Lets start with this, we have enough resources to feed everyone and provide a much better lifestyle for everyone. It has been said that Australia has
7.5 Billion square kilometers of space. That is enough to give every person on earth a little over a square kilometer to live on and the rest of the
whole world's land to feed them. Look at Japan, very populated and very prosperous.
Some will argue that too many people cause too much pollution; but, that is not so. It was not a rise in population that caused large corporations to
dump chemicals in our streams, it was greed, same as for most other forms of hazardous pollution; but, people buy into the lie that a Styrofoam cup is
the real danger.
Finally others will site poverty as the issue. If we have enough resources for everyone then why should we tolerate poverty? This is the real crux of
the matter. There are two ways to view it. One is to take the elitist view that we should have no more people than is necessary to provide the
remainder a good lifestyle. The alternative is that we should have as many people as possible as could enjoy the lifestyle that we could provide
Those in charge believe that we should not have "useless eaters", more people than are needed to provide them the lifestyle they want. If one
disagrees that these are the positions, I highly recommend that they read Population and the American Future
. It is a report that
outlines the fears of population growth, I recommend that one read the individual comments at the end of the report also.
If you doubt any of this go look up the history of Planned Parenthood. They were created about 100 years ago to reduce the number of poor through
birth control; but, in fact the United States population increased by hundreds of millions and poverty was reduced and living conditions improved
since then. The reason the population control groups were created was because industrialization reduced the need for as many people, pretty simple.
Consider when the second great push came for depopulation, it was at the same time as we were entering the technological age. If tptb can convince you
that we have to reduce the population or we will all live in some Orwellian nightmare what will you choose? If the people in charge are really
concerned about the planet then why do they continue commercially polluting it while blaming it on your use of plastic bags?
Let us consider second hand smoke. Go to any report by an Industrial Hygienist (the people who actually measure these things) and you will find that
at one foot away there is no effect. Yet, we are told that second hand smoke is the cause of lung cancer. Still those studies often relied on the
impact on children who were born to mothers who smoked while they were pregnant, I would call that first hand smoke. Smoking is bad for you and I
smoke; but, if they can make it all about smoking then you don't consider why lung cancer has been going up while smoking has been going down, there
must be more at work. Could it be all the chemicals in the air and water caused by commercial endeavors? Lung cancer has a greater correlation between
industry than the number of smokers in an area.
In the end, those who are really in charge are looking at the issue I began with. What is the proper amount of people and whose lifestyle should we
base it on. The problem with their answer is that eventually you can down a couple dozen people, perhaps hundreds or even thousands, heck, lets say
100 million. What is your answer and why?
George Carlin - Saving the Planet
So lets cut away all the maybes and ask the essential. By what criteria should we determine how many people should be allowed on the earth? According
to Darwin the key to survival is variation, that would imply the more the merrier, most religions would agree. Have you ever wondered why the European
nations have allowed so many Muslims in? Part of the reason is because they themselves have stopped having children and needed workers. The other part
of that is to convince the Europeans to put controls on birth so that they do not get outnumbered. Europe would not be overpopulated if they had not
allowed in people from other countries. If the English government is so concerned over overpopulation, why did they allow so much immigration? Their
birth rate was going down and without immigration they would have a smaller, "sustainable" population.
Some things to consider hopefully.