest science award), the professor of molecular biology believes part of that better land management must include the use of genetically modified foods.



no need to read on.

GM crops are already older than a decade and there is plenty of experience, i started a thread on the track record so far and what is bound to grow out of such 'initiatives', it's titled

GM Crops and the Coming Famine

another:

The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified


who would have thought thought, they believe there are too many people and want us to use more GM crops.

2+2 = 4 (depopulation)

read between the lines.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by saabster5
From what I understand, all of the current Earth's population can live comfortably on a 1/4 acre of land in Australia, and the territory/state of Queensland would still be 1/2 open/free. As for the rest of the world, it would be desolate of people. In my opinion, we just need to take better care of our surroundings (i.e. litter control, recycling, and whatnot). I don't know about you but a 1/4 acre isn't really huge, but it is big enough to build a small house, have a small yard, and a tree swing (hehe).


Just wanted to clarify the first sentence - it's not that all the population can live on a 1/4 acre of land, it's if the entire population was in Australia each individual would have a 1/4 acre of land and the rest of the globe unpopulated.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I stopped at "according to one of most influential science advisors in the US government."

It lost all credibility at that point.

And I am glad that the above poster brought up that most excellent analogy.

'what we have isn't a population problem, its a management problem'




top topics



 
0

log in

join