The Overpopulation Myth, The Underpopulation Crisis

reply to post by CHA0S


Another thing Chaos, do you think that if we found a way of developing clean free energy that it would help the problem or make it worse?

The only reason man is detrimental to the world is bad management
The very same people who are truly guilty of the bad management want to kill of the victims of this bad management
This is "eugenics"
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, were eugenisists who claimed to have learned it from the Brits and the Yanks.
Reducing population purposefully is not about doing the right thing for the planet, its about hogging the goodstuff by some muderous fiends who are already responsible for 400 million murdered in the last couple hundred years
A truly, lovely bunch of coconuts.
I say if you think the world needs to be depopulated
You are right, to a very small extent.
Now do the world a favour and
YOU GO FIRST!
have a nice day, hopefully it will be your last,



edit for FandS
edit for PS putting it in favorites so I can swat bugs with it later


[edit on 17-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by snowen20


Firstly, I'm extremely sorry if I made you look like a jackass in any way, i didn't really intend to, I just have a certain opinion on this subject, and I will share it when the occasion is fitting. I think I'll be off now anyway.

Seriously though, do you have any suggestions that might at the very least begin to improve the issue? I would like to know because honestly all i have ever heard from people is death warrants.

Death is only the answer if you need to reduce the population...in order to stabilize the numbers there are ways that could work...all it takes is for people limit how many, if any, kids they have to a reasonable number. I'd make it 2 maximum personally. People need no more than that, that's enough for anyway, any more is just unnecessary and inconsiderate. (sorry to those of u with more than 2 kids, but hey)

[edit on 17/8/10 by CHA0S]

Originally posted by CHA0S
...if everyone were to spread out and try to live off the land it just wouldn't work, we'd have to reverse our advancement and go back to a more primitive way of life...which obviously wont be acceptable to many people who think as an intelligent and self aware species our destiny is to advance and progress technologically and spiritually...

An assumption. I dont think anyone would look at people like Les Stroud or Ed Begley and call them backwards neanderthals for being off-grid and independent.

I personally experienced a great recession in mind and soul when I lived in a city. I became hateful, didnt trust anyone, avoided social interaction, and actually began sliding in with a certain group ideology that until then would never had appealed to me.

It wasnt until I escaped that I came back to happiness and enjoyed living again.

This concern of yours is irrational and unfounded. For every person who thrives in some gray concrete cell there is a person dying.

Besides, the availability of certain resources or the difficulty in procuring them serves as a natural method to stabilize population. The modern city shipping in food from half way around the world and water from sources hundreds of miles away takes away natures influence.

I find it amusing when people cry for population control yet praise the modern urban dependent lifestyle which is the number one reason for the issue they so loathe.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by thisguyrighthere]

S & F from me. I've mentioned these very things on other threads, the "fertility crisis" being perhaps the most compelling, and yet, the depopulation mongers are so completely indoctrinated, they simply can't bear it.

No, they don't bring much to the table, other than the usual. They look outside their windows, from their dark hovels, onto whatever nightmarish cityscape they endure, and extrapolate their little worlds to the whole. Sadly, where they may live may also be a rather good reflection of the state of their minds as well.

I especially like the choice of the term "underpopulation" in the title! This is sure to get the programmed hoards running to the thread. Soon, you will see the usual suspects show up to "defend" some of the many "noble" things they have been taught by our masters. Such as...

• People are vermin / virus, etc.
  
  The planet can only handle "x" number of this vermin (fill in number from 50 million, to maybe 3 billion max)
  
  The darker the human, the more they reproduce
  
  Overpopulation is the BIGGEST crisis ever! (Sorry Global Warmers, you may have to wait until they kill off a few billion of us first...)
  
  We will never get to our Star Trek Utopia with all these people! (A good solid whine in the vocalization is apropos here.)
  
  
• 
  

Last thing I should comment on. This thread is in exactly the place it should be, that is, NWO. You may get those who feel this is merely about "science", and they can trot out whatever Massa has fed them quite easily. But it's much more about what we have come to believe, and the fact is, "most" probably feel that there is such a problem as "overpopulation".

We need to seriously consider how exactly we have come to believe these things. I applaude the OP in actually going to the trouble of providing YouTube clips, and yet, if I was to judge by a few of these early comments, we've already got the "yes Massa" folks here, who never even took a peek at what you had to offer. Ridiculous.

Good luck on this thread, and let the fireworks begin!

JR

reply to post by snowen20

Another thing Chaos, do you think that if we found a way of developing clean free energy that it would help the problem or make it worse?

Well, that is a good question I haven't actually considered. It's hard to say really...it would probably be for the better because the amount of damage done to this planet due to power production and consumption is huge...

An excellent post. Excellent data ... and it is true. Articles and reports have been mentioning this phenomena (quietly) for decades. I remember reading an article 10-15 years ago about the dramatic crisis in Italy (and much of Europe) where the birthrate was approaching (or was at) less than 2.0 births per couple. This, of course, results in a net loss of population. When two people conceive, they need to produce two children to replace themselves just to maintain the population. When this falls below, there can be a net loss. Obviously, some people have many children, there is immigration and changes in the health and longevity of the population, but overall every person must be replaced just to maintain a stagnant population. In Italy (and many other countries, especially in Europe) this was/is not happening.

As underdeveloped countries develop and women have access to information and resources related to health and pregnancy, children are born healthier and live longer lives. But this also includes pregnancy planning, birth control and changing attitudes about the number of children someone elects to have ... or whether to have children at all. A woman with limited resources, living in a country with limited resources, who has access to information and options may elect to have fewer children or no children. Burgeoning population growth in China, India, Indonesia, Africa and much of South America seems to have plummeted or will in the near future.

Sweden, Poland, Italy and France, among many other countries, now offer various incentives including direct financial compensation for the conception, pregnancy and birth of children.

[edit on Aug 17, 2010 by Hadrian]

[edit on Aug 17, 2010 by Hadrian]

Originally posted by CHA0S
What...so [url=http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html] I see the vast majority is starving and/or homeless...why don't you look up the numbers on that...
[edit on 17/8/10 by CHA0S]

The vast majority? I don't have a specific definition of that so how about a simple majority. That would be what? 3.15 billion. 50+%

Can you show me documentation that more than 3 billion people are starving and homeless.

Just curious.

Originally posted by aliengenes
you could put every man woman and child from every country in the world in Texas, and give them all one acre of land,and they still wouldn't overpopulate the state. thats how many people there are.

overpopulation of the planet is impossible at the rate we die

Overpopulation question aside, at least get the math right before quoting, eh?

kilometres squared in texas = 696241
1 kilometre squared = 247.105381
696241 x 247.105381 = 1720448976
1,720,448,976 acres in texas

I detect an interesting point developing here.

I was taught in school way back in the day that people formerly had many children because the odds of survival were far less than today. in that case I can see where having fewer children may be beneficial to society.

there seems to be a hang up here though. One could argue that with our current technological advancements and medical abilities the average lifespan can be longer than that of people in previous eras and like wise survivability is also increased.

But it seems that with the increase in technology and the advancements being made in medicine that it is also detrimental to the human species insomuch that as we develop so do more cancerous diseases and viral infections. Moreover our food is not as healthy and our lifestyles are equally unhealthy.

So the very fact that we are advancing technologically would seem to indicate that in the future we will naturally be dying off again and our survival rate will plummet. That to me seems to express the idea of natural stabilization.

Well maybe if the chickens understood how to live in the enviroment without destroying it, it would all be ok.

Just because humans have had a devestating effect on nature doesn't mean that this is the only possibility. Learning how to live in harmony with the earth would be crucial to acheiving a succesful high population!

There are countless examples of ways to do this, if you hadn't noticed theres a bit of a craze about being eco-friendly ATM.

I don't see whats wrong or misleading about the figures presented in the OP.

What has happened is exactly what I expected - the majority of posters have jumped on the 'overpopulation' theory and completely ignored the Underpopulation crisis.

Thankfully some of you have seen what the real issue here is

The main point of this thread was not really a discussion of overpopulation (although I knew it was inevitable and I don't discourage it at all) it was concerned with fertility problems faced by the world.

While the elites push their 'overpopulation' agenda - convincing the masses that overpopulation is our biggest threat in the coming years. There are too many people. It is destroying our environment. Sterilisation. Etc...

The reality is that governments are actually pleading for (and offering incentives too) families who have more than one or two children.

Classic doublethink.

Thanks to everyone who has posted so far

reply to post by badgerprints


Poverty facts and stats. An exert:

Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.

---

At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.

---

Number of children in the world
2.2 billion
Number in poverty
1 billion (every second child)

---

The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income.Source

---

Water problems affect half of humanity:

* Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation.
* Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day.
* More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day.

The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of global household wealth
The richest one per cent of the world's population owns 40 per cent of the total household wealth, while the bottom half of the world makes do with barely one per cent

[edit on 17/8/10 by CHA0S]

Excellent post - facts that are only being argued with by people saying things like "I "BELIEVE." Good for you - some people believe in Gods and you believe in over population. Apparently it is a matter not of science but faith.

And I utterly agree Danbones. The problem with the population on this planet is solved - in any area where women control their own fertility there is no population problem.

The problem that exists on this planet with the population is bad and corrupt managment.

People living on the most fertile lands on this planet are STARVING.

That's not overpopulation. That's just #ing stupid.

[edit on 2010/8/17 by Aeons]

reply to post by LiveForever8


The concept of sterilization to limit population is one that I find offensive if only because it is unnatural.

I wrote A thread on this I guess in 2008 called when is eugenics the answer which asked similar questions about government getting involved in sterilizing via misdirection, and or incentives.

An agenda that sickens me. The real problem then isn't just the population but as the video shows corrupt powers.

reply to post by CHA0S


I know this was not addressed to me, but out of curiosity what are you saying here?

I don't see how income has anything to do with population problems per se.
Unless it is saying that the majority of the poor are those living in undeveloped nations with inadequate resources.

That being a response to the resource management post earlier.



[edit on 17-8-2010 by snowen20]

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by badgerprints

 

The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of global household wealth
The richest one per cent of the world's population owns 40 per cent of the total household wealth, while the bottom half of the world makes do with barely one per cent

[edit on 17/8/10 by CHA0S]

And the numbers don't change with the total amount of the population.

In any feudal system (which nations are on grand scale) this same wealth disparity exists.

In middle age Europe, this was the breakdown.

But in the micro-cosm of nations, you can see solutions.

There are nations where this disparity is not found in this extreme. In most of the microcosms, this disparity is the same basic proportion.

The ones that have this disparity are the most common. The macrocosm mimics the microcosms of the majority of nations.

If the bad microcosms were REPLACED (le gasp!) with systems proven to work and proven to foster a more equitable set of opportunities, the macrosom would shift and start to show the same proportions.

Let me sum that up.

Stop letting the stupid, corrupt, brutal, unethical, elitist mofos run all the countries and claim that the retarded bs they promote is "cultural."

Dancing, song, literature, story, familial traditions, common holidays, these things are culture. Brutal corruption and violence is NOT culture. And I am DAMN tired of people using it to cover the butts of the people retarding 3/4 of this planet's populations.

Oh, and most of those people aren't the "evil American" or Western governments. It is their own damn people, and has been since the beginning of time. That some more prosperous people from the outside have used the channels available to make inroads into those countries for profit doesnt' make them the cause. No matter how many times people say it.

[edit on 2010/8/17 by Aeons]

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by badgerprints

 

The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of global household wealth
The richest one per cent of the world's population owns 40 per cent of the total household wealth, while the bottom half of the world makes do with barely one per cent

[edit on 17/8/10 by CHA0S]

And the numbers don't change with the total amount of the population.

In any feudal system (which nations are on grand scale) this same wealth disparity exists.

In middle age Europe, this was the breakdown.

But in the micro-cosm of nations, you can see solutions.

There are nations where this disparity is not found in this extreme. In most of the microcosms, this disparity is the same basic proportion.

The ones that have this disparity are the most common. The macrocosm mimics the microcosms of the majority of nations.

If the bad microcosms were REPLACED (le gasp!) with systems proven to work and proven to foster a more equitable set of opportunities, the macrosom would shift and start to show the same proportions.

Let me sum that up.

Stop letting the stupid, corrupt, brutal, unethical, elitist mofos run all the countries and claim that the retarded bs they promote is "cultural."

Dancing, song, literature, story, familial traditions, common holidays, these things are culture. Brutal corruption and violence is NOT culture. And I am DAMN tired of people using it to cover the butts of the people retarding 3/4 of this planet's populations.

Oh, and most of those people aren't the "evil American" or Western governments. It is their own damn people, and has been since the beginning of time. That some more prosperous people from the outside have used the channels available to make inroads into those countries for profit doesnt' make them the cause. No matter how many times people say it.

[edit on 2010/8/17 by Aeons]

Don't hold back tell us how you really feel!
That's a post that truly cuts to the heart of the matter, NO BS-ING

reply to post by snowen20

unless it is saying that the majority of the poor are those living in undeveloped nations with inadequate resources.

Yes...the basic point I'm making...is that "there's not enough to go around"...well there is, but people don't like sharing...the problem is a combination of too much inequality and too many people...as I said, money alone will not fix everything, it takes actual manual planning and effort on our part, you can't just throw money at the problem, sure we could give everyone money, but that raises the same concern as with free energy, but without the benefits.

I have thought about this before. It's not really about how many of us there are, it's about our footprint.

Years ago, before the industrial revolution, the average human left a pretty small foot print -- essentially just the few acres of land they lived and directly interacted with.

Now, the average urban human leave a foot print (albeit faint) on an area of land the size of a small town.

Personally I find the sudden and astronomical growth in human population to be a bit disturbing. We are not very good wardens for our planet. It's not so much about whether there are too many of us to stay alive, it's about whether we are forgetting our place in the ecosystem.

We are the only Apex predator on the planet, that I can think of, that out numbers its prey to the point that we have to encourage our prey to grow new babies so that we can kill and eat it. (believe me, I am as much a meat eater as the next guy, so this is not a veggie rant)

I have long sensed that we have grown too fast. We figure out new science and almost immediately turn it into new tech for the purposes of making money. In general, philosophy and balance have died in this world. We no longer have any great thinkers that are respected and admired. Wisdom has fallen before beauty and gluttony.


[edit on 8-17-2010 by rogerstigers]