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.

 

Overpopulation is a scam

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
7 billion human beings take up less than 3.1% of the land surface of the earth.
If we started to live on ocean colonies then it goes down by A LOT.
97% of the land on earth is unoccupied by humans.

The entire human population (7 billion people) can fit in the state of texas

The nwo/globalists are using this sexy scam to sell genocide/eugenics to the masses.




posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


This again.

7 billion people wouldn't fill Texas, blah blah blah.

If you actually stop to think a little further, no human takes up one square foot of space.

For one human you have the house they live in, the office space they use, the car they drive, the factory that made the car, the area being drilled for oil for the car, the plant in Texas that refines it, the tanker truck that uses the thousands of miles of highway to bring it to the gas station that stores the gas, till said human buys it.

Food. you have hundreds of thousands of acres that are growing crops to feed said human. Lets take a jar of peanut butter for example. You have the field that uses space to grow it, you have the machines that harvest it, the factory that has to make the machines, add in the gas thing again to fuel the machine. The truck that hauls the peanuts to a factory, the factory that makes the jar, the factory that makes the label, the factory that makes the truck to carry the peanut butter to the store, the large store that holds the peanut butter till the human buys 16oz of environmental destroying peanut butter.

Now look around your house at every stereo, stapler, chair, and window, that requires enormous amounts of resources and space just to bring you a stapler, but for each item.

Now consider that process for every food item, sugar, spice, flour.

Now consider that process for every meat animal.

Thing is, one human doesn't take up a square foot of space, one human takes up A LOT of space.

If humans could survive on one little space, they wouldn't be slashing the rainforest for agriculture so you can have coffee and sugar.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Very true. Take the vast expanses of Russia, the deserts of Nevada, the endless plains of China, etc. With the money spent ONLY on the US military per year we could make these zones habitable and fertile imo. Overpopulation is truly a sham. Good post op!



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


This again.

7 billion people wouldn't fill Texas, blah blah blah.

If you actually stop to think a little further, no human takes up one square foot of space.

For one human you have the house they live in, the office space they use, the car they drive, the factory that made the car, the area being drilled for oil for the car, the plant in Texas that refines it, the tanker truck that uses the thousands of miles of highway to bring it to the gas station that stores the gas, till said human buys it.

Food. you have hundreds of thousands of acres that are growing crops to feed said human. Lets take a jar of peanut butter for example. You have the field that uses space to grow it, you have the machines that harvest it, the factory that has to make the machines, add in the gas thing again to fuel the machine. The truck that hauls the peanuts to a factory, the factory that makes the jar, the factory that makes the label, the factory that makes the truck to carry the peanut butter to the store, the large store that holds the peanut butter till the human buys 16oz of environmental destroying peanut butter.

Now look around your house at every stereo, stapler, chair, and window, that requires enormous amounts of resources and space just to bring you a stapler, but for each item.

Now consider that process for every food item, sugar, spice, flour.

Now consider that process for every meat animal.

Thing is, one human doesn't take up a square foot of space, one human takes up A LOT of space.

If humans could survive on one little space, they wouldn't be slashing the rainforest for agriculture so you can have coffee and sugar. [/quote

Very well said.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


I understand your reasoning but its not the space that is the problem,

Its the consumerism, the vast amount of food, water, energy, medical care etc,

Not to mention the waste produced.

Much of this "problem" stems from dated energy generation technology's, and suppression of "clean" (or cleaner eg. wave tech) technology's.

But I go as far to assert that the technology exists, to provide every person with a free energy device - and maybe finally feed everyone on earth!?

That could have been done for a long long time already


They will use war to depopulate.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


This again.

7 billion people wouldn't fill Texas, blah blah blah.

If you actually stop to think a little further, no human takes up one square foot of space.

For one human you have the house they live in, the office space they use, the car they drive, the factory that made the car, the area being drilled for oil for the car, the plant in Texas that refines it, the tanker truck that uses the thousands of miles of highway to bring it to the gas station that stores the gas, till said human buys it.

Food. you have hundreds of thousands of acres that are growing crops to feed said human. Lets take a jar of peanut butter for example. You have the field that uses space to grow it, you have the machines that harvest it, the factory that has to make the machines, add in the gas thing again to fuel the machine. The truck that hauls the peanuts to a factory, the factory that makes the jar, the factory that makes the label, the factory that makes the truck to carry the peanut butter to the store, the large store that holds the peanut butter till the human buys 16oz of environmental destroying peanut butter.

Now look around your house at every stereo, stapler, chair, and window, that requires enormous amounts of resources and space just to bring you a stapler, but for each item.

Now consider that process for every food item, sugar, spice, flour.

Now consider that process for every meat animal.

Thing is, one human doesn't take up a square foot of space, one human takes up A LOT of space.

If humans could survive on one little space, they wouldn't be slashing the rainforest for agriculture so you can have coffee and sugar.


Humans now take up 3% of the landmass above water on earth.

97% is unoccupied.

That's not overpopulated.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

Human beings yes but Nixie is talking about the infrastructure that comes with us Humans. Add all of our infrastructure to the space a Human Being takes up and we cover a lot more of the globe than 3%.

You have to take into account inhospitable areas as well. These things add together to increase your percentage of how much space we take up. Also I dont want to live my life forever standing next to someone in Texas.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


This again.

7 billion people wouldn't fill Texas, blah blah blah.

If you actually stop to think a little further, no human takes up one square foot of space.

For one human you have the house they live in, the office space they use, the car they drive, the factory that made the car, the area being drilled for oil for the car, the plant in Texas that refines it, the tanker truck that uses the thousands of miles of highway to bring it to the gas station that stores the gas, till said human buys it.

Food. you have hundreds of thousands of acres that are growing crops to feed said human. Lets take a jar of peanut butter for example. You have the field that uses space to grow it, you have the machines that harvest it, the factory that has to make the machines, add in the gas thing again to fuel the machine. The truck that hauls the peanuts to a factory, the factory that makes the jar, the factory that makes the label, the factory that makes the truck to carry the peanut butter to the store, the large store that holds the peanut butter till the human buys 16oz of environmental destroying peanut butter.

Now look around your house at every stereo, stapler, chair, and window, that requires enormous amounts of resources and space just to bring you a stapler, but for each item.

Now consider that process for every food item, sugar, spice, flour.

Now consider that process for every meat animal.

Thing is, one human doesn't take up a square foot of space, one human takes up A LOT of space.

If humans could survive on one little space, they wouldn't be slashing the rainforest for agriculture so you can have coffee and sugar.


Humans now take up 3% of the landmass above water on earth.

97% is unoccupied.

That's not overpopulated.


So in response to those many valid points you chose to repeat one invalid point?

It's not about the physical space we take up, it's about how much we consume

ETA: How much of that 97% is even habitable? If you want to live halfway up Mt Everest, be my guest
edit on 4-2-2012 by Hawking because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


The rainforest is not being destroyed just to plant bananas, coffee or whatever. The war on drugs takes a heavy toll on the rainforest. Between the narcotraffickers cutting trees for coca plant space to the secret planes spraying agent orange type garbage over vast areas. Paper is a huge drain also. I read years ago about the thousands of football fields worth of trees needed to be cut for a Sunday edition of a major US newspaper.

Anyhow, if a fraction of the US and, to be fair, world military budgets were used not only to make the world's uninhabited areas fertile but to decentralize cities and build new housing and industries in these new localities, the consumerism issue would be taken care of. Strict anti-pollution technologies and regulations would be strictly enforced. Depleted uranium, nuclear power, fracking, off shore and artic drilling banned. Solar, wind and repressed techs would be great for fuel. Hemp would replace trees for a myriad of necessities.

All of this is, of course, a type of idyllic utopia in the sad state of affairs humanity is in currently. Greed for massive profits over the sake of humanity and the ecology is what brought us to this false sense of overpopulation doom. While people only care for their own short sighted personal gain over the happiness and continuation of humanity as a whole we are severely screwed. As King Louis XV said, "After me the deluge". THAT is the mentality that will end us all. Don't believe me? Go to any of the global warming deniall threads on ats and read post after post by oil industry sycophants throwing care to the winds.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawking

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


This again.

7 billion people wouldn't fill Texas, blah blah blah.

If you actually stop to think a little further, no human takes up one square foot of space.

For one human you have the house they live in, the office space they use, the car they drive, the factory that made the car, the area being drilled for oil for the car, the plant in Texas that refines it, the tanker truck that uses the thousands of miles of highway to bring it to the gas station that stores the gas, till said human buys it.

Food. you have hundreds of thousands of acres that are growing crops to feed said human. Lets take a jar of peanut butter for example. You have the field that uses space to grow it, you have the machines that harvest it, the factory that has to make the machines, add in the gas thing again to fuel the machine. The truck that hauls the peanuts to a factory, the factory that makes the jar, the factory that makes the label, the factory that makes the truck to carry the peanut butter to the store, the large store that holds the peanut butter till the human buys 16oz of environmental destroying peanut butter.

Now look around your house at every stereo, stapler, chair, and window, that requires enormous amounts of resources and space just to bring you a stapler, but for each item.

Now consider that process for every food item, sugar, spice, flour.

Now consider that process for every meat animal.

Thing is, one human doesn't take up a square foot of space, one human takes up A LOT of space.

If humans could survive on one little space, they wouldn't be slashing the rainforest for agriculture so you can have coffee and sugar.


Humans now take up 3% of the landmass above water on earth.

97% is unoccupied.

That's not overpopulated.


So in response to those many valid points you chose to repeat one invalid point?

It's not about the physical space we take up, it's about how much we consume

ETA: How much of that 97% is even habitable? If you want to live halfway up Mt Everest, be my guest
edit on 4-2-2012 by Hawking because: (no reason given)


humans have dominated every enviroment on earth except for these 3.

The air and the sky and space.

if we can build nuclear bombs,manless drones,wireless telecommunications,nanotubes, and put a man on the moon why can't we make another 1% of landmass hospitible? Or better yet. Build underwater colonies or subterrestrial colonies. With the technology we have we can make another 1% of landmass useable for humans.

Your argument is a just a trendy "greeny" cop-out.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   


How much of that 97% is even habitable? If you want to live halfway up Mt Everest, be my guest


Exactly, most of the good land is already in use, but it doesn't matter because things like crops, trees and fish need lots of space and we don't have enough for the 7 billion we have now.

We have millions of people starving or in poverty already, increasing the population will guarantee more death and more suffering.

You have to wonder why these crazy people are so hell bent on ruining life for all of us. There is not a single benefit to increasing population, and tons of negatives. It seems to be a humanity worship religion, that and thinking of all the money they can try to make off of everyone. Our insane obsession with growth is psychotic and unbelievably shortsighted.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
All the land is bought up. So that = overpopulation let the land bought up tell it.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


Yes, you're obviously right here.


Wanting to live in temperate climates is just "trendy"




You're not getting this information from the fella in your avatar are you? I'd ask to see some credentials if I were you


edit on 4-2-2012 by Hawking because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Wow only 3%. Yet we truly are the most terrible destroying thing on the planet all the while self proclaiming to be the smartest species here.

Overpopulation I`m going to have to agree with.

When there are countries starving etc. It`s like a fish bowl just because there is room in the water for another fish doesn`t mean it`s good for the system to thrive.
Best thing we ever created was birth control.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connman
Wow only 3%. Yet we truly are the most terrible destroying thing on the planet all the while self proclaiming to be the smartest species here.

Overpopulation I`m going to have to agree with.

When there are countries starving etc. It`s like a fish bowl just because there is room in the water for another fish doesn`t mean it`s good for the system to thrive.
Best thing we ever created was birth control.


I don't believe in overpopulation.

I believe in underpopulation. There are not enough people on this planet.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


Indeed it is good sir. Dont believe New World Order Scum!!!.

This planet could support 100 Billion people if we weren't restricted by these scum.




We would have to edit how we build cities and how we farm. But with logic in society.... 100 Billion easy. ANyone who disagrees feels this way because the TV lied to you.


edit on 4-2-2012 by Mandrakerealmz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
But the real question is, Will it blend



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


Less people, less problems. As you see, more and more troubles are arising, I wonder why?



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Actually overpopulation is just a matter of time as mortality rates drop and life expectancies rise (or remain same).

So, its far from a scam, but inevitable. The first argument was one of land mass percentage, which has little to do with each human's huge carbon footprint in this age and forward..




new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join