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.

 

almost 7 billion Humans, Lets Talk ...

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
when i first saw the title of this thread i thought to my self "naa, 7 billion is not over population, dont be rediculous"

but then i a little google search and found that the earths total LAND mass is only 148.94 million sq km, thats just land mass, not water

now as someone said in an earlier post humans only occupy about 7% of the earth... but you gotta think the earth only has about 29.2% land mass... and alot of that is probably inhabitable.. just look at northern canada, you wont find many people livining north of the 51st parallel

so as i was saying earlier theres 148.94 mill sq km, and with 7billion people that only leaves about 0.02 sq km for every person on earth to own... not that much really

please correct me if i am mistaken

SOURCE




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I feel like we for the most part have the technology to live balanced with nature. Like eco-friendly housing material and solar-panels and and even this new-tech residential wind tower that combined with the panels would provide you with ample energy. The problem is, its how we're taught and what we know. We're taught to get a career so we can settle down and have kids. So we have to be reprogrammed 1st and foemost otherwise the problem persists. We aren't taught to live a balaced exitence with nature, we aren't taught how to grow our own foods, how to forage for supplies, how to build our own houses, how to acquire land, how to utilize the technologies we have properly. The list just goes on and on and the change has to start with our minds before we just start population reduction. Not to mention that the government openly admits to being atleast 30 years more technologically advanced then the civilian sector or something like that. We would have to know exactly what the extent of our technology really is before we did anything.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I would also like to mention the different messages floating around different countries... CHINA - INDIA are about reducing population,
but Latin America - well, they are breeding like rabbits, same in Eastern Europe... but Europe and America *white folk, seem to be declining like they are under population control.... do you think there is a conspiracy here working - ?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Well, the reason I'm going to have a third due in a couple months is because... I like kids.

come on dude, you don't see this as just a little selfish? I mean really now.



I see no reason to not have kids just because people like you don't wish to make any meaningful changes.

The meaningful change made by people like me is to realize that overpopulation is a problem and all our problems would be easier solved if we slimmed down and not reproduce. What meaningful change have you made or are you perfect?



Why should I suffer for your faults?

what faults and who's asking you to suffer? I'm just saying people should be a little more responsible.



Sounds pretty childish and arrogant to demand everyone should stop having kids just so you can continue wasting resources and space with petty greed.


why does it come down to greed? I'm not greedy, I'm in fact saying that a smaller population would be easier to equip with a higher standard of living, does that sound like greed to you? Wanting the best for everybody is greedy now?? And if you'd read what I say I never demand that everyone stop having kids....but it's pretty evident now you haven't been reading 90% of my posts. And how many resource will you, your children, your grandchildren, and your great grand children use up compared to, ....me. Yeah, I'm greeedy, thats what I am.




Your solution calls for imposing your beliefs upon others by force of law. Yet, I see no real value to imposing someone's dislike for having kids upon those who do enjoy raising their own children.

actually people like you are not as much of the problem as it is people in developing countries. My point is, you won't see any laws imposed on you anytime soon, although, I wonder what solutions they are cooking up for the third world. As you can see here they are cooking up ideas. How about that, even the people with the power to implement the kind of technological advancements that you say we need to sustain a large population advocate population control. I'm not tryin to impose a law, it didn't take a law for me to realize it's not doin me any good to have kids. We have better things to do in the 1st world then raise kids, at least we should. You still have the right to do it, but what about enough respect not to?



There are other solutions, but like you say... too "narrow minded" to care. My way or the highway right?

I haven't heard any viable solutions so far. But think about what will happen...sterilization, or genocide, or starvation, disease, something will decimate the fastest growing population centers. It's already being discussed.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by agentofchaos
 





I feel like we for the most part have the technology to live balanced with nature. Like eco-friendly housing material and solar-panels and and even this new-tech residential wind tower that combined with the panels would provide you with ample energy. The problem is, its how we're taught and what we know. We're taught to get a career so we can settle down and have kids. So we have to be reprogrammed 1st and foemost otherwise the problem persists. We aren't taught to live a balaced exitence with nature, we aren't taught how to grow our own foods, how to forage for supplies, how to build our own houses, how to acquire land, how to utilize the technologies we have properly. The list just goes on and on and the change has to start with our minds before we just start population reduction. Not to mention that the government openly admits to being atleast 30 years more technologically advanced then the civilian sector or something like that. We would have to know exactly what the extent of our technology really is before we did anything.

Who's stopping you from learning to grow food and forage, this is the age of information, you could learn that stuff on your own you know.I think they change in everyone's mind will include population reduction. The government openly admits to having a 30 year advancement on the civilian pop? where did they admit that? I agree with you about knowing the extent of our technology, there's no guarentee we can come up with enough ways to beat an exploding population in time, and it would take too long to test different technologies find out which ones are most economically possible or have the least likelihood of failure...it's probably easier to realize thats impossible and just start lessening how many people there are.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Evil
 





I would also like to mention the different messages floating around different countries... CHINA - INDIA are about reducing population,
but Latin America - well, they are breeding like rabbits, same in Eastern Europe... but Europe and America *white folk, seem to be declining like they are under population control.... do you think there is a conspiracy here working - ?


the USA is the fastest growing industrialized nation on earth. so...no conspiracy...



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 



come on dude, you don't see this as just a little selfish? I mean really now.


What I find selfish and arrogant is your willingness to impose your irrational belief upon me. There are other options, but you seem willing to not pursue them for your own ideologies.


The meaningful change made by people like me is to realize that overpopulation is a problem and all our problems would be easier solved if we slimmed down and not reproduce. What meaningful change have you made or are you perfect?


Imposing limits on a private endeavor is not a meaningful change. Nor is there a real population problem as we do have viable options that could be implemented if further pursued. As for my families meaningful change, we don't waste much of anything. Our children are clothed diapered and line dried. We recycle and what we can't recycle we try to at least find another use for. It may not be much what we do by ourselves, but changes like those committed by the world at large makes a huge difference. Instead we lead more materialistic consumerist societies and demand to impose limits on family size? Screw you. I would rather a more sustainable lifestyle and populace instead of a greedy bunch of arrogant mutts who think they have any right over what I do in my private life.


what faults and who's asking you to suffer? I'm just saying people should be a little more responsible.


You think it's easy raising children? It's not like me and my wife screwed up and had all accident babies. Some people actually *do* weigh in the consequences of their actions. We as a family can afford within reason to grow due to our own lifestyle, with that in mind it seems more of the blame is to be placed on the arrogant mutts who lead wasteful greedy lifestyles.


why does it come down to greed? I'm not greedy, I'm in fact saying that a smaller population would be easier to equip with a higher standard of living, does that sound like greed to you? Wanting the best for everybody is greedy now?? And if you'd read what I say I never demand that everyone stop having kids....but it's pretty evident now you haven't been reading 90% of my posts. And how many resource will you, your children, your grandchildren, and your great grand children use up compared to, ....me. Yeah, I'm greeedy, thats what I am.


Come on ... How do you justify imposing limits on a free thinking individual as wanting the best for everyone? Your purposefully suggesting imposing your limits on others despite viable alternatives. If your not suggesting that everyone stop having kids until the population settles to what you consider a more 'reasonable' number, then ffs please... *please* stop trying to make it out to sound like I am being selfish for resisting someone irrational urge to impose their beliefs on me as I don't personally hold those same let's force some people to stop making kids.


but what about enough respect not to?


Respect is a two way street. I respect your right to not bear children, but you need to respect my right to bear children.


I haven't heard any viable solutions so far. But think about what will happen...sterilization, or genocide, or starvation, disease, something will decimate the fastest growing population centers. It's already being discussed.


It's being discussed by the greedy arrogant mutts who want to continue their choice of lifestyle. I did list some alternatives and I did agree that some R&D still needs to be continued before they can be realized, but none of those alternatives are impossible and in fact some are close enough to being implemented. Look, the world as it stands today is about power and greed for more power, people don't give a rats under the tail section about this planet and if we continue on our current path, then *YES* population *will* be a problem as resource management is so screwed up right now. Yet, given alternative sustainable lifestyle choices, population would not become that huge of a problem for a very long time. I mean, Christ, if we wanted to we could fit upwards to roughly two million people in two square miles with an arcology. If available land compared to human numbers is a problem, there is at least one solution. Three-hundred million people would fit in around one-hundred fifty square miles. With proper health industry set up instead of this greedy BS one we have now that is more concerned about money than actually helping people *not* get sick in the first place, it would be one hell of a great start. No more cars to trek a huge population all over the place. You seriously can't see any benefits in this at all, to the point where you still think we need to impose limits and take away a basic human right?

[EDIT TO ADD]

I just did the math with arcologies, in the USA alone we have enough landmass for *roughly* six-hundred trillion humans to have a home. Population problem my left nut.


[edit on 13-10-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
Everybody wants to live....it's certainly a little greedy, but look around, most every invention is for living, allowing one to live longer, saving lives, etc....medicine, food, guns, bombs, houses...all of it about LIVING...
[edit on 12-10-2009 by KSPigpen]


medicine is greedy as of late aswell, guns and bombs also a great way for life.




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 


Can't say I've got a source or anything, just I heard from some guys in uniform who visited my school once. It was part of their spill for getting recruits, but off subject. Your kind of missing the point of what I was saying, it doesn't matter if only I learn that stuff and apply it, what matters if everyones taught that stuff and applies it; then our population size won't matter as much, because we will be producing insteading of consuming, and also would start producing less emissions as the new technology replaces the old. I mean if you're going to do something as drastic as population control you might as well shift the whole paradigm we live by.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





What I find selfish and arrogant is your willingness to impose your irrational belief upon me.

I'm not imposing beliefs on anyone, but I'm flattered that you think I wield that kind of power. Like i said this really isn't about you, industrialized nations have slowed down their birth rates for the most part. I just think mankind could be a little more responsible in our actions.



There are other options, but you seem willing to not pursue them for your own ideologies.

I haven't heard anything better, when I do I'll pursue it. I mean it's tough to argue that a smaller population wouldn't benefit us in the long run. What's so great about a world with tens of billions?



Imposing limits on a private endeavor is not a meaningful change.

yes it is. you may not like it but it's still change, and pretty meaningful at that.



Nor is there a real population problem as we do have viable options that could be implemented if further pursued.

there's not a population problem if you think in terms of, land mass, numbers of people, and food created. But think about that, despite we have a recipe for success with an even bigger population we still have never been able to pull it off collectively as human beings. Now i think the problems associated with uncontrolled growth are starting to outpace our capabilities to keep up with them.



As for my families meaningful change, we don't waste much of anything. Our children are clothed diapered and line dried. We recycle and what we can't recycle we try to at least find another use for. It may not be much what we do by ourselves, but changes like those committed by the world at large makes a huge difference.

good for you, but waste is only one issue associated with overpopulation. I've noticed that in these threads people always get stuck on defending overpopulation by only focusing on 2 issues, waste management, and food supply. And, on the topic of waste, who has the bigger carbon footprint, some poor person in africa? or a westerner?




Instead we lead more materialistic consumerist societies and demand to impose limits on family size? Screw you. I would rather a more sustainable lifestyle and populace instead of a greedy bunch of arrogant mutts who think they have any right over what I do in my private life.

you have this weird idea that people who would want to see smaller populations are somehow greedy and materialistic. It's weird dude. I think smaller populations are the key to more sustainable lifestyle, at a higher standard at that. I don't think we should make smaller populations, and then give up on becoming greener. I think smaller populations would make it easier to become greener. I don't think we'd become more materialistic and consumerist, we'd become less so, consumerism is dependent on large populations. I don't know how many different times or ways I have to say that to get across to you. What good is a massive population of humans? Why would anyone want that?



You think it's easy raising children?

No. yer point?



It's not like me and my wife screwed up and had all accident babies. Some people actually *do* weigh in the consequences of their actions.

and some people have more babies just cuz the like babies.



We as a family can afford within reason to grow due to our own lifestyle, with that in mind it seems more of the blame is to be placed on the arrogant mutts who lead wasteful greedy lifestyles.

yes greedy people are bad. but can't you see how people who crank out kids because they like kids, or just because they can, or have the right to, sounds a little greedy or selfish in it's own right?



Come on ... How do you justify imposing limits on a free thinking individual as wanting the best for everyone?

Ugh....again...I'm suggesting that people consider limits, or someone else will do it for you. and it is the best for everyone, look at china, do you think they would be in better or worse shape had they never curbed population?



Your purposefully suggesting imposing your limits on others despite viable alternatives. If your not suggesting that everyone stop having kids until the population settles to what you consider a more 'reasonable' number, then ffs please...

what viable alternatives? population control will be used, not by me, but by powerful people and organizations to stabilize what they believe to be a stable population(i've already given you a link proving that they do discuss populations). They will probably start by trying to teach birth control, and passing out condoms, when that doesn't work they may move to sterilization in one form or another. When that fails they might just commit genocide. I don't know all the details, I'm not a rich and powerful person or organization. I think people should take a more voluntary role in reducing their population, for the most part thats starting to happen, problem is in the places where populations grow the fastest they have the least access to a decent standard of living, which seems to correlate with more responsible reproductive practices.



stop trying to make it out to sound like I am being selfish for resisting someone irrational urge to impose their beliefs on me as I don't personally hold those same let's force some people to stop making kids.

I'm flattered again that you think it's me making it sound that way, but trust me, it's just logic, it just sounds that way, anyone coulda said it.



Respect is a two way street. I respect your right to not bear children, but you need to respect my right to bear children.

of course you respect my right, me not having children has no adverse effect on anyone or anything. Pretty easy to respect something like that.




It's being discussed by the greedy arrogant mutts who want to continue their choice of lifestyle. I did list some alternatives and I did agree that some R&D still needs to be continued before they can be realized, but none of those alternatives are impossible and in fact some are close enough to being implemented.

it's not being discussed by "greedy mutts", it's being discussed by the very people who have the power to implement ideas for handling population explosion, and they clearly see it as a major issue in some parts of the world. What is close to being implemented that will reduce the exploding populations of africa? Nothing, which is why they will try and educational approach first, unfortunately I have a feeling that wont work.



Look, the world as it stands today is about power and greed for more power, people don't give a rats under the tail section about this planet and if we continue on our current path, then *YES* population *will* be a problem as resource management is so screwed up right now.

Though I don't hold the same pessimistic view of the world today, we seem to agree on the same outcome. I don't know that resource management is screwed up. I mean if I go to the grocery store theres gonna be produce on the shelves. As much as you hate to admit it our society actually does work. Are suggesting that we send our resources elsewhere? We already do that. How much are we supposed to send and how many people are we gonna get to work on this? for free I might add since there's not much profit in dealing with poor poor people.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Yet, given alternative sustainable lifestyle choices, population would not become that huge of a problem for a very long time. I mean, Christ, if we wanted to we could fit upwards to roughly two million people in two square miles with an arcology. If available land compared to human numbers is a problem, there is at least one solution. Three-hundred million people would fit in around one-hundred fifty square miles. With proper health industry set up instead of this greedy BS one we have now that is more concerned about money than actually helping people *not* get sick in the first place, it would be one hell of a great start. No more cars to trek a huge population all over the place. You seriously can't see any benefits in this at all, to the point where you still think we need to impose limits and take away a basic human right?


yea have fun in you're 2 million person compound with all yer new buddies. I'll be opting for voluntary extermination in that case. I mean who wants to live in that world? You don't think we'd have a way higher standard of healthcare with less people? Why do you think it doesn't work in this country? we're too big. Places like switzerland have wonderful healthcare because their numbers are easier to manage. You act like people can just "set up" a "proper health industry". I'm beginning to see how you oversimplify everything in your mind. am I crazy for not seeing the benefits to your world?



I just did the math with arcologies, in the USA alone we have enough landmass for *roughly* six-hundred trillion humans to have a home. Population problem my left nut.

population issues are more than just a simple math problem. do you really land as the only issue facing 600 trillion humans living together?

I dunno bro.....you haven't made a lot of sense thus far.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by agentofchaos
 





Can't say I've got a source or anything, just I heard from some guys in uniform who visited my school once. It was part of their spill for getting recruits, but off subject.

Ha, yeah don't listen to those dudes, military recruiters are like used car salesmen.




Your kind of missing the point of what I was saying, it doesn't matter if only I learn that stuff and apply it, what matters if everyones taught that stuff and applies it; then our population size won't matter as much, because we will be producing insteading of consuming, and also would start producing less emissions as the new technology replaces the old. I mean if you're going to do something as drastic as population control you might as well shift the whole paradigm we live by.

I know, i wish the paradigm would shift so that people realize that less kids are the way to go. I'll use your own example, if everyone had only one, or no kids to raise...would it not make it easier to tend to neighborhood or community gardens with other locals? The person would have more freedom in every aspect. Unfortunately the worst problems with population explosion are happening in places that are not even close to setting up your strategies. So I wonder kind of population control techniques will be used on those populations, probably not yours or mine.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 



I am not saying becoming a type 1 civ or anything like that, I am saying that we need a complete new form of energy or invention just like we discoverd atoms, maybe we will discover tiny littel black holes in atoms or something like that, I am not sure, but what we need is some kinda idea that we can work on and say we archived it in our generation, all they going know about us 100 years from now is war and the computer, I personaly think the next close step that we will witness in our life time is AI.


[edit on 15-10-2009 by thebluemoon]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by thebluemoon
 


yeah we're gaining ground in a lot of areas, AI, robotics, space travel, history, genetics, 100 years from now I bet they'll see this as a great time to be in, supposing we're still around in a 100 years.

Are you hoping that our generation come up with some revolutionary discovery as a means to immortalize us, rather than having offspring as a form of immortalization?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 



I'll be opting for voluntary extermination in that case.


Great! Good for you. Really.


You don't think we'd have a way higher standard of healthcare with less people?


You really, honestly think quality of health care is determined by number of people? Look at the way health care works in comparison to our country and Switzerland, the two models of health care aren't even similar. You spout ignorance and arrogance in your arguments.


You act like people can just "set up" a "proper health industry".


Are you blind or do you prefer listening to me repeat myself? I lost count of how many time's I have had to say how I understand we still need a lot of R&D to realize such goals. Learn to read and work on that memory my friend.


do you really land as the only issue facing 600 trillion humans living together?


I wasn't discussing the social implications of packing that many people into one place, reading comprehension. Merely stating *again* that there is no population issue as one continent alone can house roughly six-hundred trillion people. If you apply a little bit of common sense and logic, yes I know, it's hard but bear with me... The human population would take quiet some time to reach those numbers. So we wouldn't necessarily even have to worry about fitting that many people in one place at all. It's just a play of numbers to show that a viable alternative is more than capable of supporting those numbers. You refuse to look at that viable alternative, that's your choice, but again I ask you to respect other peoples choice to bear children considering viable alternatives exist regardless of you liking them or not.


I dunno bro.....you haven't made a lot of sense thus far.


Possibly because your not listening and to dead set on reducing population numbers for no real reason as a population problem doesn't even exist. Perhaps you need to explain your logic to me again as well?




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join