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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:12 PM
wow you guys..

im pretty sure me and that scvrn or whatever the hell his SN is cleared all this up with mathematical fact

it has nothing to do with how much land is in India, or how much you think the Illuminati is controlling your mind and televisions, or how cold it is in Canada.

or the money supply for that matter.. still not sure what that has to do with anything

this thread is bunk..


posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:13 PM
reply to post by downtown436

You are wrong, unfortunately

Member sxcrvn or whatever his SN is debunked the hell out of this.. lets quit spreading misinformation

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:24 PM
reply to post by bobbylove321

I understand that governments don't always tell the truth ( ahem ... ), and so when they predict, if current growth rates remain unchecked, human populations will reach unsustainable levels this century, we might suspect they could be lying to us, maybe to advance some other 'agenda.'

But, just look at the Earth's human population in terms of the last 10,000 years -

Obviously it's 'going through the roof' ...

Anybody who thinks this curve doesn't mean big trouble eventually, IMHO, they are just not being realistic ...

Granted, technology can offer some relief, but eventually our planet's population will hit a level which is no longer sustainable ...

Future Global Population Growth

Anyone who examines world population growth over the past two centuries certainly must be astounded, and quite possibly alarmed. The global population reached one billion in 1804. In 1927, some 123 years later, it passed two billion. Sixty years later, in 1987, the world population was five billion, and 12 years later, in October 1999, it is estimated to have passed six billion. Small wonder that many are concerned about what this bodes for our future. Due to the momentum represented by steeply pyramidal age distributions, population growth surely will continue for one to several generations. Most of that growth will occur in developing nations. An eventual world population of 8-12 billion is expected by the end of the century. But estimates change frequently.

Source : University of Michigan

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:27 PM
reply to post by visible_villain

yes, the power of exponential expansion is a powerful one..

perhaps this layman's chart will put this thread where it belongs, at the bottom of the barrel

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:34 PM
reply to post by GreenBicMan

You said :
perhaps this ... will put this thread where it belongs, at the bottom of the barrel

Well, with already 33 flags and counting, this thread clearly belongs on the front page ...

What that means regarding the 'grand traditions of ATS' remains to be seen ...

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:35 PM
It's impossible to sustain current population levels because oil and gas is needed to grow most foods using modern techniques... and oil and gas are LIMITED RESOURCES.

"To achieve a sustainable economy and avert disaster, the United States must reduce its population by at least one-third..."

[edit on 31-5-2009 by kadugen]

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:46 PM
I agree,we have a lot of land in the US that is untouched,all it needs is the infrastructure.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:50 PM
reply to post by kadugen

lol oil and gas are NOT limited resources according to some members.. but dont get me started on that nonsense as well..

listen guys.. until we go negative into population growth.. the rule of 72 owns this thread.. lets just let it die

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:51 PM
reply to post by visible_villain

It doesnt though..



ahh.. whatever.. im done on this thread.. cant say I didnt try

To each their own from here..

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:13 AM
We need population reduction. We are destroying this planet and its other inhabitance. The Oceans are beginning to die, animals going exstinct and thousand dying everyday due to mal nutrition. Could we support more people yes but at what price and for how long. At some point the population growth has to end. Why not now verses when there in 10 or 20 billion. If we had less people all of our descendence could have a better life syle. The way were going we will all soon be living like third world countires. Nothing drastic has to be done just education like they did in the US.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:15 AM
Yes you are very right, it is a fallacy to some extent. But all this land isn't all habitable, or capable of using to grow food. We do have superior agriculture technology and what not compared to most countries.
Just think about if Africa modernized their agriculture and started trading, that would solve the food problem they have!
I think overpopulation will become a problem in the future, but I do not think it is yet. Again The Powers That Be are just trying to make us believe we're all doomed so they can keep control through fear.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:44 AM
The world has only 3 % of its water of which is fresh drinkable water..
Of that 3 % we have access to only 0.1% the populations around the world are running out of water very quickly..

Is the world over populated? very much so..

Its so easy for the rich to think everything is O.K

Have a look at the fish population in our oceans..

Our current world population is not sustainable..

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:07 AM
From beyond the grave, millions and millions of dead Irish, Scots, Indians, Bengali, Ukrainians, Russians, god knows how many people from all around the world and all throughout history, are applauding this thread.

The only people who really deserve to be wiped out are the mad men in power. I would have said 'in control' but look at the world and tell me it's under control.

Even oil can be manufactured with existing technology. If you have the energy to do it from wind, solar, and nuclear fission, it's very sustainable. With human, humane, rational, just leadership, as a species we can accomplish anything.

Something like 1/5th of the Nazi war machine ran on hemp gasoline, and hemp farming builds up rather than depletes the soil.

Fresh water is a matter of building dedicated nuclear desalination plants.

Also, we need to reign in the very wasteful uses of fresh water. Excessive/wasteful agricultural practices for one. Tons of fresh water is wasted by industry, mostly for cooling.

I think even extreme engineering solutions to fresh water are very possible. You could dig channels from the sea, and use filtering through bulk materials, the sun, and possibly pumping stations and more conventional means as well, to create huge quantities of fresh water.

The only thing that is not sustainable is the leadership of the so-called globalists.

Originally posted by GreenBicMan

ahh.. whatever.. im done on this thread.. cant say I didnt try

Wah wah wah, thank you, goodbye.

If you want to deny ignorance, next time read what people have to say and stop and really think about it instead of spamming.

I'm sick of people spamming threads here in an attempt to drag them down. I wish people would make their points, have their say, and then let other people speak/write. Or start their own thread if they have a ton to say.

And it's not like there is any shortage of threads here for discussing the extremely foolish and dangerous idea that the Earth is overpopulated. The overpopulation side of the debate has more than had their say.

It is sick how popular the idea has become, and I applaud everyone in this thread who is trying to wake people up to the truth. We may yet avert the murder of billions.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by 11andrew34]

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:10 AM
More people means more space needed to provide resources to those people. More farm land, quicker yields, narrowing the balance.

Even food surpluses would not be enough to handle ecological disasters.

I mean, you can't just bust out your calculator and stuff a human being into every nook and cranny. You have to take into account, the size of the economies and growth/production size needed to sustain it.

It's not a matter of physical space that they came to the conclusion that the world is becoming overpopulated, It's a matter of logistics as well.

And at the rate it is increasing , our governmental, economical and resource gathering systems can not keep up IMHO

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:21 AM
College campuses ban trays at the all you can eat dining halls; the result is 30-50% less wasted food, and a savings of hundreds of thousands of gallons of water per year per school:

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:25 AM

Originally posted by GreenBicMan

listen guys.. until we go negative into population growth.. the rule of 72 owns this thread.. lets just let it die

The Rule of 72 only works with predictable growth rates.

Human activities have unpredictable variables unlike a bank's fixed interest rate.

If there's zero population growth 72/0 can have different answers
depending on whether you use simple arithmetic, algebra, calculus, non-standard analysis, distribution theory, etc.

A glib shortcut rule taught in school courses.

It didn't work for population growth at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It may not work at the the end of it.


posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:28 AM
We should ask for volunteers to go colonize other planets. Isn't that what is supposed to happen?
I mean in a sense that's what our ancestors did, that's what brave explorers did, we've gotten too soft...

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:43 AM
as others have stated, the food source required to sustain our current population, much less the future population is vast and steadily growing rather than being modernized to be more efficient. Any land that is not totally uninhabited, a park, or a city, will soon be the next farmland. It has to happen. The planet is by no means overpopulated but it is unsustainable. There is no way we can keep more than 10 billion people on this planet at one time. Its not doable. Think of it. Most people on earth are still not using officially tallied resources; now add another billion and there you go... more starving people.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Darkpraetorian
We should ask for volunteers to go colonize other planets. Isn't that what is supposed to happen?
I mean in a sense that's what our ancestors did, that's what brave explorers did, we've gotten too soft...

Traveling by boat over the ocean to a different continent is different from interplanetary travel.

Going to the Moon or Mars with a 100 people, setting up a colony with a compound, artificial atmosphere, food supplies, etc. - would cost more than feeding millions for the rest of their lives.

The quality of life would be about the same as living in a maximum security prison. Antarctica is more doable and infinitely cheaper. I'm sure at least a hundred people live there now.

If you're tough and brave try it.


posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:50 AM
BBC: India's food going to waste:

highlights: 20% of India's grain lost to rats and only 7% (2001 data) of India's food is processed (reduces waste) compared to 45% in the Philippines.

Annual food waste in India may be valued at 580 billion RP, which is currently 12.3 billion dollars:

On top of this, farming in India is still largely done with primitive methods(i.e. someone with a cow and a plow). They have a lot of room for improvement still.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in