Why overpopulation is bullocks

The NWO people want you to believe the problem is there are too many people eating too much food that uses too much land and too much water.

Bull!

The problem is overconsumption and bad distribution. We could easily feed all the people in Africa if we didn't pay farmers not to grow certain crops.

If we grew more food in the cities, in gardens and with hydroponics, we would not have to use more land for farmland - we could even give some of the farmland back to nature!

The lack of water in third world countries could be solved if we used less water in our showers and toilets.

See, the NWO want to reduce population because if there's less people, they can be even richer. Sadly, they're brainwashed the environmental movement into thinking the problem is too many people eating too much food.

I mean the human biomass is but a tiny fraction of the total biomass of the world. New Jersey has 8 million people, but it still has tons of wilderness. You can fit the whole world's population into Texas.

The Central Valley of California could feed Canada or Australia. We are NOT overpopulated!

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
The lack of water in third world countries could be solved if we used less water in our showers and toilets.

While I agree that we are not overpopulated, this is just pure wrong. Let us look at the water cycle:

1) The water in my toilet began in the Pacific Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico.
2) The power of the sun made it evaporate into the air.
3) Then currents carried that water-laden air over the region where I live.
4) A drop in the temperature of the air then caused the evaporated water to condense as rain.
5) This rain then collected into lakes, streams, reservoirs, and underground aquifers.
6) Using a system of filters, pumps, and pipes, the rain water was turned into instantly available tap water at my house.

How, exactly, is my conservation of water in New Jersey going to help Africans or even help the people of Kansas?

It can't - water is a local resource and conservation only confers benefits locally.

You can't ship water to Africa because the problem in Africa isn't the lack of water. Africa's main problem it is the lack of money to fund drilling, dam building, treatment, and the lack of infrastructure to deliver water cheaply to those in need.

Conservation at home solves none of the problems of getting clean water in Africa.

Jon

This is a copy of a post I made previously regarding the issues surrounding over population and our impact on the environment.

Areas like Africa don't have population issues - there issues are social and economic. They are being systematically forced into conflicts, deprived of infrastructure and stable government.

In short the people of Africa are considered to be an obstacle in the way of the scum who control the western governments - they are trying to destroy those people using policy and force. There is plenty enough land available in Africa to fee its people, and enough water. Eternal forces are simply creating havoc in those countries with a view to keeping them poor, starving and unable to prevent their wealth from being stolen.

In many cases foreign corporations are hailed as heroes by local communities as they come in to rape the wealth of Africa and pay slave wages - heroes because they provide security and stable jobs. However, if the interests behind those corporations would leave the governments and populations alone - then those people would have been able to mine and collect that wealth for themselves - so the devils create the conditions that make them look like saints.

I don't subscribe to global warming - it is just a means of increasing taxes - even pollution itself isn't a big problem.

The hugest problems we face are the destruction of natural environments for our own use - the effect this has on the land and climate. This is RARELY even talked about, and even those who say they are enviro friendly don't seem to be aware of these critical issues;

The main threats to our environment are four fold.

1) Over fishing - many impacts, forced evolution for one
2) Deforestation - destruction of long term eco-systems
3) Agriculture - land degradation, effects on water tables and eco-systems
4) Genetically modified life forms - endless possibility for harm

Most think that fishing is fairly much under control, which is a total lie. We have the capacity to aqua farm - and we should be doing a hell of a lot more of it. Fish which we net are actually getting smaller - because the nets allow small fish to slip through, so they breed in higher numbers. We boom and bust populations, causing their prey and predators to go through the same cycles - predators alter their hunting patterns, threatening other species with extinction. Over populated prey also push other species to extinction.

Deforestation is a huge problem, old forests may never be regrown - or it may take hundreds if not thousands of years of care to replace them - along with the millions of species that rely on them.

Agriculture flattens millions upon millions of square miles - destroys the original inhabitants - causes water to flow in new ways, bringing salt to the surface - permanently destroying thousands of square miles of land. Wind erosion cuts away the top soil, allowing it to be washed into the sea - where it had taken millions of years to develop.

Genetically modified plants, god knows what happens when these get lose into nature through cross breeding - super plants that will choke out hundreds of natural species.

Pollution is somewhat of a problem - but it is tiny compared to the damage we are causing just by eating and wanting wood.

No-one wants to talk about the impact of agriculture - the damage is causes - after all, no-one wants to hear that there are just too many people - they want to cover their ears and cry out 'eugenicist!' 'anti-human!' 'killer of people!' rather than face the reality, and begin to make solid and reasonable plans to solve this most serious of all issues.

Yep the problem really is quality of life. Like the op says, in the west we eat too much, and in poor countries eat to less.

Capitalism is just a waste of time for trying to even out the world as we have seen for 60 odd years, how many people have died from starvation. The west slags of germany for the concentration camps, and they where bad, but how is it any different from poor people starving to death in africa and elsewhere.

Sorry but the world is definately overpopulated. No question.

There are too many of us.

If we'd let nature take it's course, let the weak, and those peoples/societies that can't take care of themselves due to their own ineptness, die off ... our numbers would be smaller and the species would be stronger. Not to mention the fact that we wouldn't be wallowing in our own muck .. in our own pollution.

That's the cold truth of the situation.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
The NWO people want you to believe the problem is there are too many people eating too much food that uses too much land and too much water.

Bull!

The problem is overconsumption and bad distribution. We could easily feed all the people in Africa if we didn't pay farmers not to grow certain crops.

The problem is over-population. Over consumption, mismanagement of resources and bad distribution are other problems. There was bad distribution of resources even when the world was not overpopulated.

There's really so much documented on this and the symptoms of over-population are seen all over. You should really have no problem of finding ample source material, to get a better over-view of the problem.

Look into pollution, extinction of species, global warming, depletion of natural resources (it's not just about oil), etc

Don't bother about pulling up statistics on what some agricultural expert say how many humans the wold is capable of feeding, because it's not about that. It's about the biosphere as a whole. The agricultural expert is only expert in his own domain. He knows nothing about the effect agricultural fertilizers dumped into seas and oceans have on marine life.

The world population has almost tripled since 1950, and natural resources are now declining. Go figure...

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Sorry but the world is definately overpopulated. No question.

There are too many of us.

If we'd let nature take it's course, let the weak, and those peoples/societies that can't take care of themselves due to their own ineptness, die off ... our numbers would be smaller and the species would be stronger. Not to mention the fact that we wouldn't be wallowing in our own muck .. in our own pollution.

That's the cold truth of the situation.

100% right. If you think human society can function smoothly with no predators, wars, other ways of pop control youre a blissful optimist. I wonder what percent of kids dont have fathers? Those are the ones that arent supposed to be here. Irresponsible reproducing. Thats the technical term for it. Its gonna lead to overpopulation. 1/2 of the population only knows one parent because the other parent only wanted a good time not parenthood. My point is if women wont control the bastard children they have then somebody else will. Im an adopted child and I know firsthand that theres prolly at least 1 million people out there who simply wouldnt exist if proper precautions were taken. It doesnt help that the government gives handouts to single moms only fueling their urge to get pregnant by any random guy (maury show). I like obamas science czar, he truly is thinking of the greater good of the earth and the society we live in. Imagine a world with half the people. Jobs are plentiful, towns are small and secluded. Everyone knows each others name. There are many arguments on this matter but the ones supporting the births of bastard children like me isnt a good answer. Most of the people on deathrow never knew their fathers...I could ramble about this all day. Sex after marriage isnt some stupid religious rule. Its a law followed by people in ancient days to keep track and control of it all. Most of the criminals nowadays dont have fathers thats why they do bad things cuz they got nobody to spank them. And with jail(timeout) they arent getting any better only worse. Im getting tired of explaining the GRAND scheme of it all so ill cut it short. Eventually the population will be so filled with unwanted bastard children that crime will be rampant, there wont be enough jobs because theres too many damn people not enough businesses, and so on... Does war or an alien invasion where they sacrifice people sound so bad now?

[edit on 14-7-2009 by The Answer]

Yes, over population is bull. We have the resources to provide for everybody right now. If it was all equally distributed. The problem is that it would take perfect people to distribute the good equally. The problem is that people aren't perfect.

The other problem is that if everybody has just as much as the next guy then the advancement and betterment of the human species comes to an abrupt halt.

I understand people want to feed the hungry and what not, but the cold hard truth of it all is forcing people to take care of people that are perfectly capable to do so on their own is holding all of us back.

A perfect example of this is school. The bleeding hearts whooped and hollered about some kids are failing the tests are too hard, etc. and what worked for a really long time doesn't work any more because somebody's kid can't cut it.

So for that one kid that can't cut it the rest of the class has to suffer. Prolong this and people just get stupider. Which is a threat to us all. It is an incredible stupid idea to hold back 99% of people for the 1% that can't make it and won't make it after everybody else has lowered themselves to that level to be "equal".

Then we have the problems we have now. The privileged get to go to the better schools and are shoe in's to good jobs because of who they know. Then it creates a class system.

I know I sound cruel and heartless, but its just the way it is.

Edit to add -

There is a difference between over population and uncontrolled population growth is what we have now.

We are not over populated its that we are trying to work against nature by keeping the undesirables around.

Edit to add two -

I don't mean we need to go around killing people, but we have to let nature take its course.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

What is the big bugaboo about saying that there are too many people on this earth - if not now, well for sure in the near future the way things are going?

There is sanctity in human life, but that does not mean there should be unlimited amounts of it. There is sanctity in all life forms. Common sense should tell you that there has to be a balance somewhere along the line and human life cannot just keep expanding its share of the planet.

Sooner or later that will lead to collapse - naturally. We are surely smart enough to figure out how to avoid that bit of correction, and control our presence here ourselves.

I like a bit of freedom from people every now and again anyway. Soon there will be no escape, no solitude.

So, the over-population of the earth by humans 'is bullocks' because if we fundamentally changed the way every society in the world distributes and grows food then we wouldn't have a problem?

The problem of homelessness in big cities 'is bullocks', too, because we have empty buildings to put people in.
The problem of poor education in state schools 'is bullocks', too, because we could just teach kids better.
Hell, the problem of war 'is bullocks', too, because people can just get on if you give peace a chance.

Over-population is a problem because we will start to struggle to feed people using our current mechanisms. Rainforests are being cut down to feed and house people and will disappear, along with the millions of species they home, if we continue at the current pace.

You've offered solutions to the problem (although where you got the idea that if we use less water in our toilets and showers third-world countries will become abundant in water, I don't know), but they're guess work. Where does the information about the central valley in California being able to feed 30 million people come from? How many people does it feed, currently?

Over-population requires fundamental changes in the way we produce and consume, you're right, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem. Fundamental changes are difficult to implement; drastically reducing the number of farmed cows would be a step forward as they are an extremely inefficient food source for the space, time and energy they consume. Iguanas can be farmed vertically and grow quickly (see Edward Wilson's The Diversity of Life), but will Texans give up beef and eat iguanas?

I'm also unsure how 'the NWO' will get richer if there are less people, perhaps you can elucidate this theory.

The idea that 'the NWO' has brainwashed thousands of highly educated and independently thinking scientists from scores of countries and those that study or read their works makes no sense; how on earth can you have reached this conclusion other than to fit your hypothesis?

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Woland]

Originally posted by Woland
The central valley in California may be able to feed Canada (I've no idea), but that accounts for 0.004% of the population, but how do you feed the other 99.996% the world.


I'm also unsure how 'the NWO' will get richer if there are less people, perhaps you can elucidate this theory.

Canada is actually 30 million people, which is almost half a percent of the 6+ billion people in the world. About 1 out of 210 people are Canadians, so you would only need 200 Central Valleys to feed the world's population (which isn't as much as it sounds).

Text

reply to post by FlyersFan

Sorry but the world is definately overpopulated. No question.

you can put every human being on the planet, in the
state of texas. save one yard in all four directions.
the planet is not over poped and i'm not sorry.
good post


[edit on 14-7-2009 by randyvs]

Originally posted by randyvs
you can put every human being on the planet, in the
state of texas. save one yard in all four directions.
the planet is not over poped and i'm not sorry.
good post

[edit on 14-7-2009 by randyvs]

And if you put every person on this planet in Texas, what would happen?

Probably the same thing as if you put 9000 people in a Superdome, then lock the doors.

It wouldn't be a liveable place.

The over population of this planet isn't only a question of numbers, but also how we act and treat the planet.

We have an immense capacity of destruction within us, and as beings we are not (yet) capable of putting our long term interests before our short term interests.

When a poor third world farmer has managed to clear a small patch of land from rain forest - and can make a living out of it, will he stop there and be content?
No, he will clear another patch, in order to make an even better living. It doesn't matter if you explain to him the dangers of losing the rain forest, his immediate concern is keeping his family alive, his secondary concerns will be making a better life for himself and his family, and we all more or less reason the same way.

Let me put it this way: if there were only a thousand humans living on this planet, but these thousand people had such great needs in terms of energy, natural resources, etc that they caused an equivalent amount of destruction and depletion of resources as we 6.5 billion people do, then the planet would still be overpopulated.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Canada is actually 30 million people, which is almost half a percent of the 6+ billion people in the world. About 1 out of 210 people are Canadians, so you would only need 200 Central Valleys to feed the world's population (which isn't as much as it sounds).

You're absolutely right, I forgot to multiple by 100. I've edited my post.

I'm not entirely sure what the OP is getting at with this still. The valley appears to feed a huge number of people; is the assumption that if the valley can do that why can't other places? Surely the OP understands that it's never just a question of area size. You can't grow much in in the tundra of Russia for example. Nor Greenland, nor northern Canada. While the African continent struggles due to the lack of rain and extreme heat.

The OP goes on to say that all the people in the world could fit in Texas. Over-population isn't about is there enough room, it's about the long-term sustainability of feeding and watering the increasing world population and this requires fundamental changes in their production, distribution and consumption.

I should also point out the population is stabilizing. The Indian subcontinent is the last place with huge population growth. China is stabilizing, Japan and Europe are declining, Latin America is getting there, Africa is stabilizing.

In 2050 the population will be around 9 billion or so. We're already getting close to 7 billion, it's not really too much more than now, and as the third world develops people will have fewer kids.

I think by 2150 the population will go back down to being similar to today, about 6 billion, and by 2300 it will go to 4-5 billion and probably be that way for centuries.

Distribution will be way better too. No need for one-baby policies or genocide.

Originally posted by The Answer
. . . I wonder what percent of kids dont have fathers? Those are the ones that arent supposed to be here. Irresponsible reproducing. Thats the technical term for it. Its gonna lead to overpopulation. 1/2 of the population only knows one parent because the other parent only wanted a good time not parenthood. My point is if women wont control the bastard children they have then somebody else will. Im an adopted child and I know firsthand that theres prolly at least 1 million people out there who simply wouldnt exist if proper precautions were taken. . . .

Perhaps, instead of putting all the hate on single mothers for the population explosion, (which is happening even faster in countries where few pregnancies are extra-marital,) you could try forgiving your own birth-mother.

Most likely giving you up for adoption broke her heart,and was an enormous sacrifice she made to give you a chance to have the proper family she could not provide.

By the way, even the manufacturers admit that, even given absolutely ideal conditions, all precautions have their failure rates.