It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Overpopulation in the East, the Real Issue

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:22 AM
So I wanna try to deduct whats the real cause of our current global issues are. Europe became more crowded in the mid 2nd millenia, this grew concern in the mind of the monarch powers. "how can we still control the people if they grew exponentialy in number?" So they came up with the idea to send them abroad onto an expedition, to seek new worlds and new riches. This was the story how western people came to the east and the Americas. And also the southern region of Africa.

It was also initiated through Marco Polo's writings. But all old Marco mentioned was about the gold and precious stones of the east, and all their riches and beauty, silk, ceramics, papirus, opium, etc. He never mentioned how populaous it also was. So when the first Europeans officers realized how many people there was in the east, they start to grow another concern. They were not very barbarous, some are even friendly and quite obidient, and they were not very smart too, especially in the matter of trade. But still, it trigered some thoughts. Slow but sure they reported this and the authority at home had the same conclusion. It was a potent threat to the future. So what did they do, they start to plot something in order to maintain the upper hand.

Were the west faulty, were they evil? Not entirely perhaps. Their concern proved to be not of so empty, when China started to modernize their nation through communism. It was the time of economic boom in the far eastern world. Technologicaly they were still behind the west, but what did they have the west didnt? It was manpower, plenty in number. Much more plenty compared to the western world.

Another question was: were the west guilty of colonialization and human rights violations? IMHO this is rather difficult to say. The west came in the intent to enrich themselves, like any other government had in mind. Did they exploit the local people? Yes, but so did their local government/elites at that time (and still does, perhaps, till this very day). CMIIW. Were the colonial army, cruell? They might, but in the other hand they also brought other possitive traits to the new world. They introduced them about equality of rights, liberalism, organizational knowledge, technique, etc. Hence, the local elites didnt like the westerners, so they try to set their people to revolt against the colonial force. And as we know, they succeded in the end, to do so. At least thats what it was for the naked eye to perceive.

This is of cource no means of me to say, we should support the secret freemason order. But the problem is, neverland is not the only worse faction there is. No?

So what it is what keeps men go on, and on? It is fear. What made the west so fiercly and determined in attaining growth? What is it that the west fear the most of the eastern world? It was their number! So when the east grew more in number and in their economic power house, the west also grews more and more greedier to attain corporated and financial profit. In order not to be crushed by the overwelmingly growing east. Is this not the root of evil capitalism? The manifestation of the very basic primal instinct of a species to survive and to compete?

This is probably the understanding which underlies the carvings on a massive masonic milestone somewhere in the US (I forgot the name of the monumet, and in which state).

The question is, how do we maintain overpopulation in the east? Shall we follow China's footstep on their one child policy? Is there another way? And what does this anything to do with RICE? We know, all of the overpopulous countries are in Asia, and all of them consumes rice as it prime carbo diet. China, India and Indonesia. Three of the most populous countries in the eastern world.

I believe that overpopulation is the root of all our global problem and political issues. If we can settle this, we can settle a lot. If we can solve this, we can save a lot. Thank you for reading, cheers

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:07 AM
I think the two options are depopulation on Earth or space colonization. The latter is not feasible yet, but maybe in 50 years.

Also, I think technological advancements could allow Earth to support high populations comfortably. I don't think the 10 billion threshold needs to be a kiss of death. It's a big planet and a smart society may be able to support 15 or 20 billion.

Another strategy would be relocation. America and Canada aren't too densely populated and could probably handle double what we have.

I think most of humanities resource problems could be solved with advancements in space exploration, food and water technology, and better social ethic. The next 20 years could probably be considered critical.

edit on 9/8/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:35 AM
Overpopulation is just another myth that gets repeated until people believe it like global warming. It all started back with Thomas Malthus when he said that the world would end in 1890 if we did not start killing all the poor. This "end date" keeps getting pushed forward, im sure everyone has seen how we will run out of food/water in X years.
Overpopulation is not a problem in the middle east or anywhere else. It is just more of that same old chicken little the sky is falling crap.

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:59 AM
I love it when people say we are over-populated, because my first come back is then "We will start depopulating the earth as long as you're the first to go, please lead by example."

They do not ever lead by example.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:05 PM
Yes we are not over populated now but that's what they are trying to prevent. That's why you see all this is bad for you, that is bad for you, being gay is okay(gays cant have kids), and all this support for abortion etc. They are pushing for a healthier society in hopes it will drop world population. Why do you think they no longer advertise cigarettes or allow them to be smoked inside? They tried with AIDS and other diseases but that clearly isn't working. This is what bill gates was getting at in this video.

Sometimes you guys over analyze things.
edit on 30-10-2012 by mysogynist because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-10-2012 by mysogynist because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by coyote66

It's pretty simple.

There is no such thing as overpopulation.

There is such a thing as too much density of population in a certain area.

Those are two very different things. But as far as there being enough resources to feed, clothe and house all the people in world, yeah we have that.

Greedy men and women prevent that scenario from occuring however.


posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:12 PM
reply to post by coyote66

Over population or not. I see nothing wrong with cleaning up our mess. These present generations should do a better job with leaving our children and grand children fresh water and clean air.

I once read that the entire Human population could theoretically live comfortably in the State of Texas.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:29 PM

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by coyote66

Those are two very different things. But as far as there being enough resources to feed, clothe and house all the people in world, yeah we have that.

At what cost?

Is that sustainable?

You see, it's not any one point. It's a fluid motion of many variables spinning through time.

You oversimplify something that is rather complex.

I see it differently.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:34 PM
reply to post by moniesisfun

The cost of feeding folks is trivial if done correctly.

The cost to clothe people is trivial if done correctly.

THere is PLENTY of arable land and fresh water ( although that needs to be better worked out, the only real issue with population is access to fresh water) to sustain the population.


People have made it complex because of greed. It truly isn't. One of the other major things that those in charge attempt to do is paint humans like they are imbeciles. Making us all think that we can't do anything on our own and that we require their system in order to live properly and healthy.

It's just not true.

The CURRENT conditions aren't at all sustainable, I'll give you that.


posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:37 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

Look, you throw out this term "greed".

I'm going to show you how oversimplified this one tidbit truly is, then allow you to apply it to the rest of your thought process as you see fit.

You think "the elite" are greedy

How do you think someone in an african village or middle eastern slum dweller thinks of your lifestyle?

The problems are incredibly complex, man.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by moniesisfun

Then please elaborate.

How is it any more complicated than moving towards a sustainable system of living? It's not about MY lifestyle.

People in Africa are starving because that's convenient for other people. Not because there isn't enough food to go around.

The issue of sustenance and housing is currently treated as a political issue, not a logistical one as it should be.

If you think I am oversimplying then please, ask some specific questions that I can answer. I can't really make any more specific statements without that.


posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

Alright, let me see if I can take a stab at this. I have a feeling we're both just going to get frustrated, but I'll give it one go.

You're correct that there a a few people who are trampling over the rest, but if not them, ten others. We wipe out a dictator, and instill another. There's no shortage of people who would love to be the next dictator.


You see, you can't think of this "objectively" and so shallow. It's so much deeper than that.

Why do these people have this drive to dominate, and why are they so successful

I read a book earlier this year which talked about a good chunk of this. It was called, "Saharasia". I rarely read whole books any more. Attention span is nil, I'm all over the place integrating tidbits, but every once in a while a great read captivates me, and I can't put it down until it's finished.

This was one of them. This guy dedicated a good chunk of his life to solving some deep mysteries of our species. Were we always violent? If not, when did it come about? Why? Why are we still so violent, etc, etc...

What he found was that there was practically no evidence of humanity being violent towards each other before the desertification of the SaharAsia region about 11-13k years ago. Our culture was Matriachal, and there was little to no oppression of each other. We weren't divided. We had little to no rape, or major aggressions from group to group. We were at peace, because nature provided plenty for everyone.

It wasn't until the climate changed that they "psychos" were given the correct set of circumstances to take control. The whole point of this spiel is that the climate and/or technological progression has made it so this is not needed to have Patriachal cultures, and ensuing warring societies and dictatorial politics. Yet they remain.

This stuff goes down to what is spiritual, and assumed of our nature. It goes down to what we perceive to be reality, and who we believe about ourselves, and our role in shaping the world. It goes down to our collective internal values, our culture. Politics is just the outermost layer of this all.

So just as you can sit comfortably while children die all over the world and claim that it's not because of YOUR lifestyle, so too can the elite claim that they can ride out on their yachts, build mansions on every continent, and support whatever policies they see fit, because it's not THEIR lifestyle. . . you see we're collectively in this poo-storm, yet pass the buck around.

My poo stinks, and so does yours. We fling ours at the elite's arrogance, and they fling it at the unwittingly ignorant. Just creates a poo-storm is all.

At what point does someone become "elite". I'm pretty sure the first-world is viewed as "elite" compared to people in the third world. Isn't Canada where you reside, and part of the first-world

You realize how many people in this world blame the first world "elite" for their problems?? Yes we blame these higher elite for the problems. It's all a bunch of rubbish. It's ideas that are out of whack. False assumptions of our nature.

Yea, it's politics, and it's logistics, but nah.. .. not really. Those are just copouts. It's a way for you to project your fears for not being able to handle the truth. That we're all playing our part in this insanity we call "civilization".

You try to handle this "logistically" and the insanity will continue on.

edit on 30-10-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by moniesisfun

I agree with what you've said, but I think you misunderstand.

I never meant to imply that the way we live in North America has no effect on those who live elsewhere. Of course it does. And it's certainly not a positive effect we have either. All the waste and apathy that we provide really helps keep the poorer places of the world in check so to speak.

Now when I say the word Elite, I mean those who actually run things around here. Those who decided to shut down alternative fuel projects. Shut down vertical gardening and create GMO crops that self destruct.

Those who control our monetary policy behind closed doors. These are the elite, not just a guy who made millions of dollars.

What it comes down to is that time and time again, we see evidence, be it in books or in studies, or disertations, that we have a sustainable model available to us. And that with a little bit of elbow grease and some sacrifices from those who have too much like us, we could make it happen.

It would hardly be difficult. Perhaps confusing at first and of course you are never going to get everybody on board.

Always one guy who wants to watch the world burn and that's fine. But I don't believe that we as humans are inept or incapable of change. As you stated if our society only become violent because of environmental reasons, then it can become non violent for the same reasons.

Personally I believe that limiting personal freedom and too much inter-connectivity has made us violent and apathetic towards change. Nobody has any freedo, nobody has any privacy anymore. All of that contributes greatly to our demeanor and thoughts regarding others and their hardships.

So I think, we are on the same page in some respects. Perhaps I'm a bit more optimistic that positive change is certainly plausible, but only possible if we all hunker down and do our part. Well the vast majority of us anyway.


posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

Yea rulers exist, but they don't live forever (or do they in the 21st century

I'm trying to say that we don't even know who these people are, how many of them there are, etc, etc...

How would we logistically tackle that

So we go on a higher level that transcends it.

If the people are the ultimate resource that the rulers capitalize on, and by way of beliefs and ideas. . . change the beliefs and ideas of the people!

So yea, I think it ultimately comes down to spiritually igniting the people, and changing our values and perceptions internally.

As you state, it really is all "objectively" out there to make good use of.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 09:48 PM
Really, people still believe in overpopulation?

Every time people bring that up, I really have a hard time understanding how they came to that conclusion.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 10:14 PM

Overpopulation is not a problem in the middle east or anywhere else.

You're insane. Millions of people die every year from starvation, thirst, and dirty water. We can barely take care of our own 300 million, in fact many areas have serious water shortages. Our aquifers are being depleted and so are the oceans. If we don't stop our population growth even America won't be able to feed everyone (we barely do that now).

Rolling the dice on the odds that more technological advances will keep people from dying is irresponsible, risky and plain stupid, considering there's not a single good reason whatsoever for having our huge population except for laziness and extreme stupidity.

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:59 AM
reply to post by CB328

Did you honestly just say our oceans are being depleted
...of what, exactly? I'm guessing you meant easily capturable large fishies.

Well, we can farm fish. Problem solved.

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:00 AM
Over-population? LOL, my nearest neighbour is 4 kms away....

The Population Bomb has been discredited for so long but people are still being brainwashed into thinking that planet Earth is so meagre and has reached its equilibrium in sustaining us.

posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:42 PM

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17

Another strategy would be relocation. America and Canada aren't too densely populated and could probably handle double what we have.

edit on 9/8/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)

Yeah, I am sure good little leftists would love to see Caucasians as second class citizens in our own countries. This is what it is all about right? Harp about "over population", trick Caucasians into limiting their population growth while the other races steam ahead in terms of total population then say "we got soo much empty land here".

What your spouting is GENOCIDE as defined by the Geneva convention. It is disgusting that a person who is advocating genocide is allowed to do so freely.

new topics

top topics


log in