Population Control: Do we really have a choice?

Originally posted by Conclusion
You want to deny a future lives, to cling to your own.

Umm, no. I'm over middle aged and the human race will still be here for the rest of my life, whether we do something or not. I'm thinking about the future of the human race well beyond my lifetime. And what good is that future life if the quality sucks? I'll pick quality over quantity anytime!

WARNING

The topic is NOT global warming or climate change.

Its about whether or not we really have a choice on population control measures.
.

Originally posted by lockman
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

 

well as far as your pollution concern, I live in the East Valley and planes were Chem-trailing the city all morning today and so I think the poor visibility has more to do with that then the pollution.

It was far worse in the West Valley, and it was well below the contrails (I noticed them too). It was heavy between 500 and 1,000 feet from the valley floor and a sickish brown (didn't really show up in the pics).

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Your whole argument here is not based on any fact, listen to yourself... everything you are telling me here is based on nothing but speculation and emotion. Show me the figures proving there is a real problem concerning populatioin and then we can all have a real discussion.

You are so right. I will never understand why people don't "get" this...I'm a 28 year old intelligent woman who is married to the man of my dreams, yet I would never bring another person into this world for (lets be honest here) my own selfish reasons. Only to add too the already growing population... Not to mention bring another poor soul into this awful time, with all these scumbags trying to poison and lie to us, among all the other crap their up to.
What future will a baby have?? I sure don't know! Knowing what I know now, I would never be able to live with myself.
And second! why would you have a baby when there are thousands who don't have a home... Aren't we all connected anyway? Why bring another soul into this world? Imagine your own niece, nephew, son or daughter, what if they were in an orphanage somewhere, and PROPERTY OF THE GOVERNMENT. It just breaks my heart.

Anyway I have a link you might find interesting- Population reduction for dummies-

www.prisonplanet.com...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I never said it was a CO2 problem, just pollution, which does affect ecosystems and thus us. The more of us there are, the more pollution and garbage there is. The more of us there are, the fewer resources there are per person. We do live on a finite planet with finite resources and finite (fragile) ecosystems with a finite number of other species. Overpopulation is not just a possible theory, it's a real problem that is growing bigger and bigger everyday, and no amount of ramming our fingers in our ears and screaming "LA, LA, LA, LA, LA" is going to make it just majically go away. We either address it, or Mother Nature will!

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
reply to post by InfaRedMan

 

Again you are proving my point exactly, that the over population myth is based on emotion and not fact. Everything you are say is based on theory, opinion, and emotion. Where are the numbers that show that our planet is unable to sustain more people?

Well... via some deflection you managed to not answer one question I posed to you. It's ok, I understand that you can't answer them.

Also where are the numbers that show our planet can cope (or should cope) with more people. Every indicator tells us that the Earth is stressed supporting the current world population... (unless your on some other world and managed to overlook this). Also tell me why we need more people?

To finish, I am not proving your point. I'm afraid your projecting emotion onto me. I'm coming from a point of cold logic. Please don't try to guess my psychology. It's not your strongest suite.

IRM

All good points OP. I believe we have enouh food and land resources to maintain the human race for a lot longer yet.. if managed properly, no need for genocide. But, When the Earth is no longer able to support the overflow we must go out there into space and colonize new worlds. I believe we should be working to this end and start it going Now before it's too late.

Future Humans will need benefit greatly if we do this now and not delay any longer.

If there is life on other planets, Humanoid life, surely some of these peoples have already come to this conclusion and are moving or have moved out into space.

And there is always the oceans we have yet to tame. over 70% of earth is covered by water. We can build new ocean colonies.

At the current rate of growth based on the above, assuming a growth of 3 billion people every 40 years, in 300 years we will have 22.5 billion people on earth. A little more because I didn't take into account the .8 I only used 9 billion as the whole number. Almost 4 times the amount of people we have on earth now!

This means we must act Now to ensure the survival of the human race.

Food is no problem if managed right, but we must grow it and spread the population out to other areas to make more room for those who are going to becoming in.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
At the current rate of growth based on the above, assuming a growth of 3 billion people every 40 years, in 300 years we will have 22.5 billion people on earth.

One word sums this up JohnPhoenix. "Infestation"!

We wouldn't allow it of any other creature nor should we accept it from ourselves. We don't exactly have a great history of self regulation, but on the bright side, we do have a great history of hypocrisy!

IRM

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
At the current rate of growth based on the above, assuming a growth of 3 billion people every 40 years, in 300 years we will have 22.5 billion people on earth. A little more because I didn't take into account the .8 I only used 9 billion as the whole number. Almost 4 times the amount of people we have on earth now!

Understand that I'm not making fun of you but I want to thank you for demonstrating so aptly the major misunderstanding that people have when it comes to this topic. Quite simply, most people do not intuitively understand the exponential function in mathematics.

You have to look at doubling time not linear growth.

If the population doubled in the last 40 years and STAYS steady at that rate doubling every 40 years then in just 280 years it will be 768 Billion not 22.5 billion in 300.


.

reply to post by InfaRedMan


your logic based on what though? What facts point to support your "logic"? None...the whole argument for population control in order to save the planet is based on no facts, just fears, speculations, and emotions. I cant provide anything to prove that the earth can sustain anymore either. My whole point is that we cant truly have a real debate beyond simply voicing our opinions until we provide hard study.

reply to post by Gools


It took me a minute to understand why you used the exponent but your right. for every double, they would have babies that would double.. we would not grow at the steady rate base on what our current numbers are.

This makes everything even more shocking. And the time table for real action that more important. That's 131 times the number of people living today.



[edit on 16-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]

It really doesn't matter what any of you think about it. The decision has already been made and the die is cast.

The only reason the subject exists is to convince you that what is about to happen is "for the best".

"...such rapid growth....cannot continue through the 21st century and will come to an end either by human decision or by an uncontrollable increase in deaths." Gerald O. Barney

Will we be put down like dogs because what has already been unleashed is not working fast enough?

These "guidelines" have already been written in stone.

From vision to action....take cover.


The new goals are not so much about population control.

The agenda is DEpopulation.

Very different meaning; very different methods.

reply to post by Gools


Err, if you are talking about my statements I was referring to the ability of higher levels of atmospheric CO2 to produce more harvests to feed more people, which means more people can exist and we can feed them.

I didn't say ANYWHERE anything about global warming.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


The planet's resources are not as finite as some people would have it made. At least not when it comes to the ability of the planet to feed more people.

BTW, who says that in 50 years we are going to keep on using technology that produces pollution?

In the meanwhile and as we keep using carbon based resources, I gave some examples of what can be done to get rid of some of the real pollutants.

The idea that the Vaccines can insert RFID chips into us.. could be birth control.

Ya know.. without genocide.. that could solve the problem.. mandatory birth control. I think its a better way to go than having to murder millions of people. The end does Not justify the means. Killing people because we all messed up is just plain EVIL.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Isn't there enough control over people, that you want to give even more power, and control over people to the UN, and the globalist elites?

If you really want to order someone, then order China, India, Russia, and other countries to accept, and implement more environmental laws so they don't continue being the worse polluters in the world.

Also another thing people haven't realized yet. With more people on the planet it is also possible to have more people clean up parts of the world. As for example we can have more boats built, with more people, and we can start cleaning up the plastic island in the Pacific.

That plastic could be recycled to make furniture, and even housing, and in order to use less electricity have all new houses being built, to be built at least partially underground.

For example, outside my home the temp right now must be in the 20s F, or less, I have no heaters on, yet inside my home the temp is 68F degrees, and I had to open the windows.

Even when temps were outside in the -28F the minimum a couple days ago for a week or so, inside my home the temps were at the minimum 64F, and that's because 1/3 of my home is underground.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Actually I just cheked the temps and it is 32 F = 0 C, but starting tomorrow temps are supposed to be much lower again, and at least for the next two weeks it will remain very low.

Another advantage to have a home being at least partially underground is that you don't need to take care of the exterior as much, and if it is completely underground you won't even notice most natural disasters, except for earthquakes.

Having underground homes is going to be the way of living in the near future.

You can also build underground greenhouses, and this will allow you to have a garden even in the depths of winter. An underground greenhouse will also allow your harvests to survive any natural disaster, such as hail, or freezing temps, or droughts, or even scorching heatwaves.

Underground homes and gardens have too many advantages to ignore.

Originally posted by Gools

If the population doubled in the last 40 years and STAYS steady at that rate doubling every 40 years then in just 280 years it will be 768 Billion not 22.5 billion in 300.
.

That would only be true if the Earth's climate and geological system was stable, it obviously isn't, and who knows what could occur in the next 280-300 years?

By then for all we know, if nothing catasthrophic happens, which I doubt, we could very well be sending settlers to other planets, and even moons with an atmosphere at least in the Solar System.

You are looking at it under the assumption that in 280 years we will still be living in the same conditions we are living now, but 280 years is a very long time. There will be lots of new technologies, and inventions, and in that time we will have x amount of disasters that will also hinder population growth, and could even possibly decrease the global population.

[edited to add comments and for errors]


[edit on 17-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

"The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man"

~Thomas Robert Malthus~

Born in 1766 and died in 1834, Malthus believed that the human population was increasing exponentially while the production of food was increasing only at an arithmetic rate. This belief led Malthus to predict that humanity would soon outstrip their own ability to produce food, declaring an inevitable catastrophe by the middle of the 19th century. Yet, here we are still. What Malthus had not predicted was humanity's cleverness, originality and ability to improvise, adapt and overcome. What Malthus failed to see was humanity's ability to use technology to solve the problems that nature either couldn't or wouldn't.

"Geography matters. Inequality is natural. Famine, pestilence, and war are Nature's way of balancing the population.

~Will Durant~

Born in 1885, died in 1981, Durant was historian and philosopher who lamented the relegation of philosophy to an academic ivory tower, and deeply felt that philosophy should be the foundation of all political-economic policies. Through a lifetime love affair with philosophy he eventually came to wonder profoundly the meaning of life, as trite as that may seem, and in doing so came to ask the same kind of question that is being asked in this thread. He asked this question of many contemporaries in a letter and with their replies attempted to compile a sort of consensus as to the meaning of life and published this compilation in a book titled; On the Meaning of Life. It was telling in his introduction to this book, his conclusions on birth control:

We discovered birth control, and now it sterilizes the intelligent, multiplies the ignorant, debases love with promiscuity, frustrates the educator, empowers the demagogue, and deteriorates the race."

~Will Durant~

Nature is trying very hard to make us succeed, but nature does not depend upon us. We are not the only experiment.

~Buckminster Fuller~

Born 1895, died 1983 he was perhaps a visionary born before his time. Certainly not nearly as accepted by his contemporaries as he's come to be accepted today, he was a philosopher, and environmentalist and inventor. Known for his carbon molecules called "fullerness" or "bucky balls", he also coined the term "ephemeralization", that being the fruit of synergy, in a nutshell, (or a peach pit), it is the principle of doing ever more with ever less. Ever less weight, ever less time and ever less energy, for every given level of functional performance.

Making the old axiom that less is more, even ever more out of less, Fuller's vision of a systemic worldview was so ahead of its time we can barely grasp the concept of a world view, let alone a systemic one. What is a world view? Are we as individuals, inherently subjective even capable of possessing a world view? As stress, uncertainty and frustrations continue to plague us, both as individuals and in our collective cultures, we become overwhelmed with a bombardment of data in this so called "age of information" easily devolving into the age of disinformation.

Having no clear vision of the future we turn to sites like this that embrace prophesy's of the past, many of which prognosticate doom and gloom for an unworthy humanity sure to either burn in the eternal flames of hell or simply distinguish ourselves like a flickering candle in its last gasp of oxygen. We crave freedom and in order to have that freedom we must assert our right to be individuals and yet, we can never know all there is to know if we refuse to embrace the collective knowledge gathered throughout our past, from civilization to civilization, from idea to idea, hypothesis to theory, and theory to either falsification or principle.

How is it we break free of our subjective realities plagued with focus on the fragmented pictures of our own experience into the more fluid experience of wholeness? How do we keep our freedom and avoid the pitfalls of a collective group think, instinctively understanding our own individuality is as every bit as important as our species as a whole. Separate yet undeniably interconnected, how do we align the two to make for a better world, a better progress, a better humanity? How can we make informed decisions about a world we hardly know?

"The earth is like a spaceship that didn't come with an operating manual."

~Buckminster Fuller~

What do we know of nature? How can we come to know the nature of nature itself? For, without this knowledge how can we even dare to presume that our wisdom is infinitely greater than that of natures? Surely nature was around doing her thing long before we came on the scene and if we fail to achieve immortality as a species than nature will surely be around doing her thing long after we're gone. Would we, should we place some sort of control upon the growth of population? How can we possibly know natures reaction to such an action? How can any one of us say with absolute certainty that controlling the population won't just send a message to nature that we have decided to stop doing what nature demands we do? And how can we be so certain that such a message won't just create our own demise?

Pollution? Should we stop polluting? We ingest and digest just as all living things do and our digestion is, in effect, pollution. Methane gas from the flatulence of cows is claimed to be one source of our ecological problems. Farting is pollution! What shall we do about pollution?

"Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value."

To look at the exponential growth of our population and not understand the phenomenal success that illustrates biologically is but a contraction. To look at the pollution caused by our vast technological developments is but a contraction. Nature does not contract, like the universe we live in she expands! So should we. What good would it do us to protect ourselves from imagined demise by contracting while we live in a system that tends towards entropy? The planet will someday die and if we don't escape it so will we. The solar system will entropy and if we don't escape it, so will we. The universe will tend towards entropy and if we agree to do the same, we will surely perish. As painful as it is, we must expand, and refuse to contract.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]