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 boncho
Originally posted by Numbers33four
The problem is not too many people. The problem is too many rich people who have no regard for the rest of the world.
Don't get me wrong. I know that there are plenty of poor people dynomiting fish.edit on 19-6-2012 by Numbers33four because: (no reason given)
No actually it's too many people.
And if you consume a lot, you are the problem.
Very simple, but passing the blame on the "rich overlords" somehow gets more support...
But you're mistaken considering an average american lifestyle as the best the world can offer, when they waste the most resources.You need to balance things out and remove the wastefulness factor, then you'll see that it evens out for everyone in the world...
In absolute global terms, the 10 countries with the worst environmental impact are (in order, worst first): Brazil, USA, China, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, India, Russia, Australia and Peru.
The indicators used were natural forest loss, habitat conversion, fisheries and other marine captures, fertiliser use, water pollution, carbon emissions from land use and species threat.
Originally posted by boncho
Okay, so who gets to live in the volcano?
By the way, you divided wrong.edit on 19-6-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)
57 308 738 / 7 billion = 0.00818696257
Everyone gets a .008 Square mile.edit on 19-6-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by The_Oracle
But you're mistaken considering an average american lifestyle as the best the world can offer, when they waste the most resources.You need to balance things out and remove the wastefulness factor, then you'll see that it evens out for everyone in the world...
And the catch 22 is that sustainable communities do not support such ridiculous overpopulation we have with a decent quality of life.
It's not just the US lifestyle that abuses the planet:
In absolute global terms, the 10 countries with the worst environmental impact are (in order, worst first): Brazil, USA, China, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, India, Russia, Australia and Peru.
The indicators used were natural forest loss, habitat conversion, fisheries and other marine captures, fertiliser use, water pollution, carbon emissions from land use and species threat.
Sourceedit on 20-6-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by The_Oracle
Zeitgeist and the Venus project is nifty marketing ploy and pretty far from reality. Completely full of misinformation and a lot of crap*
Anyhow, it's not a feasible reality for the entire planet and the entire population. Very well might work for a small group of people but with the plans laid out, you cannot change the world to fit into what they have laid out.
But we will see soon enough how it works out, as I believe they have a green light to start the project with millionaire investors looking to move in...
The biggest corrupting pyramid scheme of them all is not even the creation of currency through debt, it’s how the newly created currency is distributed. With the Venus Project, as the first 100 units of some new technology become available, how will it be distributed? Who gets it first? The delivery of technology necessitates the creation of some sort of order or class system just as it does with currency. There will still be a hierarchy of people making the decisions and a hierarchy of people benefiting from them. Today the people who use the newly created debt currency first benefit the most, in the new proposed system the people who get the newly created technology first benefit the most. They could even trade their privileges like a commodity for other stuff, like that prime Florida real estate that’s still scarce. Please don’t pretend real estate as currency is some novel idea.
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by The_Oracle
I've watched all the Zeitgeist movies, and they are all loaded with crap. The Venus Project is nothing but mental masturbation. It does not exist because it has not been done. It's opinion only.
Originally posted by The_Oracle
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by The_Oracle
I've watched all the Zeitgeist movies, and they are all loaded with crap. The Venus Project is nothing but mental masturbation. It does not exist because it has not been done. It's opinion only.
But isn't that the point? Bringing something better, new and contemporary as a system in concordance with our technological progress, rather then remain content with the idea that nothing will ever change for the better in the current one so we should just all lay down and die?edit on 6/20/2012 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Numbers33four
The problem is not too many people. The problem is too many rich people who have no regard for the rest of the world.
Don't get me wrong. I know that there are plenty of poor people dynomiting fish.edit on 19-6-2012 by Numbers33four because: (no reason given)
In the U.S., 4.39 pounds of trash per day and up to 56 tons of trash per year are created by the average person.” Furthermore, “Americans throw away 2.5 million plastic bottles every hour.”
Originally posted by boncho
Originally posted by The_Oracle
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by The_Oracle
I've watched all the Zeitgeist movies, and they are all loaded with crap. The Venus Project is nothing but mental masturbation. It does not exist because it has not been done. It's opinion only.
But isn't that the point? Bringing something better, new and contemporary as a system in concordance with our technological progress, rather then remain content with the idea that nothing will ever change for the better in the current one so we should just all lay down and die?edit on 6/20/2012 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)
Well, not exactly. The Venus Project hasn't been done and if the entire world tried to mimic the idea it couldn't be done.
I actually think that unless it's done globally an RBE wouldn't work to it's fullest potential.
What you can have is that one cozy village, and a bunch of poor ones around the world supporting it. Just that poor people would have less resources, not money.
You can't build a circular village with robots for everyone, as people have to crawl into mines, work in oil fields, tend the fields and do other things that simply can't be done in a small isolated city. Not to mention areas where weather does not permit the types of cities he proposes.
But the hole point of an RBE would be to first declare all the resources of the world as humanity's common heritage.Afterwards computers would distribute the resources accordingly, based on calculations for scarcity,need and amount for everyone in the world to cover their personal everyday needs,while also allocating for projects that may need and probably need to be done, all this done within the calculated "safe margin" so to speak.
Also the circular models Jacque proposes there is only a few of the numerous possibilities.We don't have to apply them where not applicable, though it remains to be seen where that is actually the case.
And also another point of an RBE would be to gradually adopt renewable energy sources over fossil fuels.These are being done today,but the only reason they're slow is because there's no money to make in them in a capitalist system,so we might never transcend unless we adopt a system that actually encourages improvements within it, like an RBE, unlike Capitalism where if you don't allow the status quo to flourish and remain the same a hole bunch of problems arise.
There is a reason people built the cities where they are and there's a reason they remain. Just as you see cities grow near water supply you see them dwindle to empty mines and exploited gas fields.
That's done to make things easier, more profitable and cheaper, but these are all done in the spirit of capitalism.I'm not saying that it isn't a good idea to be practical and efficient, but it's pretty obvious that the only reason you don't see great projects done in inhospitable places is because of the lack of those advantages and the only thing to blame is the limited mindset,otherwise they could be done.
The entire world does not produce enough or have the ability to produce the amount of resources that he proposes so that everyone can live the same quality of life. So essentially, Fresco is working towards a utopian society that slaves off the back of other poor places in the world, no different than any other modern city today.
The only way this would not be true, is if he built his little project from scratch. From complete, barebones, scratch. Although having advanced technology would be impossible, it would resemble more of a hippie commune.
From what I know there are enough resources, there's just not enough money for it.Regardless there is a mechanism called the global survey that would scan how much resource we have, and make decisions upon that data to determine where we use it (if it is rare) and how.
But the hole point of an RBE would be to first declare all the resources of the world as humanity's common heritage.Afterwards computers would distribute the resources accordingly, based on calculations for scarcity,need and amount for everyone in the world to cover their personal everyday needs,while also allocating for projects that may need and probably need to be done, all this done within the calculated "safe margin" so to speak.
And also another point of an RBE would be to gradually adopt renewable energy sources over fossil fuels.These are being done today,but the only reason they're slow is because there's no money to make in them in a capitalist system,so we might never transcend unless we adopt a system that actually encourages improvements within it, like an RBE, unlike Capitalism where if you don't allow the status quo to flourish and remain the same a hole bunch of problems arise.
That's done to make things easier, more profitable and cheaper, but these are all done in the spirit of capitalism.I'm not saying that it isn't a good idea to be practical and efficient, but it's pretty obvious that the only reason you don't see great projects done in inhospitable places is because of the lack of those advantages and the only thing to blame is the limited mindset,otherwise they could be done.
From what I know there are enough resources, there's just not enough money for it.Regardless there is a mechanism called the global survey that would scan how much resource we have, and make decisions upon that data to determine where we use it (if it is rare) and how.
Originally posted by doug r
Before a rational debate about global overpopulation can go anywhere, there first needs to be a mutually acceptable definition of the term. What constitutes "over"? How would localized inequities in distribution and/or production be taken into account? What overall conditions define thresholds?
Does "over" mean that a population increase of a tiny fraction of a percent dooms everyone? Because if that's the case, the Earth is clearly not overpopulated.
Does it mean that resource availability becomes so limited that nobody on the planet is capable of bettering their quality of life? Because if that's the case, the Earth is clearly not overpopulated.
Just saying the word "overpopulated" and running with land-area statistics makes no sense.
Okay, the resources are everyone's. Who decides who has to be sent into a coal mine, who has to be sent into rare earth mines and who decides where the waste of all these processes go?What about countries and places that don't have computers? What about the fact that producing computers for everyone that doesn't have one would create insane amounts of waste, take toiling labor and essentially deplete the resources that "everyone owns."
Everything has a value whether or not you put a monetary value on it. If there is no money, people will want to hoard or be in control of resources to exert the same power they have now.
Cities can be built in inhibitable places but at what cost and what point? Why would you build a city in the middle of the Sahara? It would take more resources to sustain it than a city built in near a waterway with agricultural land, and other resources that are useful to the city.
For a whole resourced based economy, your line of thinking really doesn't focus on what makes it tick... resources.
How do you determine who gets what? I thought we're a giant hippie commune now, and we all have equal claim. What do you say to India and China? They have a large percentage of the world's population and they live well below the consumption level of the rest of the world.
So what then?
What about countries or areas that want to reproduce at high levels, depleting the supply of resources that is available. Others have to give theirs up for them?
The whole thing makes no sense in a global context.
It might work for a small, sheltered community, but will still rely on outside sources for certain things, and will not be entirely true to the idea.
Originally posted by thehoneycomb
So I got bored and figured out how many square miles a person would have to themselves if land was distributed to all of the approximate 7 billion of earths inhabitants equally. Each person alive would have about 12 square miles all to themselves.
So is the world overpopulated?
No.
Total land area of the world 57,308,738 Sq. Miles
Total Population around 7 billion. (I used 7 billion)
And I'll close with these words from the late Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. He said, “Unlike the plagues of the dark ages, or contemporary diseases which we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is solvable with means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution, but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and the education of the billions who are its victims.”
So I hope I’ve made a reasonable case for my opening statement, that I think the greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand this very simple arithmetic.
Thank you very, very much.