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 - Is it a problem? What is the solution?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:10 AM
I watched a great documentary the other day called "Broken Tail" on PBS. It was about a tiger that left his 'island reserve' to go about, wandering around in the surrounding lands inhabited by humans. In the end, it was run over by a train. Some of the points made in this documentary reminded me of the effects of a growing human population, not only for the other animals but for the forests and natural resources.

As human population grows - forests and natural landscapes become smaller, natural resources and life used as food gets depleted. This is apparent all over the world, Brazil, India, Africa, etc. and our oceans.

Most of North America has been developed, although a patchwork of forests remain, and many trees remain, even in the cities. You can say North America is a sustainable development, for the time being..


So will this trend of growth destroy the life on our planet ?

Is it sustainable in a way that people can live a good life?


The authors of the Georgia Stones apparently shares these concerns.

I often wonder - Is there really a problem? If so, what is the solution?

Can birth rates be reduced through legislation? Will people even listen? Is that a solution?

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:41 AM
Stop watching Globalist corporate funded PBS!

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:05 AM
why dont people who think over population is a problem make an example of themselves? just saying.

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:11 AM
Over population is not a problem

Greed is a problem.

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:23 AM
David Wilcock stated that the Amazon Basin alone could feed 20 billion people.

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:29 AM
Overpopulation is not merely a problem. It is THE problem.

The ultimate solution will be WWIII (Or some variation thereof) followed by mandatory (read Government enforced) Negative Eugenics. (Selective Non-Breeding)


posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:54 AM
Its my opinion that once the population breaches the 9 million barrier, a Malthusian check could occur, which would be terrible.

Its a valid concern that although birth rates are slowing down in first world countries, in third world countries, populations are growing exponentially. W e basically need some sort of free energy in the next twenty years, and in a hundred years we will have to start colonizing the ocean floor or the solar system. I hope that technology can stave off the very worst case scenarios.

Over and out,


posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:01 AM
Solution: 2 words

Colonize Mars

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:06 AM

Originally posted by cass1dy09
David Wilcock stated that the Amazon Basin alone could feed 20 billion people.

In the pullman kitchen in my one bedroom apartment I could with little effort whip up a decent meal sufficient to feed 100+ People. The Problem? Lack of ample dining space.

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:12 AM
If you ain't know where you are how can you know where anyone else is? And isn't that a point to consider when developing the theory of over-population?

Perhaps marrying a lack of location knowledge to a lack of area knowledge and the ridicule can begin.... maybe....

The paper examines the coastline paradox: the property that the measured length of a stretch of coastline depends on the scale of measurement. Empirical evidence suggests that the smaller the increment of measurement, the longer the measured length becomes. If one were to measure a stretch of coastline with a yardstick, one would get a shorter result than if the same stretch were measured with a 30cm (one-foot) ruler. This is because one would be laying the ruler along a more curvilinear route than that followed by the yardstick. The empirical evidence suggests a rule which, if extrapolated, shows that the measured length increases without limit as the measurement scale decreases towards zero.

meh so tired of the world of entertainment.

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:15 AM
What I cannot reconcile is that you have some saying we are threatened in the near future by overpopulation...

Then you have others talking about the terrible ravages expected in the near future by things like the AIDS virus, or various other serious diseases; How many people will die of starvation; how many risk being the victims of war, and how we must find a solution to those- fast.

Seems to me nature provides solutions to problems and balances everything out, if we just acknowledge that...

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:25 AM
In my opinion "overpopulation" is a problem, especially in places where people consume more than they produce, in particular: food and water.

To my knowledge large, densely populated areas like cities are a problem, or any other region where people do not produce enough food for them and their family to live. To my knowledge people who do not produce food are forced to buy it or starve.

Then I look to water, another life basic necessity. People who live in areas that are forced to drink either bought water, or treated water (not well or spring water), are going to also have a problem trying to survive when they cannot find (or filter) potable water.

My points being, in today's world I do not think the Earth is incapable of sustaining its current population. The problem is that many people in the world depend on others for food/water, and also currency, for their survival.

The population that is does not provide themselves/family with the basics: food, water, shelter, would probably be considered a leech of the planet by the elite, and part of the "overpopulation" problem they perceive.

A solution: Don't rely on others. Grow your own food, and have a pure water source to drink nearby, that will not be contaminated by chemicals.

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:52 AM
Overpopulation is a problem, however it is also surrounded by many myths. No, wealthy densely populated cities are not usualy overpopulated. No, Earth as a whole is not overpopulated, overpopulation is a local phenomenon. No, food and water is not everything, it is just the most basic of needs. Yes, you can have both abundant resources and be overpopulated, if you cannot utilise them.

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 04:03 AM
I know many immigrants who came to US years or decades ago to 'better' their lives, as well as know many Americans who are so all-american they do not even know their underlyng ethnicity/origin when asked.

If theres one trend, is most northamerican couples has more than 2 children each and some of the adults have more than 1 car. Blocks in LA Boston and NYC are so crowded, its almost impossible to find a parking spot for one's car even a block or two away. Groceries are crowded even in early morning/late night, and popular mainstream food items (fresh milk, eggs, bread, beef, chicken parts) are often sold out until the next day or two. Many/most people seem to be using EBT (food stamp) to pay for their big cart of $200ish food. I've seen mothers with as many as 8 kids with them at a time.

Food quality has diminished that even staples like eggs chicken beef milk are not what they used to. Lots of antibiotics, hormones, and possibly unknown prions, that didnt use to be there yet Americans pay for these items and eat them in most every meal without a thought. Likewise they pay taxes not knowing the bloodshed and American terrorism they are supported.

People are like herds of cattle eating, breeding, and piling up til slaughter time, this days.

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 04:04 AM
Overpopulation IS a problem. Can you imagine what will happen if a specie like lions will get overpopulated? Like... Seriously overpopulated like we do? Will they not compete? Will there be MORE meat? Other animals will have to get overpopulated as well, just to counter the overgrowth of lions due to natural selection.

Debunking overpopulation sometimes miss the one crucial variable which is disharmonization of the equilibrium with the natural environment. Before we came here, it is fair to guess that everything was in balance. But we came here and figured that hey, other animals and living beings do not count, so let's continue with our arrogant way of ignoring other beings and turn this whole planet into a giant farm for the service of humanity.

Overpopulation may not be a giant problem for humanity, we can perhaps solve many things technologically (until we wouldn't), but it is a giant problem for all beings living on this planet.

But I guess they don't count, eh?

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 04:08 AM
Having just recently driven around the continental US, I can safely say that overpopulation/overcrowding is not an issue.

Hundreds of thousands of square miles of undeveloped land.

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 09:40 AM
This "Malthusian" view of the world has been debunked again and again for over 100 years. I've seen studies that have projected the ability of world's farmers to being able to DOUBLE their output on currently owned farm lands.

We are no where near our capacity.
edit on 7-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 12:41 PM
Overpopulation is a myth

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 12:44 PM
Overpopulation is BS, there is no overpopulation.

Its about people taking more than they need.

The planet can sustain more people.

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:24 PM
This earth can sustain billions more people if the resources were used wisely and everyone moved to desert environments. In the desert there is very little impact to the surroundings because it is barely inhabited by plants let alone large amount of animals and forcing desert animals into forested or greener areas is far less detrimental than forcing them into an urban environment. They didnt build the great pyramids in the middle of farm land for a reason why do we still destroy forests when we could be migrating to the desert.

In the desert you would sleep during the day and solar panels will create the power for night when it is cooler. Look at Vegas or Phoenix. No one out during the day but it's shoulder to shoulder at night. During the day we will sleep so we don't have to use as much energy to keep us comfortable. Green areas will be for agriculture and nature.

If everyone started to inhabit the desert with today technology we could take a huge strain off the environment. A problem would be pollution but with electric and Green cars we could mitagate the pollution. Visit town square las Vegas or the district. People live there. That is the cities of the futur.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in