It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Retseh

Only the African sub-continent appears to be dealing with the consequences of over-population and starvation.

Lets not forget that many of these people are also having their resources mined by the West and have been for 100's of years. And it is a large problem.

According to the World Health Organization, hunger is the gravest single threat to the world's public health.[3] According to Jean Ziegler (the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food for 2000 to March 2008), mortality due to malnutrition accounted for 58% of the total mortality in 2006: "In the world, approximately 62 millions people, all causes of death combined, die each year. One in twelve people worldwide are malnourished.[23] In 2006, more than 36 millions died of hunger or diseases due to deficiencies in micronutrients"[24]. The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is well-fed, one-third is under-fed and one-third is starving. [23]

Thats a big problem. We can say "sucks to be you" and keep taking their resources for ourselves, or we could come to a more humane conclusion.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Lets not forget that many of these people are also having their resources mined by the West and have been for 100's of years. And it is a large problem.

Let's also not forget that the people of those nations had better healthcare, social order, sanitation, food supplies, and general contentment while the west was "plundering" natural resources that the locals couldn't have extracted themselves anyway.

You know, I work with a young guy from Zimbabwe, he's old enough to remember white rule when he was a kid, and his comment on the unjustness of minority rule is simply "things were just so much better back then".

There seems to be a western mindset that everything in Africa is our fault, we either created the problem, or we are doing too little to rectify it.

Total self-ingratiating BS. Lay your guilt trip on someone stupid enough to believe it, Africans should be on their knees praying for a return to colonial rule.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 03:36 PM
If riches and resources would be equally divided, Earth could provide a life
of complete luxury and comfort for over 10 billion humans. The claim that
Humans have exceeded the Earth's population limit, is nothing but a vile
Luciferian lie, used to coax the minds of politicians into accepting methods
of mass human depopulation. As smaller populations are easier to control.

I thought that this was very obvious..

[edit on (1/4/09) by Wehali]

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

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.

Simply because the country someone lives in cannot support them does not mean the world cannot support them. Certain nations have natural resources and not food resources. They therefore cannot support their own populations however they are vital because of their other resources.

If these nations were required to trade their natural resources on a one to one basis:

Nations that produce necessity resources such as food which can be produced in high volume relatively cheaply would control natural resource nations.

These natural resource nations produce resources like minerals and metals which are much more expensive to obtain.

One to one exchange of resources is arbitrary and does not reflect the differences in the difficulties and cost of obtaining different resources.

This would force nations to attempt to become self sufficient. Since no nation has all the resources nor the quantity needed to support its populations quality of living all nations would suffer. No nation is truly self sufficient.

Resource deficiencies are the result of logistics problems not overpopulation. To claim that each region must fend for itself negates the fact that we all share a common bond and require resources from many areas. No nation is fully self sufficient.

For example the computer you used to type your posts almost definitely uses nickel from Norilsk in Russia. This is because Norilsk mines produce most of the world's nickel.

See the History Channel Special which covers the Norilsk mines.

History Channel's Special "Getting Out Alive: From Siberia to Suburbia Aboard a Russian Nuclear Icebreaker"

Next air date Sunday, April 05 8 am Eastern

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Studious]

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Studious]

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Retseh

Total self-ingratiating BS. Lay your guilt trip on someone stupid enough to believe it, Africans should be on their knees praying for a return to colonial rule.

Then why arent they?

Or does that one person you happened to know whose life was better in the "good old days" not speak for the many whose lives were NOT better in those "good old days?"

I am sure you could have found former slaves right after slaves were freed who would have said, "we were better off enslaved." Because it takes time for those used to servitude to learn to stand on their own two feet. But finding a few who wish things were the way they used to be says nothing about either the way it used to be itself or the majority opinion.

There have always been "favored servants" who benefited more than the mass of people from bondage. That does not mean bondage was beneficial to the majority.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by Studious

You forget I offered an alternative, more in line with your comment about the worlds resources being shared. I personally favor something more in line with that, so that people who have been edged out of the more favorable geographic regions are not penalized because they lost battles in the past.

I was just thinking of ways it could be done. And you could well be right that one for one exchange would need to be tinkered with a good deal in the other scenario. The underlying intent was to not allow the irresponsible to have the consequences of their over populating be shifted to those who were trying to live within their means.

Perhaps you could argue why you think there should be no attempt to limit the worlds population? Do you disagree that we have been overpopulating regionally all along, hence migration and wars?

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:42 PM
Nature will find a way. If the infestation of humans inhabiting this planet are in danger it will not be from governments or economies, ultimately a germ will evolve that will eliminate most if not all, despite all human efforts to stop it.

Natural extinction.... end of story.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 05:00 PM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

very interesting and logical, except the let them starve part,

However I do realize many people in third world countries have large families because of the mortality rate.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 05:02 PM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I am arguing that fears of overpopulation are creating dangerous depopulation.

Western industrialized nations fears of depopulation are unfounded. These fears have become popularized, so much so that debunkers are called deniers by many.

The overpopulation myth may lead to "inverted pyramid" demographics in which the old outnumber the young.

Atrocities such as mass sterilizations and China's one child policy are justified by overpopulation.

I fear people will continue to think overpopulation is a threat and continue to attempt to stifle population growth. This could lead to the loss of entire nationalities.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 05:06 PM
reply to post by Walkswithfish

Yes walks, or survival of the fittest or natural selection, we have been tinkering, we are lucky we are still here we almost didn't make it 60,000 years ago.

There is no other time like this, there has never been this many people on this planet.

We are overdue.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Studious

The overpopulation myth may lead to "inverted pyramid" demographics in which the old outnumber the young.

Atrocities such as mass sterilizations and China's one child policy are justified by overpopulation.

Do you think that even if we had a short term inverted pyramid because we are going from a higher birthrate to a lower one, that that would change as the birthrate stabilized? I know why governments want to keep the birthrate high, and you are right, this inverted pyramid is exactly what they fear, but the exponential growth needed to keep the broad base of a pyramid shaped economy on the bottom, simply isnt possible in ANY scenario. Sooner or later, we will have to deal with the inversion.

Why not deal with it now, while we have the resources to deal with it? Why wait until things are dire enough, and resources tight enough, that we have to deal with things in draconian fashion? People are willing, (obviously, they are already doing it) to lower the population now in places where birth control is available. No force needed. And whole nationalities will not disappear. They really wont. Once population lowers to a comfortable level, people will just as willingly respond to that and have more children. Trends arent one way streets, they can go back and forth.

The only thing that I can see that will lead to loss of diversity in populations, is if governments are allowed to continue to import labor into nations that are lowering their birthrate. Or, if we allow resources to dwindle to the point where we begin to think genocide looks like a good option. I think we should do everything in our power to avoid letting things get that desperate again.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 09:37 AM
reply to post by Maxmars

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.

Your calculations indicate total arable land mass or land that is suitable for cultivation and or living. The total I had come up with included land that no person could possibly live on.

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

In fact it is relevant. Not only is it relevant it is important to note.

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

Would that not necessitate a decrease in population needed to facilitate those 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.

Not at all what I was referring to. I was merely pointing out where we are at now. I feel our current population is over what is sustainable demand on the environment. That demand yields diminishing returns.

In nature when a species is overpopulated it naturally causes the following things to occur.

The animal quickly runs out of its food source, It will consume that resource faster than the resource can replicate. Starvation therefore occurs amongst all of the species. This runs up the food chain (if possible) A large herbivore population without an adequate and efficient predator population will die as no balance can therefore be reached. A short glut of population growth, then the inevitable starvation of the species until balance is once again restored.

This translates well into the danger humans pose overpopulated on a planet. They will consume their natural resources quickly. As a species we consume everything. Including the trees. Trees as I am sure you are aware is a carbon scrubbing mechanism for the atmosphere. Taking Carbon Dioxide out of the air and returning a clean and breathable atmosphere.

Not only do we as a species deplete trees on this planet far faster than that resource can possibly rejuvenate. We additionally introduce more carbon into the air than any other species on the planet. More carbon with less trees to clean it is not sustainable.

Studious is somewhat correct about fertility rates. This is a mechanism for population control. A natural one. But let's note the areas like Africa where the population is exploding in some areas. Now remember in history, exactly what continent are humans supposed to have originated? Wasn't that the East Africa, Nile Delta? To the Tigris and Euphrates area?

We spread out over the globe. Quite quickly for any species. I wonder what that map of Studious' would look like taken over time?

With no natural predators, (other than ourselves) and a constant mating season. Our population explodes exponentially. Generation after generation population on this planet grows faster than can possibly be sustainable for even the most rich environments. Once our species depletes an area of land enough it moves on migrating to other areas.

If human reproduction continues along at the pace it does, our planet will eventually run out of resources and the very mechanisms that govern it's continued inhabit-ability.

Starvation, disease, plagues, pandemics. All of these are in our collective futures. Once the vegetation of the environment reaches a critical level. Expand beyond the ability for the environment to rejuvenate the lost resources and it's inevitable that a species will die off due to the lack of available food, water, and air to breathe.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in