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: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by Numbers33four
The problem is not too many people. The problem is too many rich people who have no regard for the rest of the world.

Don't get me wrong. I know that there are plenty of poor people dynomiting fish.
edit on 19-6-2012 by Numbers33four because: (no reason given)


No actually it's too many people.

And if you consume a lot, you are the problem.

Very simple, but passing the blame on the "rich overlords" somehow gets more support...


But you're mistaken considering an average american lifestyle as the best the world can offer, when they waste the most resources.You need to balance things out and remove the wastefulness factor, then you'll see that it evens out for everyone in the world...




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
If we didn't live in huge cities this problem wouldn't even have surfaced.
I say screw cities, back to small communities!



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle


But you're mistaken considering an average american lifestyle as the best the world can offer, when they waste the most resources.You need to balance things out and remove the wastefulness factor, then you'll see that it evens out for everyone in the world...

 



And the catch 22 is that sustainable communities do not support such ridiculous overpopulation we have with a decent quality of life.

It's not just the US lifestyle that abuses the planet:


In absolute global terms, the 10 countries with the worst environmental impact are (in order, worst first): Brazil, USA, China, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, India, Russia, Australia and Peru.
The indicators used were natural forest loss, habitat conversion, fisheries and other marine captures, fertiliser use, water pollution, carbon emissions from land use and species threat.


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



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Okay, so who gets to live in the volcano?



By the way, you divided wrong.
edit on 19-6-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


57 308 738 / 7 billion = 0.00818696257

Everyone gets a .008 Square mile.
edit on 19-6-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



guys i don't usually agree with boncho, but i think he's right.


not sure though, i am horrible at most math.


peace.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by The_Oracle


But you're mistaken considering an average american lifestyle as the best the world can offer, when they waste the most resources.You need to balance things out and remove the wastefulness factor, then you'll see that it evens out for everyone in the world...

 



And the catch 22 is that sustainable communities do not support such ridiculous overpopulation we have with a decent quality of life.

It's not just the US lifestyle that abuses the planet:


In absolute global terms, the 10 countries with the worst environmental impact are (in order, worst first): Brazil, USA, China, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, India, Russia, Australia and Peru.
The indicators used were natural forest loss, habitat conversion, fisheries and other marine captures, fertiliser use, water pollution, carbon emissions from land use and species threat.


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


I didn't say it was the only one, I only pointed out you considered it the best because you used it in your example.

And it's actually possible for those sustainable communities to support the population, we would only be required to act now, and change the mechanisms that are harming our chances to do so.Those mechanisms are set in place by the wastefulness of capitalism and the negative effects its encouragement towards that it produces.

Check out the Resource Based Economy if you want to find out more.



www.youtube.com...



www.youtube.com...



www.youtube.com...#!
edit on 6/20/2012 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/20/2012 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


Zeitgeist and the Venus project is nifty marketing ploy and pretty far from reality. Completely full of misinformation and a lot of crap*

Anyhow, it's not a feasible reality for the entire planet and the entire population. Very well might work for a small group of people but with the plans laid out, you cannot change the world to fit into what they have laid out.

But we will see soon enough how it works out, as I believe they have a green light to start the project with millionaire investors looking to move in...



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


Zeitgeist and the Venus project is nifty marketing ploy and pretty far from reality. Completely full of misinformation and a lot of crap*

Anyhow, it's not a feasible reality for the entire planet and the entire population. Very well might work for a small group of people but with the plans laid out, you cannot change the world to fit into what they have laid out.

But we will see soon enough how it works out, as I believe they have a green light to start the project with millionaire investors looking to move in...


But I actually linked you to the new movie Zeitgeist Moving Forward regarding a Resource Based Economy, not the first one with the conspiracies.It's not nice generalizing that they're all crap when you should look into it carefully first.

And it's the Venus Project that is getting funded I think,but it's only for a movie.

And it is feasible, because we have the technological know how to do it.

This is a new site that archive these technologies and discoveries that contribute to it actually being possible.

www.zeitnews.org...



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


I've watched all the Zeitgeist movies, and they are all loaded with crap. The Venus Project is nothing but mental masturbation. It does not exist because it has not been done. It's opinion only.

Article on Venus Project.

While there are some valid points about the money system in use, the Venus Project does not list ways that actually address the real problem. People.


The biggest corrupting pyramid scheme of them all is not even the creation of currency through debt, it’s how the newly created currency is distributed. With the Venus Project, as the first 100 units of some new technology become available, how will it be distributed? Who gets it first? The delivery of technology necessitates the creation of some sort of order or class system just as it does with currency. There will still be a hierarchy of people making the decisions and a hierarchy of people benefiting from them. Today the people who use the newly created debt currency first benefit the most, in the new proposed system the people who get the newly created technology first benefit the most. They could even trade their privileges like a commodity for other stuff, like that prime Florida real estate that’s still scarce. Please don’t pretend real estate as currency is some novel idea.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


I've watched all the Zeitgeist movies, and they are all loaded with crap. The Venus Project is nothing but mental masturbation. It does not exist because it has not been done. It's opinion only.


But isn't that the point? Bringing something better, new and contemporary as a system in concordance with our technological progress, rather then remain content with the idea that nothing will ever change for the better in the current one so we should just all lay down and die?
edit on 6/20/2012 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
You can't sit in gridlocked traffic without feeling like there are too many of us. I've made a solemn promise to the earth and its inhabitants to never reproduce, I wish others would put their money where their mouth is like I have and make the same promise. And if you don't believe there are too many humans, will you truly enjoy an earth that has been completely paved under for your condos and strip malls? Never to breathe fresh air because all the great forests are gone? Never to see the stars in the sky because of the massive amounts of light pollution?



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Soylent green is...

.....IS!!......

People!!!



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Oracle

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


I've watched all the Zeitgeist movies, and they are all loaded with crap. The Venus Project is nothing but mental masturbation. It does not exist because it has not been done. It's opinion only.


But isn't that the point? Bringing something better, new and contemporary as a system in concordance with our technological progress, rather then remain content with the idea that nothing will ever change for the better in the current one so we should just all lay down and die?
edit on 6/20/2012 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)



Well, not exactly. The Venus Project hasn't been done and if the entire world tried to mimic the idea it couldn't be done.

What you can have is that one cozy village, and a bunch of poor ones around the world supporting it. Just that poor people would have less resources, not money.

You can't build a circular village with robots for everyone, as people have to crawl into mines, work in oil fields, tend the fields and do other things that simply can't be done in a small isolated city. Not to mention areas where weather does not permit the types of cities he proposes.

There is a reason people built the cities where they are and there's a reason they remain. Just as you see cities grow near water supply you see them dwindle to empty mines and exploited gas fields.

The entire world does not produce enough or have the ability to produce the amount of resources that he proposes so that everyone can live the same quality of life. So essentially, Fresco is working towards a utopian society that slaves off the back of other poor places in the world, no different than any other modern city today.

The only way this would not be true, is if he built his little project from scratch. From complete, barebones, scratch. Although having advanced technology would be impossible, it would resemble more of a hippie commune.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Numbers33four
The problem is not too many people. The problem is too many rich people who have no regard for the rest of the world.

Don't get me wrong. I know that there are plenty of poor people dynomiting fish.
edit on 19-6-2012 by Numbers33four because: (no reason given)


You are truly generalizing it as you completely ignore the works of everyday John and Jane that, every day, throws junk on the ground because they are too lazy to walk a few foot to the trash can standing just next to them.

This amount of junk that the everyday person throws on the ground, are in the tons, and that ONLY in the US;

In the U.S., 4.39 pounds of trash per day and up to 56 tons of trash per year are created by the average person.” Furthermore, “Americans throw away 2.5 million plastic bottles every hour.”

www.cleanair.org...

So, blaming it all on the "rich people", whatever that means, are only worsening the problem, as it just encourage the highly responsible everyday person to stick the head in the sand and continue to polute instead of changing his/her behaviour.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by The_Oracle

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


I've watched all the Zeitgeist movies, and they are all loaded with crap. The Venus Project is nothing but mental masturbation. It does not exist because it has not been done. It's opinion only.


But isn't that the point? Bringing something better, new and contemporary as a system in concordance with our technological progress, rather then remain content with the idea that nothing will ever change for the better in the current one so we should just all lay down and die?
edit on 6/20/2012 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)




Well, not exactly. The Venus Project hasn't been done and if the entire world tried to mimic the idea it couldn't be done.


I actually think that unless it's done globally an RBE wouldn't work to it's fullest potential.


What you can have is that one cozy village, and a bunch of poor ones around the world supporting it. Just that poor people would have less resources, not money.

You can't build a circular village with robots for everyone, as people have to crawl into mines, work in oil fields, tend the fields and do other things that simply can't be done in a small isolated city. Not to mention areas where weather does not permit the types of cities he proposes.


But the hole point of an RBE would be to first declare all the resources of the world as humanity's common heritage.Afterwards computers would distribute the resources accordingly, based on calculations for scarcity,need and amount for everyone in the world to cover their personal everyday needs,while also allocating for projects that may need and probably need to be done, all this done within the calculated "safe margin" so to speak.

Also the circular models Jacque proposes there is only a few of the numerous possibilities.We don't have to apply them where not applicable, though it remains to be seen where that is actually the case.

And also another point of an RBE would be to gradually adopt renewable energy sources over fossil fuels.These are being done today,but the only reason they're slow is because there's no money to make in them in a capitalist system,so we might never transcend unless we adopt a system that actually encourages improvements within it, like an RBE, unlike Capitalism where if you don't allow the status quo to flourish and remain the same a hole bunch of problems arise.


There is a reason people built the cities where they are and there's a reason they remain. Just as you see cities grow near water supply you see them dwindle to empty mines and exploited gas fields.


That's done to make things easier, more profitable and cheaper, but these are all done in the spirit of capitalism.I'm not saying that it isn't a good idea to be practical and efficient, but it's pretty obvious that the only reason you don't see great projects done in inhospitable places is because of the lack of those advantages and the only thing to blame is the limited mindset,otherwise they could be done.


The entire world does not produce enough or have the ability to produce the amount of resources that he proposes so that everyone can live the same quality of life. So essentially, Fresco is working towards a utopian society that slaves off the back of other poor places in the world, no different than any other modern city today.

The only way this would not be true, is if he built his little project from scratch. From complete, barebones, scratch. Although having advanced technology would be impossible, it would resemble more of a hippie commune.


From what I know there are enough resources, there's just not enough money for it.Regardless there is a mechanism called the global survey that would scan how much resource we have, and make decisions upon that data to determine where we use it (if it is rare) and how.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Before a rational debate about global overpopulation can go anywhere, there first needs to be a mutually acceptable definition of the term. What constitutes "over"? How would localized inequities in distribution and/or production be taken into account? What overall conditions define thresholds?
Does "over" mean that a population increase of a tiny fraction of a percent dooms everyone? Because if that's the case, the Earth is clearly not overpopulated.
Does it mean that resource availability becomes so limited that nobody on the planet is capable of bettering their quality of life? Because if that's the case, the Earth is clearly not overpopulated.

Just saying the word "overpopulated" and running with land-area statistics makes no sense.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Thank goodness the polar caps are melting, we sure could u se that extra land. Escpecially since Japan will eventually be toxic after the next tsunami..



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle


But the hole point of an RBE would be to first declare all the resources of the world as humanity's common heritage.Afterwards computers would distribute the resources accordingly, based on calculations for scarcity,need and amount for everyone in the world to cover their personal everyday needs,while also allocating for projects that may need and probably need to be done, all this done within the calculated "safe margin" so to speak.


 


Okay, the resources are everyone's. Who decides who has to be sent into a coal mine, who has to be sent into rare earth mines and who decides where the waste of all these processes go?

What about countries and places that don't have computers? What about the fact that producing computers for everyone that doesn't have one would create insane amounts of waste, take toiling labor and essentially deplete the resources that "everyone owns."




And also another point of an RBE would be to gradually adopt renewable energy sources over fossil fuels.These are being done today,but the only reason they're slow is because there's no money to make in them in a capitalist system,so we might never transcend unless we adopt a system that actually encourages improvements within it, like an RBE, unlike Capitalism where if you don't allow the status quo to flourish and remain the same a hole bunch of problems arise.


The current system has not even allowed for certain fossil fuels to be profitable. That's why new technologies are trickling out to harvest previously unattainable reserves. Hence the increase in oil and gas reserves worldwide. Not necessarily a bad thing considering the damage to the ecosystem that some of these cause. (Fracking, risky oil ventures, etc.)

Everything has a value whether or not you put a monetary value on it. If there is no money, people will want to hoard or be in control of resources to exert the same power they have now.




That's done to make things easier, more profitable and cheaper, but these are all done in the spirit of capitalism.I'm not saying that it isn't a good idea to be practical and efficient, but it's pretty obvious that the only reason you don't see great projects done in inhospitable places is because of the lack of those advantages and the only thing to blame is the limited mindset,otherwise they could be done.



Cities can be built in inhibitable places but at what cost and what point? Why would you build a city in the middle of the Sahara? It would take more resources to sustain it than a city built in near a waterway with agricultural land, and other resources that are useful to the city.

For a whole resourced based economy, your line of thinking really doesn't focus on what makes it tick... resources.




From what I know there are enough resources, there's just not enough money for it.Regardless there is a mechanism called the global survey that would scan how much resource we have, and make decisions upon that data to determine where we use it (if it is rare) and how.


How do you determine who gets what? I thought were a giant hippie commune now, and we all have equal claim. What do you say to India and China? They have a large percentage of the world's population and they live well below the consumption level of the rest of the world.

So what then?

What about countries or areas that want to reproduce at high levels, depleting the supply of resources that is available. Others have to give theirs up for them?

The whole thing makes no sense in a global context.

It might work for a small, sheltered community, but will still rely on outside sources for certain things, and will not be entirely true to the idea.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by doug r
Before a rational debate about global overpopulation can go anywhere, there first needs to be a mutually acceptable definition of the term. What constitutes "over"? How would localized inequities in distribution and/or production be taken into account? What overall conditions define thresholds?
Does "over" mean that a population increase of a tiny fraction of a percent dooms everyone? Because if that's the case, the Earth is clearly not overpopulated.
Does it mean that resource availability becomes so limited that nobody on the planet is capable of bettering their quality of life? Because if that's the case, the Earth is clearly not overpopulated.

Just saying the word "overpopulated" and running with land-area statistics makes no sense.


Overpopulation:




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by The_Oracle


Okay, the resources are everyone's. Who decides who has to be sent into a coal mine, who has to be sent into rare earth mines and who decides where the waste of all these processes go?What about countries and places that don't have computers? What about the fact that producing computers for everyone that doesn't have one would create insane amounts of waste, take toiling labor and essentially deplete the resources that "everyone owns."


Automated mining in the short term, nanotechnology in the longterm.Here are two links:

news.sky.com...

spectrum.ieee.org...

And most importantly of all, recycling what we already have, which we don't do enough of.

Producing computers built to breakdown and be replaced year in and year out isn't sustainable either. I would cite the light bulb conspiracy documentary on planned obsolescence and the fact that our current system discourages recycling because landfills are more cost effective. In that sense, that argument is moot. If there aren't enough resources for everyone to have a computer -- where does that leave US in a few generations?


Everything has a value whether or not you put a monetary value on it. If there is no money, people will want to hoard or be in control of resources to exert the same power they have now.


They won't if you change their mindset at their core.Their values,education,environment,philosophy all play an integral role in how they will think about doing anything.This would all change in an RBE for the better.



Cities can be built in inhibitable places but at what cost and what point? Why would you build a city in the middle of the Sahara? It would take more resources to sustain it than a city built in near a waterway with agricultural land, and other resources that are useful to the city.

For a whole resourced based economy, your line of thinking really doesn't focus on what makes it tick... resources.


There would be a point in that you create more places for people to live.What about Las Vegas?It doesn't produce anything useful, other then take in money, yet they spent a load of resources to build it, and it's in the middle of a desert.



How do you determine who gets what? I thought we're a giant hippie commune now, and we all have equal claim. What do you say to India and China? They have a large percentage of the world's population and they live well below the consumption level of the rest of the world.

So what then?

What about countries or areas that want to reproduce at high levels, depleting the supply of resources that is available. Others have to give theirs up for them?

The whole thing makes no sense in a global context.

It might work for a small, sheltered community, but will still rely on outside sources for certain things, and will not be entirely true to the idea.


Who said there would be countries? The resources would be distributed all over the world to balance the intake and output.Where there's a surplus of requirements, you would distribute it to areas where it's lacking.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:02 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)


I'm sorry... but this is incredibly, ahhh what's the word? Never mind, you figure it out.

The math has already been done and explained in great detail.

topdocumentaryfilms.com...



I'm only going to post this video on ATS one more time, so pay attention and stop spewing crap.




And I'll close with these words from the late Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. He said, “Unlike the plagues of the dark ages, or contemporary diseases which we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is solvable with means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution, but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and the education of the billions who are its victims.”

So I hope I’ve made a reasonable case for my opening statement, that I think the greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand this very simple arithmetic.

Thank you very, very much.


LEARN PEOPLE LEARN. lol
edit on 20-6-2012 by FractalChaos13242017 because: additional comment




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join