World Population projected to reach 7 billion in 2011

Originally posted by monkeykillingmonkey


The article says that in Canada where I live the population is expected to climb from 31 million to 42 million by 2050. During the same time period Uganda's population is expected to soar to from 34 million to 96 million! Most of the growth in the developed world will come from Canada and the USA. I have a baby on the way, should I feel bad??

Too many people, what's the solution??

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The solution? Health Care Reform...it is Euthanasia/Eugenics...

That is its main purpose....POPULATION CONTROL

reply to post by liquidsmoke206


Do you have any idea why so many people are starving around the world?...

For example, in India cows are sacred, and noone will kill a cow, or eat it's meat because it is sacred.

Then there are the caste system which pretty much puts millions of people under the shoes of others.

There is even an undesirable caste in India which take care of dirty jobs, but other castes in India sees them pretty much as a lower form of animals, and avoid the undesirables at all costs.

Then there are nations where they are not allowed to plant, or even harvest, and then there are the war lords who want control over everything hence starve people to death, such as what happens in many African nations.

Even in the U.S. we are losing farms because of ENVIRONMENTALISTS, and things will only get worse since there are less and less farms as the government shuts off water to many farms around the U.S. due to "environmental problems".

There is a problem with not enough food but it has nothing to do with any "overpopulation", it has to do with the fact that there are those who want control, and power.

If there were only 100 million people in the world, there would still be warlords, and "environmental laws' that will put most of the population in the world at risk of starvation, and disease...





[edit on 12-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
There is a problem with not enough food but it has nothing to do with any "overpopulation",

Overpopulation of ANY species on the planet, may it be humans or any other species will end with a massive "die off" of that species.

Look at what happens in Australia with all those mice when food is plentiful, the food source dies out, and so do these millions, maybe billions of mice.

To think that if the human race keeps populating the world and "pro-creating" the way it is won't have the same end result, maybe not the end of our species, but a MASSIVE "die off", is crazy.

There will come a time when our hunger WILL overcome the food that we can produce, I don't think it will happen in OUR lifetime, where whole countries will be dying off due to hunger, but if we just keep up at the rate we (humans) are at "procreating", it will happen

[edit on 8/12/2009 by Keyhole]

Has anyone else noticed that... in all publicly broadcasted statements , and news reports.... That the reports are always talking about a year before 2012 or a couple years after? I heard some reporters on NBC news i believe talking about the elections in 2016.... Why not 2012? Are they trying to avoid controversy thats connected with the numbers 2012

reply to post by monkeykillingmonkey


Depending upon how many idiot infertility doctors take on idiot patients like John & Kate + 8 and Nadya Suleman's 14, we could reach that number next year.

Originally posted by TheFaiThfulSkepTic
I heard some reporters on NBC news i believe talking about the elections in 2016.... Why not 2012? Are they trying to avoid controversy thats connected with the numbers 2012

No. They just expect Obama to win the next run. Or at least, the MSM is planting that seed already to keep him in office. Subliminal messages and mind control. That's all it is.

[edit on 8/12/2009 by Nivcharah]

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
Hmmm....I don't know if you knew this, but millions of people are starving right now.
And if your definition of sustainable, is that you have access to food all the time, then yes we are sustained right now, but again, I think the point here is that it will only get worse. There's not really a reason to keep cranking out humans...

and starvation is only 1 issue associated with overpopulation.

They are not starving because food cannot be produced or supplied, they are starving, as a general rule, because of politics. It could be the military junta that controls the country and saps all the money needed to do any actual productive farm work (see Zimbabwe) or because they refuse to eat a perfectly good source of food (see India).

Don't let our "superiority" over nature fool you, this planet is huge.

OK, well thats a conspiracy angle on this article. But why does everyone think it will be "via weaponry"???

Okay, it could be any means, but I guarantee to you that it won't end with simple adverts trying to indoctrinate people that it is good to have two children and only two children.

reply to post by deltaboy

Smartest idea maybe, however if there are no children who will be the country's future workers as the workers become senior citizens? Who will pay those taxes to take care of the old and the few children that are in existence? Bring in the alien workers that could affect their society in so many ways?

well these are the obvious problems that arise from reducing populations and the kind of stuff japan are dealing with right now. I think you have to start thinking of new ways to deal with those problems. I don't have all the answers, but I know reducing populations voluntarily and gradually is the best option, because our population will drop one way or another...and some of the alternatives are not very pleasing....

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by audas

 

There is no population problem, it's just a theory. There is however a property ownership "problem", there isn't enough available property to go around. With all the forclosures it shouldn't be a "problem" for too much longer. We could house the entire world popultaion on one small continent (Austalia), then we have the rest of the world to grow food and such. That however is a sad thought.

Considering that the total world population is just under 7,000,000,000. the total land of Australia is 7,682,300 sq km. Thats 911 people to one square kilometer, now thats seems like alot but considering there is 600+ residents in my apartment complex that is no bigger then a football field.
There is no over population problem, just a leadership problem.

Census
Australia


[edit on 8/6/2009 by TheAntiHero420]

From a different thread I posted in,but it seems to fit well here.

Once again from another thread.
My point with this is that we could spaciously move the world population to a single continent(not just Australia) and use the rest of the world for resources.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

This here tells me everything I need to know about where your coming from. You want to blame selfish people for having babies. You want to blame people for doing what nature intended us to do, reproduce.

Well I do think that far too often people reproduce for the wrong reasons. I know you can say it's mother nature in a action, but at some point humans have to start living their lives with some intent or we'll doom ourselves with overpopulation and all the problems that come with it. It's selfish of people to just think they can have as many children as they want and then chalk it up to nature. Totally irresponsible. Somebody has to stand up and say you know what...why even have kids? Just cuz I have an urge? How primitive am I? Liquidsmoke is above it....

Of course it's Governments fault because if two bit thugs in poor countries would allow aid to get to the people in the form of education and awareness, then these things will work themselves out.

True, but I just wonder how much education and awareness does it take to realize you'd be better off without 4-10 kids...? It's baffling.

You have to have your head in the sand if you want to blame selfish people when people like Arafat got 55 billion dollars and the people in Palestine are living like it's 2,000 B.C. while his wife takes shopping trips in France.

This is about "exploding" overpopulation.....which I don't think is palestines worst problem....
Also Arafat is long dead. If your point is that governments don't use funds fairly, then you're captain obvious...but I still don't see why so many people all over the world have to have so many kids? what are they thinking?

Mugabe and his cronies are living large in Zimbabwe while his people die and life expectancy plummets.

So the population goes down then? I thought we were talking about places that are contributing to overpopulation in this thread...

So when someone blames selfish people they either don't know what they are talking about or they are enviromental wackos who think populations should be killed.

My posts speak for themselves. I don't see myself coming off as an environmental whacko, definitely don't think populations should be killed( frankly I don't think very many people who are passionate about the environment want that either) and if you are really that confused about what I'm talking about when i say that having kids is selfish and irresponsible, then I'm equally as confused by your confusion...

Governments control technology and label it classified to find a new weapon when this technology can be explored for other purposes.

Captain Obvious to the rescue!!! Tho, "governments" is a bit of a pronoun these days is it not? Don't you think corporations, elite investors, high ranking military, etc would have a stake in the control of this technology? Or does "governments" cover all those...I can never tell anymore. Oh wait, weren't we talking about populations up in here?

You have to be joking.

No seriously, I think you coulda been clearer. Let's see if you can get thru to me this time...

Like I said, Arafat got 55 billion dollars and the people live in horrible conditions and he died worth close to a billion dollars.

How is this alleviated by an increase in population?

The guy in North Korea starves his people and uses the resources so he can retain his power.

How is this alleviated by an increase in population?

I was watching an African country where the people were eating mud pies and the country gets billions of dollars in aid.

How is this alleviated by an increase in population?

And you have the audacity to ask what does this have to do with anything?

It has everything to do with it. If aid and education got to the people of these countries then things would be much better.

Obviously, thats true to a degree, but how much education does it take to realize that having a lot of kids is a bad idea. It's not good for anybody. And this doesn't just come down to the poorest of the poor countries, populations are increasing almost everywhere........I just wanna know where do people draw the line?

I think useful idiots are the reason Governments of the world cause problems and then waste and spend trillions to fix the problems they created.

Its a messed up system you have to adhere to when there's 7 billion(and counting) people on the planet....

We don't need population control but Government control.

There's no doubt we need both....

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Do you have any idea why so many people are starving around the world?...

For example, in India cows are sacred, and noone will kill a cow, or eat it's meat because it is sacred.

Then there are the caste system which pretty much puts millions of people under the shoes of others.

There is even an undesirable caste in India which take care of dirty jobs, but other castes in India sees them pretty much as a lower form of animals, and avoid the undesirables at all costs.

Then there are nations where they are not allowed to plant, or even harvest, and then there are the war lords who want control over everything hence starve people to death, such as what happens in many African nations.

Even in the U.S. we are losing farms because of ENVIRONMENTALISTS, and things will only get worse since there are less and less farms as the government shuts off water to many farms around the U.S. due to "environmental problems".

There is a problem with not enough food but it has nothing to do with any "overpopulation", it has to do with the fact that there are those who want control, and power.

I think some of you in this thread think that I see overpopulation as a direct cause for starvation and thats not what I'm saying. But I don't see how continuing to make more people will make it any better...

If there were only 100 million people in the world, there would still be warlords, and "environmental laws' that will put most of the population in the world at risk of starvation, and disease...

Clearly you don't see how less people would make it better...but I think it would. It would be easier to educate people, it would be easier to feed people, it would make most things easier.....maybe I'm just being optimistic, but I think most of the world is beyond the stages of warlords, and environmental laws could afford to be strict and not infringe on peoples liberties if there were less people. We'll be reduced one way or another, we may as well collectively kind of decide that there's more to life than reproduction.

reply to post by Sargon of Akkad

They are not starving because food cannot be produced or supplied, they are starving, as a general rule, because of politics. It could be the military junta that controls the country and saps all the money needed to do any actual productive farm work (see Zimbabwe) or because they refuse to eat a perfectly good source of food (see India).

Seriously, do you guys get that I don't think that starvation is caused entirely by overpopulation. Here's what i said read it again,

I think the point here is that it will only get worse. There's not really a reason to keep cranking out humans...

and starvation is only 1 issue associated with overpopulation.

I'm just asking how more people helps....?

Okay, it could be any means, but I guarantee to you that it won't end with simple adverts trying to indoctrinate people that it is good to have two children and only two children.

Unfortunately that's likely true. And for the record I'd like to see less than 2 kids. But that is still the best method for population control/reduction, intentionally having less offspring...

I also really doubt that the mass genocide method professed by many people on this site would ever happen. I really see that as a last resort by people who have the power to do so....I suspect they have better methods in mind.

How come the Brits seem to get ignored alot on these forums?

great, most of the population growth in parts of the world which cannot even feed their current populations, more begging bowls coming our way and more hypocrticial moralising from western politicians and entertainers.

reply to post by blueorder


You are right..... it is a case of over-populous nations getting more over-populous........ they really do need to get contraceptives over to these people.... and also educate these religious folk who don't use or refuse to use condoms or other forms of contraceptives!!!

Well maybe we should unite and crate a goddamn space ship and populate other planets. Why stop our population growth, it will only increase our chances of extinction. It would only take a large comet to hit us, BAM were all dead. We will eventually outgrow this planet, time to expand.

If I had my way the population of the world in 2011 will be 51, me and fifty virgins

one more reason to invest more in NASA and commercial space programs. so we can send build cities on the moon and mars.
And people need feeding so space technology is neccassery for better crops and distribution and finding good ground for plantations.
thats my view, but it will likely go the other way more money to ways of getting people away by killing them using artificial created diseases and war ect.

reply to post by MarkLuitzen


the argument always comes up in threads like this that we should just, somehow join forces, and start colonizing the moon and mars to deal with overpopulation.....if we could get everyone on the same page, don't you think it would be easier to just agree to reduce populations.

No one wants to live n the moon.

Are people really so hell bent on cranking out kids that their solution is to start living on the moon?






This is the selfishness i was referring to.

reply to post by liquidsmoke206


No we don't need both. We don't need population control.

You keep saying Captain Obvious but then in the next breathe you stick your head in the sand . This is the problem with alot of people and this is why Governments get away with so much. People want to blame selfish people for reproduction.

That's just silly.

Again,

At some point people are going to have to stop being useful idiots for the Government. The Government can't run anything and they waste and spend people's wealth.

And now you want to trust them with trying to control the population? That makes no sense. Allowing Governments to do this will just lead to more corruption, more deciet and more lives wasted.

It's obvious why poor countries will grow faster in population. It's not because of selfish people having babies, it's because of despair. It's because some women can only survive in these countries through prostitution. And you have the nerve to blame selfish people when Governments live like kings as the people starve?

Here's an article:

World faces population explosion in poor countries

The world is heading for wildly uneven population swings in the next 45 years, with many rich countries "downsizing" during a period in which almost all developing nations will grow at breakneck speed, according to a comprehensive report by leading US demographers released yesterday.

They predict that at least an extra 1,000 million will be living in the world's poorest African countries by 2050. There will be an extra 120 million more Americans, and India will leapfrog China to become the world's most populous country. One in six people in western Europe will be over the age of 65 by 2050.

It goes on to say:

A dozen countries are forecast to more than double in numbers. They are all politically, socially or environmentally volatile.

Yemen (255%) Palestine (211%) Afghanistan (187%) and Kuwait (182%) have all been involved in armed conflicts. Bhutan (113%) and Nepal (105%) are undergoing great changes.

www.guardian.co.uk...

This is why I mentioned Palestine. It doesn't matter if Arafat is dead, he's a perfect example of the problem.

He got 55 billion and the people of Palestine only saw that money if they blew themselves up. Arafat and his cronies spent the money and then blamed America and Jews for the poor conditions.

At one point Arafat was said to be worth more than Jeff Bezos from Amazon.com yet his people live in hoorible conditions.

In Zimbabwe, Mugabe and his thugs are driving around in fancy cars while 3,000 people die weekly and the mortality rate will reach 35 years of age in 2010.

Here's more:

According to records, AIDS kills 3,000 people a week in Zimbabwe. One million Zimbabweans under 15 years are AIDS orphans. 140,000 children are directly affected. The disease is said to affect one in 10 adults in the country. In comparison, cholera has killed 4,000 people since August. These figures are an indication of how hyped up AIDS and HIV are in comparison to the real killer diseases such as cholera and malaria.

trendsupdates.com...

People like you want these crooks to control populations? Some people are more concerned with their ideology than reality.

The reality is if the billions these countries got in aid actually got to the people it was intended to help, that would alleviate things.

This is why you have a disparity between richer countries and poorer countries. It's because there's an imbalance between education, science and awareness.

It's not about selfish people and that mentality, is frankly sickening to me.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

No we don't need both. We don't need population control.

I just don't understand how you think NEVER implementing a birth control program is realistic? China has already done it. They had to. Who could say that they haven't saved themselves by doing so. This part of your argument is especially troubling for me.....I mean really it's a matter of cause and effect....what do you think will happen if people relentlessly reproduce......?

This is the problem with alot of people and this is why Governments get away with so much. People want to blame selfish people for reproduction.

That's just silly.

People want to blame selfish people for reproduction, because they know thats the reality. Especially, in more industrialized countries. Stop being so paranoid and caught up with what the "government" is up to..what does that even mean? It's so vague...

It's not silly...I asked a girl once why she wanted to have a baby and she said....because she just wanted a little version of herself....that's kind of sickening really....

At some point people are going to have to stop being useful idiots for the Government. The Government can't run anything and they waste and spend people's wealth.

well you're a true rebel without a cause...or clue...not sure...ok, lets get rid of them governments...you lead the charge....

And now you want to trust them with trying to control the population? That makes no sense.

I do? since when? I don't WANT to trust them, but it's only logical to think that people in positions of power are the ones that have a means to curb population growth, in 1 way or another. So yes, they will eventually do SOMETHING to try and control populations, because unlike you, the most powerful people in the world see population growth as a real issue. don't believe me....??? Check the following thread out...
Click me!!!!

It's obvious why poor countries will grow faster in population. It's not because of selfish people having babies, it's because of despair. It's because some women can only survive in these countries through prostitution. And you have the nerve to blame selfish people when Governments live like kings as the people starve?

True. But it's because of selfishness too, especially in places like latin america, and the USA. Many places in asia too. Everywhere most likely....go take a look around...

This is why I mentioned Palestine. It doesn't matter if Arafat is dead, he's a perfect example of the problem.

He got 55 billion and the people of Palestine only saw that money if they blew themselves up. Arafat and his cronies spent the money and then blamed America and Jews for the poor conditions.

At one point Arafat was said to be worth more than Jeff Bezos from Amazon.com yet his people live in hoorible conditions.

In Zimbabwe, Mugabe and his thugs are driving around in fancy cars while 3,000 people die weekly and the mortality rate will reach 35 years of age in 2010.

a buncha jabs at governments, yer posts are riddled with these...look i get that these governments aren't helping the problems. But overpopulation is an issue anyways. think of all the waste we produce..there's a mass of trash in the pacific ocean right now, there are numerous threads about it you can look it up. All that waste isn't coming from the repressed nations you keep referring to, it comes from first world nations. One child in the US will create far more waste than one child in rwanda.

People like you want these crooks to control populations? Some people are more concerned with their ideology than reality.

YOU would be an example of the type of person more concerned with their ideology than reality. In reality, I have never said I want these crooks to control populations...I think they will, but I don't want them too, not until the have to. I'd rather people take control of their own lives and control the population voluntarily......probably won't happen but that is the best solution to the problem, which IS a real problem.

The reality is if the billions these countries got in aid actually got to the people it was intended to help, that would alleviate things.

no argument here, but that only handles a handful of countries...

This is why you have a disparity between richer countries and poorer countries. It's because there's an imbalance between education, science and awareness.

ah captain obvious, knew you'd show up in this thread somewhere....

It's not about selfish people and that mentality, is frankly sickening to me.

so people who see selfishness as a problem sicken you?
you're saying you're pro selfishness then?

hmmmmm