Overpopulation is a scam

Does anybody remember the website that explains the entire earth's population could fit into any one of the US States? And everyone would have about a apartment sized living area.

That is stupid because there would not be enough water, driving would be impossible, including delivering supplies, and who the hell wants to live jammed between billions of people anyways?

Why don't you birth nazis go live in India or China were it's already hell instead of trying to destroy our country?

Hmm, let's look at some numbers...

Earth: 70% water, 30% landmass

Of that landmass:

3% is occupied by people
34% is too mountainous, too cold, too desert
13% is used for agriculture
28% is used for pasture/grazing


Leaving us with approximately 22% left of potential livable and/or arable land for human use.

So we have 40% of landmass being used up right now to feed the 3%. How much landmass will be needed to feed 4%, 5%, 8% ?

And what about all of the other non-human inhabitants of the planet ? Or are they not allowed any space for themselves ?

The OP's argument fails right from the get go.

Originally posted by mkultracanuck
Does anybody remember the website that explains the entire earth's population could fit into any one of the US States? And everyone would have about a apartment sized living area.

found it: www.overpopulationmyth.com...

Equally divided 6.5B people could have 4 bed room house in Alaska!

Originally posted by Snoopy1978
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

The rainforest is not being destroyed just to plant bananas, coffee or whatever. The war on drugs takes a heavy toll on the rainforest. Between the narcotraffickers cutting trees for coca plant space to the secret planes spraying agent orange type garbage over vast areas. Paper is a huge drain also. I read years ago about the thousands of football fields worth of trees needed to be cut for a Sunday edition of a major US newspaper.

Anyhow, if a fraction of the US and, to be fair, world military budgets were used not only to make the world's uninhabited areas fertile but to decentralize cities and build new housing and industries in these new localities, the consumerism issue would be taken care of. Strict anti-pollution technologies and regulations would be strictly enforced. Depleted uranium, nuclear power, fracking, off shore and artic drilling banned. Solar, wind and repressed techs would be great for fuel. Hemp would replace trees for a myriad of necessities.

All of this is, of course, a type of idyllic utopia in the sad state of affairs humanity is in currently. Greed for massive profits over the sake of humanity and the ecology is what brought us to this false sense of overpopulation doom. While people only care for their own short sighted personal gain over the happiness and continuation of humanity as a whole we are severely screwed. As King Louis XV said, "After me the deluge". THAT is the mentality that will end us all. Don't believe me? Go to any of the global warming deniall threads on ats and read post after post by oil industry sycophants throwing care to the winds.

Would have starred this excellent post until the last sentence which throws it all away. What a shame!

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Hmm, let's look at some numbers...

Earth: 70% water, 30% landmass

Of that landmass:

3% is occupied by people
34% is too mountainous, too cold, too desert
13% is used for agriculture
28% is used for pasture/grazing


Leaving us with approximately 22% left of potential livable and/or arable land for human use.

So we have 40% of landmass being used up right now to feed the 3%. How much landmass will be needed to feed 4%, 5%, 8% ?

And what about all of the other non-human inhabitants of the planet ? Or are they not allowed any space for themselves ?

The OP's argument fails right from the get go.

edit on 4-2-2012 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)

The only post in the entire thread that even attempted (although not very well) to place some facts into the discussion.

How about vertical organic farming for increasing yield per m2?
What about instigating all the tech and knowledge we have (and have had for almost a century) regarding correct water usage and transportation?
Someone mentioned hemp as an alternative resource to trees, but what about it's hundreds of uses as nutrition, plastics, oils and clothing fibre?

This thread is really disappointing, has no-one studied this topic more than a couple of soundbytes?

Where is Ameratasu when you need her?

Here are a couple quotes from Amy I found:

As for food…

1. Organics produce higher yields as a rule (and better nutrition)
2. Today, supermarkets throw out hundreds of thousands of TONS of food a MONTH (because We distribute by profit and not need)
3. We are paying corporate "farmers" to NOT produce anything
4. Many places on the planet could easily be farmed but are not because energy access is unavailable
5. With new techniques such as vertical farming, We can produce even more on any land We use for farming
6. Rooftops can be used for farming

The assertion that this planet has plenty comes from the fact that if each individual was
given ¼ acre of land in Australia, there would still be a good chunk of Australia left over.
And I thought, well, sure, not every ¼ acre is good to support a human off of – though a
great many are – but then there’s the whole rest of the world.

Originally posted by mkultracanuck

Originally posted by mkultracanuck
Does anybody remember the website that explains the entire earth's population could fit into any one of the US States? And everyone would have about a apartment sized living area.

found it: www.overpopulationmyth.com...

Equally divided 6.5B people could have 4 bed room house in Alaska!

And that website is a catastrophe!
Using stats like that (everyone fits into a space the size of Rhode Island) is simply opening the conversation for ridicule as is apparent in the thread.
A sensible conversation about land mass needed for agriculture and resource mining would be IMO worth having.
Anyone got any info that is a bit more thought through?

reply to post by nixie_nox

7 billion people wouldn't fill Texas

Well its good that the world is bigger than Texas, isn't it?

The problem is distribution, not overpopulation. Do you guys have any idea how much food is thrown out every year? How much money some oil-tycoons make?

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

7 billion people wouldn't fill Texas

Well its good that the world is bigger than Texas, isn't it?

The problem is distribution, not overpopulation. Do you guys have any idea how much food is thrown out every year? How much money some oil-tycoons make?

Do you? Can you tell us please? Thanks

reply to post by RogerT


7.2 million tonnes every year in the UK.

34 million tonnes every year in the US.

Google magic

reply to post by InfoKartel


But its not enough food.

Overpopulation is a myth just like the easter bunny,US democratic elections, or peter pan.

I think this thread is lacking a definition of overpopulation or an explanation of the consequences of orgiastic reproduction. Overpopulation occurs when the needs of humanity surpass the Earth's ability to provide.
1 person in their lifetime consumes vast amounts of resources from utilities like water and gas to luxuries. In our current economic system the Earth is splitting at the seams.Our reliance on fossil fuels the casual waste of mountains of food the way we slash and burn our way through forests and the list goes on. What's required is quite simple and all the theorising and postulating has been done. Sustainable development.
Building farms vertically using subterranean space;recycling everything;constructing huge solar farms across thousands of acres alongside other renewable energy sources. How about liberating the Africans from their own despots and giving them the tools to make Africa into the world center for renewable energy. Imagine how much energy could be harnessed with solar panels studded across the equator.
Overpopulation isnt a myth its justification for an economic system which panders to the insatiable appetites of the .1%.

You can view real examples that overpopulation is not a scam, view how in Africa people lives, there is almost no water and no food in that place, also look at China only a few percent of people lives with luxury, the other 95% or more is very poor.

Look at Mexico right now they are having big issues because there is no rain, how do poor people eat if they can't plant food? The cattle is dying because there is no food or water to drink.

Also look at how companies require less people to do any type of job, computers and robots are replacing thousands of people in factories, and this is going to get worse with computers and robots having artificial intelligence.

The world with a lot less people would be a paradise, more people without jobs translate in more big issues, people that don't have a job do bad things like stealing, kidnapping, drug traffics, etc, etc, etc.

In this world people and infraestructure like water, lighting, etc, is located in big cities, that is why there is a big ammount of people in cities, this causes more issues and more problems.

More people needs more energy, they create more pollution, they kill more animals.

It is easy to say this is a scam because you have money and live in a nice place, go and travel to China, India, Africa, Mexico, and thousands of other countries that are in big problems because overpopulation.

reply to post by nixie_nox


What this chap said. Though I do think what that most of the overpopulation bull the media shoves down our throats is sensationalisms. You know doom sayer stuff to tune into to make us feel "informed" like a good amount of a site I know...

However, I do think its a problem but a temporary problem. Most of western civilization is going through a sort of 2nd industrial revolution at this point(And others), and as soon as machines replace people in the factory its going to be a game changer. All I know is that technology is headed that way, like it or not. Another thing is from studying history is that change and forward movement has proven to be a good thing in the long run.

But I'm not Nostradamus, I'm just calling it like I see it. If it turns out that the cycle breaks, and something horrible happens or the human race just ends up being a footnote then it will be what it will be.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Its not about the space occupied by the human population, its about the resources humans are consuming and believe me, its a lot more than the planet can give. But this could be easily combated if we recycled more and if we started using other sources of energy.

Oh and if people whould become more educated so that they whould stop destroying nature.

If we don't do that, my bet is that in about 5000 years we humans will be gone.

reply to post by Snoopy1978


Go try to start a garden on the Siberian tundra. Let me know how it goes.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


That is all that you can come up with?

What your figure most likely doesn't include is, because developed only applies to roads and buildings:

cropland
range and farmland
"managed forests" which is a term used by the NPS to lease forests to loggers
wetlands and deserts

When you factor in those, the number drops to around 35%

Here is a sobering fact for you, everyone knows about Little House on the Prairie. That prairie she mentions that covered the bread basket? only 1% of it remains today.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Are we talking room or food. I think your crossing your wires.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

Are we talking room or food. I think your crossing your wires.

With our current technology level we can free up more space to live.

Even in those "unliveable" areas.

Overpopulation is fake and a scam. I am sorry.

What if we spent billions to build several aquatic floating city-states? Does that just blow your argument into piece? Like the fake global warming argument.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

With our current technology level we can free up more space to live. Even in those "unliveable" areas.

Repeat after me: "Overpopulation is not about space." .... "Overpopulation is not about space." .... "Overpopulation is not about space."

Overpopulation is about all the resources and our ability to utilise them. Modern technological society requires vast amounts of various resources. Do we (in the present, science fictions visions need not apply) have the necessary resources and also the ability to utilise them to sustainably sustain 7+ billion people at high living standard?

What if we spent billions to build several aquatic floating city-states?

Who is going to pay for it? And why, we have enough space.