The Overpopulation Myth, The Underpopulation Crisis

In the chart that shows total change in fertility the left side has the graph go from 1 to 7, is that a percent of the population or a figure in numbers. Just confused about it.

reply to post by ghostsoldier

While I completely agree with you that it is unsustainable I disagree that 1st world has to become 3rd world.
If the population decreases everyones standard of living does not become the same,unless you are a communist.We are a capatilist society whereby greed is the name of the game!the wealthiest will continue to consume and increase their resource use even with 3/4 of the population gone!
And yes I also agree that recycling will not save us!

[edit on 17-8-2010 by defcon2]

reply to post by CHA0S


Poverty and greed are a blight upon this planet not humanity. Every human being is valuable beyond measure. Your attitude simply perpetuates the very things you seems to be so disgusted about.

I am also disgusted,.... read over your words again and you may see why.

Originally posted by defcon2
reply to post by ghostsoldier

 

[...] I disagree that 1st world has to become 3rd world.
If the population decreases everyones standard of living does not become the same[...]

Comparatively speaking, was what I was talking about.

The financial wealth of the top one percent of U.S. households now exceeds the combined household financial wealth of the bottom 95 percent.

And that 95% is richer than probably close to 70% of the rest of the world.

reply to post by ipsedixit

People at that level are quite willing to kill millions or to starve millions of other people, simply to stay, not alive, but on the same economic level that they occupy, or even better, to inch themselves even one more millimeter above other ultra-wealthy people. This is the most serious threat faced by humanity in almost every area of endeavour, the paranoia of the people at the top, and their ability to manipulate the global economic paradigm to their own benefit and to the detriment of literally billions of people.

Another insightful post as usual. I sure wish others would come to see this tremendously important point you make. So often, people want to talk about this issue, or that, and they even take strong emotional positions too, and yet, they debate exactly what our masters have decided they will debate. They vote, and yet, they "choose" between two candidates that our masters have put before them.

It is essential that we begin to see this "higher dimension", that of the reality that descends from an elite, that is indeed "paranoid" as you say, that can certainly do many things, with their wealth and power.

I often ask people to consider what that would "look like". Or, I may ask them to put themselves in "their" shoes. Hard to do perhaps, but unless we make an attempt to see things, as the elite do (as screwed up as they may be), then we are doomed to thinking as they want us to think, and acting precisely as they have dictated. And this CAN be to our detriment.

Sadly, the vast majority have no idea, that "their" ideas, their political sentiments, their most cherished politicians...are all given to them by an elite with an agenda. And at it's most basic level, their "agenda" is much like you say, I completely agree, and something anyone should be able to understand.

Of course they want to keep that which they have. Often, we're talking about fortunes that took generations to build, and there is a real psychology that borders on ancestor worship even, and all this, is no where on the average person's radar.

But maybe it needs to be. We need to realize that their agenda can easily be quite dangerous, and turn deadly, with little real "provocation".

And all this only touches on the most commonly "understandable" part of the elite psychology. Beyond that, there is so much more. Not only the retention of mere "things", but long after things are seen to have so little real value, there is that which endures, and that is power. And it becomes an insatiable lust, one that projects out into a future that is mostly as uncertain for them, as it is for any of us. Uncertainly can mean "fear", even for them. And yet, they have the means to do far more terrible things than most of us, if they ever felt backed into a corner.

And then there is that ever-growing power, which only has it's more complete context, as we consider the dynamics of their peers. There is the bigger scheme, as these dynasties forever jockey for even higher standing, amongst themselves, and while it may be hard to grasp, it does seem like these things, for them, rank far, far ahead of mere human lives.

If this is the "real" world, beneath all the sound-bites, amidst the torn-out pages of rewritten histories, then we should truly be on our guard. No, we may not have the resources to fight them at their level, but perhaps we can be part of spreading an awareness, if you will, that will begin to look past the obvious.


JR

Originally posted by aliengenes
you could put every man woman and child from every country in the world in Texas, and give them all one acre of land,and they still wouldn't overpopulate the state. thats how many people there are.

overpopulation of the planet is impossible at the rate we die

Do the math or provide your reference. I'm tired of doing the math every time someone makes this statement. For starters, there aren't six billion eight hundred million plus acres in Texas. There are that many people on Earth.

Looking at the World Clock, you will notice the birth rate is higher than the death rate.


World Clock

I can't imagine any logical reason we would need more humans than that...or half that...or a quarter of that....

It seems to me that many here who are arguing the case that overpopulation IS NOT an issue, are really making the point that IT SHOULDN'T be an issue, had we done (or if we do) things the right way.

Until we actually make the necessary changes and successfully end all the negative effects that we're CURRENTLY having on this planet, we remain with a problem of overpopulation.

[edit on 17/8/10 by Navieko]

It's sustainablity not over population but unfortunately if we don't populate we can't sustain but we need to bite the bullet soon and cut pop growth so we can get to a happy medium with our planet. So yes women do need to have 2 children but that is to sustain population not to grow it. But then you have certain cultures where having 8 kids is the norm so it is going to be over population as we can't sustain it.

In Australia our population is growing but we are starting to worry about water sources so does this mean we are over populated for what our region can sustain. This isn't the only thing we are getting low on we are losing agricultural areas for housing developments. Different areas can maintain different size populations or grow at a rate where we can sustain it and not allow extra population to burden our resources.

Now this is slightly misleading this thread too as how many millions in the world such as Pakistan, India, Africa areas have children dieing but are having more kids than just replacing an aging population.

Originally posted by defcon2
We are a capatilist society whereby greed is the name of the game!the wealthiest will continue to consume and increase their resource use even with 3/4 of the population gone!

I think this is right. Warren Buffett, with his work with Bill and Melinda Gates and now with approaching other super wealthy people is trying to create a new ethos among the super wealthy, endeavouring to get them to plough half of their wealth back into society as a whole, in whatever way they choose, to benefit humanity as a whole.

This kind of thing is as important to our future as educating the poorest in the third world about birth control. We desperately need a humanitarian ethos among the super wealthy. We need them to embrace big problems and throw away the "lifeboat" mentality that characterizes much of what they do.

We've seen revolutions in this world. We've seen the horrors that often follow revolution. We need a revolution of the mind among the wealthy. We need them to understand that it's not smart or cool to become a slovenly, effete class of overconsumers. We need them to realize that reducing the world to a "national park", population 500 million, is really pulling a blanket over one's head and ignoring our larger planetary issues.

We need more people, using more energy to rise to a level as a species, where we can truly engage the problems that a big galaxy can send our way. The ultra rich must be an integral part of meeting that challenge and all the intervening challenges that seem so daunting at this time in the political history of the world.

reply to post by Lookingup

Not sure about the math for Texas, but here's the math for Luxembourg:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are roughly 6.8 billion people in the world. If you allowed everybody two square feet of space they would take up an area of approximately 487.67 square miles. That's roughly 21.2 Manhattans. If you wanted to give them roughly 4 square feet each, you know to dance or stretch, you could put them all in Luxembourg.

The only reason there is debate over the overpopulation question is that people are using different definitions of what it means to be overpopulated.

Some people use physical space and food production as the measuring stick, some use pollution, and some use oil depletion, while others will determine it by if there is too much traffic or crime on the street. You can be right or wrong on this argument based on what your definition is.

Don't you guys see it? The people you consider on the "wrong" side of this argument are simply those who have a different definition than you! If people would clearly state what their definition is, you would find something amazing.

Get this: WE ARE ALL "RIGHT" ACCORDING TO OUR OWN DEFINITION! (otherwise there would be cognitive dissonance.)

You know what is interesting? It doesn't matter. What matters is how we will handle the changes that absolutely are going to occur whether population goes up or down.

There are always going to be changes. How extreme those changes will be and will you be prepared for them is the only debate you should have on this issue.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by TattarrattaT]

If we didn't have all these diseases that kills about a billion people are year we would be over populated.That's a fact.

Someone said underpopulation crisis?That's a weird new one.Why would that be a crisis?

We are like a virus.They have to keep the virus at a maintainable level.

Picture a perfect world.Everybody is happy,nobody kills,no virus's,people live to be about a hundred say.No need for doctors or lawyers..right?No need for judges or the police,no need for wars which would mean no army..Right?And unless they had population control they would be overpopulated.

What should they do?For one..limit people having kids to only 2 kids per family.If they had the technology(which I'm certain the do) they could somehow at a certain age block anybody from having babies unless they can prove they have the money or the know how to take care of it.And you have to be a certain age to where they could just get the man's you know what sample and artificially inseminate the female..but you can still have sex you just can't have babies whenever you want.Especially these young girls nowadays thinking it's cool to have a baby not realizing it could ruin their lives.

I think they need to control the pregnancies in order to control the population more effectively..and you're not killing people to do it.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by XxiTzYoMasterxX]

I see a lot of hate of your own lifestyle, and nothing to support any of your contentions whatsoever.

My being well off does not steal an apple from the mouth of another.

Nothing but your framing makes that so.

I've been in the cracks of society. You feeding your children and doing well never took a meal away from me. Ever.

There are problems with the consumer market - ones that could be dealt with again with proper management.

The only way to get that management is to have something that enforces ethical behaviour in corporations. Laws pertain to countries. Trading is global - and between that and corporations/individuals being motivated and directed legally to sustain only profit - lack of some regulatory effect to create that and enforcement of it will continue to be a problem.

To do this, we would have to accept that regulatory effects need to be enforced and created at a global level. Either we do it, or we leave it to the corporations and trading to define it for us. And it proves to be lacking in ethics fairly regularly.

You either accept that there is a need for global regulatory bodies, and you start engaging with them to ensure they are rolling out ethically sound concepts, or you freely relinquish it to corporations.

Either way, global level regulation will and is happening. And you are apart of it mister and ms. typing on a piece of technology built in several nations by people who cannot afford a computer so that you can decry your own purchase of it.

That world clock is pretty interesting...
The CDC has some numbers, though they're not very specific:

Deaths:
www.cdc.gov...

vs.

Births
www.cdc.gov...

This business about the world population living comfortably in Texas always makes me wonder... It's all relative to the local water and food supply. Who even figures this stuff up? And if fictionally it came to that, the water supply alone would never match. Just imagine the freakin' sewage problem, because I don't want to...

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Gosh - looks like the exact same distribution for numerous other species on this planet.

How odd.

Originally posted by jlafleur02
In the chart that shows total change in fertility the left side has the graph go from 1 to 7, is that a percent of the population or a figure in numbers. Just confused about it.

How many children.

Originally posted by Aeons
I see a lot of hate of your own lifestyle, and nothing to support any of your contentions whatsoever.

My being well off does not steal an apple from the mouth of another.

Nothing but your framing makes that so.

I've been in the cracks of society. You feeding your children and doing well never took a meal away from me. Ever.

Your own personal experience could simply be good luck. Are you implying that no-one's good fortune in an economic sense has ever led to anyone elses's economic misfortune?

I read somewhere that the middle class in the United States is shrinking. Surely most of them are migrating to the lower classes economically. I suspect that their misfortune may be connected to the doings of the upper economic classes. Maybe they had jobs that could be done more cheaply in Mexico or elsewhere and were "exported" by the wealthy to those places.

Globalism is a problem that won't be handled properly until people get control of national problems. The US has a problem in government that it needs to address. When countries prove they can govern themselves and not make too much trouble, then they can think about globalism. Would anyone like to see the Americans managing a global economy?

[edit on 17-8-2010 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


Nation boundaries and their issues are not influenced solely inside.

Therefore only focusing on your internal problems is only willful blindness.

In quiting the international stage to attempt to set up some sort of subsistence farmer utopia a-la Pol Pot, you would need to be some how internally wealthy to keep up this utopia AND protect yourself from the ever increasing military might of nations which do not so limit themselves. Ones that will eventually turn their eyes towards a tasty morsel of you and yours.

So, people here often have the same dreams Pol Pot had, AND if you actually did it it would only last for a limited time before a more aggressive culture broke your back.

There is no Eden for you to return to.

reply to post by Aeons

I wish you had addressed my post.

I hope you are not Cambodian, because I don't want to offend by saying that I haven't the slightest interest in Pol Pot or Utopia. The whole notion of the urgency of a global agenda on various problems is an attempt by those ready to profit from global initiatives of various sorts to further their own very non-global and highly personal self interests.

These international business creeps throw cheap Nikes in our faces as if to say, "see, you are complicit in ripping off these poor Asians, so shut up about your morality."

Well, sorry, those days are over. We're not going to shut up and we want some focus on issues here at home in government. We don't care if the global (fill in brand name) empire collapses, because we are already collapsing at home despite profits in segments of industry.

If Clinton, Bush and Obama can't run a humane society at home, don't you think it would be unwise to give them a global purview?

Global, global, global. These people can't run local, let alone global.



[edit on 17-8-2010 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by Blue Shift








We have excess of "basic needs" we choose to waste all the time.
yet there are still people who lack these basic needs that the fortunate ones have.