The Overpopulation Myth, The Underpopulation Crisis

Originally posted by Aeons
Oh man. What a load of carp.

Well, it might be workable if people were better at how they developed the land, but there's a tendency for people not to. And it's just going to get worse with more people around. You think there's a lot of extra land around for people and farms, but there really isn't. Same thing with fresh water. There are limits.

Check out what these people have to say about it:

AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST

See, the New World Order is going to have to step in either way. Either it's going to have to limit reproduction, or it's going to add even more regulations on top of the existing regulations in order to control land and other resource use.

That's what the New World Order is. It's a global monitoring and regulatory construct that fits over the top of existing governments and tracks and controls resources and trade. Everything from potential comet impacts to refugee movements to terrorist activity that threatens transportation.

At the moment, it's just starting up and trying to get a handle on just how much the Earth has and how much people need. So the scientific tracking and monitoring aspects are the most obvious. A few more huge, trade interrupting disasters like earthquakes and volcanoes, however, and you're going to see the emergency response and control aspects become more visible and official.

The only way to research the population is to count them..lol

This is the world's population time clock!!!

www.worldometers.info...

Look at how slow the deaths go!

Now figure out the reason people are dying.How many "death by natural causes" do you think there really are?

What is killing off people more then natural causes?Cancer,Malaria,Aids and so on and so forth.

As sad as it is people have to die in order to keep the population at a maintainable level.

It's not just space,it's food and water things we need to survive.The more people there are the less of these things people have..the more jobless,homeless,crime,just utter chaos.

I don't care what anyone says,you can't bring order out of chaos when there are too many people to deal with.

Is there a population control problem?Maybe not yet in our country but give it a few years.Plus the whole reason the population would be under control right now is because of diseases.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by XxiTzYoMasterxX]

Look at the births per year and look at the deaths per year.

Deaths.38,273,820

Births. 87,597,100

DAMN that's a huge difference!

In the UK over 90% of the land is owned by less than 10% of the population. The majority of the population live in squashed circumstances in cities.
Perhaps this model is wrong and land ownership should be made more equal.
However, communism lost out to capitalism in the Cold War so maybe the current land ownership model is correct.

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by snowen20

 

Overpopulation give me a break. Lets make more jobs by developing undeveloped land and spread the hell out.

It's your type of thinking that makes me think human kind truly is some kind of virus..."spread and multiple"...go ahead and plumage and destroy the Earth...I couldn't care less anymore, dirty humans can live on a dirty planet, it suites them.

[edit on 17/8/10 by CHA0S]

REPLY: Well, here in the USA, our air is now cleaner than it was at the start of the industrial revolution, and there actually are more trees now than in 1776 (not as large, but they're there.) The population of the entire Earth can fit inside of Texas. (a bit crowded to be sure, but..........)
Mexicans and Muslims are breeding like flies. Many countries are quite worried about the future of their cultures as to the result of people not having enough children to sustain, let alone grow, their countries.

Are we overpopulated? NO!!

What we are though is overconglomerated. the majoity of people are living way TOO close together.

When too many people are living too close together, it promotes violence and lack of harmony.

Why do you think podunk farming communities have little to no crime? They are some of the most poverty stricken in the world, yet they have little to no crime. Why?

Because they are more focused on working together to survive than being overly aggressive and selfish for survival.

It has to do with being forced to live in a confined area too close to too many other humans.

So are we overpopulated? Yes, we are overpopulated compared to the areas that we live in causing societal collapse.

With transportation becoming what it is, it is becoming easier to live farther from where we work and with more and more telecommute jobs to help businesses save on office costs, we can become less dependent on conglomerate living and we can better society.

IF we do it RIGHT!!!!

Jaden

reply to post by Ex_MislTech


Yeah, the technology is here. Cannabis is also a great source of fuel, far more efficient than corn, and grows like a weed.

These types of fuel would take away the concentration of wealth that the oil industry enjoys, so they are prevented from developing.

It is our maturity as a species that is the problem.

reply to post by Aeons


I thought this was an excellent summary, so I thought I would post a quote.

Let me sum that up.

Stop letting the stupid, corrupt, brutal, unethical, elitist mofos run all the countries and claim that the retarded bs they promote is "cultural."

Dancing, song, literature, story, familial traditions, common holidays, these things are culture. Brutal corruption and violence is NOT culture. And I am DAMN tired of people using it to cover the butts of the people retarding 3/4 of this planet's populations.

Oh, and most of those people aren't the "evil American" or Western governments. It is their own damn people, and has been since the beginning of time. That some more prosperous people from the outside have used the channels available to make inroads into those countries for profit doesnt' make them the cause. No matter how many times people say it.

I would add to this that our extremely powerful International Corporations (ICs) work hand in hand with the oligarchies that control these third world nations, to keep most of the world poor, and keep their resources and land tied up and locked off from the expansion of democracy and human rights.

Most of our international charity systems are designed, IMO, to make the problem worse, not better.

The more people, the more competition, the more people are forced into slave labor to enrich the elites at the top of the pyramid.

I don't know much about this kind of stuff, but wouldn't the problem be not that people are having children, but that people are having children THEY CAN'T MAINTAIN?

And besides that, I don't understand how lowering the population would help. It's not like the factories that destroy forests will stop destroying.

A very large porportion of the population is middleaged and older. Meaning that in the next couple of decades there is going to be a lot of people dying.

Meaning your statistics about death to birth rate are less than logical. This should have been clear to you.

www.indexmundi.com...

Definition: This entry gives the average annual number of deaths during a year per 1,000 population at midyear; also known as crude death rate. The death rate, while only a rough indicator of the mortality situation in a country, accurately indicates the current mortality impact on population growth. This indicator is significantly affected by age distribution, and most countries will eventually show a rise in the overall death rate, in spite of continued decline in mortality at all ages, as declining fertility results in an aging population.

reply to post by Masterjaden


I guess you also would care less about mother nature's creatures? I guess who cares about them and run their land over. But sooner or later karma will kick in and the animals will have their vengeance.

Originally posted by CHA0S
What...so this is just plain wrong? There have been like 20 people born in the time it took me to make this post...I look around the world...and I see cities so polluted you can't see the horizon, I see the vast majority is starving and/or homeless.

Exactly the point.

This is just more typical, reactionary line noise from the Right. Reminds me of all of the corporatist drones who came scrambling out of the woodwork to try and claim that global warming was a myth, despite the amount of evidence to the contrary.

But who am I to say otherwise? You're absolutely right, OP. There's no overpopulation problem. There's no pollution problem. There's no global warming problem. Everything is perfectly fine. The rest of us are just tinfoil-clad moonbats. Pay us no mind.

reply to post by LiveForever8


Why do we need more people? To what end? Just for the sake of it?

IRM

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by Starbug3MY

 

But evening out the population numbers over the land more would only mean more development land is needed, and more areas are becoming tainted by our malicious presence. Untainted areas of nature are absolutely thriving, some human infected areas look dead and diseased. You are thinking resource wise, and resources/wealth aren't the problem, it's the distribution of those assets.

You are forgetting to mention that the largest polluters are the minority, the large corporations that pump oil and chemicals into the sea and water supply and many other areas destroying the land. Or US government with their DU weapons to name but a few of the 'real' problem.

Whoever made these flash videos has a wonderfully simplified global view of things.They must have forgot that the earth still comprises of many societies,countries,economies,laws,climates,terrain.It is not an isometric ,equilateral,balanced system.

We are told that African nations are overpopulated which is a lie.Countries such as the Uk, at 61 million to 245kmsq ,and with dwindling natural resources are overpopulated.Imagine putting a blockade on the UK,no imports no exports,just a closed system with 61 million people (many of whom are Chavs as described in another current thread) living in it.There would be mayhem.

If you look at world population densities most of the top thirty were all British colonies at one time or another.The British empire implemented and enforced the economics of avarice to every society it conquered and pillaged.After WWW2,the UN took the wheel and continued the plunder.

Now we have areas of the world that are underpopulated and places that are teeming with humans that cannot be supported by the place they inhabit and thus they need to take resources from underpopulated areas until there are so few resources left that it looks like they areoverpopulating.

Economic policy creates concentrations of populations in places they cant be sustained.It steals from underpopulated areas to hide this unsustainability.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by blah yada]

reply to post by blah yada

We are told that African nations are overpopulated which is a lie.Countries such as the Uk, at 61 million to 245kmsq ,and with dwindling natural resources are overpopulated.Imagine putting a blockade on the UK,no imports no exports,just a closed system with 61 million people (many of whom are Chavs as described in another current thread) living in it.There would be mayhem.

I disagree.
When a country is able to take care of its citizens well, it is not overpopulated, and it is irrelevant if it has to import these resources. International trade and importing goods is a legitimate part of the economy, not stealing.
On the other hand, African nations are definitely overpopulated - there are millions of people living in bad conditions, and the only thing keeping them from death is humanitarian aid and medical know-how imported from other, underpopulated regions (UK).

Economic policy creates concentrations of populations in places they cant be sustained.It steals from underpopulated areas to hide this unsustainability.

I agree with this, but with one correction: unsustainable overpopulated regions are for example poor african and asian ghettos, and sustainable underpopulated region are "first world" regions.

Deaths this year-38,273,820

Births this year-87,597,100

Most of those deaths were caused by diseases...probably about 30 million of the 38 million deaths per year.

The numbers say it all.

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
reply to post by LiveForever8

 

Why do we need more people? To what end? Just for the sake of it?

You ask what seems to be a simple question but it needs to be sharpened up a little. "We" don't need more people. We are sufficient to ourselves.

It's the species as a whole that needs more people. Part of it's design features include propagation and a lot of inducement to propagate.

Propagation guarantees survival of the species.

Large numbers and wide dispersal guarantee survival of large catastrophes. Alligators and crocodiles are dinosaurs that survived the mass extinctions of the dinosaurs.

Survival of the human species over thousands or even millions of years will be a gigantic undertaking that will require orders of magnitude larger numbers of people than currently inhabit the earth.

The details of how we survive are yet unknown but there is a strong urge in us to survive. We need to be prepared to do what it takes, including harnessing the brainpower of billions of people.

Preparing for the exodus of 500 million people from the earth when the "national park" is no longer comfortable is a recipe for the extinction of the human race.

Many hands make light work. When you have a gigantic task in front of you, it helps to have huge numbers of hands.

If you are a senile. corrupt, oligarchical despot, with a "lifeboat" mentality, whose idea of a big task is how to get him and two hundred of his best friends off the planet, then you don't need so many hands. Prince Phillip, for example, is quoted as having said that he would like to come back as a virus and wipe half the human race out.

He and his ilk shouldn't be in charge of anything.

By the time we have to leave this planet we will probably be using the combined brainpower of billions of people and amounts of energy undreamed of in this era.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by ipsedixit]

There might be some truth to this. Do you know how many times the average couple has to have sex to get pregnant? 104!!!!!

reply to post by 19872012

Interesting stat. And nature is so insistent about the importance of this matter that it makes sure most people never stop trying, even when they don't want kids.