posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:50 PM
reply to post by spikey
First of all I greatly admire the concept and ideals of your thread, they closely mirror my own thoughts on the matter, but I will, for the sake of
debate, play devil's advocate and raise some questions.
1. I agree with the premise that the Earth is capable of sustaining a significantly larger population, but in addition to quantity of life, one must
also consider quality. As any chicken in a coop could tell you, if chickens could talk, it might be nice every once and a while to have 100 of your
brothers and sisters sitting in their allocated spots 6 inches away from you, but aren't things such as privacy, open spaces and freedom of choice
worth having? In a world brought to the limit of our population capacity if everyone wanted a carrot there would not be enough carrots and so on so
forth. This inability to provide everyone with their desires is what creates our economic system of supply and demand. Now before we get into, "oh
but that is just coporate greed... of course there would be enough carrots..." I have used carrots as an example. This concept needs to be
extrapolated onto an object that will confer to you understanding. I think we can all agree that there are just some things, no matter how
technologically efficient we become, that cannot reasonably be provided for a population of billions.
2. While on the subject of things that cannot be provided for everyone lets deal with happiness. This is probably the greatest argument for population
control. In your post you mention that the whole poulation of the world could fit into Texas. Well lets think about that for a second. I read an
article that had that statistic mentioned in an article in 2002, if memory serves me correctly, it also said we would have a standard family American
style home for every family (so far so good) we would also have to have these homes in multiple stories. Now in this hypothetical scenario we have
taken up all of Texas with our living space now where do all of these people work? In there homes, ok. Where does all of the waste go, where does the
electricity get produced, where do we grow our food? Transportation to and from these locations now becomes an enormous problem when dealing with
supply chains for billions of people. The simple fact is we as humans have a habitat and like any caged Tiger will tell you that a controlled
everything provided for you tiger pen is a long shot away from roaming the grasslands of the wild. We want things our own certain way and unless we
all limit ourselves severely or slow the rate of population growth we will be a large unhappy population.
3. Last but not least, the "it's only because of corporate greed and desire for their worthless money that they feed us these lies..." while I'm
sure the MSM and TPTB are using sensationalist claims to over alarm the unwitting masses we do have a problem. To transfer to your somewhat utopian
ideals takes time. Given a timescale of millions of years yes we have all of the resources we need and we would have all the time in the world to
develop the technology thats needed to address the rapidly expanding population. The problem is that by the year 2050 we have to be able to support
somewhere between 8.5 billion to 10.5 billion people. Given the fact that it took our local government an estimated 4 years and an actual 7 years to
build an overpass nearby, I think we are assuming our ability to construct our way out of this problem is more than it actually is.
Yes you raise some good points. Despite my misgivings all of it COULD be a ploy by TPTB, but I think it is a serious issue, at the very least, in the
short term and I think with some careful analysis you will agree.