It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

page: 4
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Depopulation is straight up murder, and anyone who supports it is a genocidal eugenicist.


Hardly, I support depopulation through education of the ramifications of overpopulation. In areas that are educated, you don't often see the rates of breeding that you see in less developed and less informed areas. People often forget that procreation is exponential. While we may not be facing true catastrophe from overpopulation at this time, if we don't curb our rate of reproduction, we eventually will, there is no denying that. To stay on topic, look at the deforestation that is taking place in South America so as to have enough farm land to support the growing population's farming needs. We need to either figure out how to colonize Mars, or stop destroying our ecosystem like locusts. The only way that we will be able to do that is through maintaining the same population, or lowering it, and finding more responsible ways to grow/raise/hunt our food such as through the permaculture model.

I usually agree with you, but that was a little over the top, and certainly more sensationalist than I'm used to seeing in your posts.




posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


The reason why the cradle of civilization is a desert probably DOES have something to do with agriculture and erosion. However scientists recently have proposed to start making crops that don't need to be seeded every year, perennial crops. Formerly, the reason why annuals were the only kind of crop planted was that those crops were the ones that could be selectively bred for yield (e.g. the fattest grain seeds get planted in the ground next year).

Really that is a primitive need, and the only real reason why we do it now is simply because it is a holdover from the origins of agriculture (and monsanto and other seed companies make TONS of money on selling seeds). However, benefits of perennial crops are obvious. For one, they have roots that go far lower into the ground and will not need to be watered as much because they have much deeper roots. Secondly, they prevent soil erosion from runoff, which is the primary component of agriculture that depletes soil fertility (i think). Also, the crop fields do not need as much work, because planting and tilling is not necessary, just weeding and harvesting.

Planting perennial crops is almost like reinventing agriculture, and if it can fight its way past orthodoxy and big business, we will have a more sustainable future. Woot!

www.usatoday.com...



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesolutionisrevolution

Originally posted by yaluk
reply to post by ZIPMATT
 


woah woah woah over populated??

I have driven across texas many times and there is TONS of free range there. No one to be seen. On some stretches maybe a town with a gas station and a handful of people.



That brings up a good point, I remember seeing somewhere that Jim Marrs had said there was enough room in Texas alone to fit the population of the U.S. I will try to find some links but I can't seem to remember where I have heard it from. Has anyone else heard this?


There are 171,904,640 acres in Texas.

With the Earth's population at almost seven billion, you would have 41 people to the acre density in Texas.

Thus each person could have 1,048 square feet of land, if we brought all the population of the world to Texas.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   


There are 171,904,640 acres in Texas. With the Earth's population at almost seven billion, you would have 41 people to the acre density in Texas. Thus each person could have 1,048 square feet of land, if we brought all the population of the world to Texas.


I thought he said the entire world but I didn't want to make that claim without finding the links first. Thank you for helping with that, although I can not dispute the resources we use up I don't think over population in the sense of over crowding can happen if your estimates are correct. Didn't mean to get off topic also, I've seen another article by speculativeoptimist
Dutch PlantLab Revolutionizes Farming: No Sunlight, No Windows, Less Water, Better Food www.abovetopsecret.com... here. We as a species have come a long way, we also have very far to go.

edit on 10-10-2011 by thesolutionisrevolution because: still new to making quotes sigh....



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
if agriculture fails in the short term it can only serve to benefit the human race in the long term.

mass human die offs would occur and the animal world would see a resurgance, humans would ultimately revert back to hunting/gathering and the process will repeat.

of course there is nothing short of a supervolcanic eruption that could cause a mass agriculture failure, maybe regional at best but then resources can be supplied, unless an entire societal collapse were to happen. well then...



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by thesolutionisrevolution
 



You are most welcome.

You also have such places as Wyoming and Montana and others with very few people.

The world is not overpopulated.

The fact that some go hungry in the world is a fault of distribution not overpopulation.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Oh look another moron calling for the destruction of his own species and look at all the complete idiots that flagged his thread. Yes the worse mistake in human history was actually feeding ourselves. I cant even respond to scum like the op because it makes me want to throw the # up.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS!

I love Jared Diamond's article on this. People on ATS needed to see it.

Also:

EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ THE BOOK "Ishmael" BY DANIEL QUINN!!!!!!!




posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by romanmel
reply to post by thesolutionisrevolution
 



You are most welcome.

You also have such places as Wyoming and Montana and others with very few people.

The world is not overpopulated.

The fact that some go hungry in the world is a fault of distribution not overpopulation.


Part of it is distribution... but overpopulation certainly plays a compounding factor.

The key to understanding how the Agricultural Revolution lead to a population EXPLOSION for humanity is realizing that totalitarian agriculture (as invented in the fertile crescent roughly 10,000 years ago) creates massive surpluses of starchy, high-energy, low-nutrient, monocultural staple crops. This kind of surplus leads to natural population growth. ANY food surplus will result in population growth for ANY species, including humans (we are not exempt). So... as long as we increase OVERALL food supply, then population will continue to increase unsustainably (despite any slow in the RATE of growth).

Please check this out:
World Food and Population Growth



"We're in the midst of a food race that is more deadly to us and to the world around us than the Cold War arms race was. This is a race between food production and population growth."
-Daniel Quinn, Beyond Civilization


"Given an expanding food supply, any population will expand. This is true of any species, including the human. The Takers have been proving this here for ten thousand years. For ten thousand years they've been steadily increasing food production to feed an increased population, and every time they've done this, the population has increased still more."
-Daniel Quinn, Ishmael



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


You raise a lot of interesting points, most of which I agree with. However I don't think it has to be like this - I definately think we can dig ourselves out of the rut as you put it.

For starters we have enough food for everyone, its just concentrated in the hands of the few. We need to switch to an abundance based paradigm and then all of these problems would be solved.

IMO practical steps include increasing energy production through renewable means, further automation of farming but decentralisation at the same time - so that local communities grow enough food for themselves and we limit waste from transportation.

That said, we do also need to look at limiting population growth - and IMO the most effective and moral way is to increase education and provide people with the necessities of life. That way they won't feel like they need to have many children so that one or two can survive and with increased education comes increased wealth and better decision making in regards to access and willingness to practice birth control.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
The answer to this problem is Aldous Huxley .



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 


The world is overpopulated in certain regions, ie big city centres with rivers and sources of water.... people don't all want to live in texas,

The world is overpopulated in a sense whereby its not economical to take care of everyone.

So if there is a link between agriculture and our economical system I got to back the OP and agriculture already distinguishes between classes as we have seen in archaeological findings... And will continue to do so.

Agriculture also distinguishes by who can do it better, ie america is a major food basket to the world and do things at such a scale that upstarts elsewhere, mostly africa can't compete... But that's a whole other topic.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776


I usually agree with you, but that was a little over the top, and certainly more sensationalist than I'm used to seeing in your posts.


Fair enough, I was probably out of context.

I apologize I just have argued in depth over the population topic 100 times and I guess I just got annoyed and angry when I posted that. I think it was revealing my impatience rather than sensationalism though.

I admit I just get impatient and go a little to far. My bad... Thanks for calling me on it though. I probably deserve it.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Star and flag for the awesome title alone.

As far as all the rest,............Still reading.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by romanmel
 


The world is overpopulated in certain regions, ie big city centres with rivers and sources of water.... people don't all want to live in texas....



Texas was a demo on size of Earth and population of the world, not a promo for living in Texas. Those who "choose" to live in "big city centres" deserve to feel "overpopulated". Bottom line is stopping all these foolish wars would free up infrastructure to allow the distribution of abundant food to all who need it.

Stop the wars...feed the folks




posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
The author posits an interesting idea. However I would disagree on many levels.

Lets say we continued as hunter gatherers. This means that we also must act as a group in all things. Those of us who tend to be loners, like myself, who eschew family, friends, and groups on a constant basis would suffer under the hunter gatherer (H-G) approach We might need the group to corral our meat source. We would need outside help for many things, as we do in our present arrangement.

An especially important disadvantage is health care, and later in life elder care. Those of us who would be H-G would not have medical doctors nor dentists. Look at the Amazonian tribes, rarely do you see very elderly people, they just succumb to disease that 'civilization' offers. Likewise those who are severely injured would probably succumb to their injuries rather quickly. Granted such people would likely not be a long-term deficit to their tribe.

H-G are climate sensitive, they need to gather in warm weather, and hunker down in community housing in the winter. Modern civilization has provided cooking and heating equipment that is relatively safe, in that we don't breath in lots of smoke. H-G societies have long used a community fire in the center of the room and the smoke eventually made its way out the roof, with most of the heat.

H-G are also subject to poor crops because they do not have access to fertilizer, unless you want to include night soil which as we know requires a couple of years before it is safe to use. H-G plant where the soils may not afford good quality crops so that there is a long-term deficit in nutrition from plants. (This of course is not taking into account some south sea islands with wonderful, natural fruit crops. )

I live in a very rural area of New York State. Lots of people here hunt during controlled seasons and bring home a deer, or turkey, or whatever. However it isn't enough and they must utilize the grocery store. Those that live entirely off the land usually are not healthy in the long term, at least this is my perception.

I don't think man made a mistake in striving for domesticated food animals, and large scale farming. Where we went wrong is not limiting our output of children in relation to our ability to provide. By this I mean that if we require life-long Welfare assistance, then those individuals are a burden on society.

Today the human population is akin to a swarm of locusts, consuming everything in its path. Eventually something will cause us to reach that tipping point in which calamity will cause a major kill-off of the population. The Georgia Guide Stones recommend a total population on this planet of 500,000,000. I agree with that figure.

By the way, I have never had children, so have not increased the population. My choice because I recognized while still a teen that our population was out of control. I'm now in my 60's and am unlikely to have any children. For those reading this, please adopt children, don't birth any.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Absolutely EXCELLENT. Thanks - and especially, thanks for the references. All true, imho.

S&F&



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by warrenite
 


That's a cool idea, perennial agriculture, but since you mention Monsanto and money in the same paragraph, you must also realise that Monsanto will kill that off toot sweet.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
S&F from me for a very interesting and thought provoking thread.
I would have to agree that agriculture has been the cause of many of our troubles today however I feel it has been a learning curve for our species, and if we are to continue down the road of agriculture I believe we need to innovate our approach to it.
Hands up how many of you have heard of the concept of vertical farming? In my opinion this is the most logical solution to feeding our ever expanding population. The idea promises sustainable production of a safe and varied food supply in an urban environment. A great advantage of this approach is that we would no longer need to poison ourselves with pesticides and modified DNA.
Here's a short video explaining the concept, for any of you that might not be familiar with vertical farming.


The following is a list of advantages to Vertical Farming found on Dickson Despommier's website.

Advantages of Vertical Farming
Year-round crop production; 1 indoor acre is equivalent to 4-6 outdoor acres or more, depending upon the crop (e.g., strawberries: 1 indoor acre = 30 outdoor acres)
No weather-related crop failures due to droughts, floods, pests
All VF food is grown organically: no herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers
VF virtually eliminates agricultural runoff by recycling black water
VF returns farmland to nature, restoring ecosystem functions and services
VF greatly reduces the incidence of many infectious diseases that are acquired at the agricultural interface
VF converts black and gray water into potable water by collecting the water of evapotranspiration
VF adds energy back to the grid via methane generation from composting non-edible parts of plants and animals VF dramatically reduces fossil fuel use (no tractors, plows, shipping.)
VF converts abandoned urban properties into food production centers
VF creates sustainable environments for urban centers
VF creates new employment opportunities
We cannot go to the moon, Mars, or beyond without first learning to farm indoors on earth
VF may prove to be useful for integrating into refugee camps
VF offers the promise of measurable economic improvement for tropical and subtropical LDCs. If this should prove to be the case, then VF may be a catalyst in helping to reduce or even reverse the population growth of LDCs as they adopt urban agriculture as a strategy for sustainable food production.
VF could reduce the incidence of armed conflict over natural resources, such as water and land for agriculture

Source
I'm sure this has probably been discussed at great length on these boards but I post this here now for those that might not be aware as it has relevance to the topic at hand. What are your views on Vertical Farming? It is obviously an idealised concept and we are not living in an ideal world but if we could redirect our resources into projects like this instead of unending global conflicts I think we would be much better off.

edit on 11-10-2011 by TetsuoIronMan because: fixed video

edit on 11-10-2011 by TetsuoIronMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
yah and without farming we wouldnt have dentists. this post is a baseless claim made about neva neva land. what do you think happened when 2 differant tribes of hunters conflicted for the same land/resources(mirants vs stationary) throughout history? i know they posted about it on the internet and discussed it without using the caps lock key.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join