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.


Ways To Reduce The Population To 1 Billion

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:29 AM
What we need is better and more education of people that are here and as with all societies that have advanced the population will naturally decline. The population of the United States and the UK would both be highly negative if they both stopped immigration.

Most advanced countries are already in this decline and the more education spreads and of course secularism the more the population will be reduced.

The population is only increasing among those populations that are predominantly Catholic for obvious reasons and Muslims for pretty much the same reasons.

Most educated secular human beings are not over populating at all but that might make us become extinct then all you will have are a bunch of superstitious uneducated people and of course an idiocracy.

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:50 AM
There are quite a few ways to reduce the pop. I wont say any I dont want to give anybody ideas.

For some of the ideas posted before paying people to not have children wont do anything you will still have 6 + billion now and for the next 1000 years; at the rate things are now even if half the pop did not have children for the next 100 years we would still catching to another billion.

There is enough land and food for humans to exist over 7 billion its just that people don't live in those places. The good thing is that everybody doesnt eat the same thing perhaps aside from some type of bread. The good thing is that we wont have a food shortage because in some places people eat different types of insects as well as other creatures that would make people in the US totally grossed out.

There is plenty of space in Siberia, Northern Canada, Norway, Sweden, Mongolia, Greenland, Iceland, some of the desert countries and most of Africa its just that most of the people living in theses places are natives or are from somewhere else on earth with the same climate,

The problem is that some areas around the world are populated to much while others are not and if people would just spread the heck out there would not be any problems examples China, India, the east coast of the US (over 1/3 of the pop lives there)

Actually If somebody could do something responsible we could turn the Sahara into a solar power hot spot, clean up the rest of Africa by building fixing the infrastructure of the cities and basically doing a full scale remodel of Africa it would be the best place to live it has all types of climate throughout the continent. We could fit all 6 billion people there easy.
There has to be a reason why most of the human population never left since the existence of humans

Africa and the Amazon are basically the last of the less tampered with places aside from Antarctica and some islands

There also is the question of Antarctica people could live there maybe on the parts that are close to South America, Africa and Australia or we could melt the ice if need be but that would cause Biblical size floods

[edit on 28-5-2009 by jatsc]

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:58 AM
If we could all grow our own food and learn permaculture then we can survive. There is enough agricuulture to feed the whole world. Im sick of hearing this over population bull! Mother nature is pretty intelligent. Read the Anastasia and the ringing cedars collection.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by Applesandoranges]

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 10:51 AM
This is a link to many books on the subjects you like. Please check it out, share with your friends. It is updated regularly!


posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:04 AM
How do we decide who gets to reproduce and who does not? Who makes the determination for us? What factors are involved for allowing someone to reproduce?

I believe everyone has the right to have at least one child, if they choose to.

I base that on my strong inclination to increase my personal evolutionary fitness and I have no desire to have a double standard by restricting others. I have 3 children with three different women and will probably stop with these 3.

Do we need less stupid people in the world? Of course, but that is what Darwin awards are for.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Erm no, quite simply no. Firstly desalination plants wouldn't be enough to irrigate the Sahara, even nuclear plants would struggle to produce this energy.

Across a great arc of the Eurasian steppe from Ukraine through Russia to Kazakhstan lies enough arable land to feed the world for years to come, with spare for biofuels to help plug the energy gap.
In the days of Nikita Khrushchev - a great enthusiast for the vast Sovkhoz collectives - the Soviet Union farmed 240m hectares, badly. The same territory now farms 207m hectares. These reserves of idle soil are alone enough to meet the entire global need of 30m extra hectares over the next decade, as estimated by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Strictly speaking, there is no global shortage of land. Cereal production peaked at around 740m hectares in 1981 and slid steadily for over two decades before recovering a little in the latest revival to 680m, according to the FAOThe Moscow investment bank Troika Dialog says that just 43pc of the arable land in Russia is cultivated. Crop yields in the trio of leading ex-Soviet states remain at pre-modern levels.

Yields can be doubled in Russia, and tripled in the Ukraine using modern kit and know-how. "The potential is tremendous," said Kingsmill Bond, Troika's chief strategist.

We don't need the Sahara or any other deserts but i would argue that with renewables and the nile + hydro you could probably irrigate a good proportion of it if you wished to try.

Ontop of that, where in my post did i say about killing anyone?

Drop your ignorant Utopian views, the technology isn't there yet!

Not sure but i have found that it tends to go there.
As for Utopian there is nothing Utopian about a doubling of the worlds population becasue that is exactly what happened over the last half century without food volumes often being the reason for starvation.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
And where is all the freshwater to come from? Don't you quite get that when large freshwater bodies have been used for irrigation they have dried up?

Well some have but rivers don't have to dry up when properly managed. When the profit motive is mixed in then yes, anything and everything will become overexploited purely for survival.

You look at things far to simply. Power can desalinate water but to do that you ahve to mine thousands of acres of soil to gain the Uranium, not to mention the building of the plants and in the end you still will not provide enough power to desalinate enough water to grow crops.

And those lands can with a modest investment be returned to agricultural use if just for forestry as happens when it's left too long or badly managed.

Do you have any idea how much water is needed to grow even one acre of wheat? It's shocking.

Yes, i do and that's why that is a extreme option we probably wont need for centuries to come.

My idea does not say no one will have children. It simply offers money to people to not have children and license those who can afford to bring them up.

Its ridiculous to pay people to have less children when the whole point of having children is increasing your capacity to work to land and make a modest living. The obvious way to go about things is not to create a subsidy but to create a organic sustainable farming sector that can accomodate those people that industry can find no place for. This would also be more efficient and cost effective than commercial farming.

ScienceDaily (July 13, 2007) — Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land—according to new findings which refute the long-standing assumption that organic farming methods cannot produce enough food to feed the global population.

Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods, said Ivette Perfecto, professor at U-M's School of

Natural Resources and Environment, and one the study's principal investigators. Catherine Badgley, research scientist in the Museum of Paleontology, is a co-author of the paper along with several current and former graduate and undergraduate students from U-M.

"My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that you can’t produce enough food through organic agriculture," Perfecto said.

In addition to equal or greater yields, the authors found that those yields could be accomplished using existing quantities of organic fertilizers, and without putting more farmland into production.

Obviously the government would still give benefits to those who want children but it would be a small percentage of the upbringing costs.

This doesn't make much sense then.
Why should we accept the argument that that world can not sustain the people on it when we are aware of economic systems that could sustain both without robbing anyone of wealth or current lifestyles?


new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in