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.
Originally posted by Retseh
Only the African sub-continent appears to be dealing with the consequences of over-population and starvation.
According to the World Health Organization, hunger is the gravest single threat to the world's public health.[3] According to Jean Ziegler (the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food for 2000 to March 2008), mortality due to malnutrition accounted for 58% of the total mortality in 2006: "In the world, approximately 62 millions people, all causes of death combined, die each year. One in twelve people worldwide are malnourished.[23] In 2006, more than 36 millions died of hunger or diseases due to deficiencies in micronutrients"[24]. The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is well-fed, one-third is under-fed and one-third is starving. [23]
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Lets not forget that many of these people are also having their resources mined by the West and have been for 100's of years. And it is a large problem.
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
The simplest way would be to legislate a "no credit" policy. Where each group was forced to live within their means. No export of excess people, and a one to one exchange of resources.
If you overpopulate, you starve. And stealing resources from other countries would no longer be permissible to "conceal" the fact that you had in fact already over populated your regions carrying capacity.
Originally posted by Retseh
Total self-ingratiating BS. Lay your guilt trip on someone stupid enough to believe it, Africans should be on their knees praying for a return to colonial rule.
Originally posted by Studious
The overpopulation myth may lead to "inverted pyramid" demographics in which the old outnumber the young.
Atrocities such as mass sterilizations and China's one child policy are justified by overpopulation.
Not to be argumentative or anything, but the land surface of the Earth is some 57,000,000 square miles, at 8 people per square mile that would be a population of 456,000,000.
Also, isn't it relevant that the load carrying capacity of land is not equally distributed over the planet?
It seems that such demands on the theoretical limit of the Earth's population never include factors such a social forms and technology.
While I can accept that we need to limit our growth over finite resources, I can't accept that it should be based on a dry statistical concept of static capabilities and a paradigm of 'economy' based controls on populations.