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.


Overpopulation Makes No Sense!

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:13 PM
reply to post by scraze

wow .63%.. its getting up there

I stand corrected

Heres something to think about

The more progressive China gets, the restrictions lessen over time, and this population limiter or whatever it is, get loosened or dropped entirely - that would prob. or most def. raise the rate as well

You are correct in stating it is a very hard % to guesstimate, but I just think if you cant wrap your mind around exponential expansion of something, then you need to think again

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:20 PM

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Mindmelding

Sorry, but saying that ponerology is the root of evil, seems like a cop-out. It's a big chunk, but not the whole pie.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by unityemissions]

I can agree with that to a degree. It's just part of a larger dynamic, as my post hinted at. However it is a stable dynamic imo. You will always deal with ponerology when you have hierarchy and competition in human social systems.

Of course, you have to add other factors, like general apathy and ignorance of the broader population, education system efficiency and so on.

I can sort of meet you half way, because what I meant to say was not that ponerology was at the root of evil, more that evil, as a negative energy or lack of energy, as an emotional disconnection, as entropy, was at the root of ponerology.

I do believe there are absolutes though. I'm not a subjectivist or a relativist, I do think that with honesty and focus a human being can see universal truth. Whether I am right about my interpretation of said absolutes is debateable of course.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:22 PM
This is all when and good for NOW, But what happens when the world's populaition doubles triples and so forth THEN we are going to see big problems.

Not all of the land is hospitable and not all land can be used to grow foods hence the reason people are crammed into places that tend to be easier to survive in.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by GreenBicMan

Point taken.. I guess you place accent on the rule of 72 because a lot of people do not seem to grasp exponential growth and it provides an easy way to do. Pardon me if I came off a bit harsh, throwing logarithms and powers around as if all of us use them daily. So here goes, a story about growth, without logarithms.

When seen in a larger scale, the population growth rate has almost always been above 0.0% since 0 AD. In the dark ages and the earlier centuries were brief moments of a declining population; all other times the growth rate was between 0.0% and 0.5% - until the industrial revolution came along. Right around the 1900's was the first time since at least 2000 years that the barrier of 0.5% (doubling time 138.9 year) was crossed, and mere decades later the barrier of 1.0% (doubling time 69.66 year) was crossed. This increase of growth rate meant that individuals now witnessed a doubling or more of the entire world-population within their life-span, for the first time in known history.

The growth rate continued to rise untill the second half of the 20th century, were it declined to the point we are at now - 1.2% in 2008, predicted to 0.5% in 2050. Bear in mind that this will be the first time in a century that we will see a rate of 0.5% - if we will indeed see it (there are more gruesome projections out there!). It would be a real struggle to get there.

As long as the growth rate stays above 1%, most of us will witness a doubling of the entire world population in their lives - it takes 69.66 years with a growth rate of 1% - and we haven't seen that since the 20th century to begin with. So we're pretty much in a new area of growth.

Bear in mind that this new area in growth is exponential to population size. With every passing year, a growth rate of 1% will mean more people than the previous 1% - and we have to keep up with production of food, shelter, education, etc.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:53 PM
reply to post by scraze

Nice post once more

True, many are unfamiliar with the maths involved

But when you just state the facts with #'s associated, the picture becomes more clear

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:14 PM
To be factored in is the fact that we now have widespread reliable birth control method information and pharmaceuticals. Something only developed and disseminated worldwide over the last few decades.

Add to that increased competition for food, water, arable land, means of distribution.

With a chronic economic downturn already happening almost everywhere, will governments and mass populations respond, willingly and not, to restricting pregnancies and the number of children per family, as China has?

Is it conceivable we can see negative growth in the near future?


posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:16 PM
reply to post by mmiichael

Yes, as scraze correctly stated we are most likely .ing lower than 1.2% in the future, im sure everything you just listed is/was discounted into those numbers.. good eye though

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:25 PM
An easier way to think about this for some might be

Lets say you had 6 BILLION DOLLARS IN THE BANK (equal to population)

Growing at lets just say 1% INTEREST EVERY YEAR..

It would take approx 72 years to double (using the rule of 72), so you would have 12 BILLION DOLLARS

I think that may clear things up for the few that might have trouble with the concept

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:56 PM
reply to post by GreenBicMan

I've actually looked up the law of 72 and there's nothing related to it regarding population growth. It's based on money value and retirement plans.

There's no such thing as a population law. The world grows with the times and conditions it is in. By 2050 the projected population is said to be at 10 billion.

So what are you saying the population will be by 2050?

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by bobbylove321


It took me about 2 seconds



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:01 PM
reply to post by GreenBicMan

There's nothing to debunk. You are talking about the population pass the year 2100, and you are underestimating technology.

If we are not colonizing space by 2100, then humans must have become extinct.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:02 PM
reply to post by bobbylove321

And by 2069 I am calling 12 billion, if you read my post on page #2 where I outlined the entire thing

So by 2050.. I dont know 10-11 billion..

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:04 PM
reply to post by bobbylove321

Interesting theory...

Colonizing space?

Maybe space vacations for the rich...

But putting domes on planets for environmental needs for human sustainment? I dont know man..

Either way, your thread is pretty bunk, sorry to say

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:05 PM
reply to post by Reading

You are looking way into the future. This is like me saying, "Hey man I'm really worried about the year 2250 because a comet might hit earth."

Technology by then would have either made us truly immortal, robots, or even semi-gods.

Never underestimate geniuses born every second.

It was on the news the other day that a 16 year old Iraqi boy solved a math equation that had stomped experts and scientists for over 300 years.

Geniuses come when the time comes, so stop worrying about the problems, and start thinking about how to live in a beautiful and peaceful world.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by bobbylove321]

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by GreenBicMan

Space traveling for the rich by year 2100? Now I really know you're confused.

20 years ago, ONLY the government was allowed to have "super" computers and they were as large as a house. Today, almost a third of the world has a computer in their household, and they are getting faster and smaller.

So for you to say space travel would be for the rich, you are thinking about it from our timeline, which is were you're wrong.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by bobbylove321

Actually not to undertake from what that brilliant kid did, but that proof has been solved many times before..

But I know what you are getting to

Technology also grows at an exponential rate

You know the guy that founded INTEL?

You should read up about him, now he is a genius!

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by bobbylove321

I also find it quite amusing that in your OP you mentioned nothing about colonizing space, after your population theory on earth has been totally debunked..

This thread is pretty weak man, no offense

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:11 PM
reply to post by GreenBicMan

Exactly. I know what you're saying, and I agree with you ONLY if we were assuming that we were living in that timeline NOW.

Technology grows by about 25%-50% every year, so 3 years from now the computers coming out would not even be close to where they are now. I was reading somewhere that a Japanese futurist expert said by 2011 a single household computer will surpass the entire human race's combined IQ and brains.

The computers of the future will fix our problems. They can calculate math incredibly fast, and so they can see all the possible outcomes. Humans make errors, computers don't.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by GreenBicMan

In my original post, I didn't need to mention space because I'm talking about the "over population" problem now, and not in a 100 years.

We are not to worry what happens in a 100 years. We first need to fix this society we live in by throwing all the psychopath rich people that control everything in prison, then and only then will the solutions all come out.

Who knows how much technology they've been keeping secret.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:15 PM
reply to post by bobbylove321

I think that will be true over time as well..

I believe we already have nano-computing or organic computers of some sort dont we?

Not that I want to get into all that, but my only point is that overpopulation of this earth will be a problem, not only at 1.2% growth but .5, .4, .3, .2, .1 % as well over an extended time period (yes, assuming we are not living on the moon, or have aliens as our friends etc..)

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in