Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Overpopulation Myth, The Underpopulation Crisis

page: 3
64
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 



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.



Are you not human??? You speak as if you are not.

And in my opinion, if people spread out more instead of group up in large cities...the world would be a little less polluted.




posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHA0S
..the problem is a combination of too much inequality and too many people...


Doesnt that fix itself then?

You can't complain about overpopulation and simultaneously complain about starvation. The latter will eventually take care of the former.

When the earth cant sustain us we'll die off. It takes care of itself.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 




When the earth cant sustain us we'll die off. It takes care of itself.
Well, yes, that's one way to "solve" the problem...I wrote a thread on a similar concept actually...Will humans provoke their own demise?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


I mentioned free energy on the basis that having it would limit the need for resource consumption assuming that it was an exotic form of energy that was clean and easy to replenish. Being a limitless source would allow for more time to be allocated to the education of the populous as it stand to date to better live in balance with the world.

Concerning the depravity of the world in poor nations I would personally like to think that since the poorest countries have less they like wise consume less. I can in a general sense prove this to a small degree if you request. Let me state that when I say depravity I mean the general idea people have when fight with one another for personal gain and competition.

In any case that leaves the real problem coming from the 20% that consume the most and demand the most.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by snowen20]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 




I mentioned free energy on the basis that having it would limit the need for resource consumption assuming that it was an exotic form of energy that was clean and easy to replenish. Being a limitless source would allow for more time to be allocated to the education of the populous as it stand to date to better live in balance with the world.
That would be part of the positive benefit...



Concerning the depravity of the world in poor nations I would personally like to think that since the poorest countries have less they like wise consume less. I can in a general sense prove this to a small degree if you request.
And this helps get to the reason why free energy may be bad...I agree they wouldn't use much, now imagine if the whole world suddenly had free energy...we would go crazy...and could very well advance, multiply and spread so fast that it inevitably does more harm than good...there's always a catch isn't there...

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

Some times I wish I wasn't human...one of those times was when I was writing that comment...it seems I have the DNA of a human...but I find it rare to come across anyone anyone who has the same way of thinking and mindset that I posses...I don't think that makes me Alien though...or does it...

[edit on 17/8/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Suprising

I think the money sumbers are never going to be a good gauge of wealth because of drastic differences in the actual cost of living but the other numbers are interesting.

You've got me curious now.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


For every 20 people born another couple die.

The fact is the world can support up to 9 billion with today's procedures. China is modernizing, and so is India. They will add to food. And vertical farming will begin in due time, raising the limit to 15 billion, and in time, 100 billion. When a farm as large as a mile can be compressed into a small 150 ft X 150 ft square, food will no longer be an issue.

The simple facts are that the world population limit is limited by only technology. And where there is a need, an invention will be placed.

The only way the world can become overpopulated is if people lost their brains. And by that time, there won't be any people, what with them being dead and all.

Overpopulation, very much so, a myth.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Whooa! slow down there Chaos.

As I mentioned in several posts thus far, the importance of educating.

This is not a free for all kind of thing I'm talking about. Its a controlled release of information and social discipline that is delivered to people over the course of time. Like I said free energy in that case could then be used to devote more social discipline, thereby lessening the impact humans make on the environment.

I want to make it clear that I am not for developing something that would lead us into further decadence making the problems worse. But for a timed release of trained and educated members of society that develop into a new creature mentally speaking.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


There is a limit...the limit is when people don't even know what the ground is because they never have a reason to "visit" it...everyone will be living in massive skyscrapers packed closely together...the Earth can only sustain so many people...at some point in time, when we have left no room for any other life form, and this Earth resembles nothing but a dry wasteland, people might realize their is a limit. If we want a beautiful Earth, we need to make sure we work to keep it that way, because using money and technology to solve this problem will not work.

[edit on 17/8/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 




This is not a free for all kind of thing I'm talking about.
----
I want to make it clear that I am not for developing something that would lead us into further decadence making the problems worse.
Yes, I completely understand that, and I wasn't implying you want to develop such a thing. Your motive in this thread is obviously a good one. I am for free energy myself, and you will see me argue that the Government posses it, and are criminals for not releasing it.

[edit on 17/8/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Suppose over time the human species evolves mentally in such a way that they do not find nature beautiful as you do but rather their own artistic constructs?

having found a way to sustain ecology artificially somehow would that be as bad? I know that for some the idea of a Hypercity miles thick, covering the entire earth is over the top, but if you can find a way to deal with the problems why not?

it may be that people develop to such an extent that they have no specific need for earth to supply for them and use it merely as a platform to dwell on rather than a life form to live with.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Then you move it to another planet. The fact is you are thinking with limits set on this planet, rather then the whole galaxy.

Earth WILL become a city. Eventually all resources will be mined, and all dirt will be in towering farms and the world will be Coruscant from star wars. That is inevitable.

Do I like it? No. But that's why we have a whole galaxy open to us.

I can't help but remember mass effect's description of Earth in 200 years. Perfect description.



The homeworld and capital of humanity is entering a new golden age. The resource wealth of a dozen settled colonies and a hundred industrial outposts flows back to Earth, fueling great works of industry, commerce, and art. The great cities are greening as arcology skyscrapers and telecommuting allow more efficient use of land. Earth is still divided among nation-states, though all are affiliated beneath the overarching banner of the Systems Alliance. While every human enjoys longer and better life then ever, the gap between rich and poor widens daily. Advanced nations have eliminated most genetic disease and pollution. Less fortunate regions have not progressed beyond 20th century technology, and are often smog-choked, overpopulated slums. Sea levels have risen two meters in the last 200 years, and violent weather is common due to environmental damage inflicted during the late 21st century. The past few decades, however, have seen significant improvement due to recent technological advances.



Perfect description.

The fact is you are dividing city and green. When the truth is, green and city will become one.

If you want a picture of what Earth will look like globally in a few hundred years, here you go:

www.infrastructurist.com...

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by snowen20
 




This is not a free for all kind of thing I'm talking about.
----
I want to make it clear that I am not for developing something that would lead us into further decadence making the problems worse.
Yes, I completely understand that, and I wasn't implying you want to develop such a thing. Your motive in this thread is obviously a good one. I am for free energy myself, and you will see argue that the Government posses it, and are criminals for not releasing it.






Agreed.
All I can say is that if someone will essentially sale their soul for money, then cashing in on the decay of humanity and the earth for a few extra greenbacks is probably pretty easy. That whole power corrupts issue no doubt.


[edit on 17-8-2010 by snowen20]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
All of you are wrong.
Some countries and regions are overpopulated, some are underpopulated. We have both an overpopulation and an underpopulation crisis. You can argue here all day and you will not conclude anything, until you realize this.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle.

Struggle is the father of all things!!

A large population may help humankind endure here on Earth, and push us to the stars. Without a large populous we must remain dependent upon the very fragile natural order of things. These natural systems are doomed to fail with or without human input, so we must truly master our environment and begin to manage the natural systems we depend upon or face extinction. A large population requires this to feed itself, and resources in excess of those available here on Earth will force us to the stars.

Depopulation is an idiots dream, and dooms humankind to extinction plain and simple! Consider that 98% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct, and also consider why. The technology and knowledge that would be required to support a population of 1 trillion would very likely see humankind settling new planets and completely managing the bio sphere we call Earth.

Culling the herd when the goal is independence from this environment does not make a lot of sense. We will perish if we cannot reach for the stars. It is 100% certain! I love nature myself, but we are in it for the species.


[edit on 17-8-2010 by Donkey_Dean]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Your kind of stating the obvious.

Anyone who has been to a third world country where resources are gathered in the metro areas knows this, like wise anyone who has ever watched 15 minutes of Natgeo.

The concept you are mentioning is not as broad as the concept put forward by the OP. Where one considers local population distribution problems the other is an overarching theme globally. The point you make does tie in but on a small level I think.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 




Then you move it to another planet. The fact is you are thinking with limits set on this planet, rather then the whole galaxy.
If that is not the description of a virus species...I don't know what is...and your picture is a false hope, you think some how we will come out of all this with a nice pretty green city like that? DESTRUCTION UTOPIA

Humans do not seek a unity and balance with nature...they do not seek to find their place within nature...and that is fine, they can create their place in nature...but they still need have respect for nature. With the way we are going, I can't even enter the closest major city without noticing a clear difference in air pollution, that is just messed up to me. I have seen some places on this Earth that are so utterly petrified by the presence of man it revolting...I'm a Futurist and Technocrat for peak sakes...I think my dedication to technology and advancement is clear...but a blatant disrespect for this Earth and the natural life on it is not something I dedicate myself to quite frankly.

[edit on 17/8/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
 


This is something that I have considered as well. It seems that if people were to manage to live in a Shangri-la type of enviroment where we want for nothing, we would become complacent in our base need for survival.
So that in the event of a global catastrophy we may be screwed.

kind of like a overly domesticated Cat or Dog that has grown too reliant on humans



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I want to make a quote from one of my favorite movies ever, Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol (1984 version):


Ghost of Christmas Present: If these shadows remain unaltered by the future, none other of my species will find him here. But if he is to die, then let him die...! "AND DECREASE THE SURPLUS POPULATION!"

Ebenezer Scrooge: You use my own words against me?

Ghost of Christmas Present: Yes! So perhaps, in the future, you will hold your tongue until you have discovered where the surplus population is, and WHO it is. It may well be that, in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than MILLIONS like this poor man's child.


If you want to decrease the surplus population, start with the Bilderberg Group. There's your overpopulation, the only overpopulation you'll ever see on this planet.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
MY hteory is if you can afford children and your wife agrees (obviously) then continue having kids. We are currently at 4 and going for eight. Conversly, if you can't afford them and you lack a serious level of responsibility then don't have any. It isn't my job to pay for your mistakes.


If you make the cake...procreate






top topics



 
64
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join