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.

 

The word OVERPOPULATION is a conspiracy

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Everytime I hear this term mentioned with balance in nature it makes me cringe.

If nature seeks a balance then we couldn't overpopulate the planet. Nature would never allow us to reach close to 7 billion people in the world if it couldn't handle it.

So the earth is not overpopulated.

We have the technology and science to handle over 6 billion people and probably more.

The problem is Governments. Governments and some private companies classify and hide technology and science from the public in the name of finding a new weapon to give them an advantage in war.

You also have technologies held up by companies donationg to Governments and then the Government holding up the technology from getting to the public.

I have seen concept cars for years that run on new green technology and everytime I see them there's a politician saying this technology can be on the street 10 to 20 years from now.

We could have been making this transition years ago with electric cars, solar powered cars, air pressure cars, sugar cane cars, fuel cell cars and more. It doesn't need to be 100% efficient and ready to make a transition because technology will increase over time.

These things are held up by Governments who get money from oil companies or automobile companies to keep these things off the street and we just get another promise from a politician.

What bothers me about this is, these same people who think they are elite, will use this as an excuse to kill billions of people.The planet will also began to respond because we are not using the technology and science available to us to advance as a species and become more planetary.




posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Hypothetically,

Suppose there was a 5-year period that had an above average rainy season and it caused above average plant growth for those years. The population of plant eating animals in this area exploded to twice the normal numbers because of the extra food available.

Would you call this overpopulation?

I would argue that the extra food available (plants, above) parallels the extra food available to humans today, brought about by the use of oil and gas within the last century. www.fromthewilderness.com...

Eventually the rainy season ends and the large populations experience a shortage of food...



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by kadugen
 


It would also result in a similar surge in predators eating those animals.

You see, there are three major population checks in nature. First is food and water supply. You'll notice that even humans tend to not live in places where there is little food and water, such as the Gobi Desert, or the seafloor - There's lots of real estate, but most of it is too expensive four our wallet, so to speak. A population that grows beyond the means of its environment will eventually crash down to a much smaller population through starvation, if through no other means.

Second is disease. A large population creates lots of vectors for disease, and allows for incubation of new ones. The larger and denser a population is, the greater the outbreaks will be. This is the logic behind introducing the myxomatosis to alien rabbit populations - It doesn't exterminate them, but it does make a lot of gaps and steadies the population size to a manageable level.

Third is predation. A prosperous year for prey animals results in a prosperous year for predators. The following year the predator's young will do their part in reducing the levels of the booming prey animals. When predators are removed from the picture, a prey species will almost always grow beyond the bounds of its environment, and will become more susceptible to disease both due to larger, denser populations, and the fact sick individuals are not eaten before they can spread their disease.

We have treatments against the most common human diseases. We have no predators (Are there tigers in your neighborhood?) . So we end up restricted by the first one, environmental support ability. We're already crowding on the best land for human habitation. Expanding past that results in exponentially poorer territory for humans. Our technology can only stretch so far, for so many people, and in many cases actually worsens our potential environments - even "green" technologies rely on other technologies that aren't even close.

if we were to get every nation on earth to use sustainable agricultural and water management processes, we could likely squeeze in another four or five billion people and still have a little room to breathe comfortably. But... That's not going to happen. There's a lot of waste. A lot. Because it saves money in the short run. When the wast is taken into consideration with everything else, what we have is an environment that is shrinking while hte population is growing.

It's going to crash eventually. I can't predict when, just that it will happen. We're not above natural laws, no matter how much we like to pretend.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


You need to adopt a holistic approach - you can't see the woods for the tree's.

I am well aware of the controllers program for depopulation and am totally opposed to it. On the other hand - population control makes perfect sense in light of our limited resources - but unlimited capacity to breed.

We need to chose a target population and regulate it. It can be done with education, birth control and financial incentives.

While we are not 'overpopulated' yet - I still don't think we need a population of 6 billion - we could function far better with much less.

The problem is the degradation of land, water and air that comes with our overuse of resources. The population density in Africa where people are starving really isn't a long term issue- as some say 'nature is taking care of it'. Personally I would rather people didn't have children born into poverty and starvation - but those against population control would rather see people starve apparently.

The main problem area's are western countries where we simply consume and pollute too much - demand for energy is very high and we flatten millions of square miles to plant grain and to hell with the natural ecosystem that was there first.

EDIT: What really pisses me off most about posters like this - is they don't seem to even CONSIDER the natural world. Don't you ever go camping or fishing or whatever? How can you just talk about people and never even talk about how you can't drive anywhere without seeing people - or how you can drive for miles and miles and all you see are wheat, corn and other crops - where did all the animals who lived there before go? Well - 99% of them are dead.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by Amagnon]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Exactly my point.

We casustain 6 billion people and probably alot more. We have the science and technology to do so.

This is what crooked Governments do. They create a problem then ask for billions to fix the problems they created.

Green technology vehicles could have been on the streets. I have been seeing concept cars and promises by politicians for years. What will happen is companies will pay off politicians to put in place rules and regulations to protect the industry where there making alot of money.

So if oil companies don't want competition from green technology vehicles, they just pay off these crooked politicians to make sure the technology never reaches the public.

Alot of technology is held up and classified in the name of National Security. This just means they want to try and use the science and technology as a weapon.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Your post is an example of dangerous and deluded thinking that I see coming from some circles. That we are somehow seperate from the natural world.

Again, if you would have read my post you would have seen that we can live our lives and sustain the planet through technology and science. The problem is some people see humans as the problem and that's just deluded thinking.

We don't have to live in tree houses and use one sheet of toilet paper in order to be one with nature.

Population control is just a recipe for disaster. It's not natural and this junk is coming from people who claim they love nature.

Population control will just be used to control people's lives and kill a bunch of people in the name of saving the planet. This is a very sick and deluded outlook and should be opposed.

It has nothing to do with population control but greedy governments.

For instance, Palestine got billions of dollars and yet there people still live like it's 2,000 B.C. Arafat's wife would take shopping trips to France while the people live in poverty.

Look at Kim Jong-Il. His people starve while he build his nuclear arsenal in order to secure his lust for power.

In America, we have politicians wasting and spending trillions of dollars and they constantly talk about poverty, health care and energy. These things could have been fixed if it wasn't for greedy and crooked politicians who create the problem.

The problem is Governments not people. If people had access to the science and technology we could handle population growth easily.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join