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: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
What exactly do you want us to do about over population? Kill people for the hell of it? Do what China does and do not allow more than one or two kids?

The only logical solution ... is to build outside of Earth. Go to the Stars my friends. Imagine the infinite wealth of resources in space , infinite amount of space with planets that can be built upon.

I find it very odd personally that resources aren't being put into creating colonies. We have the technology and the money. Yes , we have the money , its called print more money. Literally. The Dollar and the Euro will crash eventually , so use it for something good and maybe , just maybe there will be Gold and precious metals on moons or planets in our solar system.

I think that is our best option. To go to planets outside of Earth.


edit on 21-6-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
What exactly do you want us to do about over population? Kill people for the hell of it? Do what China does and do not allow more than one or two kids?


We can provide for several times the current population, and statistical trends often cited by Hans Rosling (in numerous TED talks) predicts the population will plateau pretty soon. Assuming, of course, that the standard of living continues to rise in the poorest pockets of the planet.

We easily have enough food to feed the world in excess currently (almost 3,000 calories per person produced according to FAO 2002), and that's despite farmers destroying crops to keep price up. That's also without using more efficient means of farming that is already technically feasible today: vertical farming. We can use indoor hydro-, aero- and aquaponics.


The only logical solution ... is to build outside of Earth. Go to the Stars my friends. Imagine the infinite wealth of resources in space , infinite amount of space with planets that can be built upon.


Only if our delusional infinite growth consumption pattern were to continue.


I find it very odd personally that resources aren't being put into creating colonies. We have the technology and the money. Yes , we have the money , its called print more money. Literally.


Printing more just devalues the currency. You spin your wheels and go nowhere. Can't afford a loaf of bread? Print more money, and now the old cost of bread has gone up to adjust for this inflation and you still can't afford it.

However, the question is not "do we have the money," but rather, "do we have the RESOURCES and technological know-how to provide for everyone." It appears that we do.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Synergy23


So, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Tesla (who invented just about everything and got little of the credit), etc. were all motivated by greed?

 


They did what they did within a system of greed. We are not talking about personal motivations, we were talking about a system that produced something.

I don't see how you can change the entire premise around.

We talked about a system and the effects/products of that system. You are now quoting personal opinions of people in that system.

You don't know if they were all born into another system, if they would have been homeless peasants. Because that isn't what happened.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Synergy23
 


What an absolutely true video. "The animation" with its step by step illustration of this point of view are very well done as well.

The future is not "better" because we will be able to do more. It will only be "better" when we are willing to do more. Freedom is a beautiful thing, and a "better" thing.

We can do more than better. We can do good.
Sometimes when we are "good" we can inadvertently be great.

It all depends on your level of freedom personally. If you are free and clear of willing guilt for something done "wrong" you then spend less energy on "defense", making the possibilities increase exponentially thereafter.

any step in the right direction no matter how seemingly insignificant pave the way towards that greater degree of excellence, that notch up towards True Progress. We must begin to take the small steps if we hope to make the big leaps. We dream in strides, why would you try to put chains on that? That is by its very nature insane and backwards.

The very same people doing this that have coined the phrase "bottom line" are the people who hope to achieve some sort of transcendence beyond this world.

To whatever they say, said and will say. I will say this, any mortal man that finds his last breath upon him, thinks of his worthiness on grounds no one here can speak to. The scale of humanity rests on all our shoulders.

To weigh the scale of humanity well is to rise forever, for a well balanced scale is used as often as possible. A badly balanced scale requires one side to sink for the other to rise. This scale though favorable for one side will inevitably be overcome by the other in similar imbalance. That is the very purpose of a badly balanced scale.

A well balanced scale like that of humanity, requires personal freedom, public responsibility, and in no small degree "righteousness".

If you believe in what you are doing, you gravitate towards you the things you need along the way. If you watch star trek, like the Ferengi Great Material Continuum.

"it will provide".


In Ferengi culture the Great Material Continuum is a spiritual term used to describe the binding force of life and material in a universe with "millions of worlds, all with too much of one, and not enough of the other". Though not a strongly religious species, the Ferengi do harbor some spiritual beliefs embodied by the concept of the Continuum.

Similar to the economic law of supply and demand and the economic concept of scarcity, the Continuum is described metaphorically as a river. In this metaphor the current of the river flows from those who want to those who have. Truly a market system, the amount of present wealth and material in the continuum is finite; not everyone can accumulate indefinitely. Material taken from one area must be replaced or paid for through another means.

This in turn means that the successful interpretation to the wants and needs of others is essential to navigating the "Great River" of the Continuum. It also stresses the explicit materialistic life-view of the Ferengi: success in interpreting the needs and wants of others embodied by the Continuum is entirely based on the wealth and material accumulated, and not by more generalized benevolent gestures of compassion or good will as espoused by other species.
en.memory-alpha.org...

Our leaders sold us out to a bunch of Ferengis. They pretend to "serve" a purpose, but really they serve themselves.

The world without them would produce great things and work just fine without them.
serve themselves.





edit on 21-6-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mufcutcakeyumyum
reply to post by boncho
 


A good point well made, and to a degree I do agree with you.
I only said that we could learn a thing or two from the Venus Project, I made sure I stopped short of saying lets go balls out and implement it.
We could argue that a lot of scarcity in the world is contrived, and doesn't need to be so, due largely to financial constraints which whatever side of the fence you sit on, should not be the case.
Should an excess of pieces of paper in one set of hands mean a severe lack of food placed in anothers hands?
Science and technological advance, I believe is sometimes slowed or stopped due to lack of funding.
Technology is already out there it is said, to run all cars on battery alone, travelling at comparable distances and speeds to those which run on fossil fuels. Problem is, the patents are supposedly owned by the fossil fuel companies, thus stunting innovation. In this example, scarcity may well have accelerated innovation, but it has not filtered down to the base level.

In my opinion, innovation is sparked by imagination, not scarcity. The man who invented the telescope did not do it due to a lack of something, he did it because he was curious. The man who invented the plough did not do it because he had a lack of food, he better used his imagination to find a way to do the job more effectively. The hand tiller he used the year before worked just fine, he just used his imagination to find a better way.
Sure, if something is genuinely scarce, and there is a necessity to consume it, you have to innovate to better utilise the resource.


A very worthy post.

One thing, why does the fellow need a plough at all? Seems he must have a booming community to support, probably with its own monetary system.

A tribe living in the jungle, bushes, etc however... Have great ingenuity, but do not focus on mass production. Mass production has brought some of the greatest advances to date. Mass production had everything to do with making money.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by BIHOTZ


Well, I don't know if I understood you correctly but,

If we consume 300 million gallons we still have that amount when we are done since water renews itself and purifies itself. If we pollute it we lose it.

 


You realize water flushed down the toilet is somewhat (totally) polluted right?




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by XB70


Also, 30% unemployment rate. If there were actually things that were "equally pressing", and this dumb, retarded system actually worked, we'd have much closer to 100% employment, and most of the jobs would be useful, and they would provide an acceptable standard of living.

 


You are under the assumption that 100% of people want to work.



I know a man, been sitting on the couch for 10 years. Fully capable. Still lives with parents.




I didn't realize you were such a lame troll that you would ignore the entire rest of my post to feebly attempt to turn that point around on me. Millions of years of no murdered fossils means that the evidence for humans having murdered and tortured each other regularly since the invention of tools is quite lacking. We found one murder victim from 5000 years ago, so what's the deal with the other 2.495 million years? Don't know if you realize this, but that's nearly 500 times longer than 5000 years, and so far, no known murders.


We don't have proper statistics or even insight into anything beyond 5000 years, because recorded history pretty much ends there.

How many mummified remains do we have from exactly 5000 years ago. O the iceman, is that it? Do we have 1, 10, 100, or 1000 more from exactly his generation? From the years that he was around?

Because if it's just him, the murder rate is 100%

Murdered mummy 3000 years ago...


The CT scans were successful and revealed yet more evidence to support the theory that the mummy had not died of natural causes.


www.tctmagazine.com...



So your argument now is that because we don't have signs of murder in limited collections of mummified remains (which we do) and none in fossilized remains from millions of years ago.. (of which the samples available are so extremely limited) Then murder is somehow a new fad.



Or I supposed the few humanoid fossilized remains collected over 2 million years, they are the only people that lived. Just them...



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Synergy23


So, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Tesla (who invented just about everything and got little of the credit), etc. were all motivated by greed?

 


They did what they did within a system of greed. We are not talking about personal motivations, we were talking about a system that produced something.

I don't see how you can change the entire premise around.

We talked about a system and the effects/products of that system. You are now quoting personal opinions of people in that system.

You don't know if they were all born into another system, if they would have been homeless peasants. Because that isn't what happened.


Opinions? I cited them for their contributions in society.

Do you know anything about Tesla? He made countless inventions and was exploited by capitalists for them his entire life. He died broke. One of his infamous projects he never completed was an attempt at creating free energy for the world, but it was shutdown when his investor realized he couldn't make money off of it.

What do you mean by not knowing if they were born into another system? Do you mean to suggest their VALUES might be different? If so, that's my whole point. Values are dependent on environmental influences.

More reliable than real world observations, however, are scientific experiments on the role incentives play on innovation, as the video I provided shows. It goes far beyond just what was covered in that video though. There are countless more studies that duplicate that same result.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Synergy23


Do you know anything about Tesla? He made countless inventions and was exploited by capitalists for them his entire life. He died broke. One of his infamous projects he never completed was an attempt at creating free energy for the world, but it was shutdown when his investor realized he couldn't make money off of it.

 


Okay, you're one of those people. You should have just said so.




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by XB70


Also, 30% unemployment rate. If there were actually things that were "equally pressing", and this dumb, retarded system actually worked, we'd have much closer to 100% employment, and most of the jobs would be useful, and they would provide an acceptable standard of living.

 


You are under the assumption that 100% of people want to work.



I know a man, been sitting on the couch for 10 years. Fully capable. Still lives with parents.


Some people are unemployed because they are lazy. Therefore, all people that are unemployed are lazy. Generalization falacy.

There are 5,000 janitors in the U.S. with Ph.D's. (chronicle.com...)


We don't have proper statistics or even insight into anything beyond 5000 years, because recorded history pretty much ends there.


Argument from ignorance. We don't know, therefore we can assume despite a lack of evidence.


How many mummified remains do we have from exactly 5000 years ago. O the iceman, is that it? Do we have 1, 10, 100, or 1000 more from exactly his generation? From the years that he was around?

Because if it's just him, the murder rate is 100%[

Murdered mummy 3000 years ago...


The CT scans were successful and revealed yet more evidence to support the theory that the mummy had not died of natural causes.


www.tctmagazine.com...


Burden of proof fallacy.

The burden of proof is on those who make the claim that humans are violent by nature, not those who argue there is insufficient evidence.

The examples you are offering are largely cherry picked (isolated instances) that conform to your preconception. That's called confirmation bias.
edit on 21-6-2012 by Synergy23 because: Added reference



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Synergy23


Do you know anything about Tesla? He made countless inventions and was exploited by capitalists for them his entire life. He died broke. One of his infamous projects he never completed was an attempt at creating free energy for the world, but it was shutdown when his investor realized he couldn't make money off of it.

 


Okay, you're one of those people. You should have just said so.



Rather presumptuous, aren't you? I don't believe Tesla ever would have succeeded in that task to begin with (hence calling that project infamous).



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
aside from the parts of the world no one can live...... what do we do with the buildings? what about roads?? you can't just divide up the earth into some acres per person.

not a well thought out post.

the earth is and will continue to be over populated until some massive disease brought about by the changing climate wipes half of us out like the black plague.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Many of the problems in India have to do with their religious and communal beliefs and system. From the belief that cows are sacred, to the belief that not only praying at, but taking baths, and drinking from the heavily polluted waters of the Ganges, and other sacred rivers in India is good for them. Because of this most Hindus instead of living father appart have bunched together so as not to make their religious journeys longer than necessary.

Also, the caste system of India keeps most of the population in below poverty levels because they believe "it is their karma" to have been born poor, and they must continue to be poor. In order for SOME of the lower caste of india to improve themselves they have to ask the higher caste for the ability to do so. Others like the "untouchables", which make more than 160 million people can never even consider the possibility of trying to improve their life.

The untouchables of India can only work in the dirties of jobs which keeps them living, and working, day in and day out in areas with nothing but waste which is the biggest problem causing most of the diseases these poor people have to live with.

Not to mention that India is socialist/communist which allows the higher caste to remain in power permanently since "it is their karma for being born amongts the higher caste".


Following independence, the Indian government officially adopted a policy of non-alignment, although it had an affinity with the USSR. The party's commitment to socialism has waned in recent years, particularly following the assassination of Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi. Elected in 1991, the government of Narasimha Rao introduced economic liberalisation with the support of finance minister Manmohan Singh, the current prime minister of India.

Communists were also active in the Indian independence movement and have played a significant role in India's political life, although they are fragmented into a multitude of different parties. Communist parties represented in parliament are: (statistics from 2004 General Elections) Communist Party of India (Marxist) (43 seats in the Lok Sabha), the Communist Party of India (10 seats), the Revolutionary Socialist Party (three seats) and the All India Forward Bloc (three seats). The former speaker of the Lok Sabha, Somnath Chatterjee, is a member of the CPI(M). Left Front parties remain an independent faction in the parliament critical of the policies of both the government and that of the mainstream opposition parites.

Aside from the Congress and the Left Front, there are other socialist parties active in India, notably the Samajwadi Party, which emerged from the Janata Dal and is led by Mulayam Singh Yadav, the former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. It has 36 seats in the Lok Sabha. It provides outside support to the UPA government.

Noted Indian socialists include the founding leader of the All India Forward Bloc and the Indian National Army Subhas Chandra Bose and the country's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru.


en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 21-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Synergy23


Some people are unemployed because they are lazy. Therefore, all people that are unemployed are lazy. Generalization falacy.

There are 5,000 janitors in the U.S. with Ph.D's. (chronicle.com...)


 


There are 5000 janitors with PhD's therefore, everyone must want to work? Speaking of generalizing....
Nope, even during bull markets there is unemployment. People don't want to work. We are talking millions too. Not 5000 specialized cases.

If the workforce is around 150 million, 3 or 4 % unemployment during boom time is still millions of people. And it's nearly impossible not to secure work during that time.

Link

I will concede that market conditions are not as they should be because there is too much manipulation by the financial sector. But that is banks you can deal with regarding that issue...

I will add though, that during a downturn you see a lot of people lose their jobs simply because they are unproductive, and the company is making less, therefore looking to slice off useless fat. In some cases some good people do lose their spots, in other cases, some of those people never deserved the job in the first place.

Last year my company had 15 turnovers in executive positions. 3 of them claimed they were going to sue the company (on frivolous grounds -they never did...) mostly because they were unhappy about having to actually work when they showed up.




Argument from ignorance. We don't know, therefore we can assume despite a lack of evidence.



No, we have plenty of evidence but you ignore it and try to bend it to your position. You are claiming there is no murder in prerecorded history. Throughout recorded history murder is pretty much the highlights. Suddenly we don't have it written down and you presume there was no murder prior. Even while citing a mummified ice man who was murdered, telling us because we only have one murdered body from that time, millions of years before there is no evidence.

You make absolutely no sense whatsoever, you are speaking in contradictions and being argumentative for no purpose.




Burden of proof fallacy.

The burden of proof is on those who make the claim that humans are violent by nature, not those who argue there is insufficient evidence.

The examples you are offering are largely cherry picked (isolated instances) that conform to your preconception. That's called confirmation bias.
edit on 21-6-2012 by Synergy23 because: Added reference


You have to be kidding me.

Humans are not violent in nature?





Oh but those are far too recent for you I imagine?

Okay, so we can go back 4000 years to the governing laws of Mesopotamia, the Code of Hammurabi:


1. If a man has accused another of laying a nertu [death spell?] upon him, but has not proved it, he shall be put to death.

195. If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off.

*

Sounds very non-violent...



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I'm familiar with all of this, still not changing the fact that it's overpopulated. Poorest people in a high per capita country, still doing better than some of the people considered "well off" in India.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
You are under the assumption that 100% of people want to work.

Actually I'm not, or else the number would be much higher than 30%. You should stop assuming that I'm an idiot, because I'm actually not.



So your argument now is that because we don't have signs of murder in limited collections of mummified remains (which we do) and none in fossilized remains from millions of years ago.. (of which the samples available are so extremely limited) Then murder is somehow a new fad.

No, your argument is that because humans are now murderous and we've found one or two examples of murders from 3-5000 years ago, that we can then extrapolate that the remaining millions of years of our history as tool-bearers are also full of "murder and torture". This despite you being unable to provide anything substantial in the way of evidence, and your clear lack of understanding of behavioral or evolutionary psychology. Go watch Robert Sapolsky's biology of human evolution lectures, then get back to me. Or don't get back to me, either way is fine.


Originally posted by boncho
People don't want to work.

Unemployment statistics do not count them.
You are not the most intelligent man on the planet, other people have already thought of this.

I will concede that market conditions are not as they should be because there is too much manipulation by the financial sector. But that is banks you can deal with regarding that issue...

It's also because of the highly-automated, global economy enabling faster and faster races to the bottom, so that the vast majority of the Earth is poor, while the richest few thousand take 90% of all new income.


No, we have plenty of evidence but you ignore it and try to bend it to your position. You are claiming there is no murder in prerecorded history. Throughout recorded history murder is pretty much the highlights.

Throughout recorded history, cities developed and became civilizations with writing systems, science, government, economics and trade, so that must be what all prerecorded history is like.

Oh wait, it's not like that at all.

You make absolutely no sense whatsoever, you are speaking in contradictions and being argumentative for no purpose.

No, he's asking you to provide evidence, which you continue to not do, because your apparent method of discussion is to assume that anything you say is correct, and anything that contradicts that must be proven.

Humans are not violent in nature?




Oh, I forgot humans evolved in the year 700.


Okay, so we can go back 4000 years

I already went back 5000 years, so what good do you think you're doing yourself right now? I've already provided the most evidence for your case that you're ever going to have. You're welcome.
edit on 6/22/12 by XB70 because: adding multiple quotes



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


There is a huge difference between acting violent because you are biologically determined to do so, and acting violent due to environmental factors (scarcity, culture, etc.). In the opinion of Stanford University professor of Biological Science and Neurology, Robert Sapolsky,


"Hunter-Gatherers have thousands of wild sources of food to subsist on. Agriculture changed all of that, generating an overwhelming reliance on a few dozen food sources. Agriculture allowed for the stockpiling of surplus resources and thus, inevitably, the unequal stockpiling of them, stratification of society and the invention of classes. Thus, it has allowed for the invention of poverty."


Considering that circumstance, is it your opinion that those environmental factors had nothing to do with the explosion of violence and war thereafter?

I also cited the argument over this very issue in Discover magazine that you ignored. You have also ignored the most important evidence of all -- psychological studies. Instead, you prefer to cite historical examples of humans being violent without considering *confounding variables*. Even if we had evidence of consistent violence going back millions of years, it would still not PROVE the actions were due to biological factors. In other words, an inevitable, unalterable byproduct of genetics. To make such a leap is fallacious. The burden of proof is on you to provide incontrovertible evidence for such an unequivocal claim. Citing violent acts and make sweeping generalizations based off of those examples does not meet the standard of proof. If you don't have incontrovertible scientific evidence, you cannot say with confidence that it is in our DNA to behave that way.

By the way, you know that technology you dismissed earlier in this discussion as being too far into the future? The technology I said could merge with 3D printing resulting in mini-factories in each home? We're getting close: www.kurzweilai.net...
edit on 23-6-2012 by Synergy23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Robert Sapolsky has also pointed out many times that the majority of human history was spent as hunter-gatherers, which were largely egalitarian and non-hierarchical. He made this claim in Zeitgeist: Moving Forward as well.

Another source: "How Hunter-Gatherers Maintained their Egalitarian Ways" -- www.psychologytoday.com...



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Synergy23
Robert Sapolsky has also pointed out many times that the majority of human history was spent as hunter-gatherers, which were largely egalitarian and non-hierarchical. He made this claim in Zeitgeist: Moving Forward as well.

Another source: "How Hunter-Gatherers Maintained their Egalitarian Ways" -- www.psychologytoday.com...


Or not 1, 2.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by Synergy23
Robert Sapolsky has also pointed out many times that the majority of human history was spent as hunter-gatherers, which were largely egalitarian and non-hierarchical. He made this claim in Zeitgeist: Moving Forward as well.

Another source: "How Hunter-Gatherers Maintained their Egalitarian Ways" -- www.psychologytoday.com...


Or not 1, 2.


Notice the time of publication ;-)

Also, let's not confuse the issue here. The claim was never that all hunter gatherer societies are egalitarian. In fact, the Psychology Today article I cited points that out. Rather, that it was the general trend. Furthermore, the larger point was to posit the fact that behavior seems to be modified by factors external to genetics. To say otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.
edit on 23-6-2012 by Synergy23 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join