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: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   
What evidence shows overpopulation exists? Real efforts at depopulation have been created out of fears of overpopulation.

All the evidence I have found points to depopulation in industrialized nations.

These industrialized nations must have more children if the indigenous peoples in those nations are going to continue to exist.

Overpopulation is a myth. This myth is causing a frantic pursuit to lower the number of children born. This has included forced sterilizations in the Third World and China's one child policy. Because the myth of overpopulation exists many people see population control as a necessity and accept it.

Thus catastrophic depopulation will become reality if this myth is allowed to continue.



Another major concern is that decreasing the number of people in younger populations will lead to an "inverted pyramid." In this scenario the old outnumber the young. Fewer young people means less young people paying taxes. This means less assistance for the elderly. "Inverted pyramids" frequently lead to the young resenting having to pay for the elderly. This leads to the elderly being thought of as a "burden to society." In the Netherlands this has actually lead to euthanasia programs.

In 2003, in the Netherlands, 1626 cases were officially reported of euthanasia in the sense of a physician assisting the death (1.2% of all deaths).

Source: Chemistry Daily


Go Here Scroll Down and click Evalutaion

It is the website of The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport of the Netherlands.
(You will need a pdf reading program)


Medical decisions on end of life:

2005________ 2001
Abs. %*_____ Abs. %*

Euthanasia
2,325 1.7% 3,500 2.6%

Physician-assisted suicide
100 0.1% 300 0.2%

Ending of life without an explicit request of the patient
550 0.4% 950 0.7%


The UN has even expressed it's concerns about the Netherlands policies.

UN Netherlands Committee Report


(c) The Committee is seriously concerned that the new law is also applicable to minors who have reached the age of 12 years. The Committee notes that the law provides for the consent of parents or guardians of juveniles up to 16 years of age, while for those between 16 and 18 the parents' or guardian's consent may be replaced by the will of the minor, provided that the minor can appropriately assess his or her interests in the matter. The Committee considers it difficult to reconcile a reasoned decision to terminate life with the evolving and maturing capacities of minors. In view of the irreversibility of euthanasia and assisted suicide, the Committee wishes to underline its conviction that minors are in particular need of protection.


Eugenics has also taken hold in the Netherlands as indicated in the report.


6. The Committee is gravely concerned at reports that new-born handicapped infants have had their lives ended by medical personnel.



Overpopulation Myth

Population Control is Out of Control


"The latest forecasts by the United Nations show the number of people in the world shrinking by midcentury, that is, before today's young adults reach retirement age." The birthrate of Europe taken as a whole, from Ireland to Russia, is only 1.5 children per woman in her lifetime, far below the minimal replacement rate of 2.1. Latin America's is down to 2.4 and dropping fast. China's is 1.7. South Korea's is a mere 1.1. The United States is the only developed country at or above replacement rate; we're right at 2.1.


Overpopulation is a myth and is being used as an excuse to commit atrocities.


[edit on 1-4-2009 by Studious]

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Studious]

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Studious]




posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by cognoscente
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.


Sorry, had to edit your above text to fit more precisely.
You're making an assumption. One which you comfortably won't be able to prove or be disproven about in the next 100 years or possibly a lot more.

On what do you base this assumption? That it just happens to fit your view of the world and hopes for mankind lasting forever?
If we have more than enough resources in the world to feed everyone, why are people starving to death in the world?

At some point we will reach the point where we have used every last little piece of resource. Just look how fast we are chewing through forrests.
Sure at some point some nice machine will be able to produce artificial food for us, but we need to invent that kind of machinery first, and we kinda need to do it before our resources run out or there won't be anything to make those machines from.

Now... while working on those blueprints and figuring out how to make it work, there's absolutely noting wrong with reducing the speed at which we procreate at the moment.
Mankind has got to stop looking at itself as something that "has a right" or is "special".

On a second note, I have never understood those baby machines of a woman who has more than two kids... "oh... children are a gift".
What a load of crock... tell that to the kids that starve to death, spending their last weeks or months wihtout parents.

Start adopting instead...



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Who's limits are we exceeding? This scientists limits?
Who made him God?
Who do these people think they are to dictate to others something as humanly basic as procreation?
Some people have no children, some 1 or 2, some 5 or more.
It all balances out in the end.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
kind of scary they think the population has "exceeded its limits"...

if you know what i mean....



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Flighty
 


Speaking of balance, I remember reading somewhere that the weight of the earth has barely changed in hundreds of years, everything is recycled and reused, even us...



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Makes sense to me.
What you said reminded me of something else I've read too.
What comes from the Earth, stays with the Earth.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by baseball101

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

A new planet would be the best choice, and that is what the power nations are pushing to find. Mars one option, somehow we can make it populatable or livable. Maybe the same way we can live underwater we can in Marse or more drastic measure for example forcefully shifting its enviroment and so on so forth. Don't think it is gonna happen in my life time though that is the sad part



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
With the current population on Earth there are 8 people per square mile of land. That is all land, including land that no person could possibly live on.

Population controll is seriously needed. Without it, our species will be doomed to extinction as we run this planet out of natural resourses.

As to how to do this? I don't have the slightest idea. But nature has ways to balence itself out. What will happen with the amount of people on this planet growing as it does is new diseases will emerge, more deadly and horrific than those before. Outpacing all our supposed modern medicine.

Some people belive that the Earth should hold only 500,000,000 people total at all times. www.radioliberty.com...

I doubt that is a realistic number.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
The Earth is overpopulated and humans are still going through a population explosion. We are over 6.7 billion strong and growing, anyone who thinks this is not a problem has their heads in the ground. Animal populations are shrinking as a result of humans destroying their habitat and because of our over fishing and over hunting. The world cannot survive at the rate we are going. Personally I think population control is a bad idea and will fail and eventually all the stress we are putting on the planet will result in more epidemics, more shortages of food, more wars.

"Perhaps animals are smarter than men, he thought, taking only what they need to live today, leaving something for tomorrow... Maybe it is man who will eventually perish as he destroys the land and all that is offers, taking the animals down with him"

Patrick D. Smith, A Land Remembered



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
[spam removed]

[edit on 1-4-2009 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
BREAKING NEWS

Corrupt politicians greatly exceed limit!

oh no!



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Population controll is seriously needed. Without it, our species will be doomed to extinction as we run this planet out of natural resourses.


As I have stated from the evidence gathered the earth's population is actually going to shrink by mid-century.

The myth of overpopulation is convincing people that radical population control is necessary.




Any nation in light blue is either slightly above or at 2.0 TFR are just maintaining the population or are having slight increases in population.

Dark Blue nations are below 2.0 TFR and are thus decreasing in population.

The TFR of the world is decreasing.

The CIA world factbook shows it has decreased from
2000 in 2.80
2008 in 2.61

CIA World Factbook

The United Nations shows that TFR is decreasing.
2000-2005 2.65
2005-2010 2.55 (estimate)

UN World Population Prospects

(You will need a program that can read pdf. to read the UN report.)

The minimal sustainable population requires a TFR of 2.0. However this is impossible because the ratio of males to females will not be exactly 1:1 and people do die before having children. Therefore minimum TFR in the United States is estimated to be 2.1 in order to maintain the current population.

Census estimates are propped up by immigration from nations that have an increasing population.

(Please read my previous posts in this very thread on this topic to learn more.)

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Studious]

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Studious]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Studious
What evidence shows overpopulation exists? Real efforts at depopulation have been created out of fears of overpopulation.


Evidence that overpopulation exists. Migration.

Human beings did not just leave the places they initially inhabited because they were "curious" or bored. They moved because they had to. They had populated beyond the lands ability to feed all of them at their existing level of technology. We are not just now "over populating" we have been doing it all along. Only now, we have no place left to migrate to. A problem we have in the past been able to out run has finally run us into a wall.


Originally posted by Studious
All the evidence I have found points to depopulation in industrialized nations.

These industrialized nations must have more children if the indigenous peoples in those nations are going to continue to exist.


You are right that if you allow one group to lower their population, and do not take action that prevents migration of the over populaters OUT of their own overpopulated area into the area the group that is self moderating, you will end up losing the group that self moderates.

Where you are wrong is your assumption that the only logical response is that the group who is self moderating must begin to breed more. That isnt logical at all. Logic would dictate that you must either convince the other group to consciously moderate also, or force them to live with the consequences of their own lack of moderation in their breeding habits. Not allow them to migrate so that starvation accomplishes what they are not willing to do consciously.

Groups that are willing to limit their own birthrates in order to remain in balance with what their resources can support are not maladaptive. And they should not be discouraged from doing what their instincts are telling them to do, make less children. What needs to happen is for all groups to either get on that same train, or be allowed to suffer the natural consequences of overpopulation and be prevented from benefiting from the moderate behavior of other groups.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Studious
 


What evidence shows overpopulation exists? Real efforts at depopulation have been created out of fears of overpopulation.

Just go to Delhi sometime. There you will see untold thousands sleeping on the sidewalks at night. Everybody has their 'own' little piece of the sidewalk where they lay out their little towel and sleep on it for the night to rise again the next morning at daybreak to scrape together enough food to stay alive for yet another day so they can do it all again tomorrow.

Just like dogs ...

Don't believe me - go check it out for yourself ...



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Actually, affluent societies tend to have less children then non affluent. Which is why the population(without immigration) in the US is actually in decline.
In poorer countries, they can't afford medical care or bc, plus they need to children to work, so they have more.

BC isn't the answer, nature has proven over and over again that when you try to BC the population, it finds a way around it and increases it.
Affluent people have the resources to invest in children. So we have one or two and invest in them in medical care, food, and to send to college.

I kinda agree with the PP. It is not the number of people, it is the consumption of resources.
If you gave each person a square foot to stand on, we wouldnt' fill Texas. Problem is we dont' take a square foot of space. We CONSUME massive amounts of resources and space.

Teh average American uses 150 gallons of water per person per day. The next is Britain with 75 gallons per person per day. Everyone else uses 25-30 gallons in industrialized nations. We like to consume.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Not to be argumentative or anything, but the land surface of the Earth is some 57,000,000 square miles, at 8 people per square mile that would be a population of 456,000,000.

Also, isn't it relevant that the load carrying capacity of land is not equally distributed over the planet?

It seems that such demands on the theoretical limit of the Earth's population never include factors such a social forms and technology.

While I can accept that we need to limit our growth over finite resources, I can't accept that it should be based on a dry statistical concept of static capabilities and a paradigm of 'economy' based controls on populations.

Or perhaps I'm missing the point.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by baseball101
 


So how are our fearless leaders going to solve this problem?

Get rid of white men with blue eyes?



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars

While I can accept that we need to limit our growth over finite resources, I can't accept that it should be based on a dry statistical concept of static capabilities and a paradigm of 'economy' based controls on populations.


While I agree it should not be based on "dry statistics," we may disagree on what the criteria should be. The current assumption seems to be "how many we can keep alive." I think the criteria should be, "how many we can support in a comfortable and satisfying style of life while maintaining diversity within the species.

You may be able to crowd 10 people into a Volkswagen beetle, but the ride is more fun when their are 4 people in a Cadillac. Why do we only consider numbers and not quality of life and diversity within the species? I think that is an enormous waste of our higher reasoning functions not to try to arrive at a number than requires no group to become extinct simply because they are pressured out by the more technologically advanced, and ensures that we all live rather than simply survive.

Or perhaps I'm missing the point.




posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Firstly, world population is projected to peak in 2075, and secondly, with rates of obesity dramatically increasing in both rich and poor nations projections of mass famine appear to be going in the opposite direction.

Only the African sub-continent appears to be dealing with the consequences of over-population and starvation. Although Rhodesia/Zimbabwe proved that to be the cause of inept self-government as opposed to climatic or regional limitations when Africa's bread basket became Africa's basket case.

With the exception of some sub-saharan and a number of drought striken regions, Africa has some of the most fertile land in the world, they just lack the skills, infrastructure, money, expertise, and social stability to farm it.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Retseh]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

So how are our fearless leaders going to solve this problem?


The simplest way would be to legislate a "no credit" policy. Where each group was forced to live within their means. No export of excess people, and a one to one exchange of resources.

If you overpopulate, you starve. And stealing resources from other countries would no longer be permissible to "conceal" the fact that you had in fact already over populated your regions carrying capacity.

You know, kind of like what happens to individuals without a welfare system. You have more kids than you can feed, and some of them starve. People who reproduce within their means do fine. No handouts, no stealing to make up for shortages, no living on credit.

Just a simple, "this is your land, you figure out how to make it work for your people, you can trade resources fairly, but no exploitation or stealing. If you fail, your excess people starve. If you succeed, you have a nice life, now get going."

Or, an agreement among us that we pool the worlds resources and share them equally among countries so long as no country breaks the agreement as to what percentage of the worlds population they are to comprise. We could do that by figuring out what percentage each group already is, and then maintaining that same percentage just in a lower overall number. It would be fair.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join