Population excess has always been the problem

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   
There are too many people. Biosphere deterioration, groundwater
depletion, trash everywhere, chemical contamination from industrial
process.. PCBs from transformers, chlorinated compounds in water
supplies, pesticides in the environment, acid rain, air pollution,
mineral depleted soils, lead particles from when leaded gasoline was
being used, still in the environment, ground water chemical
contamination..
Even in the middle of the oceans you find plastic bags floating. On
beaches sometimes even raw sewage is present.. beaches closed
because of the bacteria count. The list just goes on and on.

Everyone who understands the biosphere is being abused knows
the fundamental problem is too many blasted people. Billions and
counting.. is there ANY reason to have more than a few million
people.. maximum.. on Earth? Especially now when industries can
be automated to provide all the tangible needs for life. Green
solutions exist for most of the biosphere problems.. but the ultimate
answer is population reduction.. and soon.. to a sustainable level.

I disagree with the many plans I've heard and read about from others
about how to accomplish the reduction...

but the need is definite. And one way or the other the populations will
be reduced.




posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mockan
... the fundamental problem is too many blasted people.
The problem is not enough blasted people. The fact that they remain intact is what is causing the problem, so if more of them did disintegrate from blasting then there would be less people to worry about.

Actually the high number of un-productive population on this planet is the direct result of dependancy thinking and ignorance.

Originally posted by mockanBillions and
counting.. And one way or the other the populations will
be reduced.
And how were you planning to reduce the population? Try telling that poor muslim farmer in the jungles of Nigeria that he can't have 12 children with his wives.



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   
The Earth has approximately 150 million sq. km of land. There are 6.2 billion people on Earth. Now, if everyone alive -- man, woman, child -- was given 1 acre of land each (1 acre = 0.005 sq. km), then 30 million sq. km of Earth's land would be occupied. That's only 20% of the Earth's land! Also, keep in mind that 90% of humanity lives on only 5% of the Earth's land -- which, including businesses and other urbanized land, averages out to be much less than 1 acre per person.

In fact, if you take out China, India, the U.S., and Europe, you'll find that the rest of the Earth is pretty sparsley populated. Indeed, you'll find that even within China, India, the U.S., and Europe, there are still large tracts of land which are either rural and used for farming and ranches, or land that isn't used at all.


[edit on 9/28/2004 by ThunderCloud]



posted on Sep, 29 2004 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Alot of problems stem from overpopulation.



posted on Sep, 29 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Alot of problems stem from overpopulation.


No, the problems extend from Ignorance and stupidity. If humanity would make at least an attempt at using a little more of it's brain than it really does then there would far less crime, fewer unplanned pregnancies, more rational thought and fewer religious fanatics.
Examples:
The criminal cannot intelligently justify their crime.
The shocked new parents "forgot" to use birth control.
The terrorist had extremely limited schooling from a religious zealot.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
if everyone alive -- man, woman, child -- was given 1 acre of land each (1 acre = 0.005 sq. km), then 30 million sq. km of Earth's land would be occupied. That's only 20% of the Earth's land! Also, keep in mind that 90% of humanity lives on only 5% of the Earth's land -- which, including businesses and other urbanized land, averages out to be much less than 1 acre per person.
[edit on 9/28/2004 by ThunderCloud]


This is true, however it is irrelevant. The problem is not that there is not enough space, but not enough resources. Any growing population will eventually reach the carrying capacity of it's habitat. Since humans have the unique ability to heavily alter their habitat, this puts us in a tough spot. On one hand this is an integral part of all the modern things we enjoy today. On the other, it means the more we alter our habitat, the more we disrupt the systems that keep this planet living. Therefore, the more humans grow, the more they disrupt the environment, and the greater the chance of serious damage to our habitat becomes. The point is that world population cannot continue to grow at this rate, if at all. Just because the US road system can theoretically fit some 1.3 billion cars, that doesn't mean we should. Even though we have space for 31 billion people to have an acre of land a piece, the planet can't take that kind of impact. Imagine all the pollution those people will create, the energy they consume(and the pollution of the facilities that produce that energy), the goods they desire(and the pollution of the factories that produce those goods). They all also need food, water and a hospitable environment, which we depend on the Earth for. The more we grow, the more we choke off our supply line.Unless we can exist without terribly disrupting the environment, we must stop our growth. But, realistically speaking, this isn't going to happen any time soon, if at all. It is foolish to think otherwise. It is possible, but highly unprobable. The way people think and what they believe limit things like this. The people in the best position to do something about it are the least interested. So then, humanity will run into a metaphorical wall. I don't know enough to say what will happen when it does, but I know enough to see the wall.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   
WOW SPIN ALERT!!

This is EXACTLY what Dr.Evil (thats Kissinger in Americanese) would like you to think. This is why we see documents like the NSSM 2000..

From what i have heard... if we were to all live at the same density as in say... Manhattan we could fit the ENTIRE planets population into a city the size of Germany (I have not actually done this calcualtion myself, anyone care to?), leaving the the rest of the planet completely "people free".

The real problem here is not the number of people its the distribution of them and the logistical problems of energy geberation/supply and waste disposal/recycling.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 01:10 PM
link   
if we were to allot a 2 foot by 2 foot square of area for every person in the world(at this time, the US Cencus Bureau estimated the world population at 6,396,252,778 people), we could fit them all into a space a little more then half of the size of Rhode Island.

MATH(for those who care):
4(sq feet) * 6396252778(people) ~= 2.558501111E10 (square feet for all people)
2.558501111E10 (square feet) ~= 917.74 (square miles)
Rhode Island has 1545 square miles. All the worlds population would occupy roughly 59% of Rhode Island's total area.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Okay good ideas, but I have some questions that I would like to be considered.

1) How much of this land is inhabitable? Seriously who will be living in the middle of the sahara if they can help it?
2) Who gets to choose where their land is? I am sure that you would have severe fights over why gets to live where, especially in todays society where 'resource' is so important
3) How would these people in the more remote areas be able to live a good quality of life? Just because your a farmer that doesn't mean you have to struggle.

M@



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Yes, the social structure is the problem. We create a polluting system, then when population reaches a critical mass we die, not because of people but because of the defective civilization we have created.

Population is not the problem, civilization is the problem. But elites want to continue their existing polluting system at all costs as a vested interest on capital, so they have to create new world orders to wipe out people. If that is not the stupidest load of crock, I do not know what is.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Ok, I may have the stupidest question of the evening, but here goes. Why the hell are we trying to live to be 120 anyway!? I mean we have all heard how wonderful Heaven is suppose to be, we actually know it in our hearts.
Humans are the ones making us live so long, go back hundreds of years the average life expectancy was what 50 (guessing). That is normal! Who really wants to live past that age, the body gets old, statistics show you have considerable more medical conditions, etc. etc. etc.

Am I crazy or are we just thinking wrong!!! Let God take the course He intended to.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Im reposting to bump, I would really like to hear everyone's views on this issue.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mockan
is there ANY reason to have more than a few million
people.. maximum.. on Earth?

You ready to take one for the team? Or are you one of those guys that says "We need fewer people on Earth, but we definitely need me."





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join