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: 9
70
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Oh, we know the bloodlines and we even know the social circle, it's not like it's a total mystery. But we have to stop short of the actual people behind the curtain, because there are several candidates, and nobody wants a witchhunt.

Many people born in elitist circles lead miserable lonely lives and are innocent of any wrong doing while having to deal with a high number of psychos in the family album. I don't want to hurt them anymore than I want to hurt you.

At the top of the cabal are most probably european aristocrats (and possibly a couple of asian ones) helped by their extended family, a few Rothschilds possibly standing out, and probably some catholic priests. Also some saudis and other middle eastern elite would not surprise me. It is the exact power structure within this group that I don't know, but we're close enough to realise how to solve the problem, which people to stop supporting as they leech us dry.

Does this help you more? It is from the above group that the overpopulation meme is funded and widely disseminated. Any scientist or other idea disseminator with a "Sir" in front of his name, for example, should not be trusted.




posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SurvivalGearDepot
People who think overpopulation is just an evil scheme by the illuminate must not pay attention to ecology, or for that matter hunting.

Herds need to be culled, whether they are human or animal.

Take my home state of Wisconsin for example...

WI is overrun with deer. More deer results in more deer starving to death during winter due to lack of food and an ecosystem that can support the deer population.

Every year a certain number of hunting permits are issued to bring that deer population down to a manageable level. A culling of the herd.....

People will say I cannot compare deer to humans. Well yes I can, the problem is the same: Overpopulation.


So basically your whole argument is you need to kill the deer before winter does? What are you smoking?

Overpopulation in animal species is taken care by the environment. The same will happen to us should we really be overpopulating, there is no need to be proactive. Fascists, sadists, satanists and other assorted psychopaths and death picture masturbators are the ones that think there is any need for culling of humans.

Again, if you really feel that way, don't let me stand in your way. You first. Put your gun where your mouth is and lead by example.

Otherwise you're just a psycho who wants to see his fellow man die.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SurvivalGearDepot
People who think overpopulation is just an evil scheme by the illuminate must not pay attention to ecology, or for that matter hunting.

Herds need to be culled, whether they are human or animal.

Take my home state of Wisconsin for example...

WI is overrun with deer. More deer results in more deer starving to death during winter due to lack of food and an ecosystem that can support the deer population.

Every year a certain number of hunting permits are issued to bring that deer population down to a manageable level. A culling of the herd.....

People will say I cannot compare deer to humans. Well yes I can, the problem is the same: Overpopulation.



It is unfortunate we have to compare people with animals, but the same principles are involved. Too much competition for finite resources means starvation for many.

Unlike animals, we have the means to grow our own food and import it from elsewhere. What we have now is the wealthier societies, let's use Japan as an example, have the means of taking food grown for them from another region.

But the amount of arable land and the problems of movement across long distances produces the same results in the end.

Something like 1-2 billion live at near starvation levels. We either have to catch up in providing adequate sustenance for all, or limit population growth until such time as this is achievable.


Mike



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding


Again, if you really feel that way, don't let me stand in your way. You first. Put your gun where your mouth is and lead by example.



A very simply rebuttal from what seems to be a very simple mind.

Would 1 deer jumping in front of a car accomplish anything? no.

There are ways to reduce the population without wholesale slaughter of humans.

Wouldnt it be more beneficial to take you and your family out first, before taking a gun to my own head?

Using your simpleton logic, then yes it would.

Perhaps this problem is a bit too much for you to comprehend, since you obviously think with emotion rather than intellect and rationale.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobbylove321
reply to post by Amagnon
 


What you just said makes no sense, and also how is this a finite planet?

You know all the boundaries of the earth, and your putting limits on it?

Exactly, YOU are putting a limit on it.


I made no sense? You say this planet is not finite? Obviously you are using words you don't understand. The worlds land area is finite - look it up in a dictionary.

The human population may stabilize at some point, likely it won't without masses starving to death.

But there's millions of other species on this planet, the land we use can't be effectively used by them - so how much land do we think is sensible for us to use?

Do we have the right to cause other species to go extinct because we think we own the world? Are we the protectors - or the rapists of the planet? Regardless of that, we cannot survive on this planet alone, we depend on the rest of those species.

You discuss GM/GE as a way to manage finite resources, but GM'ing whatever we like is psychopathic. Our understanding is infantile, our test work laughable, yet we start modifying the system we rely on to survive?

Evolution took millions of years to produce those species, but we are going to modify them, saying we know the impact after a couple years of testing? Sheer stupidity.

You believe that scientists know what they are doing? The sum of mankinds knowledge is trivial - and certainly not enough to be using GM outside a LAB! Too late - GM plant strains are loose all over the place - and the guys doing it don't have a clue!

What kind of world we want to live in? Do we want a world covered in steel and concrete where even grass and moss struggle to find a foothold amidst our edifices to ignorance? Where poverty prevails because we have to share the resources among so many?

Would we prefer to live in a natural world, with small populations, area's devoted to science and industry, and a high standard of living because we have more resources than we need?

I know the world I would rather live in - and its not a world filled with steel and concrete.

We reproduce to ensure the survival of our species, how many people do we need to say; we pretty much got survival covered?

The worlds resources are not distributed fairly, and starvation is unnecessary - we can support the human population. We could double, triple our population or even more, and still provide food, shelter and clothing for everyone.

But that isn't the point - the point is, what kind of a world do we want to live in?

We have the power to choose - and breeding like mold just because we can isn't a sane answer.

We can control our population, organize our resources, and protect the legacy of 4 billion years. Passing a world to future generations, that is even better than the one we started with.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by Amagnon]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding

So basically your whole argument is you need to kill the deer before winter does? What are you smoking?

Overpopulation in animal species is taken care by the environment. The same will happen to us should we really be overpopulating, there is no need to be proactive. Fascists, sadists, satanists and other assorted psychopaths and death picture masturbators are the ones that think there is any need for culling of humans.


Nature is indeed taking care of it - people are starving to death. Which is kinder - prevent a birth, or have children starving to death?



Those who think controlling the human population means killing people, are either sensationalists, or just totally ignorant.

Population control means education, birth control, financial incentives - and so on and on. The only people who ever talk about culling are those who protest population control - maybe they actually believe that's what it means? If they do, then they are more ignorant than I thought possible.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by Amagnon]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
No time to look it up right now, but I remember from my studies there is a phenomenon when too many rats are packed into a cage, disturbing things happen. They start attacking each other without provocation, mothers bite of their own babies limbs, etc. Collectively they go mad.

I think we are starting to see this happening in our overcrowded cities, and it's getting worse.

Given the direction of population settlement in the 20th Century, a future with a dramatically increased world population will result in more and larger megacities than we have now. The desperate poor make up increasing percentage of many of them already.

If there is no population growth in the foreseeable future, it's at least a start on alleviating the problems we have created.


Mike



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SurvivalGearDepot

Originally posted by Mindmelding


Again, if you really feel that way, don't let me stand in your way. You first. Put your gun where your mouth is and lead by example.



A very simply rebuttal from what seems to be a very simple mind.

Would 1 deer jumping in front of a car accomplish anything? no.

There are ways to reduce the population without wholesale slaughter of humans.

Wouldnt it be more beneficial to take you and your family out first, before taking a gun to my own head?

Using your simpleton logic, then yes it would.

Perhaps this problem is a bit too much for you to comprehend, since you obviously think with emotion rather than intellect and rationale.




Everyone thinks with their emotions. This is studied and understood. There is a somatic response to emotional reactions, and this somatic response is behind rational thought. If you don't understand what I just typed, then perhaps my simpleton mind, which it is, I'm just a human, is still functioning with more information and logic than yours. The gist is you're only logical if you like being logical. Capishe?

Your first post was illogical. In my rebuttal I showed how. And yes, those arguments do annoy me, but no, I don't want you to kill yourself, I was just reacting with absurdity to absurdity.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


I wish you were right, but you're not. There are people out there who are proactive in population reduction through violence. This is one of the cornerstones of elitist conspiracies, and it's genesis is ponerology, understood as the influence of psychopaths on society (which goes far beyond serial killings).

People starve not so much because of the planet but more because of missmanagement of resources by our corrupt hierarchy based psychopathically infiltrated governmental systems. Africa starves because of financial debt. Aid from rich countries is syphoned off by a corrupt local political class, which is paid off by people close to the IMF to run the countries into the ground, and said aid ends up in swiss banks. They call it "swiss bank socialism" over there (quote is from a TED talk). Starvation and genocide in africa is provoked by the elites to secure resources for their industry much more than it is provoked by overpopulation.

Unless we consider our human failing to deal with our own ponerology a sign that we can't do better than this and deserve what is coming to us. Then perhaps a cogent argument for overpopulation could be made. As for me, I can see solutions for all the worlds problems, so I don't consider there to be too many people, only a small minority of psychos in the way of what has to be done (energy freedom through new and open source technology and agricultural renaissance).



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
OP

KEEP SPREADING THE WORD

The depopulation philosophy is completely wrong and pushed by those who wish only to keep it all to themselves and others who live in fear.

Man has before and will again feel AS IF we are approaching a place of no solution, the truth is it has never happened and never will, thing definitely need to change...

But I live in a world where asteroid mines are possible, vertical farms have already been invented and methods of providing nutrients in much smaller confines are possible.

Terra forming of this planet is just fine...

exploring other worlds is just fine too

Every Billion people produces a few Einsteins...

I am sickened by some of the responses to your thread, HOPELESS people who do not believe what is truely possible and rather KILL Human beings or wish our demise than have HOPE and make an actual effort

it's sad bro

Star and Flagged, your 100% correct.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding
People starve not so much because of the planet but more because of missmanagement of resources by our corrupt hierarchy based psychopathically infiltrated governmental systems. Africa starves because of financial debt. Aid from rich countries is syphoned off by a corrupt local political class, which is paid off by people close to the IMF to run the countries into the ground, and said aid ends up in swiss banks. They call it "swiss bank socialism" over there (quote is from a TED talk). Starvation and genocide in africa is provoked by the elites to secure resources for their industry much more than it is provoked by overpopulation.


I've heard this argument before, and for the most part agree. I'm in no way and advocate of colonialism, but when there were Westernized controlling governments the people in many now independent states at least had some benefit of integration with world economies. The more recent crop of leaders have been less sophisticated and often fall prey to what appears to vast sums of loans the IMF realize they will never find the way to repay.

Meanwhile hundreds of millions on the continent suffer trading one bad taskmaster for another.

Armed warlords and militaries with weapons and intimidation are better at seizing the reins of power than honest politicians with only ethics and reason backing them up.

Mike



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
bobbylove321,
With all due respect, I think you're missing a few key points in your argument. I do think that our planet could indeed sustain a greater number of humans, but not by way of our current lifestyles. Humans, as a whole, simply do not live in a manner conducive to balance, in terms of the environment, since we consume far more than we sustain. At our current rate of natural resource consumption, we will easily extinguish oil, fresh water (including aquifers), many species of fish (several salmon species are on the verge of disappearing forever) and even many species in the plant kingdom. We're destroying forest biodiversity at an alarming rate, we're polluting our oceans to the point of near irreversibility and we bury tons upon tons of non-recyclable, toxic material into landfills every day, further jeopardizing our fresh water supply.
Overpopulation does not depend only on the size or density of the population, but on the ratio of population to available sustainable resources, and on the means of resource use and distribution used by that population. If a given environment has a population of 10 individuals, but there is food or drinking water enough for only 9, then in a closed system where no trade is possible, that environment is overpopulated; if the population is 100 but there is enough food, shelter, and water for 200 for the indefinite future, then it is not overpopulated. Overpopulation can result from an increase in births, a decline in mortality rates due to medical advances, from an increase in immigration, or from an unsustainable biome and depletion of resources. It is possible for very sparsely-populated areas to be overpopulated, as the area in question may have a meager or non-existent capability to sustain human life (e.g. the middle of the Sahara Desert or Antarctica). In fact, here's what the United Nations reports:
* World population is currently growing by approximately 74 million people per year. If current fertility rates continued, in 2050 the total world population would be 11 billion, with 169 million people added each year. However, global fertility rates have been falling for decades, and the updated United Nations figures project that the world population will reach 9.2 billion around 2050.[7][8] This is the medium variant figure which assumes a decrease in average fertility from the present level of 2.5 down to 2.
* Almost all growth will take place in the less developed regions, where today’s 5.3 billion population of underdeveloped countries is expected to increase to 7.8 billion in 2050. By contrast, the population of the more developed regions will remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion. The world's population is expected to rise by 40% to 9.1 billion. An exception is the United States population, which is expected to increase 44% from 305 million in 2008 to 439 million in 2050.[9]
* In 2000-2005, the average world fertility was 2.65 children per woman, about half the level in 1950-1955 (5 children per woman). In the medium variant, global fertility is projected to decline further to 2.05 children per woman.
* During 2005-2050, nine countries are expected to account for half of the world’s projected population increase: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, United States of America, Ethiopia, and China, listed according to the size of their contribution to population growth.
* Global life expectancy at birth, which is estimated to have risen from 46 years in 1950-1955 to 65 years in 2000-2005, is expected to keep rising to reach 75 years in 2045-2050. In the more developed regions, the projected increase is from 75 years today to 82 years by mid-century. Among the least developed countries, where life expectancy today is just under 50 years, it is expected to be 66 years in 2045-2050.

At this rate, we will reach unsustainable levels very soon. The repercussions will be absolutely catastrophic.

rockrat



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by rockrat
 


Why do you assume that we will not find technological solutions to our problems as we always have?

I'm not even saying our behavior and population wont have some disasterous side effects before we do...

But this is the story of human civilization... it's a jagged line not a straight one, the rise of human population...

we went HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of years... up and down on the graph until we discovered fire... and cooked our food... then BOOM ... Villages

The next leap is the great one forward, off this rock entirely

we are so close between genetics and space flight and nano and bio tech that...

it seems insane to me, literally insane to think we wont solve problems like pollution and food supply and environment

Why Panic?



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Shoomoo
 


agreed you've hit the nail squarley on the head and deserve a star and a flag.

kudos to you my friend



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
Why do you assume that we will not find technological solutions to our problems as we always have?

I'm not even saying our behavior and population wont have some disasterous side effects before we do...

But this is the story of human civilization... it's a jagged line not a straight one, the rise of human population...

we went HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of years... up and down on the graph until we discovered fire... and cooked our food... then BOOM ... Villages

The next leap is the great one forward, off this rock entirely

we are so close between genetics and space flight and nano and bio tech that...

it seems insane to me, literally insane to think we wont solve problems like pollution and food supply and environment

Why Panic?


The Romans didn't panic, Neanderthal man didn't panic, the dinosaurs didn't panic. All gone.

A century ago when the population was a fraction of what it is today, there was always more unexplored and unsettled new territory where people could move to. Fossil fuels and fresh water sources were virtually untapped. Pollution was only a problem in industrial centres.

All changed as the world stayed the same size but the number of people and demands on it expanded exponentially. Things that once seemed infinite now have reached their limits.

Going to other planets works in Science Fiction. Despite our probing technologies we can barely find planets that just might be able to support our carbon-based life form withing the very narrow range of temperatures and gravity we can function in.

If we find one and given the upper limit of light speed travel it could take thousands of years to reach a potentially inhabitable planet and we don't know if there are things there that might make it impossible for us to live on them.

We have a pretty narrow range of variables we can operate in. There have been events in Earth's history that have wiped out thriving life forms that were there for millions of years.

We are discovering how science can change so many things. But believing some new scientific discovery will be able to change everything somehow is like believing in magic.


Mike



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I do agree to the point that with a combination of competent leadership, cooperation, and advanced technology, the world could sustain many times the number of people than we have now, but I don't think that it's a particularly good goal.

Is there any reason to believe that it's objectively better to have seven billion people alive than six billion? Shouldn't we focus on improving lifestyles at a constant population instead of increasing the absolute number? Population growth tends to be highest in places where having children is an advantage, which is chiefly agrarian societies, which tend to have the lowest of all standards of living.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by asmall89
 


You are correct but we are going to have to live somewhere? Where I live people are constantly moving further and further out just to have space.A drive that use to take me less than 5-min now takes 15.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Earth too crowded, the biggest space is in oneself!



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Colonization (of other planets) is out of the question. So there is no point in even mentioning it.
Also you are assuming that other planets are vacant.

We do not even have the technology today to dispose of our garbage and sewage.
Why do you think that it will somehow magically appear any time soon?

Why exactly should we continue to reproduce?
How will this make your life better?

Narcissistic people are the ones who think that they need to produce 6 or more children.
Why exactly do they think that they are so important that they need to produce so many replacements or even replace themselves at all?

Those of you who repeat the nonsense about all the unused land,,,,,,what are you thinking?
That we should pave it all over with housing developments and shopping centers?

DonnieDarko, are you advocating that North America raise food for Africa?
Don’t you think it would be better if each area of the Earth supported its own population?
What happens if North America has some severe weather problems and they only have enough of a harvest for their own people?

Jatsc, so you think that people should change the way they live to accommodate more people.
You are saying that we should forego our comfort preferences and make all kinds of sacrifices so there is room where you can have 10 kids.
We should eat less meat so there is room for more people.
What totally unrealistic, foolish thinking.

Why should we do this?
Why should we sacrifice our living habits and our food preferences for you or anyone else?

Chicken farms? Chickens, hogs and cattle are already being raised in small areas where they live every moment of their lives shoulder to shoulder. Do you think this is the right way to do this?

bobby love, you want to throw all the psychopath rich people in prison.
They have been in control since the beginning of time, and we have never been able to overpower them, so why do you think we can do it now? Airy-Fairy thinking on your part.

Andre, your should do some research on GM foods. The crops are not as productive and regular foods.
You are naive in thinking that this is a good as normal food.
How do you like eating veggies that produce and insecticide inside you?
And it may never leave. The long term effect of this sort of thing is unknown.
Since the introduction of GM foods, there has been a 400% increase in hospitalization due to food allergies. Now that is just the ones that were so bad that they had to be hospitalized.

Don’t you think that we should have all this high tech stuff in place before we increase the population?
In the meantime, wouldn’t it be wise to curb any massive increases?
About 80% of the people in the world are living in squalor
Do you think conditions will improve for them next year?
How about the year after? How about in 5 years? Maybe 10?
Who is going to do the improving for them?
.
What advantage is there to having so many people?
Name one that will improve your life.

You talk about education. Do you see this happening?
What makes you think that education will suddenly appear when there are 10 billion people on the planet?

You unlimited population growth advocate are a real crock.
I find it incredible that even semi-intelligent people can think this way.

You have the mentality of a cancer cell.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


While what you are saying is true (and I agree with many other statements made in this forum), the major problem is DISTRIBUTION. According to the World Food Report by the FAO, global agriculture (at current development status) could feed 12 billion people with 2700 calories a day!!! Currently there are about 6.6 billion people on this planet.

We wouldn't even have to cut back on our lifestyle, although due to moral reasons I think we should.

The link for the newest report:

www.fao.org...



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join