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.

 

Overpopulation Makes No Sense!

page: 4
70
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

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


I disagree that Earth is not overpopulated. Each man, woman, and child uses a vast amount of land and fresh water. We consume a lot of resources. We produce a lot of waste. Earth is getting trashed. You could say its a problem of us being irresponsible to Earth and we need to clean up our act by being more efficient, but its equally true that we are simply overpopulated.




posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


When you die the land and water you "consumed" will still be in the system.

See how this works?



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bobbylove321
 


You of course presume every inch of the earth is habitable. Siberia, the Sahara, and the Australian interior are all broad expanses of land, and all nearly uninhabited. Why? because these regions simply aren't capable of supporting humans in any great numbers. We're an innovative little primate, but even we are still stuck to a few basics like you know, food, water, and moderate temperatures. You might as well be saying hte world can't be overpopulated because of all the uninhabited seafloor.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bobbylove321
 


Yes, geniuses are born every second, and brilliant theories are being developed constantly, hypotheses being confirmed until we gain more knowledge. Their reports get published, maybe quoted in a few newspaper, and then becomes literature for the next report. Politicians usually have advisory organs to help them, and those are the ones that read the reports to decide what the best next political step would be. But even when politicians decide to listen to those organs, it does not incline them to follow their advise. For example, advises from the WHO about alcohol vs illegal substances have been ignored world-wide, even though most politic advisory organs agreed with WHO's research. No matter how many geniuses conclude that the WHO is correct, the political world will not be influenced on this subject. Imagine how a growing population also means a growing economy - everyone who could benefit from a growing economy might want to lobby for a growing population as well.

Secondly, one of the areas that does follow the newest scientific results quite closely is the medical area. More and more diseases are either prevented or slowed down. There are still a lot of areas where doctors are completely outnumbered, and if those areas were to improve, a lot of lives would be saved - and added to the local population. I'd expect Africa to be one of those areas - Africa already has an staggering growth rate above 2.5%, but as advances are made in the treatment of HIV and the external support to deliver those treatments, we might expect the growth rate to pick up. Medical progress is therefore a factor that could increase the growth rate. A related article on significant population growth despite declining population fertility and a datasheet of countries and their correspondent population growth rates in 2004. Note that for the several dozen of countries with a growth rate above 2.6%, the population doubles every 20 years - and with advances in technology you might expect this growth rate to be sustained at the least.

About your claim that we'll be living in space by 2100 - it has been 40 year since we got on the moon, yet flights in space are still incredibly expensive and we have not been able to land a human anywhere else. Are you suggesting in the next 90 years we'll be able to build immense spacecrafts in which people will be willing to live and/or manage to build something on the moon or a planet - also in which people would be willing to live? I don't think it's absolutely impossible, but I do suppose it's highly unlikely - 90 years really isn't that much. Back in the 1950's people thought we would have flying cars, personal jetpacks -etc. by the year 2000. Then again, I don't know what would happen if someone develops a warp-drive.. Maybe people would want to be shipped off to "a new world" again.

I guess we will just have to see what happens - whether politicians will listen to geniuses, whether we can finally clean up as much waste as we produce, whether we will ever drop below the 1% growth rate for real .. If it does, I might be able to subscribe to your optimistic view as well ;]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Actually, those places are uninhabitable right now due to technological limits. In a few decades we will be able to live anywhere we want to. We are only limited because the right tool or solution has not been invented yet. If overpopulation ever becomes a real problem then a solution that is humane will come into existence a short time after.

That is what Humans do, when there is a problem we innovate.



[edit on 31-5-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
We could terraform the sahara into a forest now. We have the technology. Only politics and monetary limitations prevent us from doing so. It would of course take time for the process to be completed, but it's perfectly possible and the biological incremental process is understood.

The problem is not the biosphere. The problem is not technology. The problem is us, as a species, not getting our act together, because of the wrench we have in our social mechanics.

Which gets back to ponerology. I'm a broken record, I know.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bobbylove321
 


i heard somewhere, not sure where ,you
could put every person in the world in the
state of Texas and have 1 yd 4 wys between.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


That could be true.. texas is a big land mass

could you imagine the conflict though?

LOL!!!!



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding
We could terraform the sahara into a forest now. We have the technology. Only politics and monetary limitations prevent us from doing so. It would of course take time for the process to be completed, but it's perfectly possible and the biological incremental process is understood.


I could be wrong, but from what I've read converting the Sahara now is a fantasy. It has to do with the salt levels in the soil.

But it was once possible.


Mike



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Some insights into salt and soil... Link is a pdf file.

Do note that I am not saying it is easy, it's not. The problem is when things are hard instead of discussing the technical aspects we, as a species, automatically go into discussions about money. Not actual real resource economy, but make believe monetary limitations. My experience tells me the threshold for what the make believe monetary economy deems possible is far lower than what the actual resource economy, humans and goods, could do if removed of the debt burden which is the money systems born out of fractional reserve banking.

Just saying...



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I can understand where you're coming from with the information you have and the perspective you are looking at it with.

Maybe the world isn't over populated but more the way the people are living.
I know this is something most people don't care about , but with the way that we live our lives and build or external material needs we are forcing the ones who truly own the lands out of their natural environment, the animals.
We live a over consumed life style, we are like a child opening gifts on a birthday ripping the paper off everything leave it laying every where then when we are done with the shiny new toy leave it and go on to the next,not thinking of what it will do when left there.
People either don't see what they are doing or don't care.
The world wouldn't seem too "over populated" if we lived a more discreet reserved way of life and tried to keep things as low impact as possible.
There are ways to live where we give back what we take, reserve what we have, and to restore where we take it from.
People are just too lazy and greedy to do it.


But I know many people could careless about animals and wild life and see earth as their own person human sanctuary and the life of animals doesn't really mean anything to them as long as they have their fancy high rise condo to live it.

Most people figure to deal with this "little" problem, just have controlled killings of the deer and animals alike to make more room for us.

Some people care about these things, and some people don't and those who don't care probably won't ever care.
I know I can't make anyone care about the wild life as it takes a certain kind of person to be able to care about "lower" life forms.


And all this talk of "The NWO wants to depopulate" well they should start with themselves .It's them and their Ancestors who got us where we are and they're the ones who got greedy and completely threw the idea of low impact living out of the window when they decided to come to the oh so great Americas, after they were bored with all the things their own country could offer.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I agree with the OPs stand on this subject. I read somewhere that if the Earth's resources were evenly distributed it could comfortably house over 40 billion of us.

If there was no war imagine what we could do. Just a fraction of the world's military budget would be enough to tackle the problems of food and water scarcity by building sufficient numbers of desalination plants and by re-greening large swathes of currently infertile land.

S&F



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I agree 100% with the OP on this matter. We have enough land and food and water. The problem lies with distribution and Governments. The US alone could feed 2/3 of the worlds population. Due to the quest for the almighty dollar, alot of this food rots in silo's.

Food that does make it to the intended populace gets robbed by warring factions. I have been involved with a few projects to feed the hungry over seas. The amount of red tape and BS that goes on is staggering.

I truly believe the PTB want to convince people of this BS, so they can get the population down to a more controllable size. What was the magic number? 250 million I believe.

Im sorry I don't buy into it.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
It's not so much the number on people present on earth or food-production.
The biggest problem with a population size like ours is the incredibly high number of people who engage in actions that result in the destruction of our ecosystem.
It's about the increasing waste products that our society produces and of course,
a non sustainable way of living. One example: the energy needed to produce energy (electricity) is in most cases higher than what gets into the system. You don't need to be very smart to figure out that this can't last forever.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Are you kidding me? This planet is extremely overpopulated. In fact, it's so populated it threatens our very future when it comes to food and water sources.

What an obscene thread.

NYC isn't crowded at all either by the way, you're crazy if you think it's full of people!






posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
You right on the money Bobbylove.
The Earth can sustain many more people as long as the cities are designed well.

Let take a look at NYC. i Lived on Manhattan for a year. There is some 2 million inhabitants for a few square miles. Transport is no problem, Busses, taxi’s and subways move the people just fine. During work hours another 8-10 Million people enter the city and still no problem.

Remember one thing we still trying to use early 1900 City design layouts –we can only do so much with that. If you search the net –you’ll find some of the Futuristic city designs –they great.

As for food –Forget going underground, No need to. Hydro ponds produce some 60-70% of U.S Vegetables. They use much less water than soil and have a much better quality-And no you don’t have to load the water with chemicals. Natural sustenance similar to sand effect is just fine. These can be placed on the rockiest of soils. Man you can place these suckers in the middle of the desert. If you really needed more space you could use lights and stack these up into a 20 story building style. (pipe water in-Duh! We do it for oil and gas. ) Harness flood water into underground reservoirs. Water is naturally stored under ground, so lets put it back there.

We have already got electric cars, at the moment its just battery life that’s the problem, within the next 5-10 years, I think many Car manufactures are going to stop producing new Gas cars. Meaning we’ll still have a high volume of gas powered vehicles for at least 20-30 more years past this date.

Nuclear power. That’s the current answer until we can find something that’s not radioactive. For now that should work.

The more people you have the bigger industry a country will need to supply those people. It all goes round in one big circle.

Here’s the reason why we will have problems in the future with “Over population” all the people in power and the ones with the money are not addressing the problem pro actively. All the doing is complaining about it. I think their solution is simple –lets just kill them off somehow and reduce the earths population. Nice going guys- another great plan for Humanity.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Excellent thread! I S&F'd it because you make great points and sometimes you really need some SANITY in this INSANE world of fake soundbites.
You make me want to consider purchasing an island somewhere in the middle of nowhere so I can try to become more self sufficient and not have a need for the govt. or the powers that be.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bobbylove321
 


This is related.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon
reply to post by bobbylove321
 


You are considering the earth as a human possession and purely from a human point of view.

Our use of energy and resources makes us well over populated. We need to consider ways to determine a good level of population and work towards it - we can't keep growing on a finite planet.


Try as we might the notion of humans hurting planet Earth is entirely fictional. Consider that 98% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct, and consider the worlds past calamities, well at least those we are aware of. There are many events in Earth’s history that make the entire history of human impact seem trivial. I know lots of attention has been paid to global warming and C02, but you need to consider that there have been single events that released more C02 in an instant than humans have in all of history. Life is so very robust that we mere humans could never extinguish it. Just as forest fire makes room for new life, so extinction open the door to diversity, new life etc.

To sacrifice humankinds future for the sake of a doomed environment is insanity friend. We must look beyond the current ecosystem to survive. The current ecosystem is crucial to our survival now, but cannot be in the future otherwise we will be bound to its fate. We must not only dominate but for lack of a better word own the means to our survival.







[edit on 31-5-2009 by Donkey_Dean]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bobbylove321
 


It makes sense if they make UFO/Flying Saucer/Faster-than-light travel know-how and technology available to the public...

Intergalactic Cabriolet, anyone??



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join