UN 'concerned' by world population growth trends

UN 'concerned' by world population growth trends

www.bbc.co.uk

The world population growth rate must slow down significantly to avoid reaching unsustainable levels, says a new UN report.

To have a reasonable chance of stabilising world population, fertility must drop to below "replacement level".....

.."It warns that although the reduction of fertility may be inevitable, considerable effort over the next few decades is required to make it a reality."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Hi guys, not sure if this is the right forum but it's on the bbc website (see link).

The reason I'm posting this is due to the constant reference to fertility. Particularly this line

"It warns that although the reduction of fertility may be inevitable, considerable effort over the next few decades is required to make it a reality."

Edit (posted before finishing my thoughts..)

I'm not implying any conspiracies or agendas here. It did, however, come across as very curious terminology..
To have less children due to biological ability is a different thing to being a choice (whether willing or enforced).

Curious.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

We've already reached an unsustainable level, as will become apparent soon enough, IMO.

Pretty interesting because both Europe and Japan have been reported to have very low birthrates and in Europe, the time the age of which a woman has a child is pretty late (late 20s'-30s). Japan has older generations overlapping each other. As for Africa and other places the OP report talks about (notably 3rd world countries as usual), does it really matter? Most of these people live in war-torn horrible conditions, have little food and clean water, diseases all around, so they are being rooted out somehow.

The article sounds more like it was written by another wealthy person spouting off at the mouth about how there are too many people in the world. Meanwhile, how many kids do the Duggar family have now? America has a population problem yet we have television shows and minor celebrities like Octomom making money off of expanding the population.

I personally think we can have measures to curb population growth but I don't think it will matter unless those measures are austere. Education is the best tool for this but don't count on the U.S. to provide that!!

reply to post by storyboard


The UN is a farce.

What is their charter?

The UN has 4 main purposes
* To keep peace throughout the world;
* To develop friendly relations among nations;
* To help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms;
* To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals.

They should focus on their purpose and stay out of everything else.

reply to post by zroth


Maybe they should maybe they shouldn't that is debatable but one thing is certain . This planet will not be able to support the human population for much longer if the birth rate stays where it is now .. We either have to find a way off this planet and to other colonies or we have to slow down the birth rate of the human species or there will be a disaster sooner than later . Of course that is my opinion , but if you sit back and thin about it I am pretty sure you should come to similar conclusions .

reply to post by zroth


Well, the UN, for all intents and purposes, appears to be a totally worthless organization. They issue edicts from their offices in NYC which go ignored. The tiger has no teeth.

In any case, yes, I think we do have an overpopulation issue. Not because there are too many humans for us to maintain our population now.. but because we are an apex predator. There are more predators than prey now.

And besides, what is this strange pre-occupation humans have with increasing their populations. Growth growth growth.. that's all I see. Make our cities bigger, companies bigger.... bigger, better, faster... all over the place. Whatever happened to being happy with the progress already acheived?

hmm.. went of a bit of a rant there. oops.

What I find interesting in this particular article is that it isn't approached as a choice.

In other words, one can choose to have less children, or be forced to have less children - but that doesn't make them any less fertile.

This article has a particular emphasis on fertility rates. As my understanding goes, fertility is not a choice but is biologically determined. You can CONTROL fertility via contraception etc, but you are still fertile when this control ceases. (In most cases at least).

reply to post by Thill


The topic in about the UN.

The world is not overpopulated.

The management of hoarded resources, for profit, is the only problem right now.

The UN can go to hell.
Who are they to tell the world anything. They can't even manage themselves.

Well then the UN should lead by example.

Attention: "ALL UN member to undergo mandatory sterilization, effect immediately"

Originally posted by storyboard
What I find interesting in this particular article is that it isn't approached as a choice.

In other words, one can choose to have less children, or be forced to have less children - but that doesn't make them any less fertile.

This article has a particular emphasis on fertility rates. As my understanding goes, fertility is not a choice but is biologically determined. You can CONTROL fertility via contraception etc, but you are still fertile when this control ceases. (In most cases at least).

Good observation in regards to the emphasis on fertility.

There is some evidence for a worldwide "fertility crisis" unfolding now for decades, one severe enough that it looks as if it will soon halt population growth all by itself, and relatively "soon" too.

While this goes counter to the generally accepted notion that we are heading into an unsustainable population explosion, even the UN's own research and projections seems to confirm a trend that is exactly the opposite of what most believe.

As to what is "causing" this huge decline in fertility, that could be a topic unto itself, since it is by all appearances a "global" phenomenon, affecting Third World populations just as much.

As far as "choice", no, it certainly doesn't look as if humankind has been given a choice in this regard. Obviously, this implies a perhaps "conspiratorial" agenda, as well as those powerful enough to carry-out a plan that is impacting the entire world. Perhaps there are "natural" explanations, but the more one looks into it, the less likely it seems, again, considering the literally "global" nature of the problem.

The UN's published data suggests that the global population is going to peak about 2050, and then go into DECLINE, so much so that the world will have about the same population as today, in 2100, if everything continues the way it's going.

Obviously, if there was another world war, or a pandemic, or an asteroid/volcanic/etc. catastrophe, the numbers would likely have to be revised downward, considerably, perhaps to the delight of the depop mongers.

A subject worth looking into, IMO.

S & F

JR

reply to post by storyboard


They have been saying this since 1890.. it is always right around the corner.

It is a lie, a scam, and a means of control.

reply to post by pianopraze


Excellent vid pianopraze, but I'm guessing that the hardcore depop folks still won't have it. This myth of overpopulation has indeed become an entrenched "fact" in the minds of the sheeple, and just to be preemptive, I'll also mention that it normally goes hand-in-hand with "Peak Oil", which will make it's debut in this thread shortly, if the past is any indication.

JR

I'll have to have a look into the natural decline trends in fertility rates - it's the first I've heard about them. I have noticed that fertility treatment such as IVF is much more common these days but I put that down to availability and popularity of treatment rather than associating actual decline in fertility with it.

Either way though, 'considerable effort' to decline fertility certainly implies an active role, wherever that role comes from or in whatever form(s)..

Over population in my opinion is only an issue because of large communities, and distribution of wealth and resources. It's the herd effect. Natural disasters and epidemics have a much worse impact these days because when they happen in populated areas, there are a lot more people congregated to be impacted.

As a former Microbiologist I'd like to think I have a good grasp on disease and epidemics. Given the amount and freedom of travel, if something sinister were lurking in the micro world we'd have lost control before we even knew of it's existence. If there ever was another 'biggie' I'd hope for a very virulent strain that kills quickly and burns itself out. The more people around, the easier it is for it to spread.

Considering only natural mutations rather than any potential conspiracies involving man-made, these virulent mutations can happen today, next week or never. What will be will be in that respect. (Sorry for the tangent, I'm a viral geek )

Life is sustainable if we learn to live right.
Some things are in our control. Some things aren't. Some things shouldn't be.

reply to post by storyboard

Over population in my opinion is only an issue because of large communities, and distribution of wealth and resources. It's the herd effect. Natural disasters and epidemics have a much worse impact these days because when they happen in populated areas, there are a lot more people congregated to be impacted.

Agreed, the distribution of resources is an issue that tends to get lost when talking about population issues.

The popular belief that the world is "overpopulated" is bunk, IMO, but there is certainly a basis for substantial pockets of such a thing, which is probably why people find it so easy to believe a larger version of what seems "obvious".

So, belief in overpopulation is certainly forgivable, especially when one focuses on photos of vast throngs of people in India, Asia, etc., along with other horrible photos of starving children, usually in Africa.

Back to distribution of resources. Clearly, there is more than enough food to feed the world's population, and then some. Something I read a while back, it was a bit of a "proud of the USA" piece, but it was pointed out that the "breadbasket" of the USA, together with California, were capable of feeding the entire world! Obviously, there's a lot to it, but considering the massive subsidies given to NOT grow food, it's not so surprising that people do starve.

Add to this odd situation the fact that central banks have set up a global vacuum cleaner through their fiat money schemes, to suck away trillions in productivity, no wonder people see pictures of starving kids, alongside photos of Calcutta, and conclude there is "overpopulation".

But people are beginning to wake up to the global scam that the banksters have been running. Who knows? Maybe some will begin to connect the dots, and then, instead of fighting their urge to bomb India and Africa, they'll finally get some righteous indignation going in the right direction.

It's a complicated issue, which is why people should stop and think, before simply "accepting" what seems so obvious. It only appears that way because an elite has engineered the game so that we look at the left hand, while their right hand robs us all blind.

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth


Let's do a thought experiment. I'm not the best at math so someone please check my math here:

Let's stand every person on earth shoulder to shoulder and see how much space they take.There are 6.9Billion in 2010 so lets round up to 7 Billion for ease. Let's say each person stands in a 2 foot by 2 foot box.That would be 14 Billion square feet... large number but how big is that?

Answer: 14000000000 ft² = 321395.775 acre OR 321395 acre and 3755.5 yd² or 502 Square miles

I can't get my brain around that so let's get a picture. That is HALF the size of Rhoad Island, the smallest US State:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cdaab7b50055.gif[/atsimg]

So imagine half that little red dot on this map:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/744527bcb715.jpg[/atsimg]

That is standing shoulder to shoulder. If everyone lived in a high-rise city the size of Rhoad Island there would be alllllllll that land. Guess what, this is exactly what they want to do. It is called UN Agenda 21. This is not about saving poor starving people. This is about absolute control and killing off everyone that is not a rich, well connected globalist!

Find out more about Agenda 21 and the future they envision in my thread here.

They seem to dominately centre on the solution being lower fertility rates.

Possibly they may well indeed think of doing a China?

Going onto an conspiracy angle...I doubt any 'terrorist attacks' would be planned since it wouldn't kill enough people. If they used biological methods such as diseases...well I think they may aim it at third world countries since MEDC's won't dig into it as it fits a stereotype we have of them.

No matter what, our population is indeed unsustainable...countries like India are being hit hard on water supplies and such.



Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com