The world population must be reduced at all costs

No one can argue the planet can support an unlimited number of people - so the number is finite. There IS a maximum number of people that is indefinitely sustainable.

Part of that sustainablility depends on food production and energy resources ... in the big picture, we are literally talking about joules or calories needed to sustain a human life.

Many smart people have done the calculations and arrived at a number.

If you want to make a valid counter-argument, present your calculations. Scientific fact trumps the square footage of Australia as some kind of argument.

reply to post by A Novel


no. but the world populace could confortably fit on one continent and use the rest of the world to raise crops, animals, and other resources. if you look at the larger picture its not AT ALL an overpopulation problem. its greedy power hungry world governments and corporations eating up everything it can find for monetary and pollitical gain. the people are not the problem its the system.

look at al gore preaching about global warming or cooling or change or whatever it is this week and then flying private jets everywhere and owning multiple unused estates while pushing higher taxes and carbon credits upon the peolple while simutanuously grabbing more power and money.

its a thin veneer of DISASTER followed by a large helping of power money and control over the masses. this same tactic has been used since the beging of governance and its worked every time because the people refuse to look deeper....look where we are now and we still continue this cycle of futilism.

Most of Australia is uninhabitable, thats why all our citys are around the coast.
Most of our outback is desert,its a very hostile environment.

reply to post by area6


Excellent point, Ok let's try it.
Given basic knowledge that people had say 150 years ago for preserving foods and making clothes from weave or skins, would you say you could farm enough food for yourself with say 1/4 acre of land, not your family but just you?
I know i certainly could.
I understand and agree there is a Maximum room capacity per se.
But we have'nt even got anywhere near the maximum capacity.

reply to post by invisibleman11


Excdellent view, I agree greed is the ugly monster.
Good point, why does Al Gore not ride a bike to where he needs to be or video conference instead of going around the world?
Star on you.

Exterminate that small segment of the world's population that says the world is over populated and 99% of the world's problems will be solved

reply to post by iceblue20-12


Yes you are correct, but we are not limited to just one continent.
I refer to just the space a human needs to be productive and happy.
Plus there are ways of making unhospitable land very hospitable.
I would do solar panels with wind and battery storage.
Runb an Air conditioner for my comfort then build greenhouses for my foodstuffs, in a greenhouse you can grow anything any time of the year by climate control.
The gasses built by your gardens would far out weigh the carbon footprint of one air conditioner.

reply to post by soleprobe


I wish that were correct but if we did eliminate that 1% there would be another 1% to fill the power vacuum.
But it is a start, or not then we would be as evil as them.
Vicious circle we have it seems.

reply to post by area6


There is no "scientific" fact. Read my post. One "genius" can come along, and turn it all around.

When people talk about population being an "exponential" problem, perhaps we can argue about the "problem" part of it, but if the exponential part of it is so obvious, then the whole thing is far from "linear".

Back to our geniuses. And that doesn't even bring into it the major campaign to win our minds by our masters.

Most of us believe, exactly what THEY want us to believe. We go to school, learn their history, get to college, and learn more "incontrovertible" BS, that eventually forms our paradigm. From within our small cage, all is so certain. And our masters laugh!

As someone else pointed out. Disasters can take a pretty good chunk of humanity out really fast, and then where is your math? Can we even guess at the number of 60,000 mph big rocks flying in our direction at this moment?

No, we can't. Sure, lot's of calculations, but even more ASSUMPTIONS.

Here's the bigger picture. Whether we like it or not, we already have masters who are not only capable of dealing with the so-called population "problem", but they have demonstrated time and time again, that they are quite willing to do something about it too.

As much as our Western programming immediately wants to take out Africa, or India, or China, that may not be their plan. What if it's...you. Or me, or lots of pesky people who type at problems. We may just be "useless eaters" too. And all the math in the world won't make a difference, because "they" make these decisions.

I like to think about all those smart people in the Twin Towers. Several thousand of them! Too bad, slated for elimination! Right in the middle of New York City?? Come on! Should have been New Delhi, right?

We're all being manipulated, to a degree that actually boggles the mind. Here's an example: Imagine our masters some decades (or centuries ago) contemplating how to make their "plantation" more manageable, how can they best deal with the matter. Perhaps we can imagine one speaking up, reminding the others that once upon a time, people voluntarily would sacrifice their own children! Preposterous! But before too many snickers, the leader of this imagined assembly stroked his august beard, and pronounced such a plan "good".

Today, abortion is a sacred "right". Young people march off to wars for profit, with Mama's blessing! Poisons are called "medicines". And on, and on.

We're already here. We've got NOTHING to worry about when it comes to population, but everything to worry about when it comes to our masters. Because it really could be us next...

JR

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by iceblue20-12

 

Yes you are correct, but we are not limited to just one continent.
I refer to just the space a human needs to be productive and happy.
Plus there are ways of making unhospitable land very hospitable.
I would do solar panels with wind and battery storage.
Runb an Air conditioner for my comfort then build greenhouses for my foodstuffs, in a greenhouse you can grow anything any time of the year by climate control.
The gasses built by your gardens would far out weigh the carbon footprint of one air conditioner.

Yes,it can be done.
Just out of interest,my mate has solar power and wind turbine as it was cheaper than running electricity to his property,modern home with all the mod cons,after seeing it in action we should all live like this!

reply to post by g146541


So what is the capacity? You have to arrive at a number or you don't have an argument.

I don't know if 1/4 acre per person is sustainable. I highly doubt it, but I'm open to real scientific proof, not just saying "I could do it".

While you're working on that, take into consideration irrigation, probability of drought, crop rotation and replenishment of the nutrients in the soil, climates where food can not be grown, etc. If you want to go all "greenhouses and hydroponics" then take into consideration things like nutrient extraction from elsewhere, etc

Natural and sustainable living takes a surprising amount of space. We condense that space by adding massive amounts of energy (oil and natural gas) into the equation.

reply to post by JR MacBeth


If you could PROVE beyond the shadow of a doubt ... smoking gun in hand ... there is a depopulation agenda ...

that does not prove what the sustainable carrying capacity of this planet is, or even guess at a number.

reply to post by JR MacBeth


perfect post on this topic. this is exactly what is happening but people fear disturbing truths more than they fear comfortable lies. well done and articulated.

reply to post by area6


Ok I’ll bite, if you need me to go on an absolute scientific view and step out of my real world views I can do that too.
But first from you I will need a perfect number in square feet or meters if you are metrically inclined.
This perfect number will be the set amount of everything a human will be allowed to eat and how much land exactly it will take to farm this land.
Then and only then will we get scientific, remember scientific is assumed to be correct through trial and error deduction.
Nutrient extraction, wow you made me look at Merriam Webster and for that I cannot forgive.
But just 1 persons compost heap alone would more than work a garden enough to supply 1 family without crop rotations. But if you need to rotate crops you can do that to keep from the mineral/vitamin deficiency.
Drought we are talking about an area the size of Australia, if the Romans irrigated Rome two thousand years ago I’m sure I could irrigate Australia by myself with modern materials, I was a plumber as my real profession before I retired and moved onto an easier job.
Yes we do condense the space we live in not because of fuels but by what we can afford.
There are people that own dozens of estates worth of properties plus staff, some domestic some offsite.
And fuels, they are a joke and a lie for the most part.
One 17 foot wind turbine could supply all the power 1 person could use couple that to solar panels and battery backups, and you could power enough for ten people. Fuels are a joke and a lie being sold by the PTB.

reply to post by area6


Ok smoking gun it is not but some may and probably will disagree.
Fluoridation, GMO foods, Drugs that are made to give you 4 other problems while masking the real problem, cancer (Some say is curable by a raw vegetarian diet or by taking vitamin B17), diabetes (Some say type 2 can be cured with same diet), many herbal remedies that cannot be legally labeled in the US for their long time long believed properties, Plants and trees you cannot have in certain parts because they are harmful,
Is that a good start? That is just off of the top of my head. Shall I get deep and do a Google search for many others?
The only people that can’t see an evil agenda are asleep.

reply to post by invisibleman11


Thank you, and you are correct. but we must shake this snow globe up and make people see the crapstorm that ensues.
I think a hard punch to the face is the only way to wake some people up.
But fear not a BIG PUNCH will be delivered with the next US and it's states budgets.

reply to post by g146541


the people dont want to wake up. they rather rationlize a comfortable lie than find a disturbing truth.

reply to post by g146541


I think the world is overpopulated, and judging by the replies in this thread, im part of the minority. It’s not a matter of spraying un-suspecting populations to silently kill them, it’s about education. We live on a finite planet with finite resources.

I am from Australia and yeah it is a beautiful place, but a few things you forgot. Most of Australia is uninhabitable, if you look where we all live its on the coast, so your math’s is wrong, also each person needs infrastructure, hospitals, schools, and an important one is JOBS. Where I live (on the east coast of Aust about 2 hrs from Sydney) is in the midst of a housing and jobs crisis there is no more room to build houses so councils are starting to encroach on National park, places I used to surf are now built out with housing projects, and unemployment is high.

Because Australia’s population has been rapidly increasing due to government policy in building Babylon, oops, I mean the economy, development has been occurring in more rural locations, and you may remember our crazy bushfires early last year, poor planning of an increasing population contributed to the death toll, due to developments on land prone to bushfires.
Sydney traffic is a nightmare to drive around, 150 year old roads that have been patched and patched and patch some more cannot cope with the traffic flowing through them; our hospital system is crumbling due to lack of staff and sheer numbers also flowing through them.
We are struggling with drought and have been for many years, water is our lifeblood for our agriculture, food production etc. Desalination cannot replace our water supply completely and demand out weighs supply currently.

That’s just Australia, If the world or let me just say for e.g. India and China's population lived like I do we would kill each other, as a westerner living in an advanced country, the resources I consume is unsustainable, (I know that if everyone on the planet lived like I do we would need 3 and a half earths to sustain us) and I actually care about my impact!! And I try and reduce my impact as much as I can!!

The world needs measures to stem our population, we need to take responsibility for our impact on the world and that involves discovering a sustainable level for population, Im sorry but it’s not ok to have 15 children, regardless of what rights you think you have. Its also a joke my country pays parents to have kids I have received 10k for my 2 and whilst I didn’t reject the payment, I still think it is a joke, Until we have a free energy revolution and a more educated society we will have wars, exploitation, famine and disease as 20% of the worlds population owns 80% of is resources.

reply to post by area6


"...the sustainable carrying capacity of this planet."

There may be legitimate uses for attempting to compute "sustainability", for example, the well-known study that the Israeli's made some years ago regarding their birthrate, vs. the Palestinian one. It has been used to formulate policy, often harsh, but in the context of the "Jungle", it could make sense, especially when their very survival is at stake.

Besides this somewhat "infamous" example, we could perhaps chatter about other legit uses of cold utilitarian "science", but in every case, we would be overwhelmed by our assumptions.

Assumption number one: Whoever is defining "sustainability" is benign. Our governments perhaps? Pahleeze! Already, big problem here.

Assumption number two, the human "variable" is to be either minimized, or utterly ignored. You're not a reader perhaps. What about geniuses? I'm not sure we have to be one, to value them, and even expect that they can really screw up simplistic problem solving methodologies. They're really more than just a fly in the ointment, they are a huge wrench in the works.

Now if I was to guess, I would say that what you're thinking about, somehow computing "sustainability", would be far harder than figuring out the weather, but I'm not a Dr. Mengele, so perhaps I'm wrong.

In other threads, I've taken the time to lay out many "depopulation" efforts, spanning many years by the way, it's really so obvious, I might be tempted to say something disrespectful, but I'm also tempted to let it stand for a day or two, and have a legion of others disabuse you of your quaint notion that there is no depopulation going on.

Ever hear of World War One? Two? The 1919 Spanish Flu? Abortion? Aids? Oh...this is all just S#1+ that happens, right? Hundreds of millions, it's just "life"...There's some serious irony here my friend.

JR



[edit on 3-7-2010 by JR MacBeth]

The day will come that we are overpoppulated....no matter for what reason. Therefore we should now start to put our minds onto other planets instead of introducing birth-controle or creating wars.

I watched a very interesting docu about creating an atmosphere on Mars and other planets. It would take decades before it will be suitable for humans to breathe but that is the solution for our problemo.