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.

 

Over population is a serious issue that must be dealt with.

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


Without nature we will cease to exist.

But I see that your arrogant way of thinking is abundant in here.




posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by HangTheTraitors
 


Might also be a good idea to tone down the irrational hate a bit.

Stereotypes are rarely true. Subscribing to them is doing yourself a disservice and solves nothing.



Actually stereotypes are usually dead on, that's how they became stereotypes.

We should change the name to something like accuratetypes.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Perhaps this thread is a bit premature. I've read a lot of "proof" here on ATS that we aren't going to be around in 2013.

If it's on the Internet... it just has to be true...


I only have two daughters, so I reckon I did my part. It's too bad my brother negated that by having six. Not my fault though...

See ya,
Milt



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


A good fictional book to read on this topic is EARTH by David Brin.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Overpopulation is the problem. If people stop buying pets, there would be less strays and more freedom for the animals. If people stop reproducing allow contraceptives and other unwanted pregnancies (i.e. retardation) to take place, then there would be less humans to feed. Once again, allow "nature" to run its course and stop using technology to prolong life unnecessarily. There are too many psychos on this planet anyway...



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
my opinion in the matter is,reduce the population to what ever number you would like and you would still have the same problems we have now.it would not change a thing.just the numbers,thats all.when we start to open our eyes to the real issues of humanity and the planet(nature).then it will be solved.i am afriad no one wants to open them,so lets go for option b,c or d but not a cause thats to close for confort.it seems to me,by observation of other spicies ,life was not ment to be so rosy as we want it to be.well,we persist to make it so at a huge cost of everything else and when everything else has been depleted we turn on our kind.next?friends? family? we already turning on our unborns and considering turning on the living.to find out it wasnt the cause ?evil in the forming with no vision of self. a simple observasion i just had is,(singularity),when we stop seeing things as duality or polarities) the chips might start falling in place and answers will come to all problems on earth.until then,black and white,up or down,good or bad just serves as oposing forces on eternal battle.a unending cicle.with singularity theres no balance needed or struggle to oposing force.perhaps it is to much to comprehend at this time.blizz
edit on 5-12-2011 by bumpufirst because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
It is being dealt with..The wars are not over yet.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
I am of the opinion that overpopulation is the single most important reason why poverty still exists on this planet. Humans have not evolved to naturally live in harmony with available resources.

Space colonisation will not solve anything, because:
1,. it is and will continue to be many orders of magnitude more expensive than needed
2. overpopulation is a local phenomenon, and just because new land was discovered will not make old land underpopulated

The issue will continue to get much worse due to population rising and oil running out at the same time.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
perhaps if we found a better way to utilize that 7 billion strong resource, we could save the world for this and future generations, regardless how many persons are involved.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Suppose that over-population is , or will be a real problem.
I do believe there is a max number that is sustainable.
Personally I do believe that number is 25 billion, but only if everything is well organised.
So there is always a maximum number.

My father had the following solution. Mind you, this was 35 years ago.

He looked at dogs and noticed they come in a wide variety.
He knew that they all where descendants from the wolves.
So the breeding program for dogs made very small dogs possible.
Smaller dogs are not necessarily, unhealthier, less intelligent or unhappier.

So why not breed small people?
Small people have less biomass, use less food, energy, space etcetera etcetera.

We should take in account that we also have to reduce the size of farm-animals, otherwise they become to dangerous.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
I've not read all of the answers and I'm sorry if I am repeating a lot of what has been said.

There is no problem with space on the planet, it's density that is one of the problems. Another problem is distribution of food. We see growing obesity in America and parts of Europe and while the fatties feed their faces people in other parts of the world die of hunger.

It annoys me that working couples can often not afford to have children while we have a welfare system that rewards the jobless that pump children out with cash benefits. These people don't think 'can I support this child' they just have more and more. I think state support for children should stop at one, after that you pay for it. You pay for the schooling etc. I wonder how many would continue to pump them out then.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


YOU must be dealt with!

Hey guys, if we learned to live in harmony, overpopulation wouldn't be a problem...you see, the real problem is our inability to live in peace and harmony.

I think that if anyone proposes "dealing" with overpopulation they should be the first to bite the bullet.

(actually don't, life gets better)




posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by dannotz
 


So you think we should ignore this until it becomes too late?



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Try Texas, Oklahoma, wa state, Montana, Nebraska.? The whole "we are running out of spAce" theorydoesnt hold water.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by amongus
 


Those states are mainly farming states, you want to keep populating until we run out of space to farm or to raise cattle?



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
World War 3 should thin the heard a little bit. Other than that genocide will most likely be the next thing that happens. It seems to happen every couple hundred years.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Plenty of room and food for those who will take care of themselves. It seems many do nothing but complain because they aren't being taken care of properly. WELLLL LIFE IS HARD and IT'S EVEN HARDER IF YOUR STUPID!!! Thanks John



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Wise man once broke it down for me: think of all the families you know of. How many of those families have three children? One kid to replace mom, one kid to replace dad, and then the third child is adding one to the population, just one not three.

So if you think of it that way I think we are slowing down. People used to have teams of kids now it seems three is a stretch.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL
reply to post by muse7
 


overpopulation you say?

there are 36,794,240,000 acres on this earth... Source

divide that by the world population.

The world population is the total number of living humans on the planet Earth. As of today, it is estimated to be 6.979 billion
Source

for easy math and to go by the UN estimate we will use 7billion.

36,794,240,000 / 7,000,000,000 = 5.25632 acres per person

I think were doing just fine


That's fine.. you take the acreage in top of Mt Everest or maybe in a salt pan or on some rocky crag. Your perspective is arrogant and ignorant paying no respect whatsoever to the Earth's other creatures that have equal right to live in a native environment free of human impedance.

Your argument holds no water, nor do you appear to think too deeply on such topics.

IRM

edit on 5/12/11 by InfaRedMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   
I feel the whole argument against population tends to hinge on the current fallacy that having kids is somehow a 'right'. I don't believe this to be the case. I feel it's a privilege,as well as a serious responsibility, which should be granted only if certain conditions can be met by the would-be parents. These conditions, of course, would be in-line with the requirements of a healthy and well-balanced society which values people and the planet first and foremost.

Having kids doesn't just affect you, it affects everyone around you. From the way you raise them to the way society treats them, they have a direct impact on broader civilization as they are the future. It would be imperative that we, as a species,re-evaluate our purpose for existence on this planet and act intelligently (which we don't seem be capable of doing as of yet).

People are selfish and fail to see that unchecked populations lead to a lower quality of life for everyone else. Smaller populations are easier to manage and there's plenty for everyone in terms of healthy environment,space and resources. Smaller populations, I feel, could be much happier. The world we live in now ain't cutting it by a long-shot and forget about the fantasies of blasting off to the stars to go out and 'ruin' other worlds. It isn't going to happen, at least not the for the 'little' people like you and I.

Unfortunately, within the current false monetary-market paradigm, there exists no financial benefit to reducing population sizes or being economical because that would be a threat to the cyclical consumption model of business which requires,nay demands,constant consumer-base growth to keep the whole diabolical Rube Goldstein wealth-transfer contraption going.

We've got to deal with the problems we've created right here and now, if it's not already too late. Would you rather have your(or someone else's)kids live a pleasant world where they have plenty and are happy, or have to fight for scraps because all the low-hanging fruit is gone and the trees are dying?

We've got to shed our traditional and hopelessly romantic and sentimental views about relationships and family if we are to have any hope for survival. Of course, this would require a complete re-tooling of civilization as we know it and that ain't going to happen until we've finally ruined everything and are left staring into the abyss.


edit on 5-12-2011 by FlyingJadeDragon because: wording



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join