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
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Earth population 'exceeds limits'


news.bbc.co.uk

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

Nina Fedoroff told the BBC One Planet programme that humans had exceeded the Earth's "limits of sustainability".

Dr Fedoroff has been the science and technology advisor to the US secretary of state since 2007, initially working with Condoleezza Rice.

Under the new Obama administration, she now advises Hillary Clinton.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.census.gov
www.state.gov
news.bbc.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk




posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
This is interesting ... the statement that really gets me is this:

"We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can't support many more people," Dr Fedoroff said


How can we decrease the growth of the human population? and how can we possibly stop the population from exceeding the limits of the earth? move to other planets? kill off people? grow more food? somehow make more water? what are your thoughts?

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Same article here posted one hour ago:

Earth population 'exceeds limits'

Cheers



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by 5thElement
 


dang it! thanks

i guess it'll just get more attention

[edit on 31-3-2009 by baseball101]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   


kill off people?



The elites and natural viruses have already got a head start for that one.


First we need to obtain self sufficiency for everyone and then space exploration. That is my view.





[edit on 31-3-2009 by Unlimitedpossibilities]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
There is no such thing as "Earth exceeding it's limits"... This is the same as the Global Warming Hoax, trying to blame mankind for a natural cycle...

This is simply more desyntesizing the world to what is to come.

TPTB really do want to "cull" the population of the world, and they will do this by war, or by releasing some deathly virus, etc, or even by doing several events just for this "culling" of Earth's population...

Remember the Baxter lab sending live bird flu virus to Europe, and somehow claiming it was a mistake, even though with the procedures there is no way that they made a mistake? This was the second time this lab had made a "mistake" recently, and the first time several people died, and over a thousand got sick.

Now several countries around the world, including European countries, as well as others have a contract with this firm for more "vaccines' against the bird flu virus.

The Earth is fully capable of feeding and maintaining the population of the world, but this is not the plan of TPTB. The more people in the world, the more difficult it is for TPTB to control us, hence all this crap about "the population of Earth exceeding it's limits", just like the "Global Warming" hoax.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by baseball101
 


I agree with others that said the current population is sustainable..

We just need to adapt by cutting down on consumption of resources..

[edit on 31-3-2009 by ahnggk]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by baseball101

How can we decrease the growth of the human population? and how can we possibly stop the population from exceeding the limits of the earth? move to other planets? kill off people? grow more food? somehow make more water? what are your thoughts?


My thoughts are....birth control.

It is not hard to limit the growth of the human population. It doesnt require war or any other kind of horror, and if we wait for the ability to travel to other worlds it will be too late.

We need to voluntarily reduce our birth rate. So that competition over resources doesnt lead to catastrophic war, or draconian measures being taken to limit our birth rate without our consent.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

The Earth is fully capable of feeding and maintaining the population of the world, but this is not the plan of TPTB. The more people in the world, the more difficult it is for TPTB to control us, hence all this crap about "the population of Earth exceeding it's limits", just like the "Global Warming" hoax.


Its just good common sense that if you have a house, and you keep stuffing people in it, there is a point at which that house will no longer be able to hold more people. Because it is finite. Much like our Earth and her resources are.

You can dress it up however you like, you can deny it as much as you like, and turn it into any kind of conspiracy you want. Its just a simple truth that in a finite system there are limits to the amount of living things that can be supported.

We are already crowding out species. And trying to eat others to extinction. But my guess is that in your mind that is all just an evil lie too.

It doesnt take a scientist to see what we are doing to ourselves. Regardless whether or not the climate change is just part of a natural cycle. We have seen evidence in many species what happens when the number of animals exceeds the carrying capacity of their environment. It wont be different for us. It may take longer, because of our technology, but something many people are unaware of is that we are running through our metals just about as quickly as we are running through other resources.

www.science.org.au...




Of course to some, that is just another evil lie told by the "PTB."

Lets ignore completely that the PTB are the ones fighting the information that we are running out of stuff rapidly, and that they have been denying and mocking it for decades, and only now that it cannot be denied do they even consider it at all.

Those of you who consider it all a lie are spreading the agenda of the PTB. Humans arent harder to control in large numbers. Thats ridiculous. Human labor is cheaper when there are large numbers and we fight among ourselves when there are large numbers and it makes their jobs easier. We are too busy bickering with one another to notice them bending us over.

Why do you think governments want more people? More immigrants, more babies, more more more. Lol. They dont want less of us, they want more.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
I replied in another thread (this is thread three!! on the topic):

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 Apr, 1 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
We could draft a world wide treaty to have all nations agree to set limitations to child birth to a maximum of 2 or 3 children.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
We have enough land, water and food to sustain as large a population as we want; we just don't have the sound technological practices to do so. The statement made by the article is somewhat defeatist. It goes like... considering the planet is in state x and it's never going to change, here is the maximum carrying capacity of the planet... What a load of crap.

The ecosystem isn't suddenly going to go out of balance because the human population reaches some imaginary threshold number. The problem is technological in nature. Regional overpopulation is the biggest concern. We could technically have 50 billion individuals living on this planet on a multi-tiered, kilometer high city covering the entire planetary surface, with everyone being kept fed by artificial materials manufactured out of moon rock. It's the way we go about this problem that matters.

Basic technological and medical advances has allowed for the sustenance of larger populations in rather confined geographic locations, such as in preexisting urban centers in India and China. The problem with this is that everyone beings to realize they can then have more babies, which quickly results in returning the population to a poorer historical standard in a sort of tragedy of the commons scenario. This happened in early agricultural societies. Surplus food enabled women to procreate again almost immediately after the birth of a child, ultimately outstripping the promise of sustainability offered by the very technological changes, which allowed those societies to gather a surplus in the first place. It's obvious that in most places in the world we immediately take advantage of all technological advances that our society makes without much foresight. We immediately recognize how those advances might benefit ourselves, and this is multiplied by however large the size of the population is, and ultimately we outstrip the ability of "surplus practices" (whether that's medical, technological, etc.) of being able to sustain us.

The solution is to provide contraceptives, or to educate those poor regions' public to understand the social and economic implications of having so many children. Examining the short run is not enough, especially since the short run of a socially ubiquitous "surplus practice" is much shorter than any other short run phenomena in existence.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by cognoscente]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Kill off?! No no no, we humans do a far better job of killing ourselves off than any organized population control could hope to achieve. There's always a war going on somewhere.

What we need to do is educate the public, especially the religious, and let them know that having many children isn't a good idea. Sure, I know most religions tell their followers to be plentiful in procreation, but lets face it... that's a HUGE mistake and ought to be stricken from religious teachings.

Look at the mess it got so many Africans into, that continent just wasn't meant for such values.


Most tech and industrial nations have enough of an education system in place that parents are smart enough to wait until they're financially ready enough to support one or two children...
... but it's the idiots that keep reproducing regardless of economic or world situations that's giving us the headache.

Same for the people that seem to think having a large family will make them prosperous. What a ridiculous notion.
How in the heck is spending every waking moment of your day searching for food for your family confused with being prosperous?


Educate the people... and quit giving government handouts to those who can't keep their legs shut.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by johnsky]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Everything was fine before Octomom had those eight kids.


I say we blame her!!!!

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!




posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Actually the Earth's population is going through catastrophic depopulation.

Let me explain...

TFR Stands for Total Fertility Rate.

Lets say for the purposes of simplicity that there are 2 people on the planet Earth. One male and one female.

If each couple has one child during their lifetimes then the result would be
2+1.

Eventually the parents will die. TFR includes all the children those couples ever have. If they only ever have one child before they die then the result is this.

2+1-2=1

2 Total population (the parents)+1 (children) -2 (parents die)= 1 (the children are left)

Net population loss of 2.


Therefore two is the lowest possible sustainable TFR possible.

2+2-2=2

2 (parents)+2 (children) -2 (parents) = 2 (The children are left.)

Net population growth of 0.

However the number needs to be higher than 2 because some die before they are able to have children and the numbers of males to females are not exactly even.

Example: Early Deaths

2+1-1-2=0

2 (parents) + 1 (child) -1 (child dies early) -2 (parents die) = 0


Example: Ratio of males to females.

4+2-4=2

4 (parents in two couples) + 2 (children) -4 (parents) = 2 (children)

However if these children are both males or both females then the population would be unable to expand without outside assistance. Thus meaning that this group is not self sustainable.


Simple TFR Description


If there were no mortality in the female population until the end of the childbearing years (generally taken as 44 or 49, though some exceptions exist) then the replacement level of TFR would be very close to 2.0 (actually slightly higher because of the excess of boy over girl births in human populations).





Map of Global TFR

Nations in Blue on this map show nations with a TFR near 2.0 meaning that they are barely increasing in population. Most of them are propped up by immigration however, this means that census will show increase.

Nations in dark blue have a TFR below 2.0 and are suffering from depopulation.


The Russians have taken measures to increase TFR. One includes having a holiday in which Russians will be rewarded with prizes if they have children. (This is attached to the National Holiday June 12.)

news.bbc.co.uk...

EDIT: Edited and order of paragraphs altered for a better read.


[edit on 1-4-2009 by Studious]

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Studious]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Ohhme me, I want to be the first to say chemtrails and false raptures where the bogus jesus are telling every one to jump of an cliff and come work for him..

Or poson in the foods, thinking Codex as one part of that....



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Its just good common sense that if you have a house, and you keep stuffing people in it, there is a point at which that house will no longer be able to hold more people. Because it is finite. Much like our Earth and her resources are.

You can dress it up however you like, you can deny it as much as you like, and turn it into any kind of conspiracy you want. Its just a simple truth that in a finite system there are limits to the amount of living things that can be supported.
..............


Have you ever travelled outside of your box and seen the world?... I am not talking about big cities, but really seen the world?...

The world is a lot bigger than any house you can show me buster..

However you want to dress it, you are just siding with these people who want to "cull the population"..

You can deny it all you want.. We have people who have made houses from recycled plastic, and rubber, and they are just living fine.

All those plastic islands in the oceans, along with the recycled stuff used in landfills can be used to build similar houses and furniture.

The Earth has more than enough water, ocean water which can be purified, and you don't really need any big expensive machines to do so.

You just need to dig a hole in the sand or soil big enough for a bucket or other container to fit in, put a large plastic transparent or semi-transparent bag over the hole and bucket, punch a small hole in the middle of the bag, and place a stone with enough mass to bend the plastic bag into the bucket. Put ocean water, or even dirty water around the bag/bucket but under the bag, and let the Sun do it's work, and you will have ample supplies of water. Food is more than abundant too, and more can be produced.

If the super-rich, and the not so super-rich but still rich were not so greedy we could, at least in those countries where there are no warlords, and greedy/corrupt corporations and governments, everyone could be living in a house.

You don't even need A/C/ or heaters. Partial underground, or totally underground homes maintain a temperature around 65-70 degrees or so all year around. These houses are also impervious to hurricanes, forest fires, and most natural disasters.

As for Earth's resources, they can be recycled, if you have the knowledge.

If a farmer doesn't understand how the land works he can consume all the nutrients in the soil that his harvest needs, but with proper knowledge and know-how you can reuse the same farm land, over, and over, and over, for years and produce food harvest.

Too many environmentalists wackos would like to see peope die just so their messed up dream world can exist the way they think it should, but they are nothing more than wackos.

However, it is true that we will still need oil, even if all used plastic, rubber ect is recycled, but the increase in recycling will help greatly reduce the burden on oil production, and sooner or later one of the alternative energy sources will be greatly improved to the point that one, or more alternative sources could in time replace oil.

We don't need to implement a On Child Policy, nor any such measure.

Also, most of the increase of the population in the world comes from third world countries, and in most of those countries you won't be able to get them to stop having children, so all that a One Child Policy, and other types of population control will do is bring the west closer to transforming into Communist Chinese states.



[edit on 1-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



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

Originally posted by Studious
Actually the Earth's population is going through catastrophic depopulation.



No we arent. First let me explain that I do understand your argument, and I am not questioning your numbers.

However, if people in industrialized nations are having fewer children because they are perceiving overcrowding, (as one tends to do in cities where populations are concentrated) then when population reduces to a number that eases this stress of overcrowding, the birthrates will likely increase again.

It will not be catastrophic. What is catastrophic for genetic diversity, is to allow immigration into nations where birthrates among the indigenous people are dropping to reduce population stress. Those indigenous peoples could be bred out of existence in such a scenario, and it would be in our best interests as a species to try to preserves as much diversity as we can. And no, I dont mean by not allowing race mixing, that is natural. I mean we should not let governments import people who are not limiting birthrates as they would out compete the indigenous people. Both governments with their agenda of "more" and religions with their agenda of "more" need to be checked.

People naturally want to keep the population at a comfortable level. Religions and governments act to drive it towards unsustainable increase.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Who determines what magic number exceeds limits? Who put limits on population? If I recall, the Bible even says go forth and multiply.


God decides Hotbakedtater. Even if you call God "nature" as a scientist. "Go forth and multiply" was what God said to Adam and Eve. There werent a lot of people then. Now God is telling us to slow the hell down. In signs, like our dwindling fish stocks, etc.

What God says to one person in one time, is not what he says to all people in all times. We dont all take our children out to sacrifice them because God told Abraham to. God was talking to him, not us. We dont all wait for the sea to be parted, that was between God and Moses. God is giving us clear signs that we need to change our ways. Waiting for his voice to come booming from heaven may not be a good idea.

Same with nature, nature indeed wanted us to breed as much as possible at one point in time, now it is working to endanger us. When times change, you are supposed to change with them, or you risk falling by the wayside.


Originally posted by hotbakedtater
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.


Whats an ELE? I know once you tell me I will go "duh" but I am not familiar with the abbreviation.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

You just need to dig a hole in the sand or soil big enough for a bucket or other container to fit in, put a large plastic transparent or semi-transparent bag over the hole and bucket, punch a small hole in the middle of the bag, and place a stone with enough mass to bend the plastic bag into the bucket. Put ocean water, or even dirty water around the bag/bucket but under the bag, and let the Sun do it's work, and you will have ample supplies of water.


I think you are seriously underestimating how much water you need. You need enough to produce the "ample food" you discuss, and to drink, and for sanitation. I know the technique of which you speak, but it would take some awfully big plastic sheets to make enough to support a family and their food plot dont you think?


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
You don't even need A/C/ or heaters. Partial underground, or totally underground homes maintain a temperature around 65-70 degrees or so all year around. These houses are also impervious to hurricanes, forest fires, and most natural disasters.


I actually do applaud you thinking on green housing. But consider what our landscapes would look like if all the people who lived in cities had to go out and build themselves an underground house? Consider also that there are reasons in some places not to build underground.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
As for Earth's resources, they can be recycled, if you have the knowledge.


Recycling is expensive too. It requires energy.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
If a farmer doesn't understand how the land works he can consume all the nutrients in the soil that his harvest needs, but with proper knowledge and know-how you can reuse the same farm land, over, and over, and over, for years and produce food harvest.


Yes, but some land isnt naturally arable. In many places, the only way food is being produced on that land is because of some pretty high tech intervention.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Too many environmentalists wackos would like to see peope die just so their messed up dream world can exist the way they think it should, but they are nothing more than wackos.


Who here wants to kill people off to lower the population? What is wrong with just having fewer babies? Not one, but two on average per family? And letting infertile people stay infertile. And between the naturally infertile and those who want one or no kids, letting the population come down enough that people can maintain a decent quality of life with less overcrowding? How is that evil?


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
However, it is true that we will still need oil, even if all used plastic, rubber ect is recycled, but the increase in recycling will help greatly reduce the burden on oil production, and sooner or later one of the alternative energy sources will be greatly improved to the point that one, or more alternative sources could in time replace oil.


Recycling requires energy. It generally consumes more energy to recycle than to create new products. Hence the scarcity of companies that recycle.



Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Also, most of the increase of the population in the world comes from third world countries, and in most of those countries you won't be able to get them to stop having children, so all that a One Child Policy, and other types of population control will do is bring the west closer to transforming into Communist Chinese states.


I would not advocate a one child policy. I would advocate trying to get it closer to a 2 child family max. I would advocate strong social pressure and informational campaigns coupled with greater promotion of birth control to make people want to comply willingly. I would not advocate forced compliance. I would not want to see what happened in China happen here. And I think the third world could easily be brought in to the fold. They wanted birth control. It was the US religious right that began to stop funding to help provide it to the poor there. Not the third world people themselves.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join