Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Overpopulation: The elephant in the room (Bindi Irwin Vs Hilary Clinton)

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 

The people that say the planet is overpopulated are correct.
The people that say the NWO has a de-population/control plot are probably correct as well.




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by markosity1973
So, the grain shortage mention below is imaginary?

www.abc.net.au...


Then there's the water issue too.

We get told here to conserve water like it is scarce, yet you see new housing estates going up everywhere and new migrants allowed to settle here.

I think populations should be responsibly limited somehow to the resources that a particular area has. Otherwise, the resources will become a handy weapon to use against the population.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


Room to put people =/= the resources to keep them alive. Sure we have the space to put everyone but we currently do not have the resources or technology available to feed, clothe and shelter them their entire life. If we were to house all the people on this planet it is very plausible that we would have to cut down most of the trees on the entire earth to do it. How many millions of acres would have to be cotton just to clothe everyone. The real problem is that developed nations waste so much resources that it makes it nearly impossible for developing nations to get the things they need. It's like the illegal problem in America. Since it costs so much money/resources to handle the illegals there are no resources to help the ones that want to come legally. Same goes for the world population since we use 3x or more the resources we actually need it makes it difficult for developing countries to get these resources.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by marbles87
The real problem is that developed nations waste so much resources that it makes it nearly impossible for developing nations to get the things they need. .

The real problem is that undeveloped nations and the uneducated in the developed nations have massive breeding (while educated people in developed nations have a more balanced approach to birthrates). IMHO.

Ever watch Maury or Springer? People going on the show with 10-15 kids .. not able to take care of any of them ... and they keep pumping them out.

Middle east nations where men have 4 wives and each wife has an average of 6 kids. That's 24 kids per man. There is no way he can take care of that many kids and make sure that they are educated and employed and productive positive members of society.

I know we can't put limits on how many kids people have .. but, IMHO, massive breeding by those who can't take care of their offspring is a major problem in the world.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CristobalColonic

9 billion by 2025. Get ready for a mass, WWII- like culling. It's inevitable, one way or the other.


Um ... it's unlikely we will even hit 8 billion by 2025. Most likely we will hit the 8b mark by 2030ish, and we may never hit the 9 billion.

Population growth is slowing, there is no need for mass killing of people. The Malthusians have been proven wrong again and again. When the world only had a billion people they were saying there were too many of us.

Malthusians are elitist scum.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by HelenConway

Why does anyone have to die ?
Why not advocate birth control ?


those who practice birth control are marginalized by those who do not. sooner or later the losing side will object to that and i doubt verbal discourse will solve much. on the other hand, if the declining cultures are unable to change into something viable, the stronger infiltrants will turn to violence when there's a good chance of subjugating or exterminating the former majority (get even time, o r just 'racial superiority', y'know..). does anyone really believe the rising Muslim populations of europe won't do that? they're also well armed while their prospective targets are not.

peace is always based on some sort of equilibrium, the 'rule of law' is just PR.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by HelenConway

Why does anyone have to die ?
Why not advocate birth control ?


those who practice birth control are marginalized by those who do not. sooner or later the losing side will object to that and i doubt verbal discourse will solve much. on the other hand, if the declining cultures are unable to change into something viable, the stronger infiltrants will turn to violence when there's a good chance of subjugating or exterminating the former majority (get even time, o r just 'racial superiority', y'know..). does anyone really believe the rising Muslim populations of europe won't do that? they're also well armed while their prospective targets are not.

peace is always based on some sort of equilibrium, the 'rule of law' is just PR.



I think it's more likely that Europeans would kill the Muslims then the Muslims killing them.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


That's my point.

Whilst there may be a population reduction agenda, that does not mean that overpopulation is a lie or a myth.

It seems to be yet another polarized issue. I cannot understand how people believe the Earth can sustain more humans. Most people who have this view are usually completely disconnected from nature and live in a false bubble of anthropocentricism, unaware of the damage our species is doing to the planet.

We also see people who are concerned about overpopulation being demonized for speaking out about this issue. Recently I was informed by an "infowarrior" that Sir David Attenborough is a "eugenicist" because he has publicly expressed his concern regarding the population problem, what a load of bollox.




edit on 26-1-2013 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by marbles87
reply to post by g146541
 


Room to put people =/= the resources to keep them alive. Sure we have the space to put everyone but we currently do not have the resources or technology available to feed, clothe and shelter them their entire life. If we were to house all the people on this planet it is very plausible that we would have to cut down most of the trees on the entire earth to do it. How many millions of acres would have to be cotton just to clothe everyone. The real problem is that developed nations waste so much resources that it makes it nearly impossible for developing nations to get the things they need. It's like the illegal problem in America. Since it costs so much money/resources to handle the illegals there are no resources to help the ones that want to come legally. Same goes for the world population since we use 3x or more the resources we actually need it makes it difficult for developing countries to get these resources.


You would be one of the type I don't understand, you claim that there is "no possible way"!
Yet, people do this everyday.
You have heard the words, garden, permaculture, compost, hemp, hydroponics?
This list could be a mile long but, there are many ways to make your owns clothes, foods, homes and more!
The only thing standing in many peoples ways are corporations who lobby for ridiculous laws to keep us buying their crap.

That said, I do agree that we do have a problem with an illegal problem.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


In these instances, I do agree that there is situational overpopulation though.
As far as the overall number of people on the planet, I believe we are fine.
HOWEVER, when you got 1 guy spreading his seed in every garden or families with multitudes of Mommies having multitudes of children, this should be criminal.
Say after a man has had kids with more than 6 women or had more than a dozen kids, he should be cut by the state, even if he can afford them as it just makes for a very stagnant gene poole.
There is situational overpopulation, I conceed that argument!



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 

I did the maths Australias land mass about
7,692,024 sq/km Source
and world population 6,973,738,433 Source
Which works out at 0.0011 sq/km and 1 acre = 0.00404685642 so year looks all good to me until we start needing to eat and build houses and generate power but thats only if we where all crammed into Oz,

But for the world each person would have about 5 acres each at current consumption of resources still not much but better technology could solve the worlds problems in 25 years (pulled that figure out of my bottom) if scientist and engineers where making the real decisions and not nob jocky bankers and politicians who don't even know how to change a car tyre let alone the worlds problems. just my 2 pence worth



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by BinaryG
 

Don't waste your time discrediting obviously asinine responses as it just serves to justify their existence.

And to whoever said the world's population was decreasing -




posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   
This is a topic that needs a lot more attention if you ask me.
Why is it that a lot of people dont seem to understand that to much of something is never a good thing !
Here are some interesting videos about this subject:
His name is Dick Smith and is a Ausie, the people listen to him more than the government , he just talks truth and logic with a bit of humor.

Dick Smith on population March 2010 (Part 1 of 7)


edit on 27-1-2013 by WhySoBlinded because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by lampsalot



I think it's more likely that Europeans would kill the Muslims then the Muslims killing them.


hmm, k.

If you subscribe to exceptionalism, that's fine for you but in the mean time it should be noted (paraphrased) that while the battle isn't always to the strong and neither is the race to the swift, that's still the way to bet. To put it bluntly, within one or two generations, the invaders will not just have numerical superiority in the age bracket that is likely to fight, they will also have strong ties to their motherlands, which will procure them, funding, weapons and training, reinforcements, you name it.

Since the gov'ts today are already aiding and abetting, when they ostensibly still have a choice, it's borderline deluded to believe they will side with the losers when it's risky, iow, the gov'ts will be the first victims of civil war, but at what cost? Meanwhile, the real threat has been preparing for decades (by contrast, most sheople would consider what i write nazism for whatever irrational reason) and you've been weakened by time & policy as well as the first round against the establishment, which will for the most part flee early only to and erect another front overseas. Need it become that bad? Nope, it's still the scenario to plan for, all else would be negligence.

But of course, there are historical precedents of people thinking they can duke it out against the entire world, didn't work too well for them, i've heard, one more faux-pas like this and these idiots will face a Karthago redux. Goes to show that history isn't as irrelevant as some people think, but i digress.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by watchitburn
 


Geez, this place gets crazier every single day.

Between the right-wing froth-fest and lunacy like this, where is the common sense?

Overpopulation is something that I thought was pushed by the Bilderbergers?

And who cares about Bindi Irwin?


Who cares?

What impact does overpopulation have on the economy?

Overpopulation has a definite effect on a country’s economy. First of all, when countries are overpopulated, the hardly have enough food to support themselves, never mind the hope of having a surplus to sell. This can contribute to a low GDP per Capita which is effect overpopulation has on the economy. In an attempt to save the people from the starvation, the government will most likely have to rely on foreign debt. This puts the country in debt at stretches the government’s already meagre resources. Furthermore, when a country is overpopulated, there is a high rate of unemployment because there just aren’t enough jobs to support the population. This results in a high level of crime because the people will need to steal things in order to survive

What impact does Overpopulation have on the environment?

Overpopulation does not just affect the standard of living, but also the environment. Every person on the planet takes up space, but space is needed for farmland, and forests. People excrete wastes and pollution that flow into water systems, and animal habitats, polluting water, and killing wildlife. Many people cannot bathe or brush their teeth because of the status of the water in their land.

Forests are being torn down as more wood and land is needed to support our ever-growing population. The loss of these forests leads to extinction of plants and animals. These plants could contain cures for diseases that will never be found.

Urban areas are expanding, polluting the air and water systems. These areas deplete the Earth’s resources, and over 2 billion hectares of arable land have already been lost, with 16 million more hectares being removed each year. In Nigeria alone, 351 000 ha of land are being removed every year.

51% of the fossil fuels on Earth are being used by USA and China alone, leaving less than half for the remaining countries, including those in Africa. In fact, most of those remaining fossil fuels go to other developed countries, leaving a dismal amount for Africans.

and much much more



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by markosity1973
So, the grain shortage mention below is imaginary?

www.abc.net.au...


Then there's the water issue too.

We get told here to conserve water like it is scarce, yet you see new housing estates going up everywhere and new migrants allowed to settle here.

I think populations should be responsibly limited somehow to the resources that a particular area has. Otherwise, the resources will become a handy weapon to use against the population.




Exactly!!! OMG i live In Melbourne Australia the new housing estates are popping up like a field of mushrooms. One of our major freeways have been upgraded and the upgrade has been going for 2 or 3 years now and wont be finished until 2014.. By the time they finish, it will need another upgrade to cope with amount of people moving out here. I get so angry at the amount of people allowed to come into the country at such a fast rate our roads freeways cant cope anymore. How long will it take us all to get to work in the future!!! its just suburb after suburb and we are all like ants trying to get to the one destination, the city. Maybe better planning of factories and offices closer to these growing suburbs will ease the pressure off the freeways. Im alarmed at the amount of farmlands being sold and dug up to house more and more families..What about our water supplies for all these growing suburbs, thats a worry. What about the desalination plants wont these eventually ruin our oceans with all the extra salt thats gets put back into the ocean. Thats another problem for the future also..



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhySoBlinded
Why is it that a lot of people dont seem to understand that to much of something is never a good thing !

It's something you should ask of junk food companies as they've tapped into this human foible batter than anyone.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by Plugin
 



No it's always a people problem. It's like a relation, we don't have a relation right now I think/believe where balance is possible with nature, stuff arround us, of course the ammount of people is making things worse.
It's not McDonalds which is the problem, or Exxon perse.
It's the amount of, be it cars, be it even as you say; mcdonalds. the more people, the more of them.

I can place like 50 people in my place, be sure it will become a mess fast, where nobody takes anymore responsiblity sooner or later but complain about all the filth and bad smells.
But sure in the end they will just flee if possible.
These times it's harder to escape to something better, it's just become messy and foggy more and more where it becomes harder and harder to really fix things, if even possible.

Everything has become ''now'' worry about now, tomorrow is not my problem, I got enough problems myself.
And when something outside, like for example the government, which it seems only make things worse, like just taxing out of their current problems, and we see there is no real sullution whatsover, we only get more angry and frustrated but know, nobody really cares, after all.

Things are becoming big, and bigger and more big.
Hard to see then when that happens, to see when standing infront of that, to do something about it, when you feel so little, powerless.
So maybe we do care deep inside, but it's becoming so big, what can you/we do?

Math does not lie, 1/4 acre is more than enough for 1 person to sustain a fabulous lifestyle, but as the above poster said, it is the elite who do not want to give up their extravagant lifestyles with all of their servants and trinkets and fast food and...
What can we do?
I grow a garden every year and do sprouts year long, I compost, provide roughly 30 - 50 percent of my own solar/wind depending on the time of year, I don't buy garbage, I try to make sure what I buy will be around for a long time, and I recycle!
It is not a huge list of mine and most are a labor of love, which is good because my health sucks.
But if everybody had a simpler lifestyle, the quality of life would go up.
Imagine not knowing what a clock was, only dark and light!
That's how every animal on this planet lives, except the one animal that is destroying it's world, the human.
There is no overcrowding dear brother, there is greed.


Bit late of a reaction.

The problem is what you do, what you think matters, and it's great that you do this but sadly it's a drip of water on the cooking plate. Your difference doesn't change things really. Where I live, it's pretty hard to get a piece of land, land is really expensive over here.
A damn small house cost you a fortune and the ground where it sits on, is most of it price.
But sure maybe it's still and excuse kinda, maybe if I do more my best I could grow my own stuff, but again that just doesn't change things in the bigger picture.
It's like some endangerous species of fish, which is 1 country forbidden to catch but another country will just catch more then!
Or like it's crazy that so many want a new phone every year, since the consumer is king, what the consumer wants they make, there is nothing like; we don't want this because really just look how much resources needed and how unfriendly it is for the environment! but the consumer / or the economy is king!
Not you, not me, and certaintly not the ''health'' on this planet.
Same with cars, it's basicly crazy that everyone drives in car like it is today, but we can't really change to something else.
Sure we could drive electric, but in the end an electric car is just as worse (in the energy picture), except for the cleaner air in cities. An electric car takes even more resources and energy than a regular gasoline car.
You could decide not eating McDonalds, but McDonalds sells more each year!, never less!
They would never notice what you or me do, exept their bigger profits.

So again I say there are too many people because only a few would act responsiblity and care, but that's such small percentage, it's just meaningless, sadly.
There ain't coming less problems! they become more and bigger, and also the population = 2
1 + 1 = 2

That said, you are a great example and I wish you the best with your health.
edit on 28-1-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Plugin
 


Thank you for the response and the compliment, but I am faaaaar from where I want to be when it comes to self sufficiency.
I think you hit on a very real reason for the "overpopulation" though.
You and I cannot afford to buy thousands of acres in the forest somewhere, but there sure are some that can and have done so.
Just like there used to be laws against corporations in the early US history, there should also be laws against how much land you can have, and corporations are NOT PEOPLE and should not be able to own land either.
I dont mind a rancher with a hundred acres but really, who needs a few thousand acres???



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
pretty sad
everything held by the non-elite is..."unsustainable"
but commercial farms like monsanto is "sustainable"

our lil private lil land holdings are nothing compared to the likes of war criminal bush buying 100,000 acres in Paraguay...only to have law of Paraguay changed to no longer extraditing war criminals
mind you oil guy right
are you aware of truth behind fracking and how faucets magically can be lit on fire after fracking comes to town
fracking by no means is "sustainable" anything

well
the bush clan with Paraguay
has rights to major water there...guess what's going to happen to water
the locals will die from dehydration while the price of water will bleed others to death
the bush clan is UN hero's
forefathers in depopulation concepts

overpopulation as climate control takes priority over fukushima...where is this all caring UN
japan needs serious help

i'm out of here as i need to stay out of UN threads

edit on 28-1-2013 by lasvegasteddy because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join