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.

 

World Overpopulation Myth Debunked

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Ok your right. Then I guess that works out to about 12 people per square mile.




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
so, 2.3 acres of land per person currently.
Now..how much does it take for a cow to eat before we eat the cow


Here is a better question actually.
We all live on 2.3 acres of land..all land, even deserts and ice cubes are taken up by people living.
So, this means no trash pickup, no sewage

How many trees would you cut down on your 2.3 acres to build your home, how many holes in the ground to dig up the metals for your cars, ipads, etc

how long would it take you, living as you do, to totally destroy your 2.3 acres with trash, sewage, chemicals, etc...

That is the ultimate problem...if we all ate sunshine and lived in harmony with nature without effecting a single bush, we would be fine with 100 billion people..but we are pollution monsters

2.3 acres per person
and there are people whom have the largest ego to think what we do as a species has no effect on the planets ecosystem or natural cycles.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
So I got bored and figured out how many square miles a person would have to themselves if land was distributed to all of the approximate 7 billion of earths inhabitants equally. Each person alive would have about 12 square miles all to themselves.

So is the world overpopulated?

No.

Total land area of the world 57,308,738 Sq. Miles
Total Population around 7 billion. (I used 7 billion)


Yes you are correct,over population is a lie.The problem is fat mismanagement at the top,and these bloated maggot's blame you and I for their unsustainable practices.
The entire human population can fit into the continent of Australia.Giving every man, woman and child a half acre block each and still leaves half of the State of Queensland Available.That is half an acre each not per family.The rest of the earths land mass is left vacant.Hope this put's things in perspective for people.Our problem is mismanagement and Bill Gates is a sawn off little joke,prehaps he should practice what he preaches and go commit suicide.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
So I got bored and figured out how many square miles a person would have to themselves if land was distributed to all of the approximate 7 billion of earths inhabitants equally. Each person alive would have about 12 square miles all to themselves.

So is the world overpopulated?

No.

Total land area of the world 57,308,738 Sq. Miles
Total Population around 7 billion. (I used 7 billion)


Yes you are correct,over population is a lie.The problem is fat mismanagement at the top,and these bloated maggot's blame you and I for their unsustainable practices.
The entire human population can fit into the continent of Australia.Giving every man, woman and child a half acre block each and still leaves half of the State of Queensland Available


Care to show the math that supports this.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


he forgot to mention that they are all dead by that time



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 

Its ok if your 12 miles is a Bread Basket area.

Would suck if its above the Artic Circle.

Jokes aside, its not room thats the problem, its Resources.

The world is Over-populated.


There are more than enough resources. Way more. Actually, immeasurable amounts of abundant resources available for all.

The problem isn't "overpopulation", the problem is resource distribution. When the problem isn't resources being distributed, i.e. aid relief, then the problem becomes "war" and other silly nonsense such as "politics", "blockades" and "sanctions". Or in other words, serious malfunction in the ability to share and empathize in regard to keeping the status quo of conflict.

Illusion of scarcity.

Then the people who I only term as "special", will insist that it's more logical to let people die, kill people off, or mandate breeding and abortion. Rather than just distributing the f-ing resources properly instead of trying to control everything like puppets.
edit on 20-6-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Well, you've forgotten a few things. Take into account that quite a few people enjoy living in cities and condos and such...they don't want all that land to themselves. Secondly, we have the technology to turn sea water into drinkable water. Thirdly, we have the technology to grow vast amounts of food. So much so that we ship tons of it around the world and much of it rots before it gets into the hands of those that need it. We are not overpopulated and have plenty of resources. We just don't manage them well, or place priorities on our military instead of feeding, sheltering and caring for our fellow humans.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by amazing


Take into account that quite a few people enjoy living in cities and condos and such...

 


Yes but if you checked the earlier article I linked you would see that no matter if you are living in a condo, you are using much more space than that:


Globally, there are about 1.9 hectares of productive area per person, but the average ecological footprint is already 2.3 hectares. So we would need 1.5 Earths to live sustainably. The largest footprint belongs to citizens of the US, at 9.57 hectares. Five Earths would be needed if everyone in the world consumed at that rate.


link




Secondly, we have the technology to turn sea water into drinkable water.


And absolutely no use for the sodium chloride taken out, which is dumped back into the ocean. Has to potential to damage the ecosystem, but the biggest drawback I imagine would be the power consumption.

Hard to produce water for a place that has no power generation infrastructure, and those are some of the places that need it...








We are not overpopulated and have plenty of resources.


Says you, without sources.
edit on 20-6-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 

As I mentioned previously, relying on tech is foolish unless you love doom.

It is stupid to grow a population that can only survive as long as technology holds out because tech will fail eventually in grand fashion.
edit on 20-6-2012 by Numbers33four because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


Correct!
I did the math a long time ago, and it seems that every man woman and child on this earth could fit COMFORTABLY into an area the size of Australlia, we would EACH get a 1/4 acre.
That is a full acre for a family of four.
There is much BS pushed on the worlds population and this is just one issue.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


Only if you jam people into mega cities, chip them all and make them totally dependent upon technology and government. That is the only way it works because most of the dry land is not arable. and that is what counts. And of that arable land much of it must be used to produce non-food raw materials.

You have not looked very deeply into the matter. Maybe you were in a hurry to get your government cheese and check.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Numbers33four
reply to post by g146541
 


Only if you jam people into mega cities, chip them all and make them totally dependent upon technology and government. That is the only way it works because most of the dry land is not arable. and that is what counts. And of that arable land much of it must be used to produce non-food raw materials.

You have not looked very deeply into the matter. Maybe you were in a hurry to get your government cheese and check.

???
???
Please explain what or where you are getting at?
There is plenty of arable land all over the world.
Maybe you missed the, into an area the size of.
The size of, meaning we have several more continents worth of land in which people could live other than Australia.
I guess this means I have looked into it, what do you mean by government cheese and check though?
How do they play into this?



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
So I got bored and figured out how many square miles a person would have to themselves if land was distributed to all of the approximate 7 billion of earths inhabitants equally. Each person alive would have about 12 square miles all to themselves.

So is the world overpopulated?

No.

Total land area of the world 57,308,738 Sq. Miles
Total Population around 7 billion. (I used 7 billion)




Yes you are correct,over population is a lie.The problem is fat mismanagement at the top,and these bloated maggot's blame you and I for their unsustainable practices.
The entire human population can fit into the continent of Australia.Giving every man, woman and child a half acre block each and still leaves half of the State of Queensland Available


Care to show the math that supports this.


Care to join Bill Gates? I'm not you mother do your own maths.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   
The problem is not that the world is overpopulated at 7.9 billion people, it is that the world is continuing to populate rapidly. like dividing a piece into a 2 then that in another 2 then you have 4 then 16. imagine at least a fraction on the 7.9 billion are women and pregnant right now. that a lot not to mention that teenage girls are wanting to have children now in day and not having accidents. this world is F****d up and we are going to run low on resources eventually.

edit on 20-6-2012 by Revelations21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   
I think you are all missing several points. It's 2.3 SQUARE acres of land, right? That's a lot of space.

1.) It's not just land we use for food. It's the oceans, too. And those take up 70% of the planet. We might all end up eating seafood, tho. But then we can always make floating cities, too. Or cities on the bottom of the ocean.

2.) A percentage of the population is in prison, nursing homes, or in some way that the 2.3 acres of land or whatever would be of no use to them.

3.) We can build structures that can go into the air. That also means we can build skyscrapers with gardens and orchards and grapevines and such on the side of them.

4.) There could be apple trees and other fruit bearing trees and such planted alongside every single bit of farmland and alongside every road on the planet. These also go into the air instead of taking up precious ground space.

5.) You can plant strawberries and asparagus and other perennial plants in-between all of those trees.

6.) You can build a 40 ft. by 40 ft. four-story house with a full basement and have a ton of room - and most of that 2.3 acres left over.

7.) My neighbors growing up had 3 or 4 cows and a handful of pigs every year, a small flock of chickens, and a garden combined on probably not more than an acre. It can be done.

The point I'm making is that something is being seriously mismanaged if we are running out of room and resources. Somebody's not being creative enough. On the other hand, if the planet gets hit with a massive EMP, the technology to undertake and sustain all of that is pretty much gone.
edit on 20-6-2012 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


You really didn't think this thread though did you??

I agree with the many other's posts about your math being wrong,
resources comments. Debunked how?? I'm confused by your reasoning?

Having your math wrong gives off the impression that whatever else you
tell us is going to be a bit off as well, IMO, no pun intended.

Are you a scientist, politician, or have any degree in this type of generalization? Or was this idea from
a late night discovery channel show and too many beers?

Can you give any better sources than this(your) idea?

Thx

edit on 20-6-2012 by AK907ICECOLD because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2012 by AK907ICECOLD because: grammer, spelling.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrchusGhule
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


There are mountains, tundra, deserts, land covered with ice, volcanic areas, etc. Adjust your calculations to subtract those areas from your original number, unless you're the one who wants to live in the middle of the Sahara, attempt to grow grapes on the side of Mount St. Helens, or cultivate wheat in the Antarctic. Your "debunking" also assumes that we should remove all wilderness to accommodate farm land for humans, which involves killing most species of plants and animals that are not food for humans.

In short, your so-called debunking is lacking substance.

Also, your math is a bit...off.
edit on 19-6-2012 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)


Masterful and concise.

10/10

There is no comeback for this. None.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


I say WOOW...the man has solved it. Such ease, such vision, such math.

Beautiful thread. We need more progressive thinkers here. /end sarc



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


You didn't factor in all the waste that those people produce.
The world can't deal with the human waste. The world is definately over populated.
But don't worry ... the NWO/TPTB are working on a massive kill off ... I have no doubt.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
You sir, have absolutely no idea what overpopulation is.

You have taken into account the number of people and the inhabitable area, but you ignored the real problems, waste, resources, energy and over-working the planet.

The more people there are in the world, the more resources needed, the more waste is produced, the more energy needed to power everything and this leads to an over-work of the planet and polution that reduces the working capacity of our planet/nature.

So please stop it with this nonsense. These threads are absolutely mis-informed.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join