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.

 

Why do so many people on ATS beleive overpopulation is not a problem??

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


I truly can't be confident we could in theory support a larger population than today.

Seeing how we can't handle a population of 7 billion, i should believe that we could handle twice or three times that number?

If our goals and values were different than today's... That's a big if.

Another "if" would be this: what if we can't change and we're stuck with let's say 20 billion people on this planet that can barely support 7?

Do we really need more poor people, more orphans, more starving children, more migration done out of pure desperation, more industrialisation in order to supply everyone with food, fuel, transportation and so on?

Edit: actually the biggest question is, do we really need more people? And if yes for what exactly? Aren't nearly 7 billion enough already? Are we in a contest with some alien planet, "my population is bigger than yours"?


[edit on 18-11-2009 by Wallachian]




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Overpop. is not a problem you were told to live and be fruitful. Second the world wouldnt feel so crowded if the TECHNOLOGY WASNT TAKING UP SPACE ALSO buildings, airports, industrial facilities ect. Every family can build a house on the planet and there still would be space for more to grow. Overpop. is based on humans wants not needs running out. Like FOSSIL FUELS for instance. But there are many tribes existing happy right now who dont even use fossil fuels, they take care of EARTH WELL W/O STRIPPING HER OF HER PARTS AND THEN POLLUTING THE AIR AFTERWARDS AND THEN CRYING ABOUT IT BEING TOO CROWDED. Mabey we should take notes from them..........



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Overpopulation is a genuine myth

It's already been said by others, we crowd into cities, we have greedy leaders who make us suffer for no reason etc etc...

People have listed the 6 acres per person possibility and not even included Canada which is larger with 1/10th the population of America...

I've been around this bend before...vertical food towers, water pipelines artificial island construction, space exploration...

There's a whole damned Universe out there and we have discovered planets in hundreds of systems now...

It just doesn't actually end...



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Im sure this has been asked on this site like a zillion times, but, when does too much become too much?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Wallachian
 


I will agree with you...the way our current system is designed our growth is unsustainable. Shouldn't we then be thinking of an entirely new way of structuring society? There are so many feasible alternatives, however, we are locked into a paradigm where apparently nobody wants to entertain other ideas. I have developed a financial system that would be so fair and so simple it would reduce greed to almost non existence. The problem is how to show the benefits of this system to people that want the same lifestyle they currently have? I have a system where the government pays the people taxes and is totally self supporting. It's a choice we are making right now...do we want it to continue on the same path, or try something new. The only reason not to try something new is because those that control everything want it the way it is. If you are part of the system as designed, then one is limited in thinking there is any other way.

As a side note, the Inca civilization had no currency and was one of the most advanced civilizations at it's time. It built hundreds of miles of trade route roads, provided food to all of it's citizens, and every living need was provided for. People worked less hours than we do in the modern world. Gold was for people making jewelry and art, not horded by rich. Also, everyone was employed and could chose their occupations to serve society. The people whom were rich were rich because of their innovations that they freely shared with everyone. They were respected and revered for their creativity.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Yes, theoretically, if you spread the entire population of the world out evenly over the surface, there would be plenty of room for everybody.

Then all you would have to solve are the problems of transporation, resource distribution, food production, water supply and waste treatment, communication, and a few dozen other reasons why people much more efficently cluster in cities, and don't each individually live on their own little square of land.

Some people also think that the human population should simply continue to expand to the absolute maximum that the planet can handle before the systems start to collapse and people start dying or eating each other, like too many rats in a cage. They look at this starving and misery as a "natural" solution to the problem. "God's will," perhaps.

Instead, they might want to think about what the OPTIMUM population is for the Earth such that energy and other resources can be renewed. Unfortunately, we may never get a chance to find that out, because we're already pushing some resources to the maximum, and we can't get a clear picture of how much the Earth can take before it gets overwhelmed.

Overpopulation is really only a "myth" to some people, because nobody knows how many people the Earth can optimally support (and not just in ridiculous terms of square footage per person). So there's no way to tell when we might be overpopulating the Earth, or if in fact we're already overpopulating it. That's why it might be prudent to start taking some serious measures to curb population growth until we get a better understanding of what we're working with here.

"Be fruitful and multiply" is fine. But even the most abundant fruit trees are kept trimmed back to produce the best fruit.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie21m
But why do some people beleive we should keep having more children, like having 4 or more.


I have to agree. I think the world is over populated, not physically mind you. Be fruitful and multiply after all. We could build extra housing if we were inclined. Lots of places are still just empty space.

I think the problem arises when you try to sustain a (dare I say it) greedy population. Feeding 6 billion people hamburgers, or having 3 billion people driving SUV's and 4x4's polluting the atmosphere. Dumping sewage into the oceans. Destroying wildlife habitat and causing the extinction rate to soar. Burning down rain forests for farm land. etc, etc, etc... Whale hunting, seal slaughters, etc, etc...

I'm no saint. I might as well of clubbed the seal myself in a odd sort of monetary way. I'm scared of when 3rd world countries want their SUV's and McDonald's, etc, etc.

We humans like to cull the herd or impose population control on Deer, Moose and other creatures. And we do it for "their own good"... We say, there is not enough food to feed 'x' amount of animals and so hunting season begins...

I also believe reducing the amount of meat we eat would greatly benefit our environment in order to help sustain an even larger population.

Lets face it, there is still a lot of room for people here on planet Earth. No need to cull this herd just yet.

We just have to grow up a little and treat her nicer.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pr0t0
The only credible, logical answer is that there are simply too many of us to control. There is no other reasonable or sensible explanation for the arguement for overpopulation.


How about deforestation and overfishing?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Do you people suggest that the surface of the Earth is homogenous?

Its not simply a matter of space.

Unfortunately you will probably be proven wrong sometime in the next 20 years when the human population is no longer sustainable. When the curve begins to plateau...

[edit on 18-11-2009 by seenitall]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by Pr0t0
The only credible, logical answer is that there are simply too many of us to control. There is no other reasonable or sensible explanation for the arguement for overpopulation.


How about deforestation and overfishing?


There is no reason we can't have fish farms, and build houses from hemp concrete. Our choices to rip up forrests and fish to our hearts content is a choice. We can change that choice collectively.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Fish farms? What about the fish we're currently depleting from the oceans? We've already got fish farms. About 1/3 of the fish are already out the ocean. Within a few decades, that figure could be 2/3. Sometime around that point, the aquatic ecosystem could collapse all together. I haven't a clue what this would do for life on land, but I doubt it would be a good thing.

I realize theoretically we could make some radical changes, but first the power elite must be removed. People need to wake up and have radical shifts in mind for this to occur. I just don't see this happening before all hell breaks loose.

I think this is the age of depopulation, whether hidden, by force, or through our interactions with nature. Perhaps all three is at play.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Because we have the technology right now, today to solve any food, shelter, education, health problems. Technology is the answer, it's just getting the policies to enable them is the problem.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Do we absolutely NEED as much wood, paper and pulp as we create today? the answer is no. Take a look in your local Bric a brac / second hand stores, and see how much rotting furniture is up for sale. Portable data devices should have already eliminated our reliance on paper, and soon will completely.

The deforestation we see is unsustainable because of not only the points i raise above, but also because of a lack of true regeneration. So, put simply cut back on the use of wood and reinvest in reforestation.

As for over fishing it's quite simple really, we frankly don't need to eat fish - I actually don't more out of pallette than ethically. The solution you are looking for is manageable, sustainable farming of fish, in the same respect as land farming, ocean farming is well within our means, ensuring we repopulate as fast as we consume.

If you really think beyond the confines of the society you know and have lived in everything is really rather simple and logical. It's just we often don't look past the problem to find a workable solution when it's usually common sense staring back at us.

Overpopulation IS a myth, and I've still yet to see a reasonable argument without being able to offer a straight forward resolution.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pr0t0
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Do we absolutely NEED as much wood, paper and pulp as we create today?


Not just with these products but with virtually every good produced. The amount of waste baffles me daily. From the miles of road filled with new car lots each lot with hundreds of new cars to the supermarket and its lobster tanks, racks of packaged meat and bins of soft and rotting fruits and vegetables.

An obscene amount of material is wasted everyday. All because people are too lazy to go get for themselves what they need when they need it or they are unwilling to pay a little more for something that isnt unnecessarily harvested in bulk quantities.

You watch shows like "How it's Made" or any other production show from Discovery to Food Network and you get these astronomical numbers like "we produce 500 million in a week." There's no way all of whatever that is is being used. Nine times out of ten I dont know anyone who ever uses/consumes said product yet apparently they have to produce enough for every American to get two each week?

If there is anything that cannot be sustained much longer it's the current production of consumer goods. Where are the raw ingredients coming from and where is the waste going?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by frankensence

Problem with that line of thinking is that there are many inhospitable and uninhabitable areas that can't be lived in, and won't produce enough crops to sustain any sort of population. How would you like your six acres - in the middle of Death Valley?


how much food is being processed into fuel? how much is just thrown away?

your example regarding the Mayans is interesting because their means of transporting supply apparently posed a serious problem, no wheels, therefore no carts and very little throughput. curiously, other cultures in the region at the time (or a bit later) built floating gardens among other things and were quite alive when the Spanish arrived. they did practice human sacrifice, though, which could be viewed as population control.

===============

i keep reading about Africa and how much of a problem there's supposed to be wrt overpopulation. i have a list for everyone who harbors that notion


en.wikipedia.org...

i suggest you compare the area of China or India with that of the entire African continent and keep in mind the fact that each of these countries are more populous in total terms than all of Africa.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I'll go along with OP, this place is to crowded for the systems and infrastructure that presently exists.. I know all maner of solutions are out their, but we are contained and controlled by the elite, while that happens people will be crammed, crowded and starved..

Looking at the levels of depopulation caused by the Black Death and the improvements in the quality of life of the poor afterwards brings to mind the saying, as the poor get fewer the rest get richer..

But until we break the estblishments hold on hoarding the land, controlling our supplies and services this will never change.. just look at the Diggers and how the establishment turned on them and crushed the movement, and todays establishment will do the same if the same type of movement arose.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by jamie21m
 


Why do so many people on ATS believe overpopulation is not a problem?


For the same reason they believe global warming is a conspiracy:

Because most people in the developed world - especially America - are lazy, ignorant tools who have this enormous sense of entitlement to all their over-consumptive ways, and **** anyone who tries to take it away from them.

Seriously ATS is no different - in fact here it's worse because there's this persistent self-righteous peanut gallery who instantly jump on the "it's a conspiracy!" bandwagon any time they're faced with a complicated issue that requires them to actually consider taking some sort of social responsibility for their own actions.

It's hilarious how many responses there's already been claiming overpopulation is a myth because there's still "plenty of room" for everyone. Right, because the only problem with overpopulation has to do with space - it has nothing to do with food, fresh water, energy, and all the other resources we rape this planet of everyday in our guilt-free pursuit of "being plentiful".

Overpopulation is a myth!?

I beg to differ.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared

Overpopulation is a myth!?

I beg to differ.



oh, come on the logic escapes me, tbh. mal- and undernutrition need not be caused by high consumption, much of the issue resulted from biofuel programmes anyway, which are, coincidentially tied to your beloved AGW movement.

Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis

global warming is a different topic altogether i might add but it does not surprise me in the least that someone who embraces GW would likely view overpopulation as a fact - or the other way around to be exact, because the cause is

Global Warming is one ideology which is more a collection of misanthropic tendencies rather than a theory (or just an hypothesis?) on climate, if it wasn't, people would be all over the following CO2 scrubber technology:

Planet saved without taxation! Well, almost...

but Greenpeace for one admitted that they don't care about CO2 by itself.

Source



"This is just one more piece of evidence that environmentalists aren't concerned about solving a problem," said Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. "Every problem, as they see it, is one way to restrict people's lifestyles, and if you come up with a technological fix that can solve a problem but doesn't require sacrifice and lets us go about our business the way we were before, they're not happy about it, even if it solves the problem.



so, let's call it by its real name: Manipulation


whether you'll gain any support by avidly catering to stereotypes of questionable accuracy remains to yet be seen, but i'll go out on a limb and say that there's little reason to have any faith in the coherence of a movement which is inherently misanthropic. you are all human (unless the UFO/Alien forum is right after all and a few of you aren't....) after all and can't change that fact, so you'll one day be on the receiving end of such hostility.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
Global Warming is one ideology which is more a collection of misanthropic tendencies rather than a theory (or just an hypothesis?) on climate


No.

Global warming is an established fact that first and foremost has everything to do with science and nothing to do with politics or sociology or whatever other pretentious bullcrap you want to throw into the mix to make yourself feel like you can outsmart it in an online debate to make it go away.

All you need to really "prove" global warming is the shape of a CO2 molecule (or any of the other GHG's if you prefer).

That's it. Everything else follows from KNOWN principles of physics and math. There isn't even any real "theory" to it because based on the geometry of a CO2 molecule alone we KNOW it will trap infrared radiation.

The hypothesis part just comes from the fact we are bound to let the scientific method run its course and allow the observations to confirm the initial prediction. And lo and behold - they have!

The consensus academic response to this has been a collective "well, duh", but yet people online still manage to convince each other it's all just an elaborate ploy to make Al Gore rich.

Or in your case, it's because apparently all of us environmentalists are just some sort of sadistic no-fun police who hate the human race and want to take away all it's toys.

That article you posted as your "proof" clearly has an agenda and manages to conveniently leave out a few details, such as these:


"There are other issues as well such as each scrubber costing around US$200,000 to manufacture and only removing a very small amount of CO2 (the equivalent of removing one person off a flight from England to New York every day). Other questions also remain including how much CO2 would be created manufacturing the device? What would we do with the collected CO2? And how much CO2 would it create collecting the CO2 from the scrubbers?"

Source

You accuse me of catering to stereotypes but then you use your article to make sweeping generalizations about all environmentalists.

Fact is I, like most of my peers, am for any possible solutions but they have to be viable and complete and not just bits & pieces cherry-picked to serve some political agenda. The environmentalist' concerns in that article are completely valid in that this would just be a band-aid solution that wouldn't address any of the underlying problems at all.

Sort of the same thing as trying to imply that bio-fuel is the reason 1 BILLION people in the world are undernourished.

So remind me again, what was that you were saying about manipulation?



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
You should come visit me in New Mexico. This state is about 4x the size of Britan, and has 1.7 million people. If you drive 10miles any direction from the city I live in, you are in the middle of nowhere, you can't even see a trace of humanity in most places 10 miles from here.

I am not even kidding when I tell you that if 1.7 million people moved to New Mexico in the next 1 day, it would be hard to tell they were here at all.

Come see me, we will eat the best Mexican food on the Planet, drink some cold Coronas, and have a nice time. You can rent a car and I will give you a list of things to see while you are here. If you explore New Mexico for 2 weeks, on car, motorcycle, and hiking, you will then know why the world is not overpopulated.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join