Overpopulation? Elitest Propaganda and Damned Lies Lies Lies!

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

We are blowing through the worlds resources like drunks with a stolen credit card. And we are breeding out of control even now, when the pinch is becoming apparent. Mostly because many of you have been programmed by that same "more more more" system of economic thought you are writing off as "greed." Our overpopulation is a symptom of that greedy mindset. "More humans, more resources for humans." Why do we need more?

The thrust of his argument, as far as I can tell, is that increasing the human population is not necessary. Spiky isn't arguing that we need more humans. He's saying that if our resources were managed more responsibly and if we jettisoned our greedy mindset for more and more materialistic possessions at the sacrifice of the planet's ever-dwindling supplies and started to behave a little more sympathetically to the environment this world would undoubtedly be a better place to live (for us, and for other species as well).

I agree with him that the root of the cause is our selfish mindset. Whether our greed is a result of the egoism encouraged by modern society or perhaps wanting more and more is a side-effect of human nature, to climb higher up the proverbial hierarchical ladder, so to speak, I don't know. I think one thing is for certain though: As a species we have become fascinated with our own self-advancement, at the exclusion of all other species, and this cannot continue indefinitely.

I wouldn't even know where to begin to fix this. How do we collectively change the attitudes of billions of people? As long as consumerism and capitalism exists, I don't believe we can. As long as humans are wasting their time fighting with each other over completely meaningless things like land, money and natural resources (which could easily be spread out to provide for the need of every human on this planet) I think the human race will soon be joining the spirits of the dinosaurs.

Also, I have reservations about how economically viable so-called green-energy like solar and wind is. Denmark created loads of wind-farms, enough energy to theoretically cover 20% of the entire grid. Though they eventually found out, to their chagrin, that they were only able to produce 5% of the total maximum of 20%, without destabilising the grid. I think our best bet is nuclear power. France have already effectively ended their dependency on fossil fuels and derive 60% of their energy entirely from nuclear power. Why can't we all follow in France's footsteps? I think wind and solar have enormous potential, but at the moment, I don't think they can provide us with our energy needs.

reply to post by Nathan-D


The key is nano technology. If we were to create materials as hard as diamonds for application in nearly everything which could be recycled and remanufactured into a updated version at the end of it's life span, there would be no problems.

Think of plastics and silicons stronger than steel used from everything from automobiles to homes to cutlery.

ScienceDaily (Oct. 21, 2005) — Working with a material 10 times lighter than steel -- but 250 times stronger -- would be a dream come true for any engineer. If this material also had amazing properties that made it highly conductive of heat and electricity, it would start to sound like something out of a science fiction novel. Yet one Florida State University research group, the Florida Advanced Center for Composite Technologies (FAC2T), is working to develop real-world applications for just such a material.

SOURCE

ScienceDaily (Sep. 16, 2010) — Carbon nanotubes -- those tiny particles poised to revolutionize electronics, medicine, and other areas -- are much bigger in the strength department than anyone ever thought, scientists are reporting. New studies on the strength of these submicroscopic cylinders of carbon indicate that on an ounce-for-ounce basis they are at least 117 times stronger than steel and 30 times stronger than Kevlar, the material used in bulletproof vests and other products.

SOURCE

Originally posted by TheRemedial
The key is nano technology.

You're missing the point. Yes, we can possibly rely on technology to keep finding newer and clever ways for us to jam more people onto the planet. We could all eventually live our lives stuffed into those little containers like in The Matrix, with hoses efficiently feeding us, exercising us, and carrying away our wastes to be recycled for others to consume. And to entertain us and get us to think we're fine, we can project 3-D images into our pods or into our brains.

Yeah. Sounds really great.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
I wouldn't even know where to begin to fix this. How do we collectively change the attitudes of billions of people? As long as consumerism and capitalism is exists, I don't believe we can.

Don't forget a religion with a God that tells people to "be fruitful and multiply" without telling that even the finest fruit trees have to be trimmed frequently to prevent growing inferior fruit or breaking the tree.

Nope, doom is just around the corner. Just hope for and be thankful if you manage to live in a Cloud City part of the world where you don't have to starve to death along with millions of others because of a volcano or typhoon, or some warlord decides to hold your food and water supplies hostage so he can buy more weapons.

Originally posted by Nathan-D

I agree with him that the root of the cause is our selfish mindset. Whether our greed is a result of the egoism encouraged by modern society or perhaps wanting more and more is a side-effect of human nature, to climb higher up the proverbial hierarchical ladder, so to speak, I don't know. I think one thing is for certain though: As a species we have become fascinated with our own self-advancement, at the exclusion of all other species, and this cannot continue indefinitely.

All animals feel/behave this way. The problem is that culture has allowed us to become so successful at "selfish" we are on a path to self destruction. We are not aberrant, we are just animals with the means to populate ourselves to our own extinction. What saddens me is that for over 2000 years the smartest of humans have realized that if we do not get a grip on our reproduction and resource consumption, (Plato is a prime example) we will end up in misery.

Our culture has exceeded our innate wisdom on the whole. And the answer IS to reduce population, as quickly as possible. Preferably by breeding less, so that we do not have to go to the more likely option. War, famine, and pestilence. Which is what we WILL end up doing if we do not change now.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
I wouldn't even know where to begin to fix this. How do we collectively change the attitudes of billions of people?

We dont. Human beings WANT to reduce the population. They ARE reducing the population where birth control is available and women have the right politically and religiously to use it. We need to shut up the people who are foaming at the mouth about how its all an evil plot to depopulate the world. The wars, famine, disease that is inevitable if we do NOT choose to make fewer babies will not be the result of the "elites" desire to depopulate. It will be the natural consequence of the "elites" desire to increase the population to perpetuate their pyramid scheme they call "the economy."

Originally posted by Nathan-D
As long as consumerism and capitalism is exists, I don't believe we can. As long as humans are wasting their time fighting with each other over completely meaningless things like land, money and natural resources (which could easily be spread out to provide for the need of every human on this planet) I think the human race will soon be joining the spirits of the dinosaurs.

Sure. Because fighting over all these things are a byproduct of a nature based desire to reproduce more of your own kind. We dont apply what we know about natural selection to ourselves. And we need to.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Also, I have reservations about how economically viable so-called green-energy like solar and wind is.

So do I. Looking at the math, and how those technologies are produced, (oil) its not viable. For certain not at this level of population.

I advocate for making a rational decision to save ourselves, but honestly, we wont. This is likely to end as a "proof" of punctuated equilibrium. Where "something happens" to reduce a large population to a very small one, and that bottle neck sends evolution in a new direction. I suppose I should just accept it for what it is.

reply to post by Blue Shift


Want to see something really interesting?
Conceptual Drawings

We can build up and down and can think and create solutions to all our problems. The old systems are the only thing stopping us from advancing, if we leave the past behind, then and only then can we move forth and embrace potential.

It is hard to envision having being taught only the one way for so long.. Expand your mind and see into the future what dreams could one day be.

Love this thread, thanks OP. You hit nail on the head about money being the issue. I am always saying the same thing about money being imaginary and of course people look at me like I'm crazy. Really great thread.

Originally posted by Love thy neighbor
Love this thread, thanks OP. You hit nail on the head about money being the issue. I am always saying the same thing about money being imaginary and of course people look at me like I'm crazy. Really great thread.

Ok well send me all of your "imaginary" money and try paying your electric bill with love, kindness, or care.

Lemme know how that works out for ya.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

We don't. Human beings WANT to reduce the population. They ARE reducing the population where birth control is available and women have the right politically and religiously to use it.

I was actually talking more about our reckless and thoughtless behaviour towards the environment. Anyway, you say that humans want to reduce the population. That might be true. But people are still reproducing regardless as fast as they ever did, aren't they? Humans may want to reduce the population because they know, in their heart, it's best for the planet as a whole, but unfortunately we are biologically programmed to want to procreate and reproduce so I don't see people stopping anytime soon. It's a deep-seated human desire, isn't it? And birth control legislation I think needs to be implemented worldwide if it is going to have any discernable effect. There's another problem too. People's life expectancy is increasing all the time.

We need to shut up the people who are foaming at the mouth about how its all an evil plot to depopulate the world. The wars, famine, disease that is inevitable if we do NOT choose to make fewer babies will not be the result of the "elites" desire to depopulate.

How do you claim to know these things? How do you know that first-world countries aren't intentionally keeping third-world countries steeped in poverty as so to make sure the world population doesn't spiral out of control? The banning of DDT, despite the evidence that it wasn't carcinogenic, that could have saved millions of lives every year, I think is a prime example of how the population is being actively controlled.

It will be the natural consequence of the "elites" desire to increase the population to perpetuate their pyramid scheme they call "the economy."

I'm not so sure. The smaller the population, the easier they are to control. I don't believe their goal is to 'perpetuate their pyramid scheme', but rather to simply maintain control over us. And the smaller the population, the easier they are to control.

reply to post by Nathan-D

I'm not so sure. The smaller the population, the easier they are to control. I don't believe their goal is to 'perpetuate their pyramid scheme', but rather to simply maintain control over us. And the smaller the population, the easier they are to control.

Why, I dont think so. The dumber and poorer the population, the easier to control. Large population is not so important, in fact, the larger the population, the more resources and money the elite has, so it is harder to defeat.

Scientists have long beloved that given our current use of resources, the way we manufacture goods, and each persons carbon footprint, the Earth can only sustain a healthy population of 500 million. Unless our practices become greener, any number of people over this projected figure is harmful to the planet.

reply to post by bookmandh2


The scientists are absolutely wrong. They are fully completely lying to the people who read any document pertaining to this. What are they basing this off of? Doing things the ways of the 1950's up until now? Using archaic technologies and methods for everything and assuming that there will be no better way of doing things forthcoming? Laughable!

Any person with half a brain could sit there and say, doing things the way we do right now is completely backwards. If they(we) embraced many of the new technologies and went full tilt modernizing everything we would in fact create new jobs and industries while addressing the problems.

Governments and scientists re: 500,000,000 population are only interested in a population figure THEY CAN CONTROL.

reply to post by spikey


You made some excellent points about WAFLE. The overpopulation concept is based upon some rather outdated economic theories.

The real issue is market efficiencies and delivery of the resources. Getting the WAFLE to where it needs to be utilized can be difficult. The world has a food surplus and yet people do starve. But, to your point, it is NOT due to excess population.

And more to the point, who do these overpopulation-expounders suggest to decide who should be "reduced?"

Originally posted by Nathan-D
But people are still reproducing regardless as fast as they ever did, aren't they?

In some regions poverty restricts access to birth control, and the US has famously been opposed to funding family planning the the third world. Religions are also pyramid schemes, and they tend to order their members to have as many babies as possible to beat out the other team. (And to fill the coffers of the church leaders)

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Humans may want to reduce the population because they know, in their heart, it's best for the planet as a whole, but unfortunately we are biologically programmed to want to procreate and reproduce so I don't see people stopping anytime soon.

"Humans" dont all have the same reproductive strategy. Male humans want lots of children, with low investment. Female humans want fewer children with a lot of investment. Its not an accident that the regions of the world where birth rates are falling are areas where women have rights, and access to education and birth control. Its also no accident that patriarchal religions are very blunt about the role of women as producers of children for men, and those religions tend to limit womens choice to marry, have sex, have any reproductive control at all.

Originally posted by Nathan-D

There's another problem too. People's life expectancy is increasing all the time.

Which would be our first clue to have fewer children. But its actually less of a factor in the population increase than is the decrease in infant mortality. We really dont live that much longer than we used to. Its a fallacy based on people not understanding how averages work in statistics. Infant mortality is what pulled the "average age of death" down into the 40's.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
How do you claim to know these things?

Because our economic system is pyramid shaped, and any pyramid scheme needs more and more people coming in at the lower levels to stay viable. You think its an accident corporations are moving their operations to China and India? Two countries with incredibly large poor populations? Its not.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
How do you know that first-world countries aren't intentionally keeping third-world countries steeped in poverty as so to make sure the world population doesn't spiral out of control?

Because we are both blocking family planning and decreasing infant mortality there. We are causing their population to rise, not fall.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
I'm not so sure. The smaller the population, the easier they are to control.

Dont flatter the species. Human beings are incredibly easy to control. And large numbers who are fighting for resources are easier, not harder, to control, because their emotions run higher due to population stress and competition over resources. You can easily set them against one another. Tell them the reason they have less is because of so and so over there, and they will turn teeth and claws wherever you point. We really are not that savvy. Humans in general are not rational animals. They are emotionally dominant, and their reasoning ability is really quite poor. As is their ability to predict long term consequences. It makes manipulating the massed incredibly easy, and the more, the easier, not the opposite.

The population density of Canada is 9 per square mile. Just about right, considering most of the country has little arable land, and 80% of the population in the bottom one fifth of the land mass. We don't need any more people just now. Indian has a population density of 900 people per square mile, China ditto. The US is far overpopulated with 350 million people in a country the same size as Canada! That's unbelievable! They import most of their oil, all their natural gas and almost all your rivers and lakes are going dry. Los Angeles has a hell of a problem keeping enough water in the middle of the desert for all those folks.

Most of the water you mention is too polluted for use. And will be more so once the radiation from Japan gets into it. The only good water and surplus arable land is in Canada. What is the US going to do, invade to get their hands on it? Wouldn't surprise me at all, I am sure they will have to eventually do just that.

If you don't think there's an overpopulation problem, why not bring over a billion or so from China and India, just so you can see what it's like, you dumb-ass. You already have a high unemployment problem.

reply to post by TheRemedial


I completely agree with you and this thread. I was merely pointing out just how behind the curve we are from balance and harmony with the planet.

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by wcitizen

 

Stop spreading NONSENSE.

First off, It's a bloody guidestone that NOBODY knows who put up.

NOBODY.

It could have been an eccentric.

Secondly, what is written isn't evil. It shows NO intent of it being so. In fact, most of what is said seems IDEAL.

Thirdly, It's 500 MILLION not 500 thousand.

So something is nonsense just because you say it is.........and because you swear?

I didn't swear.

Originally posted by wcitizen
The Georgia Guidestones cost an absolute fortune to make and erect. Many believe they do indeed express the intent of the NWO.

I don't care what many believe. They're not thinking logically.

Originally posted by wcitizen[/
You'll probably also beliee that the murals, etc, at Denver airport are innocent, and those in the BofA too.

what?

Originally posted by wcitizen
You're right, it's 500 million, my mistake. That means they intend to cull approximately 6 billion. That may seem ok to you - it absolutely isn't ok with me. I guess you'll be volunteering.

Again,

illogical nonsense