Humans Are NOT A Cancer!!

reply to post by Reaper2137

You don't understand that Humans are reproducing at an exponential rate. All the problems are there, your just ignoring the problem saying its not happening, is not the same thing as it not happening. Its going to continue to be a problem weather or not you think it is.

fatknowledge.blogspot.com...
news.yahoo.com...

Oh, you mean the two most popular websites (which means owned by the top of the pyramid) that published that "humans will have to be eliminated 'cause Earth can't sustain them"?
Haven't you read Swan's link to the Eugenics method of implanting Eugenism? "We'll have to convince the population that they are over-populated"?
I'm telling you that the problem doesn't exist, whether you like it or not.

Unless you limit the population, or invest deeply into Terra forming and colonization of planets, it will always be a problem. That no amount of tech based on this planet can fix.

So why do you support killing people instead of supporting Terra forming? Indeed, colonizing planets will help humanity (even if there will be enough place even for 10 billions people, but anyway); so why concentrating our forces to kill one another? Why embracing Eugenics when you could embrace travelling to other planets?

The shear logistics of feeding a 7-10 billion population is staggering in and off its self.

Okay, time to give you the numbers. Mind you, everything I'm telling you, technology can do it.
So, you're afraid that there won't be enough place for 10 billions people, right?

Let's begin by a small number. A tower of 300x300 feet wide, and tall by 1500 feet (the size of Freedom Tower). Each "rooms" is 1600 square feet, the size of a normal house, and one room per person (each of these person has no less than a 1600 square feet house).
So... 300x300x1500= 135,000,000 square feet. That divided by the "rooms".
135,000,000 divided by 1600=84,375 houses per tower.
10 billions divided by 84,375=118,518 towers the size of Freedom Tower, for the whole planet's population.
That means it's 593 towers per countries.
It will take 3,555,540 square kilometers of land space.
145,091,460 square kilometers are left for free virgin natural land. 97.6 % of all land is left untouched.

It's still too much towers, right? Yeah, let's diminish that number, with still a feasible technology: a tower the size of Burj Khalifah.
So, 300x300 square feet of wide by 2400 feet tall (216,000,000 square feet) divided by houses of 1600 per person=135,000 houses per tower.
That makes 74,074 towers in total, and 370 towers per country.
Finally, those towers will take 2,222,220 square kilometers total.
Which leaves 146,424,780 of free virgin natural land. 98.5 % of all land is left untouched.

But it's still too much towers, right? Very well, let's bring the next prototype of towers, that are actually getting done: the one kilometer tall towers, which is just 200 meters taller than the Burj Khalifah, which is very possible. So, here we go again, using one house of 1600 square feet per person:
300x300x3000=270,000,000 divided by 1600=168,750 houses per tower.
Which makes 59,259 towers in total, which makes 296 towers per countries.
1,777,770 square kilometers are taken, leaving 146,879,230 square kilometers of free virgin natural land, or:
98.8% of all land left untouched.

That is if there's only one person living per house, which is not the case for at least half of the population.
You see where I'm getting at? Even with 10 billions people, there will be plenty of space left... IF the housing is done properly, and the cultivation of food is done and distributed properly.

There will be death and destruction. Civil order will break down as the haves and the have not's battle for limited resources....

.....When that happens, wars you have never even dreamed of will occur, even if we fallow your path to the letter, it will happen.

Why??? If you encourage them, sure they'll do it...

But otherwise, why would there be wars if the food is distributed properly, and the housing is distributed properly??

Man was either meant to limit himself, through living in sustainability with the environment. Which means culling the population, or It was meant to burst from this planet and go to the stars, either way over population is a problem and will happen.

Again, why not encourage going to other planets instead of mercylessly killing everybody with Eugenics program?
Since when the horrors of the 1940s became a dogma to follow?

reply to post by billdadobbie

what ever way you look at it their is not enough water to keep us going for ever . if you look at old images from space of what rivers and lakes have dried up it is shocking think 100 years ahead .

Really? Have you looked toward the sea, recently? You know, the water from which we drink is only 2.5 % of the total volume of water on Earth. From which 2.4% is the glaciers, and 0.6% is the lakes, rivers, and ponds. Sea-water is a whole 98% available through desalinization, which is already a developed and functional technology. Which means that in less than 30 years, the whole 98% of Earth's water will be available to drink.

It would also help if people will stop drinking 8 cups of water per day as the big media keeps telling them to do. I live perfectly healthy with just 3-4 cups a day, you know.

reply to post by swan001

-Together the world produces 2,042,000,000,000 kg of gramineae (and that's only 3 of the gramineae family, we didn't included other plants like fruits and other vegetables yet).

-divide our production of only these 3 gramineaes by the amount of people on Earth. You get 291.7 kg per every single person on Earth per year. That's 0.799 kg of gramineae per day per person, INCLUDING EVERY SINGLE CURRENTLY STARVING INDIVIDUALS IN THE 3RD WORLD. How many of you seriously eat a kilogram of wheat/corn/rice per day? In addition to your potatoes? ......

.......-New York City is 17,400 square kilometers, and is home to 23,000,000 indivdual humans. Source: Wiki.

-There are 7,000,000,000 indivduals on Earth. Source: Wiki.

-All of mankind could fit into 304 copies of New York (about 1 or 2 New York City per countries), which together would cover only 5,295,652 square kilometers total. The total area of all continental surface of the Earth is 148,647,000 square kilometers (Source? You guessed it: Wikipedia). Do the ratio, and you get the following, which is...

-The whole of the population on Earth covers only 0.035 % of Earth's continental surface (or 0.010 % of Earth's total surface).

Thank you for the numbers, Swanne. As for the cities, it's great to see that we'll need so little. I have months ago done a similar math, but for if we uses towers 500, 800, and 1000 meters tall instead of houses. The post with this math is on this page, if you wanna take a look.

But the math for the food and the cities are brilliant, thank you for posting them.

And also, thank you for all the sources you gave on the overpopulation/eugenics link. That was really thought-provoking.

reply to post by minor007

Now reducing the number of people on this planet to save on resources is NOT eugenics.

That's funny. The Rockefeller and its members calls it publicly Eugenics. They should know, they funded it.
Still, tell me: what would you call "reducing the number of people to save ressources" (which includes killing 3rd world population, poor people, babies)? Cold-blood murder? Genocide? It's the same damn thing than Eugenics. I still denounce it. Especially when there IS enough ressources for all the world's population. Call it what you want, it is an unethical, sick, and twisted solution to a non-existing problem.

And about your description of Eugenism, you know that the same media that tells us we're over-populated and a cancer are the same that promotes "scientifical" researches on hereditary traits? You want to know what these "researches" revealed? That brown and green eyed people are more likely to be sick than blue eyed people. Exactly what Hitler's eugenics program was promoting.

These people that funded these researches are the same ones that pushes the myth of overpopulation and the need to reduce it.

reply to post by minor007

For one China has been trying to reduce its population for decades now and thats is not eugenics. It becomes eugenics when you favour traits over others. It goes like this, only fertiilise human eggs that have an high IQ discard those eggs or babies that dont fit the bill. Thats Eugenics in a nutshell

The same people that encourage sterilization and reducing the population also funded an IQ research. Guess what? They claimed that those who lived in the 3rd world had the lowest IQ, even though they have absolutely no access to education.

reply to post by minor007

7 Billion people on this planet and you say we are not over populated its a myth ....Wheres the goddamn intelliegence on this site.......wish there was an ignore button wouldnt have to listen to this crap....

The ignore button exists. It's called not going in the thread you think crappy.

Yes, 7 billion is not over-population. I know you've been told that repeatedly by the media, but it's not true. Not with proper housing and food culture/distribution.
With Swanne's math and cities, we would take 0.035% of Earth's land. With my math, with towers, 1 person per house, and with not 7 but 10 billions people, we would take from 1.2% to 2.4% of Earth's entire land. I don't consider that over-population.

reply to post by minor007

Take for exmple the depleted fish stocks, the mass killing of whales and dolphins, the destruction of wooded habitats to make way for farming and housing. The list is endless and all in the name of capitalism.

Depleted fish stocks was not the population's fault; it was the corporation's fault. They should've done like in the fishing sport: make a limit according to the fishes's reproductive cycle. Instead, they scoop the entire ocean, without selecting. When they finally comes to the selection part, it's too late, the fishes are already dead.
Mass killings of whales and dolphins? Does the poor population do that? Who eats dolphins? No. Only the Inuit, the rich guys that does that for fun, and the corporations for the ivory. Again, not the people's fault.
Destruction of wooded habitat for housing? Agreed. Population's fault? No. It's been decades that we can now build towers of steel and save millions of trees. Do you see that happening? No. Why? Our fault? No. The corporations doesn't build the damn towers, it prefers wood, 'cause it gives them more money.
Corporations are to blame, not us. They are the cancer, not us. We're the white cells that tries to fight the cancer.

As for water you say? talk about saying the obvious that the planet has water all over the place. We can only drink a small amount of it and as for drinking water from the sea maybe you should check on the power requirements for desalination for that to work.

The power requirements for sea-water desalinization? The sun. In case you haven't read Swanne's links, it works now with solar cooker. Much more efficient, and with no power requirements.

As you can see even thoough the number of children is just under 2 per family(on average). With over 700K births and just under 500K deaths. So it seems to me that the UK is still growing in population despite the huge number of people living to an old age.

So you're saying that there's 200,000 net new lives each year. Very well, multiply this by 200 countries, it gives 40 millions. Divide 1 billion by 40 millions. 25. It will take 25 years to go from 7 billions to 8 billions. Another 25 year to reach 9 billions, plus another 25 years to reach the dreaded 10 billions. So 25 x 3= 75 years before us. That means 2088. Not only towers should be done by then, so should the technology to render sea-water drinkable, but most importantly... space travel should be well under way. I prefer waiting the future's challenges and adventures than to kill everyone without evidences and proof that it was necessary.

Btw Genetically modified food stuff????? No wonder you sound crazy you been eating it havent you?

In case you're unaware of this, MacIntosh, Cortland, and Spartan apples are technically genetically modified. All those beautiful roses you buy to your partner? Genetically modified from the wild and original rose.
You wanna know why? Because before Monsanto Corporation took over the genetical modification process, genetical modification brought better and hardier food and plants. The genetical modification goes back to the middle 1800s.
If Monsanto wouldn't be involved and wouldn't incorporate twisted things like sterilization and who knows what else, genetically modified foods would actually saves us. Corn and rice would resist to insects and droughts. Right now, yes, GM foods aren't very attractive. But in good hands, it becomes very handy for our survival, and for starving 3rd world population's survival.

As for China females infants deaths.. Its they own bloody fault for being male chauvinistic pigs and shows lack of intelligence. The current chinese thinking amongst its citizens is that only males can do the family work. Personally i rather live in a world where men make up 30% of the population now that would be something to look forward to.

Clearly you got a bad past with men. In case you aren't aware, not all men are chauvinistic. And if a bad experience with men drove you to wish the deaths of humanity, or 70% of men's population, perhaps you should re-consider your position.
Or rather, I know some chauvinistic men that are manipulating humanity in accepting being eliminated, that you could output your hate toward. Their names finishes with Rockefeller. Be mad at them instead. Hard working Chineses who still aren't properly paid, nourished, and sheltered have nothing to do with humanity being a cancer.

reply to post by CB328

Disaster? If they hadn't been doing that for decades they'd have millions of people starving to death right now and they would be invading other countries for resources to support them.

They are already doing it, babies killed or not. Why do you think there's Chinatown's everywhere? It's not their fault, it's the Chineses government's lack of management. They have all the steels and the means. Why didn't they built towers like Dubaï did? Why didn't they built greenhouses to protect their rice cultures? Why didn't they invested in solar cookers and solar panels instead of coal mines?

reply to post by justwokeup

You would think by now we would have learned that state decree of when and how individuals can reproduce is a bad idea.

On this thread its obvious we havent.

It's indeed obvious they didn't, isn't?
Not only that, I would have thought that people would have been shocked by the facts that our corporations are planning to do a world-wide mass killing through propaganda of myth and lies.

Obviously, they don't. They even embrace it.

reply to post by minor007

Growing populations still need homes. Homes need wood homes need infrastructure. This has nothing to do with corporations.

Homes don't need woods, you know. Steel, brick, stone, you know, materials that doesn't require to cut down trees.

Corporations are made up of people. You get rid of the corporations what happens to all those people who had a job? Wait i know make them do the same job locally but then you still have the original problem. So therefore the cancer still is human as the corporations are only there because the public needs their services....

No. When we'll rid corporations out, money will also be rid of. People won't have to worry about jobs. Most people will be able to collect their own foods, and peoples who are really passionate about their work will be able to provide the rest of the needs. Besides, corporations are not material. It's an abstract idea. Opposing corporations doesn't mean opposing humanity; it means opposing the idea that some humans put forth.

reply to post by Unity_99

The cancer is the mismanagement team.....

Exactly! It's the mismanagement of everything that putted us in trouble. Mismanagement of housing, of food culture and distribution. Remanage all of that, and we're back on track.
And yes, if there would be no rush for jobs, in order to have money to pay for the food, the rent of the house, the car, the electricity bill, people will be more happy and more understanding. Everyone hate the impact their jobs or lives have on their surroundings, but when they have to survive, what can they do?
Other than their houses, people shouldn't need backyards or land. Not if all the world is a giant public park. The gardens/farms/greenhouses are public, the woods and lakes are like a giant national park. I wouldn't mind living that way if it meant that 10 billions people takes only maximum 2.5% of Earth's land space.

Nice to see you again, btw! It's been awhile since I talked with you.

reply to post by minor007

I am well aware that the earth can provide enough for the current population but as i said if WE LIVED IN SUSTAINING CITIES that have minimal impact on the enviornment.

When we read your posts, it doesn't look at all as if you agree that there's more than enough ressources for all of us.
As for living in sustaining cities, it's bound to happen sooner or later. Sooner or later, the corporations will fall, and all our dreams can finally happen. So just because it doesn't happen RIGHT NOW, means we must all be eliminated, and only the 400 millions remaining have the joy to finally live in a beautiful world.

You will always have mismanagement of resources in a capitalistic system. It's all about jobs and making money. To give an example an x amount of potaoes is sold to companies who make crisps. If we sent the potatoes to feed people instead then what happens to the jobs at the crisp factory?

That's why the idea of corporations system must go. Without it, no need for money or revenus. You give the necesseties first (the potatoes) and then, if there's leftover, you do crisp, sweets, and anything else with it. Or, better, people themselves do what they want with the leftover. See the magic of not having corporations and mismanagement?
And knowing this, you will still accept killing off 6.5 billions people so only the remaining 500 millions can finally live in happiness? That's damn unethical.

reply to post by Unity_99

Cities should be there only for those who choose them, this should be the country and farming. Natural. I love the venus projects models but dislike his architecture and sky rises. No one should live in the air. Or in small cubicles.

I slightly disagree. Living in bunches throughout the land will take more precious space than live vertically in either cities or towers. In my tower design, each "rooms" are 1600 square feet, the size of a farm house.
Besides, there's two advantages to that concept. First, you don't have to live all day-long in the towers; it can be only for the night or when it rains, and you spend the day outside in the parks.
And second, for those who can't live in towers, there would be enough place to allow them to have a normal house, or live in nature.

Yes it will take some adjustements to live in the air, but if the technology makes it more than safe, it's will be no different than living in New York, and, I hope, it will even be better.

We're going to increase in population and go into the solar system. This is a very old cycle we're in. But its really time to overcome the slave system here and the toxins.

And THAT will be great. Travel to other planets, like Cartier and Columbus did, and establish a civilization there. Truly no problem of over-population....
But we have to wake up first. The way we live now is unacceptable, things like homeless and famine wasn't even supposed to exist in our time, like philosophers believed in the 40s, when they studied the curve of technological evolution. We have to find a way to build those damn towers, and to remanage our ressources the right way.

reply to post by swan001

Last survey done by readers digestable in april 2011 shown there was almost 57,234,345,211.234 and still countin the .234 235 was for the fact that was how many houses that were to be completed the next month.

Wow! You know, we could even re-use those unuseful houses, and take their woods to help build either the towers or cities, or even build houses for the 3rd world population while we're waiting for the towers/cities to be finished. Do you know how many things we could do with 57 billions houses??

reply to post by minor007

whats so unethical about it? its a true statement. I too consider myself as part of the cancer even though I LIKE to think I am not. Whats more unethical is your inability to understand why we are a cancer. Did you read my initial post on this subject?

What's so unethical about it?! You consider your husband a cancer and will be ready to let him be killed by a MYTH!!!! Our ability to understand that we're not a cancer is a trillion time more ethical than what you're doing to your family and friends!! Did YOU read Swanne's posts? Maths, statistics, science, all clearly show that with corporations gone, humanity is NOT A CANCER!! It's all a myth started by Rockefeller and his gangs to wipe out the "indesirables". That means you, your family, your parents, your friends. And you will let them do that??? You're then not only very unethical, but exactly like those people who put us in trouble the first time. You should be very ashamed of wishing the deaths of your family and friends just because the media told you very convingly a lie. Shame on you!

reply to post by starheart


Did you read my first post? here it is in case you didnt

Originally posted by minor007
We are a cancer FULL STOP. Lets take a look at our economy first of all. Its all about growth and more growth. Thats the same way a cancer cell grows. Now lets take a look at what cancers do the to the body. It can kill off healthy cells (same as we are killing of animals). It can release hormones into the body that affects the normal function of the body(same thing we are doing with our pollution and toxic poisons). Cancer can become malignant and spreads. (Humans have spread to all four corners of the earth and never lived in harmony with the enviornment and definition of malignant
1) disposed to cause harm, suffering, or distress deliberately; feeling or showing ill will or hatred.
2) very dangerous or harmful in influence or effect.

I could go on and on but you have to intellectually challenged or intellectually dishonest to see humans as not as a cancer on this planet

edit on 10-5-2013 by minor007 because: (no reason given)

IT is not just about food production.....

reply to post by minor007


Yes, and in case you haven't read my posts and Swanne's posts, these problems that you mentioned in your first post are solvable, would the corporations stopped being in total control. Pollution and toxic poisons? We're still waiting for the corporations to make affordable electric cars. We're still waiting for the corporations to replace coal mines with solar cooker. With logical housing distribution, humans wouldn't need to spread on all four corners, and would actually leave 97% of Earth's land completely virgin for nature. Here's the math from both me and Swanne, in case you haven't read them:

So, you're afraid that there won't be enough place for 10 billions people, right?

Let's begin by a small number. A tower of 300x300 feet wide, and tall by 1500 feet (the size of Freedom Tower). Each "rooms" is 1600 square feet, the size of a normal house, and one room per person (each of these person has no less than a 1600 square feet house).
So... 300x300x1500= 135,000,000 square feet. That divided by the "rooms".
135,000,000 divided by 1600=84,375 houses per tower.
10 billions divided by 84,375=118,518 towers the size of Freedom Tower, for the whole planet's population.
That means it's 593 towers per countries.
It will take 3,555,540 square kilometers of land space.
145,091,460 square kilometers are left for free virgin natural land. 97.6 % of all land is left untouched.

It's still too much towers, right? Yeah, let's diminish that number, with still a feasible technology: a tower the size of Burj Khalifah.
So, 300x300 square feet of wide by 2400 feet tall (216,000,000 square feet) divided by houses of 1600 per person=135,000 houses per tower.
That makes 74,074 towers in total, and 370 towers per country.
Finally, those towers will take 2,222,220 square kilometers total.
Which leaves 146,424,780 of free virgin natural land. 98.5 % of all land is left untouched.

But it's still too much towers, right? Very well, let's bring the next prototype of towers, that are actually getting done: the one kilometer tall towers, which is just 200 meters taller than the Burj Khalifah, which is very possible. So, here we go again, using one house of 1600 square feet per person:
300x300x3000=270,000,000 divided by 1600=168,750 houses per tower.
Which makes 59,259 towers in total, which makes 296 towers per countries.
1,777,770 square kilometers are taken, leaving 146,879,230 square kilometers of free virgin natural land, or:
98.8% of all land left untouched.

That is if there's only one person living per house, which is not the case for at least half of the population.

.......-New York City is 17,400 square kilometers, and is home to 23,000,000 indivdual humans. Source: Wiki.

-There are 7,000,000,000 indivduals on Earth. Source: Wiki.

-All of mankind could fit into 304 copies of New York (about 1 or 2 New York City per countries), which together would cover only 5,295,652 square kilometers total. The total area of all continental surface of the Earth is 148,647,000 square kilometers (Source? You guessed it: Wikipedia). Do the ratio, and you get the following, which is...

-The whole of the population on Earth covers only 0.035 % of Earth's continental surface (or 0.010 % of Earth's total surface).

From 0.035% to 2.4% will we take of Earth's entire land space, if the housing is done properly. How is that a cancer, when 98% is not harmed anymore?



However, you still haven't answered our enquiry. How ethical is it to consider your family and best friends cancerous? How ethical is it to smile at them, tell them you love them, and then, in their back, call them cancerous and worthy of being wiped out? You seem to have breezed over that part in your last post.

They know that thought creates. So to me, to go around writing that humanity is a cancer on the earth is to be a murderer. And I think most of the ones doing this are dark hats doing this with intent. So murder one at that.

if we are not a cancer then we do a bloody good impersonation of one

Originally posted by starheart
reply to post by Unity_99

 

The cancer is the mismanagement team.....

Exactly! It's the mismanagement of everything that putted us in trouble. Mismanagement of housing, of food culture and distribution. Remanage all of that, and we're back on track.
And yes, if there would be no rush for jobs, in order to have money to pay for the food, the rent of the house, the car, the electricity bill, people will be more happy and more understanding. Everyone hate the impact their jobs or lives have on their surroundings, but when they have to survive, what can they do?
Other than their houses, people shouldn't need backyards or land. Not if all the world is a giant public park. The gardens/farms/greenhouses are public, the woods and lakes are like a giant national park. I wouldn't mind living that way if it meant that 10 billions people takes only maximum 2.5% of Earth's land space.

Nice to see you again, btw! It's been awhile since I talked with you.

The Venus Project, using technology, clean transparent technology, not patents and copyright, but honoring the inventor, however, sharing all the information and like open source, anyone can improve upon it, or recreate it.

solutions abundant.

Abundance overflowing.

There is no need to take away back yards however. It is called privacy. And personal choice for gardens and landscaping. Everyone needs space.

This world is abundant in space.

The entire population can stand shoulder to shoulder in LA. In Canada, everyone could have a farm. That means, spread out as we are, everyone should have land.

Its just that it should be done differently. I would have the community as educated and problem solvers, not passive, and grass roots leadership. Would have no monopolies existing, save for co-ops that belong to the people, so that there wouldn't be corporate wish to own resources or buy off choice areas for exploitation.

Instead, choice areas, forests and lakes, belong to all. So that private resorts and private beaches and clear cut logging, and lack of preservation for old growth should not be occurring.

Bamboo, flax and commercial hemp can solve all our wood and building needs. Hemp can solve our fuel as well, not to mention there is many other more advanced alternatives from HHO, to cavitation and cold fusion.
The mentioned crops are renewable unlike forrests. Forrests are the lungs of the planet.

Nonetheless the lands for people should be beautiful and abundant. And like in the old days in Bali, when you turn 19 or 20, you should have many choices, of locations and education as well. And there should be more than needed for people to be able to move, and exchange easily.

Of course I believe that teleportation is buried science, so I envision a much more advanced world.

I envision, living with high learning ,contributing part time, retraining always possible, and choosing to develop talents to share. Many many guilds and local groups for art, music, inventions even, so that people naturally contribute but are not forced into any form of labor, they volunteer and share part time and grow as people. Meditation and spirit and nature is important to everyone.

You could have your children attend school in Italy, everyone have dinner and a performance in Japan, and a sleep over for the weekend with a friend in New Zealand, for transportation has already been solved, or would be quickly with the right physics and energies being shared.

We all need privacy, but in a sense land, though set aside for private use, should be free and not taxed, don't actually believe in money, but that is after tax dollars, and it should really belong to our great great great great great.....great grandchildren, so we are beneficiaries, with a right and cause to consider our homes ours for a lifetime or change them at will.

World population relates to the scarsity system. Populations at 0 growth or close have many services and equality and health care. So obviously we need a world that is free and equal, no fascism, theocracy or starvation models/exploitation models.

And as world citizens, people in overcrowded areas, such as Holland or Japan, should be able to choose where they wish to live.