A response to population crisis fanatics

Just have a look at this :


2009 Population 6,781 Billion
1909 Population 1,6 Billion
1809 Population 978 Million
1709
1609
1509
1409
1309
1209
1109 Population 310 Million
909
809
709
609
509
409
309
209
109
0 Population 200 Million
100 BCE
200 BCE
300 BCE
400 BCE
500 BCE Population 100 Million
600 BCE
700 BCE
800 BCE
900 BCE
1000 BCE Population 50 Million

Do you think this is right ? With all the violence in the world !!! At this moment it does not occur to me we are going in the right direction . Yes the earth can sustain this numbers but is it really necessary ...I agree with the person on this thread saying that is our animal instinct to reproduce .

We are not a peaceful population for planet earth if we were advanced enough spiritually and technologically maybe this population increase would not be a problem .

Peace

reply to post by lisa2012


Uhm.... you do know that levels Plants had the same stratospheric rate of population growth right? And then after that levels of Oxygen right?

Sure it's right.... because that's what nature does...

This is from WORLD POPULATION DRAFT ........UNICEF



If, for the sake of illustration, the fertility of countries is kept constant at 1995-2000 levels, the world population soars to 244 billion by 2150 and 134 trillion in 2300.

All of this increase occurs in the less developed regions, whose population rises from 4.9 billion today to 134 trillion in 2300. In sharp contrast, the population of the more developed regions declines from 1.2 billion in 2000 to 0.6 billion in 2300 were its fertility to remain constant at current levels.

Among the less developed regions, Africa, with its very high current fertility levels, grows most rapidly, passing from 0.8 billion in 2000 to 115 trillion in 2300 in the illustrative constant-fertility scenario.

All scenarios result in significant shifts in the geographical distribution of the world population (tables 2 and 3). According to the medium scenario, the share of Africa doubles (passing from 13 percent of the world population in 2000 to 24 per cent in 2300), whereas that of

Asia is reduced by about ten per cent (from 61 per cent in 2000 to 55 per cent in 2300) and that of Europe by about half (from 12 per cent in 2000 to 7 per cent in 2300).

According to the medium scenario, China, India and the United States are and will continue to be the most populous countries of the world until 2300. By 2050, India is expected to have surpassed China in population size and will remain as the most populous country in the world thereafter. However,
between 2000 and 2100, the three most populous countries are expected to account for a declining share of the world population, passing from 43 per cent in 2000 to 34 per cent in 2100. Their share is then expected to rise slightly and remain at about 35 per cent until 2300.

In the medium scenario, the number of countries accounting for 75 per cent of the world population is expected to increase from 24 in 2000 to 29 in 2100 and to remain unchanged thereafter. This relative
stability in terms of total population belies the major changes projected in terms of the contribution of different countries to population increase or decrease. In the medium scenario, the annual change of world population is projected to decrease steadily from 77 million in 2003 to -14 million in 2010-
2015 and then to rise steadily until it becomes positive again in 2175-2180

provided by Cornell University:



"Hundred years from now, democratically determined population- control practices and sound resource-management policies could have the planet's 2 billion people thriving in harmony with the environment. Lacking these approaches, a new Cornell University study suggests, 12 billon miserable humans will suffer a difficult life on Earth by the year 2100.

"Of course, reducing population and using resources wisely will be a challenging task in the coming decades," says David Pimentel, lead author of the report titled "Will Limits of the Earth's Resources Control Human Numbers?" in the first issue of the journal Environment, Development and Sustainability.

"It will be much more difficult," Pimentel says, "to survive in a world without voluntary controls on population growth and ever diminishing supplies of the Earth's resources."

Even at a reduced world population of 2 billion in AD 2100, life for the average Earth dweller will not be as luxurious as it is for many Americans today. But the lifestyle won't be as wasteful of resources, either, the Cornell ecologist predicts. Some observers are seeing early signs that nature is taking a hand at reducing human populations through malnutrition and disease. According to the report, global climate change is beginning to contribute to the food and disease problems.

"With a democratically determined population policy that respects basic individual rights, with sound resource-use policies, plus the support of science and technology to enhance energy supplies and protect the integrity of the environment," the report concludes, "an optimum population of 2 billion for the Earth can be achieved."

Then the fortunate 2 billion will be free from poverty and starvation, living in an environment capable of sustaining human life with dignity, the report suggests, adding a cautionary note: "We must avoid letting human numbers continue to increase and surpass the limit of Earth's natural resources and forcing natural forces to control our number by disease, malnutrition and violent conflicts over resources."

Among the key points in the report:

* The world population is projected to double in about 50 years.
* Even if a worldwide limit of 2.1 children per couple were adopted tomorrow, Earth's human population would continue to increase before stabilizing at around 12 billion in more than 60 years. The major reason for continued growth is "population momentum," due to the predominantly young age structure of the world population.
* The US population has doubled during the past 60 years to 270 million and, at the current growth rate, is projected to double again, to 540 million, in the next 75 years. Each year our nation adds 3 million people (including legal immigrants) to its population, plus an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants.
* Increasing US and global population will place restrictions on certain freedoms: freedom to travel and commute to work quickly and efficiently, freedom to visit and enjoy natural areas, freedom to select desired foods and freedom to be effectively represented by government
* Today, more than 3 billion people suffer from malnutrition, the largest number and proportion of the world population in history, according to the World Health Organization. Malnutrition increases the susceptibility to diseases such as diarrhea and malaria.
* One reason for the increase in malnutrition is that per capita production of grain has been declining since 1983. Grains provide 80 percent to 90 percent of the world's food. Each additional human further reduces available food per capita.
* The reasons for this per capita decrease in food production are a 20 percent decline in cropland per capita, a 15 percent decrease in water for irrigation and a 23 percent drop in the use of fertilizers.
* Biotechnology and other technologies apparently have not been implemented fast enough to prevent declines in per capita food production during the past 17 years."
* C

reply to post by mopusvindictus


"Alaska is 1/3 the size of the USA and is 98% Uninhabited

Canada is less than 5% inhabited and it the second largest country in the world

the largest Russia has a similar population density across more than half of it's land area "

Just strike my mind that those are areas where no one would WANT to live in... I'm already freakin' cold when it drops to 10 degres celsius, so don't tell me to go and live in Siberia or Alaska! I would only do so after a major pole shift!

An excellent, passionate post.

I am currently between Hong Kong and Macau and both those awesome cities are living examples of how people can exist together in peace if things are decently organised. Macau is the most densely populated place ON EARTH and its far more chilled than London or NYC. Crime is very low in both river delta cities and standards of living are high.

Wikipedias list of densely populated countries shows most of the top ten have really high standards of living. Eco mega-cties and city states are the way forward:
en.wikipedia.org...

The problem is, people are playing 2 stupid cards over and over:

1) 'You've got nice ideas but you haven't thought them through."
2) You're an idealist, I'm a realist'

To make this arguement have real weight you'd need to get some statistics and figures together to show how wasteful modern methods are. Plenty of ATS people are switched on, but outside of here you're dealing with heavily brainwashed, smug know-it-alls, and the only way to break their programming is to hit them with unassailable facts, examples and case studies.

The way forward for this argument is to show how massive cities can exist with little to no ecological impact, and to change the paradigm so each human being becomes a contributor to an organic society instead of a consumer.

What you've got on this planet is a bunch of lazy lukewarms waiting for each other to die.

As I said in my other thread (below) the brainwashing and spinelessness has its benefits, cos the leaders in this new field will end up making a lot of cash. Not that I care about that much, but it's a good way of incentivising fence sitters.

reply to post by HiAliens


Is the quality not the quantity and if it was quality and quantity that would be ideal . I agree with your post "HiAliens".

And how can somebody (see above in one of the posts) come with the argument that yes population grows so do plants . I can not even imagine that someone would not see the difference . Look at what happen during Katrina in USA.... God forbid some major cataclysm would happen at planet level do you think we will be like plants or like animals killing each other ????

reply to post by mopusvindictus


I cant believe you used Idiocracy as an example. firstly, the yuppie womans husband died from a heart attack or something. secondly, the very philosophy you are projecting is the philosophy that made earth the way it was in that movie; ie, evolution does not necessarily favor the most intelligent, just the most resilient. "care free rednecks who got to keep the earth" but in their rampaging ignorance, once again as mandated by your philosophy, they turned the planet to #... what sort of prize is that? generally i reject the status quo, but for convenience sake, lets say we need some sort of income in order to survive AS THINGS ARE NOW. of course one could provide for their family by living on a farm with no form of paper or fiat currency, but you cant practically just up and do that right now. one can not strictly "have fun" and be prosperous at the same time. in order to prosper, at some point the fun factor must reach 0.

secondly, it would appear that you are advocating thievery to promote... well im not sure. but you say:
"Who's stupid?

The Yuppie who works his whole life for some condo in a tower in the sky he inhabits alone.

Or the Barbarians that come and kick him out the window and inhabit it for free with their 13 kids after HIS Materialistic unsustainable way of life fails and leaves him alone."
well, to be honest, that analogy is stupid. it appears that you are saying the barbarians are in the right for murdering the man, stealing his property (such as it is) and then adding this pseudo-philosophical bit at the end about materialistic unsustainable way of life. WHAT?
thirdly, you assume far too much. a strong population is not the only requisite for success. you reference China, citing their population as their strongest point. nay sir, a high-yield nuclear device can rip through how ever many flesh bags you wish to put in front of it. or behind it. or around it. you also forgot to mention their pollution output, which judging by the skies during the olympics, is enormous. i digress; on to more of your ramblings. you mention the "cockroach theory" and yet fail to realize that that particular theory wont work for humans. we arent roaches. also, were you aware that a singular administering of insecticide can kill 3 generations of roaches, because they feed off each other and will transfer the poison to one another. i would choose a different comparison next time.

next, it isnt so much that our planet is mostly uninhabited, its that most of it is UNINHABITABLE, but let me guess you have some brilliant theory on how to fix that as well >.< "nothing sugguests that we couldnt survive a man made disaster" really? i can think of one thing right now: a mushroom cloud. sure, some people might survive that, but they might not also, and if the bomb is that devastating, then that in combination with the fallout would most likely make the survivors kill themselves instead of suffering through hell on earth.
(this was in response to your comments on page 2, the next response will be in regards to page 1)

[edit on 23-9-2009 by 814ck0u7]

Here are a bunch of search terms for anyone interested in researching this deeper.


Hydroponic Farming
Aeroponic Farming
Vertical Farming
Container Farming
Sprout Farming
City Farming
Polytunnels
Valcent

Desalination
Air to Water

Underground Living
Hemp homes
Grassroots
Viral Videos
Exponential Distribution
New Cambrian Explosion

Local Currencies
Scarcity Myths
Paradigm shifts




That list is also a pretty cool poem if you read it fast.




Here's an idea... Why don't we drill into Mt Shasta and make a city? We could make it multi-levelled, maybe 5 floors. Hydroponic gardens everywhere. Advanced lighting. Bartering for trade cos everyone has basic needs. If anyone has a good idea for the name of the city: Tell us.

reply to post by mopusvindictus


"Science has inevitably always overcome our population Fears" science has done many things, including given us the ability to completely annihilate the planet or save it (i think).

"A universe laid out before us the nearest planet less than a 1 year journey away hardly any distinct difference from the first voyages to the New World time wise. Before that we have Asteroids worth One Trillion in Platinum and beyond that one day worlds made of Diamond, Resources, we have dug at best 2 miles, the time will come we can enter the core..." what?

i hear you repeat over and over that the earth is honestly "just fine" how could you possibly EVER prove this? and you think that 60 billion people on earth could be maintained.... COMFORTABLY? you are delusional.

"Because I can make one prediction, those Hominids had children and continued their line and became us, and when the other Hominids, the ones that decided they needed to kill the others and keep the Bananas to themselves, though violent and controlling and numerous... when they faced the seed planters and tried to kill or take their babies, they found the more inventive of their ilk also had the creative potential to do allot more with a rock, like make an Axe or spear than the dumber less creative Hominids who chose FEAR and Control as their method of survival." what?

i have news for you: no matter how many children you have, YOU are going to die. THEY will die. neither fear nor creation will save you from death. so just by being born, we are all at our genetic end.

you speak of using new technology to earn money. of what good is that money? what use does it actually serve beyond what we imagine? nothing. also, you assume (yet again) that you will be here in 40 years, when you may or may not make it another day. you compare the act of having children and the emotions it brings with trees... somehow. so not having kids is like not planting trees? hardly.

"walk in the darkness bravely knowing things will be fine"? seriously? you speak of things as though you have constant, accurate information about the precise condition of the planet. ***all your knowledge is theoretical***, you have learned from what others have gathered.

"Because there is no sense in no reproduction when children are born geniuses that solve problems and a Universe is laid out before us vast with countless worlds and like those first Hominids that simply could not see beyond One fruit tree, some of us simply can not see that there is an entire Universe shining on us from the stars above." ?????? children are born helpless, they require assistance from parental units, by no means are they geniuses.

you speak of trees "popping up". they grow. slowly.

Future History?

"That's all this is, there is not One single Truth in science to over population, global warming, energy or resource crisis, there has NEVER been since the beginning of time nor will there ever be." theres no way you could prove this. also, did you forget about oil?

so, those who starve do so because peopel around them are malign, and homeless people are that way because people around them dont care? im sorry, but that is taking the blame off the individual and placing it on society. you are wrong. continued.

reply to post by mopusvindictus


it appears as though you associate fear and a desire to own land... no sir, fear is a natural instinct, and has nothing to do with most of the things you associate it with. its called "fight or flight" and it has been keeping animals alive (or dead) since time immemorial. humans ARE animals, and no matter how many times you type 'no im not".... yes you are.

i have lost the interest in this by now, but i will make a closing argument. you seem very emphatic, but also very wrong. "we" as a whole population can not do anything whenever "we" wish. because there is no we, yes what affects one affects all, but that does not forge the bond of brotherhood among individuals. i can comfortably say that neither you nor i will EVER see ALL of humanity stop for 10 minutes.... 5 minutes... hell, 30 seconds... stop thefighting, killing, lying, stealing,. all that, and just get along... for 30 seconds. we are a long way away from the place you envision. you speak of evolution... which infers natural selection... did you ever consider that maybe humans were not "meant" to expand exponentially? that maybe we are a maligned, failed project, and our lives carry no value to the universe beyond what we recognize of each other? i bet you didnt.

Mopusvindictus, an intriguing OP. I enjoyed reading it, thank you. Reading through this thread was interesting. The thing that stuck out the most, however, was the philosophy that I saw being embraced by some people. I think that P.J. O'Rourke wrote it best when he described the philosophy as "Overpopulation: Just enough of me, way too much of you".

Take care,
Cindi

So decide Now If you are a Hominid ready to pick up a rock and bash another hominids head in for a banana.

you're asking the wrong people this question. you should be asking governments. addressing people who are, for the most part, peaceable and interested in raising their families or themselves in a decent, fairly run country, with economic opportunities, is like asking the jews of hitler's nazi camps if they could just stop being hungry everything would be great.

my hubby was in both wars in iraq. when he came home from the first one, he was a carrier of a live vaccine for japanese tick borne encephalitis they had given him for the war. they didn't warn him or me. i went slowly insane from the infection it caused in my brain, which put me in a coma on total life support for 5 days. the insurance company actually flew to our state to convince my hubby to have me taken off life support. i'm only here today because of a miracle. and you ask me about fighting over a banana? i'd be lucky if i could pick the dang thing from the tree.

reply to post by oneclickaway

How dare anyone believe that you can dictate how anybody else shall live, whether they have offspring, what their sexuality is, and how and when they will die. It makes you every bit as evil as the psychopaths that are proposing that the mass of humanity should die because they are perceived as scum. The easier answer is to round up the psychopaths.

Bravo. They did not bother to dictate they just did it. This makes one wonder what other plans our "overlords" have up their sleeves that they plan to inflict on an unknowing mankind?


As I showed on page one Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and China are between 0.8% and 1.4% or half the birth rate required to sustain the population. 57% or 129 of the 224 countries are below the 2.1% benchmark. Link I also showed the Rockefeller Foundation, UN, WHO and the USDA were implicated in sterilizing women twenty years ago and more recently producing spermicidal GMO corn to sterilize men.

The question is even though it was discovered, did it work?

However, until the late 1980s there was little evidence of any change in fertility. Since then, many changes have occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. Although population growth rates remain high, signs of reductions in fertility are appearing in several populations once regarded as having little or no prospect of lower levels of reproduction in the short term....

Barney Cohen reviews levels, differentials, and trends in fertility for more than 30 countries from 1960 to 1992. He finds evidence of fertility decline in Botswana, Kenya, and Zimbabwe, confirming the basic results of the DHS. What is new here though is his finding that the fertility decline appears to have occurred across cohorts of women at all parities, rather than just among women at middle and higher parities, as might have been expected on the basis of experience in other parts of the world. He also presents evidence that fertility may have begun to fall in parts of Nigeria and possibly in Senegal.

www.nap.edu...

It seems that after the peasants revolted in the last few hundred years, and killed off the Royalty in various countries, those who would rule got smart. They now rule from behind a curtain of deceit and deception so the peasants are left trying to fight phantoms and shadows. Saves wear and tear on the guillotine doesn't it? We do not even know WHO is really pulling the strings, Rothchilds, Rockefellers, Morgans Warburgs.... or are they agents for someone higher up?

There is only one possible answer to somebody who says we need to reduce our population.

Give them the finger.

Let's think about this. By "we must reduce the population", what do they mean? No, they don't mean we need to actively kill off half of Earth's population in gigantic bloodbaths (unless "they" are Al Gore or David Rockefeller or some other sleazebag, cuz THEY mean it). No, what they mean is, we should put in effect a law that limits how many children you get to have - a one-child policy, so to speak, like in China.

Let's take this further. What does that mean? That means that when they say "we must reduce the population", what they mean is; "I'm going to tell you how to live your life", because "they" are telling you how many children you can have, thus, again, telling you how you are to live your life.

And anybody who tries to tell anyone else how to live their life, no matter what sanctimonious crap they spout in defense of it, deserves two things; the finger you've already given them, and when they get pissed off at you for giving them said finger, a swift follow-up kick in the nuts.

Because, let me repeat this: Nobody, EVER, has the right to tell you how to live your life. Never.

Especially not jerks like David Rockefeller or Al Gore, who's never been wanting anything, including food, for their entire lives, or idiot "environmentalists" who follow them blindly without even thinking about what they propose as a "solution" really means.

So, yeah, if I want to, I'm going to have five or six children. And there isn't jack # you can do about it. In your face, as they say.

And in a nice long post, the OP covers why I shake my head and ask.. "Ok.. so WHY are people convinced that there is some super-secret agenda to depopulate our planet?" There are tons of resources, and there is actually a LOT of empty space. In Colorado where I live, there are a few city centers, and a whooole lot of empty space. Even in 20 years, when I came back to Denver, the city-center had grown a bit, there was more population, but.... still, tons of empty space between cities. There is room. There are resources.

The "overpopulation" are folks deciding they must live in crowded cities. But in reality, there is plenty of space, and plenty of resources. I've never understood any plot to depopulate the world.. it just doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by elfie
reply to post by stander

 

The problem with tearing out the rain forests is that the nutrients of rain forests are found in the canopy and the land that they exist on is essentially not arable. Also, up to 20% of the world's oxygen is produced by the Amazon rain forest.

www.rain-tree.com...

How about considering other naive and ignorant suggestions listed in the OP?

The earth is not some vacant concrete parking lot to build a high-rise on.

Excellent thread. Thank you for presenting such useful information. But like many have said we just aren't there yet. Sometimes I really sit back and feel so depressed that our world could be so much more. People say population is a problem because if it gets too big the economy is affected more. Higher unemployment, higher homeless, higher crime etc etc... whatever the case may be. I'm not sure how it would work but if we did away with capitalism things would be alot better. If there was free energy and nano technology capable of creating massive amounts of anything! then why would we need to slave ourselves to work for PENNIES... We are working on average 4-5 months out of a year just to pay TAXES! Not counting how the cost of living keeps increasing but the salaries never do. Minimum wage is like what? 7.50? or something. That is absurd how can anyone survive on that amount. I just wish I could own some land and houses in a few different countries and just relax and enjoy life. I'm tired of slaving to get no where. I need to win some mega millions! Then I could fund my own army and take out TPTB!

[edit on 23-9-2009 by stigup]

reply to post by fleabit

"Ok.. so WHY are people convinced that there is some super-secret agenda to depopulate our planet?"

Because there is evidence it is being done, that is why! I have repeated it THREE times.

First, you have Kissinger, Rockefeller and their buddies saying they want to do it.
Second you have doctors catching them in the ACT of using vaccines to sterilize women.
Third you have the USDA paying for the development of Spermicidal Corn (sterilizing men)
Fourth you have a report on the reduced fertility in Africa.

What do you want a signed statement hand delivered from David Rockefeller himself???

Anti-fertility Vaccines (Female)
Another journal paper. The British Medical Bulletin, volume 49,1993. "Contraceptive Vaccines" is the title of the paper. The authors—RJ Aitken et al. From the MRC Reproductive Biology Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
"Three major approaches to contraceptive vaccine development are being pursued at the present time. The most advanced approach, which has already reached the stage of phase 2 clinical trials [human trials testing efficacy], involves the induction of immunity against human chorionic gonadotro-phin (hCG). Vaccines are being engineered ... incorporating tetanus or diptheria toxoid linked to a variety of hCG-based peptides... Clinical trials have revealed that such preparations are capable of stimulating the production of anti-hCG anti­bodies. However, the long-term consequences of such immu nity in terms of safety or efficacy are, as yet, unknown...The authors are talking about creating an immune response against a female hormone....The authors state, "The fundamental principle behind this approach to contraceptive vaccine development is to prevent the maternal recognition of pregnancy by inducing a state of immunity against hGC, the hormone mat signals the presence of the embryo to the maternal endocrine system."...... Rappoport, Jon (Ownership of All Life p66)

"In 1995, a Catholic human rights organization called Human Life International accused the WHO of promoting a Canadian-made tetanus vaccine laced with a pregancy hormone called human choriogonadotropic hormone (HCG). Suspicions were aroused when the tetanus vaccine was prescribed in the unusual dose of five multiple injections over a three month period, and recommended only to women of reproductive age. When an unusual number of women experienced vaginal bleeding and miscarriages after the shots, a hormone additive was uncovered as the cause.

Apparently the WHO has been developing and testing anti-fertility vaccines for over two decades. Women receiving the laced tetanus shot not only developed antibodies to tetanus, but they also developed dangerous antibodies to the pregnancy hormone as well. Without this HCG hormone the growth of the fetus is impaired. Consequently, the laced vaccine served as a covert contraceptive device. Commissioned to analyze the vaccine, the Philippines Medical Association found that 20 percent of the WHO tetanus vaccines were contaminated with the hormone. Not surprisingly, the WHO has denied all accusations as "completely false and without basis," and the major media have never reported on the controversy. For futher details on this issue, consult the Human Life International website (www.hli.org)."--- Dr Alan Cantwell MD
www.whale.to...

However, until the late 1980s there was little evidence of any change in fertility. Since then, many changes have occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. Although population growth rates remain high, signs of reductions in fertility are appearing in several populations once regarded as having little or no prospect of lower levels of reproduction in the short term.

Barney Cohen reviews levels, differentials, and trends in fertility for more than 30 countries from 1960 to 1992. He finds evidence of fertility decline in Botswana, Kenya, and Zimbabwe, confirming the basic results of the DHS. What is new here though is his finding that the fertility decline appears to have occurred across cohorts of women at all parities, rather than just among women at middle and higher parities, as might have been expected on the basis of experience in other parts of the world. He also presents evidence that fertility may have begun to fall in parts of Nigeria and possibly in Senegal.
www.nap.edu...

Originally posted by Toecutter.

People just want too damn much, more,more,more. how many people is enough 8 billion 10 billion 20 billion 120 billion 200 billion. Wake up and smell the coffee man it can't go on forever.

I did wake up and smell the coffee,

Thing is though it's that 2nd cup, after dinner, once the sun has gone down and the bright light has faded that keeps you awake that little bit longer than everyone else and lets you notice all the stars in the sky. Those stars have planets, virtually all of them and when you study them long enough you realize....

It really does go on forever