It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Steve Connor: We need a global debate on population

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:52 PM

Steve Connor: We need a global debate on population

A growing number of scientists are going where politicians fear to tread by calling for a wider public debate on the sensitive issue of the global human population, which is set to rise from the present 6.8 billion to perhaps 9 billion by 2050.

Lord Rees, the president of the Royal Society, brought the subject up in his excellent Reith Lectures; Sir David Attenborough has become a champion of those who believe population has been relegated as an environmental issue.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:52 PM
Here's another prime example that the top elite have always (and will always) talk about reducing the overall population.

Further in the article:
"World food production will have to increase by 50 per cent to meet rising demand; water availability will have to increase by 30 per cent; and global energy demands by 50 per cent. Politicians may think that science and technology will provide what is needed, as it has done in the past at a cost to the environment, but many scientists are not so sure."

This all could be true, and the answer to this problem wouldn't be anything short of mass murder. Very sad.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:23 PM
Population control is an issue that is going to become exponentially more important in the coming years, lol. In all seriousness, this is something that needs to be addressed. With every other living species it is understood that if it's numbers grow out of control there are consequences. For example, I live in Missouri and we have deer hunting season to keep their numbers at safe levels.

As for humans, overpopulation is a sensitive issue because many solutions could arguable violate natural human rights (whatever those may be). In my opinion China has the right idea and at some point the world will have to follow in their footsteps. If two people are only allowed to have two children, then theoretically societies population would remain the same.

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO

This all could be true, and the answer to this problem wouldn't be anything short of mass murder. Very sad.

I don't agree that mass murder would be required to reduce the worlds population, just a tough and kinda Orwellian birth control system throughout the world. A maximum one or two child policy kind of deal. The population numbers would start to decline and peaks and troughs in numbers can be accommodated by temporarily increasing or decreasing the next generations 'family entitlement'.

Sounds terrible, but it's better than most of us being killed off in some contrived happening or major event.

I think smarter ways of living will ultimately be utilized, high rise farming for example, using vertical wall hydroponics growing systems, will yield 10X the harvest for 40% less water and nutrients than does conventional or traditional farming techniques.

Better, more efficient (or ultra efficient!) means of generating energy will be utilized, allowing the population to live in habitats on Earth, that are presently considered too environmentally hostile to us.

Murdering us, isn't the only or the best option.

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:28 PM
Simple solution: Chemically castrate the stupid.

Including(but not limited to) people who think there is a massive global conspiracy to kill off the human population regardless of having absolutely no evidence, and all existing evidence being to the contrary.

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:43 PM
I used to subscribe much more to the "population reduction agenda" -type conspiracy theories, but I have since developed a more nuanced and conflicted view of the topic.

My problem is that I believe that the continued exponential spike in human population is neither benificial nor sustanable. Nature and the sheer mathematics of the situation simply don't allow patterns like the following to persist for long:

One way or another, the above will end predictably and badly.

On the other hand, most human tactics to reduce population would be highly ethically questionable, to say the least. And I take the ethical implications VERY seriously as well. So the way I see it, we have ourselves a quandry here: on one hand, we are facing a very grim situation; on the other, our response is tricky due to fundamental human morality and decency.

[edit on 6/15/10 by silent thunder]

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:46 PM
Don't worry your little heads over there numbers given.

The Illuminati plans are already in motion and they are quelling the population as we speak with the oil fiasco.

The Oil fiasco will poison our food and we will be left on the surface to kill and eat each other.

Don't worry, 2050 is a ways away and there will likely be a significantly reduce populace by then.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Quickfix]

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:55 PM
hello all, I'll throw in a quick statistic as I have to get off to school

"the annual growth rate of the world population has been steadily deceelerating from its peak of 2.04% in the 60's to 1.3% in 99 and is predicted to continue falling. World population is expected to peak in 2075 at 9.22 billion.

Also in wealthier nations with higher average life expectancies the birth rate drops.

all stats from the United Nations 2007 (slightly out of date so others may have newer stats)

If it comes to population reduction who do we get rid of? anyone willing to volunteer their children, parents, grandparents, wives, husbands, friends?

I would say that the population is only a problem because of the way we live and use whats available to us. We use our "resource savings" (fossil fuels, non renewables) instead of moving to a sustainable model using as much recycling and renewables as possible.

And for the skeptics who say it isn't possible, I say the naturalisitc fallacy is alive and well
Why is it are suggested solutions to problems always involve destroying something or someone?

If we get population reduction, its because we deserve it and I have no sympathy for the person that would decide who lives and dies nor for the people who ignorantly believe it is the only solution. Prior to the industrial revolution population was a concern because of the "increase in production of food" which at the time was considered impossible. Nothing is static.


[edit on 15-6-2010 by thebulldog]

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:01 PM
Overpopulation is a MYTH.

OUR problem as humans is that we like to get together in places which are unstable as far as the weather goes, do not have many resources to feed a lot of people, and that we do not put a cap on how large cities and communities can become, while not factoring in things like food, water fresh air.

There is enough of everything for everybody, all we need to do is spread out a bit more and be smart with out resources.

There's no need to reduce the population.

The need is to make the population smarter.


posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 04:54 AM
please. world population is always self-regulating. the growth rate has declined so much. we grow more food than we need, it's just not distributed because of greed.

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 05:05 AM
Hmm. So none of you think population is a problem? As I said, I would have agreed with you not all that long ago, but no longer.

I'm actually convinced the world could support many more people, but the living standards would incrementally drop off a cliff. Sure, we could cram 12 or maybe even 20 billion into this planet -- as long as we were all willing to live like factory-farmed chickens. Also, the more people the less leeway and room for error on a systemic level.

OK, let me just toss this out there -- does anyone have concrete ideas for improving the system to handle the next three billion or so we're expected to get in the lifetimes of most of us, before the absolute number begins to drop off?

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 05:30 AM
I personally hope they introduce a birth license. Want a kid? Get a license.

Before receiving the license they will need to be fit and healthy and also have a certain amount of income to be sure the child will be fit and in a sustainable home.

People that do not comply can face prison time. People that are pregnant out of license will need to get a license within a timeframe or face charges and possible imprisonment / forced abortion etc.

Sounds like taking away a humans rights and freedoms but this is a dark future we are heading into and Population needs to be brought under control. The planet is already trashed enough.

Also, the more machines take over jobs ,the less people you need and the more out of work you have, the more people are out on the street.
(I think population control is already underway or 2012 is going to be a really interesting year)

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 05:51 AM
Although population control is a very sensitive topic, I believe it is necessary to safeguard the existence of mankind. We criticize Bilderberg for supposedly discussing this issue, but we'll have to face it otherwise the consequences will be unforeseeable.

Since the West experiences a negative birth rate growth and most nations will not volunteer to implement birth control, it wouldn't surprise me if the ruling powers will apply more drastic measures that will probably hit Asia and Africa where many countries have positive birth grow rates.


Related news from yesterday:

Food prices are set to rise as much as 40% over the coming decade amid growing demand from emerging markets and for biofuel production, according to a United Nations report today which warns of rising hunger and food insecurity.


[edit on 16-6-2010 by Mdv2]

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:02 AM
The answer is not to control , or reduce our current population... we already do that with war and by promoting famine in poor countries.
What is required is a proactive approach to colonising other planets and moons in our solar system. Im not suggesting that our entire population ought to be transplanted to other worlds, but what I am saying is that in order to prevent a total crush on this world, we need to have more space available. Thats not possible on planet earth , so we need to move on , find other space in which to live.
Another thing that needs to happen, is that architecture and farming methods need to go more hi tech than they currently are. City sprawl should happen upwards and downwards, not outwards. Cities ought to be re organised , and massive habtowers constructed , capable of keeping millions safe, and adequately housed. Futher more to prevent energy requirements being too high as a result of overpopulation, ALL energy needs must in future be met by entirely cost free energy , solar, wind, and water powered, as well as encompassing any future discoveries in the energy production feild.
One last thing. In order to function this , those who have skills in construction and the manual trades must from now on take a higher social status than those who sit at desks and call it work.. if the future is to happen without catastrophic failiure, the bulk of desk jockeys need to either change jobs or accept that thier social status will be reversed, since their worth to society in general will be reduced considerably.

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:13 AM
As fun as sex can be, there is one reason and one reason only for sex, and that is propagation of the species. It is arguable that cockroaches, aphids, rats, and even deer do not spend their days wringing their metaphorical hands about what to do about overpopulation, nor do they worry too much about extinction level events. Humans, on the other hand, do.

The simple truth of the matter is that at some time in the future this planet will not be able to sustain much life at all, let alone human life, and unless we as humans are resigned to die with this planet, then it should be fairly clear that escaping this planet, indeed this solar system will be a necessity if we are to survive the cycles of the universe.

We can either place all our faith in short sighted elites who view everything in terms of what they have to share, or we can take a broader view of the situation and understand that if we are to populate the universe, then our most valuable resource would be our own numbers. We can either discuss methods of which we would decrease those numbers to make the elite more comfortable here on earth, or we can begin discussing methods of how we can take advantage of these rising numbers and like the explorers before us, continue to explore and search for New Worlds which we can inhabit.

Destruction is easy and even a small child can destroy, but building is not so easy and requires far more intelligence than a small child. The increase in population does not necessarily demand we all get stupid. We could begin to look at this situation in terms of the opportunities it gives us, and remind ourselves that as the population increases, so does agriculture, so does technology, and so does our potential for universal understanding...literally so.

top topics


log in