It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Overpopulation in a nutshell (from a biased point of view)

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:16 PM
The world has 13,805,153 square kilometers arable land. This is 3,411,327,598 acres.

The world has 48836976 square kilometers agricultural land. This is 12,067,879,584 acres.

This works out to 1.72 acres per person. See

To eat a combination of meat and vegetables, similar to a European or American diet, it requires about 0.5 hectares or 1.2 acres per person. See

Using the theoretical need of 1.2 acres per person, the world is limited to about 10 billion people using our current supply of “agricultural land” and our current farming methods and diet.

Given the above information, I tend to agree that overpopulation will become an issue in the next 20 years or so. However, I disagree with the methods that are currently being used to control or reduce population. These methods include chemical/gmo contamination of the food and water supplies, wars, destruction of the family structure, radiation, the health (i.e. “sick care”) systems among other tactics. I personally think it is much more equitable to institute a 1 child per family system whenever a country approaches the 1.2 acre per person “limit”, similar to the Chinese model. If a Chinese-like policy is avoided, the “elite” or the “chosen ones” will have enough money to avoid exposure to the offending agents and be able to have and raise children, while the “underprivileged” or poor will die off. We are entering an era of extreme class warfare and the “chosen ones” will inevitably win unless we change course.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:20 PM
i agree. all the people who believe in overpopulation and depopulation should help their cause and off themselves with a head first dive off a very tall cliff.

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

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:23 PM
Just wait untill the oil shortages kick in . Then you will see some pretty quick depopulation.

Over population is not an issue , because as we can see with past civilizations eventually earth says nope , thats its and wipes the slate clean , with a new bunch.

soyent green , is also another reason over population is not an issue , we can use humans as food by then , when SHTF .

Only bad thing about over population is the mass destruction that comes with the end of it. That is quite the mess to clean up .

If only baby making was not so simple! If only it took some skillz , a licence , special procedure lol

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:34 PM
I think overpopulation is a myth thought up by the rich elite who are worried if they can control us all.

I saw a video that explained that every human being on this planet could fit in Australia and be given over a quarter acre of land, leaving the rest of the planet empty of our species.

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

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:40 PM
Hmm... I did the math a year or so ago and got much more land per person...

Overpopulation is a myth with a very eugenic oriented agenda.

“Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under another name than eugenics.” - Frederick Osborn

“Eugenics views itself as the fourth leg of the chair of civilization, the other three being a) a thrifty expenditure of natural resources, b) mitigation of environmental pollution, and c) maintenance of a human population not exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity. Eugenics, which can be thought of as human ecology, is thus part and parcel of the environmental movement.”
- John Glad “Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century.”

You see the UN has been at eugenics from the beginning. UNESCO, the UN education authority has been pushing global government and eugenics through the worlds education system:

"The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background...its education program it can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization...Political unification in some sort of world government will be required...Tasks for the media division of UNESCO (will be) to promote the growth of a common outlook shared by all nations and help the emergence of a single world culture....Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable."
- The first director -general of UNESCO Sir Julian Huxley, 1948, "UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy."

The UN and the "rich elite" have an agenda and its not one that is good for you or me.

“…The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.” – Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p.130-131

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” - Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund – quoted in “Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?,” Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December ’95

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner – CNN founder and UN supporter – quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June ’96

“The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.” – Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller foundation

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.” – Jacques Cousteau

I explain all this and much more in my thread here.


posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by pianopraze

Would you mind typing up your math formulas so I can compare? Did you use agricultural land or arable land? How many acres per person did you believe was needed? Did you assume a mix of meat and vegetables for diet or a strictly vegetarian diet? I believe you can probably double my population estimates if people ate a strictly vegetarian diet. Thanks.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:04 PM
Let's accept, for a moment, the OP's math. If I understand it, his conclusion is that we can have an American diet up until about 10 billion people. That means improving the world's diet to an undreamed of standard while we increase the population by 3 billion people.

That would be all to the good except it will start ending in 20 years. But even the UN thinks we have more time than that.

I took a look at the UN's most recent population estimates, they are part of the 2010 revision you can read here:
I looked only at the executive summary and found this:

According to the 2010 Revision of the official United Nations population estimates and projections, the world population is projected to reach 7 billion in late 2011, surpass 9 billion people by 2050 and exceed 10 billion in 2100.

Most of the additional 3 billion people from now to 2100 will enlarge the population of developing countries, which is projected to rise from 5.7 billion in 2011 to 8.0 billion in 2050 and to 8.8 billion in 2100, and will be distributed over the whole period among the population aged 15-59 (1.2 billion) and 60 or over (1.9 billion) because the number of children under age 15 in developing countries will decrease.

In contrast, the population of the more developed regions is expected to change minimally, passing from 1.24 billion in 2011 to 1.34 billion in 2100, and would have declined to 1.11 billion were it not for the projected net migration from developing to developed countries, which is projected to average 2.2 million persons annually from 2011 to 2050 and 0.8 million from 2050 to 2100.

So somewhere around 2100 we hit the 10 billion mark and the growth is from the developing countries who will fill up their own countries and send millions of immigrants to the developed countries.

Does this change the OP's predictions? Does it open up suggestions for population control?

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:13 PM

I think overpopulation is a myth thought up by the rich elite who are worried if they can control us all

They are the ones who push us to overbreed so people will be poor and dumb and so easy to control. Why do you think republicans a (and religions) are so against birth control and abortion? Poor uneducated people can be herded like sheep, as we see with the birthers or anti-gay retards.

We are already over the population we can sustain which is why millions of people die in Africa every year and billions more are dirt poor. Even parts of America are unsustainably populated like southern california, New Jersey, NYC etc. We should be trying to reduce world population back to 4 or 5 billion instead of ramping it up.

We are running low on so many resources like fish, oil, crops, precious metals, etc it is insane to increase our population by any amount.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:16 PM
reply to post by qver74

I personally agree that we are over populated. Over populated with the NWO crowd. The first that should be opted off the planet is them and their crazy power hungry ideas and attitudes. If everyone of them were gone tomorrow they would not be missed. Everything they think is proven wrong and everything they do is a disaster. The whole time they are convinced at least to themselves they are the savior of the world. If testing were conducted and brains studied it is their it should be done on them In order to prevent the likes of them taking over the planet another time.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:44 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift



Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please make sure every post matters.
Refrain from 1-line or very-minimal responses.
Edit-down your quoted posts to the important part.
Don't use "txting" shorthand in posts.
Use snippets and links for external content.
Provide meaningful comments for links, pictures, and videos.

[next time will be a posting ban]
edit on February 4th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by qver74

Overpopulation doesn't exist.


Because humans at our current level of technology only occupy 3% of the landmass on earth.
We can free up another 1% with our level of techology.Its no problem.

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:19 AM
reply to post by PhoenixOD

Could you please explain how pushing the world population to the point of non-sustainability is a good thing?

We can expand our numbers, and in fact our population is still increasing, however our resources are still limited. I don't seen any logical reason to further overburden the natural resources we have, especially if we can't even provide for the people that are already here.

We're not headed into extinction anytime soon. 7 Billion + people on the planet is an almost incomprehensible number, and short of a catastrophic earth shattering event, I'm sure that we are more than capable of recovering from any population shortfalls.

How many people is 7 billion?

Shown below is a picture of a football stadium with approx 82,000 people in it. You could fill up a like sized/populated stadium for every person in that picture, and still not touch the number of people that currently inhabit the earth. (82k stadiums with 82k people each = approx 6.7 billion)

edit on 4/15/2012 by ~Vixen~ because: (no reason given)


log in