The Overpopulation Myth, The Underpopulation Crisis

reply to post by Gorman91


No i agree with you, I see mankind as a industrious force that probably will never stop moving forward. To move forward means survival as a species, maybe it isn't intentional but it is somehow ingrained in the human genome.

Eat, survive, reproduce, expand.
As we advance technologically those words take on new meaning and become far more drastic and far reaching.

reply to post by LiveForever8


Your math does not seem to support the simple fact that when I was 12 the population of the earth was roughly 4 billion people and that it is now, 25 years later, roughly 7 billion people.

Furthermore, the first video that you posted quoted a staggering and fundamentally ridiculous claim that "everyone on earth can live, with a yard, in an area the size of Texas. I've heard this claim before and it drives me up the wall that people are still quoting it.

This statement that "everyone on earth can live, with a yard, in an area the size of Texas" is mathematically idiotic and patently stupid. Texas has an area of roughly 696,200 sq km, the Earth has a population of 6,862,954,176. This is a ratio of 1 sq km : 9857 humans and would allow for every human being on earth to stand, with elbow room in Texas if there were no obstructions. It does not take into consideration any of the infrastructure that is required to keep a human being alive in this day and age.

If the video as posted intended to say that humanity can all live in texas and each have a square yard of space in which to live, then then I think that the statement is still idiotic.

In the meantime, be careful about listening to whomever and whatever crosses your path and don't hesitate to do the math.

tamale.

reply to post by snowen20


Well yes. That's why I'd like arcologies to be built.

I CAN foresee a World Union paying for people to go off and colonize other worlds to bring back resources and foods to Earth.

You got to remember one thing though. We will always need oils and dangerous chemicals. But we can diversify into other things. The key is to multi task energy sources, not dedicate to one way.

I can foresee this World Union desiring 4 billion people on the planet and the rest on colonies. You could spread out 2 billion across a dozen or so colonies and farm and mine for Earth.

The fact is our job is to do nothing but control nature and spread it to the stars so as to further increase the chances of sentience when we inevitably go extinct.

reply to post by Gorman91

Nature cannot and will not ever exist in balance with man. It is something to control and make sure we do not abuse that control.

Yes, I agree, and the non-abuse of that control means controlling and manipulating it in a sustainable manner.

Nature is not nice. The natural order of things is to die and go extinct.

Nature can actually be nice if you spend some time getting to know "her". And yes all species will eventually go extinct, but all species on Earth (except humans) operate in some sort of unity and with balance...things do go extinct all the time, but you can see a high degree of balance and dependency on all other species in any ecosystem. We do depend on other species whether we like to admit that or not. But we also are able to directly control the growth and "production" of that species. We can theoretically do that in a sustainable manner which provides adequate resources for the entire worlds population.

The perfect world you are talking about means no advancement and stagnation. No. Sorry, that's not going to happen.

It means nothing of the sort...it simply means balance and equality...you seem to think such things are impossible for a so called intelligent species...yes, it could potentially slow the rate of our advancement by limiting things to a sustainable level, but being gluttonous and wanting it all now is hardly the answer. Slowly but surely I say, the way that wins the race.


[edit on 17/8/10 by CHA0S]

reply to post by CHA0S


Then you have to explain something to me.

Humanity evolved by consuming and destroying everything in its way and taking control of the natural world. This is how we evolved to what we are today.

How is such a species in balance with nature?


You are talking about putting limits on human growth for the sake of nature. That's not happening. I'm just as much a Teddy Roosevelt lover of nature as you I am sure. I can appreciate it and love it. But that does not change the fact that it is in contradiction to mankind and will inevitably be controlled.

I favor natural reserves and limited preservation. But I do not favor limiting human growth under any circumstances.

Your only solution is arcologies. Nature put to use in the city.

The balance you speak of does not exist. because we evolved by destroying that balance.

The myth of overpopulation is nothing more than a desire to keep the common man in his place and limited so the few can control him.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by CHA0S


We have a hoarding mentality. No doubt a holdover from harder times when we had to really fight to live in harsh environments.

If our sun were to start dying an we managed to pull our heads out long enough to get out of here we would be taking that mentality to wherever we go.

Such an event would then start anew on a larger scale. Only this time our instinctual desire to hoard would probably devastate a new planet in a few generations. We would have this idea that since we barely escaped disaster lets be extra prepared next time. Consequently we become a cancer by outside forces playing on our development.

reply to post by snowen20


And for that reason arcologies are the only way to aid that negative part of humanity. Put nature in the city so it does not die from the city.

When the rich people found out that their rich is not justifiable, according to the teachnings of the Bible, they resort instead to reduce the population that they supposed to help or feed. It is a way to reduce the guilty conscience by the power that be (TPTB).

Twisted of course !!!

I learned this after finding out that Bill Gate supports the population control program.

I think the nature should be able to control the population by itself by drought or by some unknown genetic mechanism.

When some species find the danger of extinction, they tend to produce more. Probably that's why the poor countries have the higher birth rate than that of the richer countries.

reply to post by Gorman91


Now that's an interesting concept. Make nature a tradition. Something that can not be forgotten. Novel idea.

By making nature a part of everyday human existence we essentially become one with it.
Creating a kind of background noise, that overtime became who we were as a species.
See why cant there be a damn conspiracy to do this?

[edit on 17-8-2010 by snowen20]

Originally posted by die_another_day
It doesn't matter what we say or do, the human population will increase indefinitely.

You (and many others) seem to have missed the OP's main point:

The myth of "overpopulation" is an erroneous distraction - obscuring the fact that humans are becoming infertile along with amphibians, fish and other animals.

For example, see:
MEN: You are being chemically castrated.

...Also, it follows that humans are on the list of endangered species facing the planet's 6th Mass Extinction.

As technology advances as mentioned giving people longer life continues to improve, our quality of life seems to diminish. The breaking down of the family structures that are considered traditional is more and more apparent because our world truly is changing. If people eventually do begin to live forever or at least hundreds of years because of technology do you think that nature will fight back? My guess would be that nature would probably by way of mental issues like older men quit being interested in girls because theyve been there and done it all in there 500 years of life or whatever and vice versa or nature takes away the ability to concieve because of it some how or another. Our planet DOES sustain all forms of life because it has an uncanny ability to force change within all life to keep a balance, once the balance in ecosystems is disrupted there will be hell to pay.

reply to post by Gorman91

Humanity evolved by consuming and destroying everything in its way and taking control of the natural world. This is how we evolved to what we are today.

Up until about the industrial era I'd say it was more like a steady progression and advancement rather than label it as destruction...there is a difference between when our actions are completely sustainable and when they are blatantly destructive, you seem to draw no line though.

How is such a species in balance with nature?

I never said we were in balance, in fact I've said multiple times we are controllers and manipulators of nature. We aren't trying to balance our-self with nature, we are changing nature so it fits with our needs. HOWEVER, just because we don't seek a natural balance with nature doesn't mean we can't limit our actions to change the environment to a degree which is sustainable, it's not us balancing with nature, it's us balancing the systems of nature so that they can sustain themselves, and in doing so it also ensures the sustainability of our species, which is the main point here. I can't see why you feel no limits need to be set on our manipulations over nature etc. We could end up being our own worste enemy by doing so, we could provoke our own demise, not only in the way I put forward in that thread, but also other possible ways (e.i. destroying too many of those species and natural systems we depend on). Did that thought cross your mind?

You are talking about putting limits on human growth for the sake of nature. That's not happening.

There aren't any "limits"...we still posses the same ability to advance the same amount, it just may take longer, and it's not only for the sake of nature, it's for our very own sake as well as I said above.

I favor natural reserves and limited preservation. But I do not favor limiting human growth under any circumstances.

Again, there are no limits being placed...it's about taking the slow but steady path...doing things in a way that can be managed and sustained so that we need not do something we may greatly regret at a later stage.



PS- Extremely sorry for taking this topic off course for so long (though the OP said he/she didn't mind, but that's not the point). Hey, at least it's now on the front page!

[edit on 17/8/10 by CHA0S]

reply to post by LiveForever8


Thanks for this thread, LiveForever8, and for the trouble you have taken to research and provide the excellent data in your post. I think it's a fascinating topic, and one which generally isn't scrutinised enough.

I'm with you on this. Me too, I believe that overpopulation is exaggerated, and probably a myth.

It's just one more thing they use to browbeat us with and grind us down, and further their own diabolic agenda.

I don't deny that population has grown, but the data relating to the decrease in global birth rates since appro. 1965 is being too often ignored and not included as part of rational debate on this topic, and, of course, is never included in the overpopulation propaganda. No surprise there.

The drop in global birth rates is real. Experts predict that it will have a huge impact in a generation or two, some are already raising the alarm that the world is facing a serious depopulation crisis.

Fact: It is already acknowledged that Europe is experiencing a depopulation crisis.

See: "The World Spinning from a Population Crisis"
www.realwomenca.com...

Excerpt from above article:

Quote:
These demographic figures in Europe indicate that there will be one worker per one retired person by 2050. Already, the declining population in Europe has given rise to reductions in social services, which have led to angry demonstrators objecting to this decline in services. Such demonstrations have occurred in the past few months in France and Austria, as well as Italy.

The U.K. has attempted to meet the ominous drain in pension funds caused by its low birth rate with the recent announcement that it will raise the retirement age from 65 to 70 years. Other countries are offering job re-training programs for 65 year olds in order to encourage them to remain in the workforce. Increased taxes to cover the growing financial problems in Europe are also proving to be another solution, but also a headache for many governments, which must face a disgruntled electorate over the rise in taxes.

Unquote.

In UK the increased retirement age is already being implemented.

It's inaccurate that deforestation is happening because of increased population, I believe it's happening because of increased consumerism and greed, and because a total lack of ethics by the big corporations who care nothing for the environment, but only about how to make maximum bucks at the least cost to themselves, irrespective on consequences on the environment.

The greedy powers-that-soon-won't-be prefer to blame overpopulation rather than their own greed and total lack of regard for the environment, in the name of their god of exploitation and profit. It's a diversion tactic.

There is a lot of disagreement between scientific experts about whether global warming is happening at all, and even more so about whether CO2 emissions are actually causing the destruction to the climate as claimed.

In any case, we could reduce CO2 emissions and most other pollution virtually overnight IF the greedy, criminal corporations weren't suppressing the hundreds of patents which would provide us with viable, clean, non-destructive alternatives.

They say that overpopulation is causing a food shortage, whilst at the same time they continue to criminally pollute the seas and the earth, which is the source of our FOOD - THIS will cause a huge food shortage if it is allowed to continue.

Fact: he whole population of the globe could fit into a state like Texas or Arkensas, based on a calculation of each adult having an allocated lot of land of 33' x 33'. The WHOLE of the rest of the world would be unpopulated. And, don't forget, the global birth rate is falling significantly and rapidly. Is anybody seriously suggesting that wouldn't be enough to feed everyone?

So, even if the world population grew to the point where it would fit into the whole of the United States, which would be a huge increase in world population, the rest of the world would still be unpopulated and enough to feed everyone.

These same group of soon-to-be-history world leaders' who are pushing the over-population are those with HUGE financial interests in the Corporations which are ruining our planet. In my opinion, this is THE MOST URGENT PROBLEM.

They are poisoning our air, our seas, and our food, they are posinong our bodies, our children and our wonderful animals on this planet.

Corporate greed, corporate disregard for our planet (The Gulf oil Spill being just the latest example) and populaces who have been conditioned into mass, greedy consumerism is what is ruining us.

The earth won't be able to sustain ANY life at all if this crimiinal, murderous agenda isn't stopped soon.

When the world embraces human values as the most vital foundation on which everything else must be built, when care for our planet is the first and highest priority by which all manufacture must be ruled, the world will be a wonderful place to be, and there will be enough for everyone to live abundantly.

Well we are not overpopulated the earth yet... and I don't want to see what happens when it does happen. In fact it has happened in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan... hell of a lot people but not enough resources land, water etc. to sustain a normal life for them.

Originally posted by Aronolac
This world and its resources can support about 3 billion people easily; it can not sustain itself approaching 8 billion people.

are you hanging around the moses hill a lot? who gave you that number?


convenient round numbers, typically invented from scratch, yet people still want to believe, right?

the peak is predicted for around 2010 to 2050 , see:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



you will be singing a different tune once countries hit hardest by fertility declines (thanks to manipulated economics and social engineering in general?) collapse. you'd think that you could do without the EU and Japan, but somehow i feel it won't remain limited to them, due to globalism, etc. - but who really knows. this goes beyond economics, even if today's mindset is apparently fanatic about it to the extent ww2's axis powers were fanatic about war. maybe for the same reason, even. i will have to remark that simply killing them at the end of ww2 would have been easier, methinks and never have affected another two generations who had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Originally posted by LiveForever8

However, Malthus plagiarised many of his ideas from Giammaria Ortes, a defrocked Camaldolese monk who first wrote of population control on 1790. Ortes' magic number for maximum human population? 3 billion. Anything more than this and the world would collapse into itself and be destroyed.

Obviously this is all a load of rubbish as now the human population stands at roughly 6.5 billion, more than double what Ortes and Malthus had given as their unalterable upper limit for the world's human population.

They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

Why is it that whenever someone is dead on the mark about something that nobody wants to hear, their work is called "plagiarized"? Borrowing ideas from other scientists and social engineers isn't plagiarism unless it's word for word. The same excuse was used to smear the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to great ends I might add. It makes me wonder just who is dismissing it as "plagiarized"?

Eugenics was a vogue ideology around the turn of the last century, even though we only hear of it now when referencing the Third Reich. I ponder how many people know that forced sterilizations and institutionalization occurred in the U.S. at the same time for the "slow", the "different", and homosexuals. No - we only learn that it's wrong by pointing our fingers in other directions.

Getting off track there, but my question is: How exactly is it rubbish when that 6.5 billion doesn't take into account sustainability? We keep adding to the amount, yet at what cost to resources? The numbers seem all fine and good (and I don't want you to take this the wrong way, you've done a fabulous job with this thread) BUT how does that number stand up to long term sustainability vs. resource and commodity? See, these hypothesis, whether said or unsaid, take these foreseeable things into account. To say that we're sitting pretty at 6.5 billion when there's obviously so much famine and hardship already beating the door down - is a bit misguided. I find that number pushing the very limits of long term sustainability, and don't feel your research reflects that. Perhaps the world will collapse in on itself, and we just haven't hit that point yet. What we are seeing is a general inability to manage the amount of people that we currently have in any reasonable fashion.

You can run an engine for awhile after draining the oil. Just because in that brevity the engine is running, doesn't mean it's going to keep doing that indefinitely without disastrous results.

Thanks for the thread. S+F and all that.



[edit on 17-8-2010 by EnkiCarbone]

We are way overpopulated, God did command to be fruitful and multiply, but even too much of a good thing is bad. I remember enjoying a jaunt out of the house and go for a drive, to a store, etc, that was 25 years ago, now its city populations piling into small town setting, here in Florida, as well as many places in the U.S. and other countries. More people, less patience, more stress, road ragers, rude people in lines at department stores, its sickening. Studies done with rats in a maze, with a couple of rats, everything is fine, put more in there, they turn on each other.

If you can open your mind to the possibility of an advanced technological civilization; you would realize that with sufficiently advanced agriculture and food storage and transportation techniques, can increase the population capacity of our civilization significantly.

Earth can hold roughly 300 billion people without harming the environment.

Of course most people just won't get it, but some of you forward thinkers will grasp it easily.

Notice I said "without harming the environment".

First of all, look up the word Arcology.

We just need better technology really. And more open minds.

300 billion is my rough estimate of Earth's population capacity. It may go upwards to 600billion but it's difficult to gauge because not all land mass is arable.

But remember we can build underwater cities. Land isn't the only place to live.

Do you have any idea how much real estate exists under the ocean waves???

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.

If you think even our presence is malicious, there isn't really a point discussing this with you. Do you live in a city? I only ask because most people with such opinions live in big cities. There is a lot of land and there are a LOT of resources. We are a part of the system, not seperate from it. We can destroy ourselves absolutely, but destroying life or the planet is ridiculous. We don't even know under what parameters life can exist.

It's about human stupidity..

Who the hell even wants 5-8 kids? More so, when you can't even upkeep the previous 4?
There would be no problem if couples had like 1 or 2 kids. But in countries with stupid religious laws and very little protection.. bam.

My wild speculation is that the planet could very well maintain the population if we'd have smaller families.

I think that the overpopulation is a very real problem, although I highly likely that certain parties will try to use that as a scapegoat to justify their actions.