It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The entire world population if standing shoulder to shoulder & front to back.....could fit into.....

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by KBadger
 



Originally posted by KBadger
The point of it is that it really does show that over population is a myth.


The fact that YOU think this and the people who starred your post agree, makes a very sad statement about the knowledge and thinking skills of some people... As others have pointed out... What about when they have to go to the bathroom? What about their food? Crops to feed these people? Water to drink? What about jobs? The places they work? Recreation?

If people could just stand, shoulder to shoulder for 70 years, you and the OP would have a point. But CLEARLY, you haven't thought beyond the end of your nose, because after a few weeks, everyone would be dead. Then they'd have to lie down and would reach beyond Rhode Island...




posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by KBadger
 



Originally posted by KBadger
The point of it is that it really does show that over population is a myth.


The fact that YOU think this and the people who starred your post agree, makes a very sad statement about the knowledge and thinking skills of some people... As others have pointed out... What about when they have to go to the bathroom? What about their food? Crops to feed these people? Water to drink? What about jobs? The places they work? Recreation?

If people could just stand, shoulder to shoulder for 70 years, you and the OP would have a point. But CLEARLY, you haven't thought beyond the end of your nose, because after a few weeks, everyone would be dead. Then they'd have to lie down and would reach beyond Rhode Island...


Do you actually think we think it's possible for 7 billlion people to live in Rhode Island? Because that's not what was said, the op's idea just shows that we as a species don't actually take up as much space as we're led to believe.
I think you need to go back and read it a few more times...



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by KBadger
Well if we in the West weren't so fat, brainwashed and greedy there'd be plenty for everyone. The fact that so many believe that overpopulation exists shows the brainwashing is indeed working.
You may now call me a socialist, commie or whatever, because capitalism and greed have worked so well for us haven't they?
As one commentator said, it's not the population, it's how we currently live.


It is OVER-POPULATED in the Cities.... this is where this study falls down.

They never take into account the area where over-population is rife and that is mainly in the Cities and Islands with less Area per square mile!!

For instance.... London is over-crowded at just around 5 or 6 million people, there is not much room for peace or privacy! Hell, even the whole population of 60 million living in England is too much. England is a small Island and yes it is Over-crowded!

Now, if you were to take that 60 Million and put them on the Land of the USA, they could easily spread out and you'd hardly notice.....

Its all about Land Mass not Amount of People.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by KBadger
The point of it is that it really does show that over population is a myth.


Erm no, but judging from the amount of stars you got from that one liner, what it shows is that...


this site is filled with very simple, clueless minds.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by KBadger
Well if we in the West weren't so fat, brainwashed and greedy there'd be plenty for everyone. The fact that so many believe that overpopulation exists shows the brainwashing is indeed working.
You may now call me a socialist, commie or whatever, because capitalism and greed have worked so well for us haven't they?
As one commentator said, it's not the population, it's how we currently live.


We don't live like the 1800's anymore. Yes, if we all went back to those days, the earth would be more accomidating, but hello? How are you going to change that?
As it stands, we are burning through our precious resources at an earth-shattering rate.

Fresh water, nutrient rich soil, forests, fuel? these things are dissappearing, and no theory is going to magically make them all come back.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
 


Let's put it into correct perspective.

The cities, which are over-populated, require much land, and resources outside their area to be continuously flowing to and from wherever else in the world.

We are most certainly "over-populated" as qualified as being on a sustainable path that can provide the same standards of living for at least 3 generations to come.

We're not even close to that path.

Civilization as it currently is, will collapse under the weight of the forces of industry, and demand from an ignorant people, pwned by corporate interests.

THAT is how we're overpopulated. Fix part of the equation, and we can talk about not being overpopulated.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuantriQueptidez

Originally posted by KBadger
The point of it is that it really does show that over population is a myth.


Erm no, but judging from the amount of stars you got from that one liner, what it shows is that...


this site is filled with very simple, clueless minds.


Hmmm, the fact that you feel you have to resort to insults, without even saying anything about the actual post shows who's clueless here.
edit on 10-7-2013 by KBadger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by KBadger
 


I did say something about the post.

Strange you missed that


Oh wait, no it's not. Not with your kind of reasoning displayed.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by KBadger
The point of it is that it really does show that over population is a myth.


If your house had seven billion ants in it, would you still say your house doesn't have enough ants?



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuantriQueptidez
reply to post by KBadger
 


I did say something about the post.

Strange you missed that


Oh wait, no it's not. Not with your kind of reasoning displayed.


Meh, must have been in my blind spot. Nevertheless just because you don't agree with a certain point of view doesn't mean you have to resort to insults. Not very intelligent or open minded.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Junkheap

Originally posted by KBadger
The point of it is that it really does show that over population is a myth.


If your house had seven billion ants in it, would you still say your house doesn't have enough ants?


Still missing the point. The planet is not overpopulated, many parts, as has been mentioned, are overcrowded. What we have is a total misuse of resources.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by KBadger
 



Originally posted by KBadger
Do you actually think we think it's possible for 7 billlion people to live in Rhode Island? Because that's not what was said, the op's idea just shows that we as a species don't actually take up as much space as we're led to believe.
I think you need to go back and read it a few more times...


I wasn't responding to the OP. I was responding to you (and those who starred your post), who said that this shows that overpopulation is a myth. It does no such thing.

The only point made in the OP is mathematics.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by KBadger

Originally posted by Junkheap

Originally posted by KBadger
The point of it is that it really does show that over population is a myth.


If your house had seven billion ants in it, would you still say your house doesn't have enough ants?


Still missing the point. The planet is not overpopulated, many parts, as has been mentioned, are overcrowded. What we have is a total misuse of resources.

It doesn't matter.

In the future (overly dramatic futureguy voice),
man may indeed eat sunshine only and live fully in virtual reality...in such a time, having 50 billion people living underground in a cube hive may be fully possible with no adverse reaction to the environment. Awesome..can't wait.

But this is not that day. Today we eat cows, pigs, chickens, fish, etc...the resources are finite, and we are consuming the world with how things are today.

So, in future time, we can start a breed till you pop program due to having a low/no sum equasion on the environment...but for now...our species requires several acres of farmland per person (A cow will consume to the order of 7 times the amount of land that a vegetable garden requires..people eat cows..lots of cows)


Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. The shortages of cropland, fresh water, and energy resources require most of the 4 billion people to live on a plant-based diet. The World Health Organization recently reported that more than 3 billion people are malnourished (1, 2). This is the largest number and proportion of malnourished people ever recorded in history. In large measure, the food shortage and malnourishment problem is primarily related to rapid population growth in the world plus the declining per capita availability of land, water, and energy resources

source

So, worldwide consensus states we are quickly coming to a emergency, or some guy says that doesn't matter because you can stuff a bunch of people into a clown car.
Which side do you wish to accept as reality? clown car guy or people whom spent their life studying this with actual measurable evidence?



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
The last time I went to Walmart I saw quite a few people who wouldn't fit into a 2'x2' square, but then again you could easily put 2 or more kids into a 2'x2' sguare.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by KBadger
 


Any room for animals, plants, open spaces and the ability to move and breathe in your world?



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlchemistSwami
Rhode Island is 1200 square miles



The total area of Rhode Island is 1,212 sq mi , of which land comprises 1,055 sq mi

www.city-data.com...



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AlchemistSwami
 

The traditional answer to this riddle is "The Isle of Wight". I don't know which island is larger.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Vitality magazine once reported the following regarding overpopulation. Granted this was back when the earths population was only around 6 Billion:


"Amazing as it may seem,the entire population of the world can be housed in the U.S. state of Texas," reports vitality magazine. According to the article, the current united nations estimate of the world's population is about six billion people, and Texas has a land area of some 262,000 square miles. The amount of living space per person would therfore more than 1,217 square feet. "A family or 5 would thus occupy ore than 6,085 square feet of living space. Even in Texas, that's a MANSION!!," says Vitality. "Meanwhile, the rest of the world would be completely empty!!!!Availble forall of mankind's agricultural,manufacturing,educational, and recreactional Activites! Unbelievable? BELIEVE IT.
sic

I found this on the following website: www.unsolvedmysteries.com...

The global population is estimated to be a little over 7 Billion so we might need to downsize our mansions a bit.
This is just an exercise in math, and not to be taken too seriously, Just imagine all the extra living space would be available if we got rid of golf courses and cemeteries.

edit on 7/10/2013 by Sparky63 because: spelling always spelling!

edit on 7/10/2013 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by KBadger
 


I don't think over population has anything to do with that, it's about the resources we consume and it's very hard to control that many people. That is why depopulation is talked about



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by KBadger
 


Any room for animals, plants, open spaces and the ability to move and breathe in your world?


Yes! Have you looked at a map of the world recently? And it's our world not mine



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join