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.
Originally posted by McGinty
Our artificially sustained eco-system has fatally separated cause from effect...
Originally posted by imherejusttoread
That's like saying a bird's nest is an artificial ecosystem not subject to cause and effect.
Originally posted by McGinty
It hurts, really, to suggest such draconian, rather dystopian control measures, but being responsible means
Originally posted by imherejusttoread
..not basing draconian, rather dystopian control measures on bad science.
Originally posted by McGinty
I Think inevitably as a species that claims to be superior - ready to progress - it must finally prove it by showing that it's in control of it's own numbers.
Originally posted by imherejusttoread
If an alien species were to observe us, they would probably write in their report:
These curious creatures tend to suffer from a collective hysteria where the individual organism is supposed to not exist, or if it exists, it exists for the manipulation of its fellow organisms who happen to outnumber the individual organism. What's more alarming about this observation is that these creatures appear to possess one of the largest brain-to-body mass ratios. How could this be possible? Could this be explained by a phantasm mechanism where existential fears are conceptualized and perpetuated through associative networks, producing visible effects resembling a physical virus? It is a quandary, and our studies coin this trait 'ignorance'.
It seems these noted regressive traits, such as control and fear, are better represented amongst those organisms possessing larger quantities of this 'ignorance'. The tolerance of these particular organisms is a testament to those possessing less of this 'ignorance'. Indeed, this tolerance is what provides the best analogy between our kind and theirs.
Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Well you and Ted Turner can lead us all by example and reduce your carbon foot prints 1st.
We can farm vertically saving lots of land space.
We can use already known techniques like solar panels on all homes for energy.
We can educate the population in the right direction, not the Jersey Shore direction.
We can stop dividing and conquering overseas and use "our" money to help ourselves.
Just a few ideas. Oh, and we can physically remove the problem politicians and CEOs causing these worsening problems.
The problem here is that Nuclear power produces waste that cannot be neutralized anytime soon.
Originally posted by petrus4
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Those who say "ohh yeah, overpopulation is a myth. Pshhh, we can TOTALLY support billions more on this planet NO PROB. It's just the new world order making things up" seem to be in COMPLETE DENIAL about what science is telling us.
I don't worship science as God, personally. Scientists can be wrong; but more importantly, they can be (and very often are) paid to return specific findings. Assuming that science is infallible (or not, at times, simply corrupt, as mentioned) is naive.
Originally posted by imherejusttoread
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Those who say "ohh yeah, overpopulation is a myth. Pshhh, we can TOTALLY support billions more on this planet NO PROB. It's just the new world order making things up" seem to be in COMPLETE DENIAL about what science is telling us. What these people don't realize is that- just because a reality is terrible, doesn't therefore make it a conspiracy. Of course then they'll bring up a litany of "facts" to back up their desire to believe that we aren't overpopulated, but they are not really facts but wishful thinking while the ship is sinking.
The science is telling us that.
This isn't science [from the link you posted]:
- Other species are subject to the basic ecological law that states that the population of every species increases to the level of its food supply.
- Humans are unique and above this basic law.
- Corollary: Humans behave as if the human population continues to grow simply because we are human.
This is the assumption of the entire slideshow.
1. I don't know of any science that teaches us this.
2. I don't know of any 'ecological law', either. I know the laws of thermodynamics, and they are naturally self-correcting without the requirement of human beings assuming false laws simply because we are human.
The slideshow also assumes a void of ignorance concerning how economics works [which would probably condense the entirety of topics down to half instead of piecemeal understanding through inferior sociological contexts].edit on 15-6-2012 by imherejusttoread because: syntax.
Originally posted by Ml5edtoDeath
If we must depopulate then let us start culling psychopaths. Everyone can have MRIs done and their brains analyzed.
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Originally posted by imherejusttoread
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Those who say "ohh yeah, overpopulation is a myth. Pshhh, we can TOTALLY support billions more on this planet NO PROB. It's just the new world order making things up" seem to be in COMPLETE DENIAL about what science is telling us. What these people don't realize is that- just because a reality is terrible, doesn't therefore make it a conspiracy. Of course then they'll bring up a litany of "facts" to back up their desire to believe that we aren't overpopulated, but they are not really facts but wishful thinking while the ship is sinking.
The science is telling us that.
This isn't science [from the link you posted]:
- Other species are subject to the basic ecological law that states that the population of every species increases to the level of its food supply.
- Humans are unique and above this basic law.
- Corollary: Humans behave as if the human population continues to grow simply because we are human.
This is the assumption of the entire slideshow.
1. I don't know of any science that teaches us this.
2. I don't know of any 'ecological law', either. I know the laws of thermodynamics, and they are naturally self-correcting without the requirement of human beings assuming false laws simply because we are human.
The slideshow also assumes a void of ignorance concerning how economics works [which would probably condense the entirety of topics down to half instead of piecemeal understanding through inferior sociological contexts].edit on 15-6-2012 by imherejusttoread because: syntax.
I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand about the concept; but here it is again:
When food is scarce, a species cannot and thus will not reproduce at high rates.
When food is plentiful/in surplus, a species can and will almost always reproduce at high rates (barring other factors that negatively influence mortality/reproduction).
We need only look at the human population explosion after the agricultural revolution to realize this was the beginning of our overpopulation problems. Prehistoric population growth was NOT congruent in any way to the population explosion around 10,000 years ago, not even in an exponential sense. The agricultural revolution produced huge surpluses of less-nutritious but high-calorie foods... this had negative (in the qualitative sense) health consequences and positive (in the quantitative sense) population consequences.
We are living out the consequences of this today and we will most certainly see ecological, economic, and population crashes as a result. In fact, we're already seeing the first few hints of this all over the world. Humans might be able to fit in a small part of the Earth if we are all crammed together, but this is not how humanity (or the world) works; we have land and resource demands/footprints that FARRR exceed our physical bodies on this planet. We are living unsustainably, it's simple; whether it's low-consumption and high-population in the third-world or high-consumption and moderate-population in the first world doesn't matter. Our way of life is predicated on relatively HIGH populations and relatively HIGH demands upon resources. This cannot and should not continue, or we will surely face even worse consequences that will destroy us anyway.
One good pandemic with today's travel infrastructure could spread a long incubation highly contagious virus through out the world . They are working on it just like they are working to improve the Bird Flu , spending billions of dollars on it's development . So far they have failed with the Swine Flu , Avian Flu , Aids , Methyl Mercury in our vaccines and the Ebola virus works too fast to spread like they need . But don't give up they are working hard . The Eugenicist will throw money at it . Rockefeller , Kissinger , Prince Phillip , all at deaths door worry only about your passing . Crazy isn't it !
Originally posted by guyopitz
only 50 million people died in WWII
so it would take 140 WWII's to kill off the 7 billion inhabitants of the Earth.