Population Reduction, What is the right amount of people and why?

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 people.

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.

VERY interesting subject in this OP.
However on the subject of Australia's landmass, I would like to point out the following FACTS.
Australia is one of the driest countries on the planet and estimates state we have enough fresh water to sustain a population of around nine million people.
There is also the matter of land TYPE. Australia is such an old continent that much of our topsoil is degraded and nutrient poor, meaning it would not permit any real form of agriculture or food production.

There's a simple fact here which you can't seem to comprehend. The Earth is a finite size and at some point our population will reach a point where it's causing serious concerns. "The more the merrier" will not always hold true. There is a line in the sand at some point... whether you want to accept that or not. There is no "right amount" but there is an "excessive amount". If I had to guess I would say that limit is some where close to 50 billion...

Get rid of Canada and From Texas on over, save Chicago, but the rest can go.

reply to post by Silverkiss


Dear Silverkiss,

I could chosen another country, one like the United States, I was trying to show the scope, there is plenty of land for the population to do quite well.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
There's a simple fact here which you can't seem to comprehend. The Earth is a finite size and at some point our population will reach a point where it's causing serious concerns. "The more the merrier" will not always hold true. There is a line in the sand at some point... whether you want to accept that or not. There is no "right amount" but there is an "excessive amount". If I had to guess I would say that limit is some where close to 50 billion...

Dear ChaoticOrder,

My comprehension is just fine as was my question. You chose to give a number rather than a philosophy, which is what I requested. Skip the number, what is the criteria. I accept that there is a limit, how will we know when we will reach it?

There is a lot of land that is not used that could be used. We need to manage things a lot better than we currently do before we can grow the population. If managed properly maybe a trillion people would be possible. By then, I will be long gone

Originally posted by magma
There is a lot of land that is not used that could be used. We need to manage things a lot better than we currently do before we can grow the population. If managed properly maybe a trillion people would be possible. By then, - will be long gone.

Dear magma,

The question still remains, how do we determine how many should be. Limited to the number necessary or as many as possible?

reply to post by AQuestion
The right amount of reduction we need is NONE! There's enough space and enough resources to handle 100 billion people on this planet.

If you disagree then you've believed lies pushed by Elite dynastic families. The same people who suppress the technology that would allow us to easily live with such a large population.

Scarcity is a Rothschild LIE.

Wake up fellow human.

reply to post by AQuestion


The amount should be sustainable. There would be a science about this but I am not familiar with it. We will know when the levels are right when the population. Is healthy and happy.

Originally posted by Mandrakerealmz
reply to post by AQuestion

 

The right amount of reduction we need is NONE! There's enough space and enough resources to handle 100 billion people on this planet.

If you disagree then you've believed lies pushed by Elite dynastic families. The same people who suppress the technology that would allow us to easily live with such a large population.

Scarcity is a Rothschild LIE.

Wake up fellow human.

Dear Mandrakerealmz,

You failed to read post and responded to the title. Read the post. There is not infinite space on the earth, at what point in time are there enough people, by what criteria would you say we had enough? Read the post and follow the links. If you had, you would not have posted what you did. At least watch the video link to George Carlin to try and understand my position rather than guess it.

One, me, because I said so. LOL
Just kidding but if you want the correct answer it should be 1 % of the population THE 1 %.

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by AQuestion

 

The amount should be sustainable. There would be a science about this but I am not familiar with it. We will know when the levels are right when the population. Is healthy and happy.

Dear magma,

"Sustainable" means as many as we can sustain rather than as few as can be sustained. If we could sustain as few as 100 million; but could sustain as many as 100 billion, you are saying we should shoot for 100 billion. As many as can be sustained.

Originally posted by ldyserenity
One, me, because I said so. LOL

Just kidding but if you want the correct answer it should be 1 % of the population THE 1 %.

Dear Idyserenity,

And what makes 1% the right answer? When we get to a hundred million, should we continue with 1%, what about when we get to 100 people? One person owning the whole world.

Very well put OP. I guaranty, you will find out eventually that those that are pushing this idea of overpopulation for population reduction are the same ones that are responsible for "overpopulation" in the first place! It's all about "cattle" management cause this is how they see the masses anyway! I firmly believe that human birth rate has its own balance and doesn't need to be "induced" or "reduced".

I went to this anti-human phase myself due to how ignorant the majority of the masses tends to be(especially regarding extraterrestrial life) but that doesn't mean those who push this depopulation agenda don't have sinister intentions. Sadly as you ponder on this issue you will find out IT IS the case, especially when looking into the measures they're currently using to reduce population, the divide and conquer being their most effective!

It's always wise to intellectually dissect this issue instead of knee-jerk reacting to their "methods".

reply to post by AQuestion


Because they are the ones destroying the Earth for their personal gain. Make an example of them and the remaining will try not to be greedy, soul sucking Earth killing Vampires. At least that's my resoning.

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Because they are the ones destroying the Earth for their personal gain. Make an example of them and the remaining will try not to be greedy, soul sucking Earth killing Vampires. At least that's my resoning.

Dear Idyserenity,

I do believe I misunderstood you originally. I thought you wanted to eliminate 99%, you meant the 1% that have it all. That is still calling for population reduction, you just target the people you don't like. My question has not preference, it is more a question of by what criteria do we reduce or limit at all the total number of people.

reply to post by AQuestion


I am sure there is an ideal model for global population levels.

In answer to your question... The amount of population should be the most sustainable across many criteria. The actual number is not the goal. The sustainabilty is the goal. If the ideal number is 100 bil then so be it. If it is 6 billion so be it.

The problem is... Who decides?

Population reduction formula.

(Person(s) in charge + People they like - people they don't like) x (ad campaign to justify killing people they don't like)
= Population Reduction Result.


My personal opinion, the species "man" will do a better job of reducing their own numbers through sheer stupidity than any NWO, Illuminatti hidden agenda.

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by AQuestion

 

I am sure there is an ideal model for global population levels.

In answer to your question... The amount of population should be the most sustainable across many criteria. The actual number is not the goal. The sustainabilty is the goal. If the ideal number is 100 bil then so be it. If it is 6 billion so be it.

The problem is... Who decides?

Dear magma,

The question is should it be based on as many as possible (my position) or as few as necessary (the position of others). I also do not care what the mathematical answer is, the reasoning is what I question. I can accept something in between if we need a room for error. The question is to what side do we risk being wrong.