PDA

View Full Version : The overpopulation myth MYTH




donnay
03-15-2013, 09:05 AM
The overpopulation myth MYTH

Friday, March 15, 2013
by Mike Adams (http://www.naturalnews.com/039490_overpopulation_myth_ecological_footprint_po pulation_collapse.html), the Health Ranger

I keep hearing, even among some in the alternative media, that the overpopulation of humans on our planet is a myth because "all the people in the world could fit in the state of Texas."

Sure they can, but then where would they pee?

This is not an idle question. The argument that the world isn't overpopulated merely because they could theoretically all be squeezed into one large land mass is an utterly fallacious argument, and I need to urge my friends in the alternative media to stop making this argument because it doesn't fly.

The question of overpopulation is not -- and has never been -- how many humans the planet can physically hold in terms of cubic meters and physical volume. The question is how many humans the biosphere can support in terms of sustainable life.

This isn't a complicated thing to understand: Your physical body could fit in a box that's 24 x 24 x 80 inches. It's called a coffin. But your biological needs require a far larger footprint on the planet. You need water, for starters. Where does it come from? I guarantee you use far more water each day than falls on a 24" x 24" piece of land. The water needs of a single person vastly outpace the physical space that person occupies. The entire population of Los Angeles, for example, needs literally thousands of square miles of water basin space to capture all the water that's pumped into their artificial city.

You need food. Where does the food come from? Vast tracts of land that need sunshine, water and soil. It's not hard to imagine that the food needs of a single person on our planet probably exceed one thousand square meters of land. If we really squeezed the entire global population (http://www.naturalnews.com/population.html) into the state of Texas, where would they grow their food?

You produce biological waste. Where does all your waste go? Processing that waste and "recycling" it back into the ecosystem requires huge amounts of land space. Nature needs a large, functioning ecosystem to dilute, process and transform the waste products of humanity, and in fact nature isn't even keeping up.

All told, the amount of land space required to support one human life is immensely larger than the amount of physical space occupied by one human body. This is classically called the "ecological footprint" of a human being. It's not a conspiracy theory and it's not something fabricated by Al Gore: We really do need a LOT of space to meet the demands of food, water, energy, resources, waste processing and so on.

Thus, the argument that "the entire population of the world could fit inside the state of Texas" is complete nonsense. You can fit a dozen people in a phone booth, but if you leave them in there for too long, they will die. If you cut off Los Angeles from the rest of the world, it will die. If you cut off New York City from the rest of the country, it will die. To support life, people need far more land mass on the planet than their physical bodies occupy.

"Carrying capacity" is a real concept

The Earth obviously has a finite amount of any given resource. The water volume is finite (but reusable if cleaned by nature). Oxygen production is finite. The amount of sunlight radiation reaching the surface of the planet is finite. Soil is finite. Rare earth minerals are finite. Oil is finite at any given moment in time, even if the Earth does produce more oil over long periods of time.

Given that all these things are finite -- and therefore not unlimited -- the global population that depends on these things for sustenance must obviously be finite as well. Anyone who argues that the human (http://www.naturalnews.com/human.html) population can be "unlimited" even while depending on finite resources is being ridiculous.

Clearly, by all foundations of logic, there is a limited "carrying capacity" of the planet, meaning there is a finite number of human beings who can be supported by the biosphere.

It's not rocket science to realize this, yet I still hear people arguing that overpopulation is a "myth" because the Earth has no limits. That's absurd. Of course the Earth has limits. If the Earth had no limits, it would be larger than the solar system, larger than the Milky Way, and larger than the entire galaxy. Because infinite is greater than any integer. If you give me a really, really large number, like 1.2 to the power of 10 to the power of one trillion, infinity is still larger than that. So to argue that the Earth's resources are "infinite" is to admit you are mathematically retarded.

The real question is this: Have we already exceeded the carrying capacity of this planet with finite resources, or is it still far off?

Those who say overpopulation is a myth insist that the current human population -- over 7 billion people -- is nowhere near the carrying capacity of the planet and that we can continue to double our population every few decades for the foreseeable future. If that were true, then the current population would need to be living in harmony with the planet, with an excess buffer of fresh water, food (http://www.naturalnews.com/food.html), topsoil, ocean life, watershed areas and so on.

And yet, when I look around I do not see a civilization living in harmony with the ecosystem. In fact, I see a civilization living on borrowed time, having already vastly exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet to the point where a population collapse is inevitable.

Human civilization is living on borrowed time

What are the signs that we are living on borrowed time? Let me name just a few:

• In America, India and China, underground water aquifers that produce the food that feeds the population is plummeting rapidly. Many aquifers will be dry by 2040, including the Ogallala Aquifer (http://www.naturalnews.com/031658_aquifer_depletion_Ogallala.html) that stretches from Texas to South Dakota and provides irrigation for the breadbasket agricultural hub of America.

• The pollution produced by the current population is murdering every ecosystem imaginable. Oceans are dying, coral reefs are dying, rivers are dying and rainforests are dying. (http://www.naturalnews.com/023579_fish_fishing_ecosystems.html) If the human population were small compared to the total carrying capacity, we shouldn't see the natural ecosystems dying all around us.

• Soils are disappearing across the world's agricultural centers. (http://www.naturalnews.com/029176_topsoil_food_production.html) We are losing topsoil at a record pace around the world, and once those top soils are gone, food production yields plummet. (You can't feed the world by growing food in sand.)

• Humanity's voracious appetite for energy has led to the global proliferation of "Earth-killing" technologies such as nuclear power plants. The Fukushima disaster proved that demand for power has caused energy industries to risk the viability of human life across the planet in order to produce more power for humanity's artificial cities.

• Hydrocarbons continue to drive the world economy, yet there's very good evidence that oil supplies in the Middle East are drying up (production is falling). While the planet can produce more hydrocarbons over millions of years, it cannot double its oil supply in a few decades. Thus, the demand for oil vastly outstrips the ability of the planet to produce it.

• Look at the outrageous crowding in cities like New York and Los Angeles. The highways exist in a seemingly endless logjam, and there's hardly a public open space left remaining anywhere in these cities, with New York's Central Park being the rare exception. Housing shortages and housing building materials shortages (wood, concrete, steel) are all very, very real. This is why building homes has become ridiculously expensive over the last few years. China is buying concrete and steel from the USA and shipping it overseas on large sea freighters.

• The depletion of ocean fisheries is also very real. As the human population over-fishes the oceans in search of food, ocean life is experiencing an unprecedented die-off. Many species have plummeted to "red alert" levels due to over-fishing.

I could go on, but the point is that when I look around, I do not see a world functioning with excess capacity. I see a world that seems to be over-tapped, over-exploited, over-farmed and over-populated. Nearly every river that empties into the oceans creates a massive "dead zone" of chemicals, heavy metals and pharmaceutical runoff. Chemical contamination has become so alarmingly bad that every person reading this carries 250+ synthetic chemicals in their bodies that don't belong there. Autism is skyrocketing, cancer is striking younger and younger children, and the food is increasingly tainted with pollutants caused by humankind.

This is not the description of a planet with excess carrying capacity. This is a description of a planet that is DYING.

Another fallacious argument about the overpopulation myth

Yet another poorly-conceived argument used by the "overpopulation myth" supporters goes like this:

The world isn't overpopulated because populations are actually falling in many developed nations like Japan.

Yes, that's the entire logic of the argument. But the logic forgets to take into account that populations are falling in selected areas precisely because they are already overpopulated there.

Tokyo, by any stretch of the imagination, is wildly overpopulated. The population of Tokyo, in fact, has vastly exceeded the carrying capacity of the entire island nation of Japan, requiring vast inputs of resources and food from other land masses around the globe. If Japan halted all imports, the population of Tokyo would starve to death in a matter of weeks.

The primary reason why Japan's population is in decline is because intelligent young Japanese couples look around and see skyrocketing costs for housing (caused by overpopulation), skyrocketing costs to feed a new baby (caused by overpopulation), skyrocketing costs for home construction, clothing, education and other things... all caused by overpopulation (i.e. too many people and not enough resources or open space).

The decline in Japan's population is a classic example of a self-regulating population that sees the overcrowding (and all the economic penalties which accompany it) and make a conscious decision to not reproduce.

Yet, somehow, the overpopulation myth (http://www.naturalnews.com/overpopulation_myth.html) people say Japan's declining population is proof that it's not overpopulated!

Wow, that's the complete opposite of reality.

But beware of population control eugenicists

All this does not mean, by the way, that I support the globalist population control agenda. Governments and global controllers are seizing upon the overpopulation problem and using it to justify mass murder.

The population control agenda is being run right now, right under your nose, through programs like toxic vaccines, free abortions, geoengineering pollution (chemtrails) and GMOs. The point of all this is to collapse the human population and get it "closer to zero," as Bill Gates often explains.

People like Gates and Ted Turner openly admit they are pursuing population control measures, but they call it safe-sounding things like "reproductive health." In no way do I support their death agendas for the human race, and I do not support their contention that the global population should be reduced by 90% or so (depending on who you ask). Ted Turner wants the population to be no more than 1 billion people. That means somehow six billion people have to die.

So how do we solve this problem? Well, frankly, we don't. Because we're such an infantile race of stupid creatures just barely more intelligent than apes, we are going to ride this crazy train of idiocy right into the ground. We are going to burn out this planet, kill the ecosystem, poison the waters and taint the skies. And most of the population is going to giggle all the way to their own graves as they perish from the very same systems of self-destruction they voted for at the polling booths.

From a galactic perspective, humankind wears the "dunce" hat. In fact, we are probably referred to by other intelligent civilizations as the "radioactive hominids" because we are stupid enough to detonate hundreds of nuclear weapons on our own planet, followed by building hundreds more nuclear power facilities, all of which are extremely vulnerable to a solar flare event that could kill virtually all human life on the planet.

I predict the human race will destroy itself and collapse back to a tiny population of ragged survivors. Even beyond that, I say this has likely already happened at a smaller scale. We are not the first civilization to rise and fall on this planet, nor will we be its last. Our planet is full of evidence of lost civilizations that were once great yet perished into oblivion. There is convincing evidence that an atomic blast happened in the Middle East thousands of years ago. There is also evidence that ancient civilizations possessed highly advanced technologies that have since been lost. (A full discussion of this is covered in Jim Marrs' new book, Our Occulted History. (http://www.amazon.com/Our-Occulted-History-Conceal-Ancient/dp/0062130315))

We modern humans stomp around the planet with a twisted sense of arrogance intertwined with obliviousness, having no idea what destroyed previous civilizations on our planet yet somehow believing we are immune to such outcomes. We believe we are "superior" but can't answer the question, "Superior at what?" Making nuclear bombs? Manufacturing synthetic pesticides? Creating genetic monstrosities that dot the agricultural landscape?

This is not progress, and it's not sustainable life on a planet. Unless we change very soon, we will destroy ourselves and render the overpopulation problem moot. Before long, no one will even be left alive to care that there even existed an evil creature named "Bill Gates." It matters not one inkling in the timescale of our planet's existence.

When future archeologists dig up our modern-day cities to study humanity's dark past, they will find mercury, plastic bags, pill bottles, toxic electronics and fragments of human bone giving off curiously high levels of radiation. They will wonder what calamity struck the human race and caused the collapse of global civilization, and they will likely rise up out of the ashes to make the same mistakes we are making.

Humanity is a race of short-term thinkers, and short-term thinkers have no real future on any planet. From a sufficiently distant perspective, our entire civilization looks like little more than a colony of hungry bacteria spreading across the surface of a petri dish until nothing is left to eat and the entire system collapses. Don't kid yourself: We are not as smart as you've been led to believe. If we were, then why would we poison our own food, water, soils, skies, infants, oceans, crops and planet?

thoughtomator
03-15-2013, 09:09 AM
The Fukushima disaster proved that demand for power has caused energy industries to risk the viability of human life across the planet in order to produce more power for humanity's artificial cities.

This sentence is not quite correct. It is not the demand for power that caused Fukushima but the demand for weaponizable plutonium, as the method they use is not the only method for producing nuclear power, just the only one with plutonium as a by-product.

If we're going to solve capacity issues, finding a cheap source of abundant energy is at the top of the "to-do" list, and categorically discarding the use of nuclear power makes the problem essentially unsolvable with today's technologies.

RickyJ
03-15-2013, 09:12 AM
I keep hearing, even among some in the alternative media, that the overpopulation of humans on our planet is a myth because "all the people in the world could fit in the state of Texas."

Sure they can, but then where would they pee?

In Arkansas. :D

The world is not overpopulated, God doesn't make mistakes like that, and he made everyone alive today or they wouldn't be here. If you think it is not his will, then you must think we humans have that power over the creation of human life, I can assure you we do not. At any moment God could stop any new human life from being created, he gives life, we don't.

BAllen
03-15-2013, 09:13 AM
And the churches keep feeding third worlders, which makes the problem worse, not better. It swells a population that cannot sustain itself.

erowe1
03-15-2013, 09:17 AM
After all that condescension about how easy the math is, I couldn't find where in the article the author actually calculates how much land each person needs. I'm guessing the reason for that is that if they did, it would show that the world is nowhere near overpopulated.

The Gold Standard
03-15-2013, 09:17 AM
Free people left to their own devices could desalinate ocean water affordably and grow food inside buildings and generate power more efficiently and put off this debate for thousands of years. Unfortunately, government control of resources dramatically reduces how far they will stretch.

RickyJ
03-15-2013, 09:21 AM
And the churches keep feeding third worlders, which makes the problem worse, not better. It swells a population that cannot sustain itself.

Yeah feeding people is a problem, I will remember that when I see you by the road with a sign saying homeless and hungry. :rolleyes:

Icymudpuppy
03-15-2013, 09:22 AM
I am a wildlife biologist. I see in real time the effects of population cycles among rodents and other small mammals. From crash, to growth, to overpopulation, and back to crash. It happens about every 7 years in Rats, and is fascinating to watch. At the peak population when there is no longer enough food to support the population, three effects take place: The animals begin agressively competing for resources to the point even of killing and eating members of their own species, and pitting family groups against one another (War). The animals begin to suffer from lack of food and nutrition becoming gaunt and weak (famine). The animals, in their weakened state and in cramped living conditions, find diseases rampant and epidemic ravishing through their populations (pestilence). Finally, there is death of between 10-90% of the population (die off percentage has many variables and is hard to predict ahead of time. A particularly hard winter or draught typically increases the die-off percentage).

From my perspective, the prophecy of Revelations looks like a competent naturalist who has also witnessed wild animal cycles making a prediction of what wide-scale global human overpopulation will look like. I could make the same prediction. It's hard to know when that time will come as human technology advances agriculture, water collection, and sanitary capabilities, but sooner or later our growth will exceed our tech development. Occasionally it does regardless. The plague that wiped out about 1/3 of Asia and Europe in the middle ages was in fact an overpopulation crash. At that time, the agricultural and sanitary technology were not up to the task of caring for the number of people on the Eurasian continent. People were still fairly geographically restricted in those days too, but imagine what happens if our globally integrated populations experience the same kind of disasters...

angelatc
03-15-2013, 09:24 AM
We have two choices. Let Nature sort it out, or let Government sort it out. I'm picking Nature.


I see the author thinks quite a bit of himself, doesn't he? Bolding is his.


So how do we solve this problem? Well, frankly, we don't. Because we're such an infantile race of stupid creatures just barely more intelligent than apes, we are going to ride this crazy train of idiocy right into the ground.

I hope this vaccine-free jerk and his kids are some of the first to become fertilizer for my crops.

angelatc
03-15-2013, 09:26 AM
Yeah feeding people is a problem, I will remember that when I see you by the road with a sign saying homeless and hungry. :rolleyes:


Nature isn't pretty. Other species adapt to their environment. To avoid starvation, they thin the herd, move, or a combination of both. Sending food to regions that can't sustain the stuff of life indeed perpetuates the problem.

green73
03-15-2013, 09:29 AM
I see the author thinks quite a bit of himself, doesn't he? Bolding is his.

Typical of the misanthropic mindset of the eco loons.

I see that fountain of truth Alex Jones is pushing this crap as well.

http://www.infowars.com/the-overpopulation-myth-myt

RickyJ
03-15-2013, 09:30 AM
I am a wildlife biologist. I see in real time the effects of population cycles among rodents and other small mammals. From crash, to growth, to overpopulation, and back to crash. It happens about every 7 years in Rats, and is fascinating to watch. At the peak population when there is no longer enough food to support the population, three effects take place: The animals begin agressively competing for resources to the point even of killing and eating members of their own species, and pitting family groups against one another (War). The animals begin to suffer from lack of food and nutrition becoming gaunt and weak (famine). The animals, in their weakened state and in cramped living conditions, find diseases rampant and epidemic ravishing through their populations (pestilence). Finally, there is death of between 10-90% of the population (die off percentage has many variables and is hard to predict ahead of time. A particularly hard winter or draught typically increases the die-off percentage).

The problem with that is that we aren't rats. Animals are here for our use, to eat and to let other animals eat.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 09:30 AM
"The population control agenda is being run right now, right under your nose, through programs like toxic vaccines, free abortions, geoengineering pollution (chemtrails) and GMOs. The point of all this is to collapse the human population and get it "closer to zero," as Bill Gates often explains."


LOLOL! Yes, Bill Gates often says we give "toxic vaccines, free abortions, geoengineering pollution (chemtrails) and GMOs" to get the population closer to zero. Right.

He says we need to decrease our resource use and pollution rate, and he said we could do it by having no population, but that is a bad option. He focuses on the other options.

It was a mostly good article, in spite of the GMP/Chemtrail/Vaccine/eugenic stupidity.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 09:32 AM
And the churches keep feeding third worlders, which makes the problem worse, not better. It swells a population that cannot sustain itself.

You are a disturbing person.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 09:34 AM
Free people left to their own devices could desalinate ocean water affordably and grow food inside buildings and generate power more efficiently and put off this debate for thousands of years. Unfortunately, government control of resources dramatically reduces how far they will stretch.

The great thing about humanity is that we continue to push technology an inch at a time, then one new idea mates with another new idea, and a third idea, a groundbreaking one, is born. The new idea changes the world forever. And the closer we get to a dire situation, the more likely we are to develop that idea.

I've got complete confidence in mankind, in spite of the governments which plague us.

brushfire
03-15-2013, 09:39 AM
Right now, deductions are given when there should be added expense to compensate for additional children. I believe that the parents should be held accountable for the resources used by their children.

Got 5 children? You should pay 5 times more than the home with 1. The negligence of these parents would equate to children growing up without adequate resources (education) - let the selfish and reckless pay their debts.

In addition, public service announcements should include Bob Barker urging octomoms to have to have a sterilization procedure performed. If you cant afford 4 chilren, maybe you should "invest" in such a procedure after delivering your 3rd child (or fathers as it may be - whoever wants to voluntarily go through the procedure).

Let market forces drive population.

Icymudpuppy
03-15-2013, 09:42 AM
The problem with that is that we aren't rats. Animals are here for our use, to eat and to let other animals eat.

So you think the prophecy of Revelations is way off base?

For once, science and the bible agree, and you deny both?

I don't advocate government run population control. Instead I hope that humans will learn to manage their own breeding to curb population growth. Replacement reproduction only. Having more than 3 children shouldn't be a crime, but it should be worthy of boycotting and ostracism in accordance with free market principles.

angelatc
03-15-2013, 09:44 AM
So you think the prophecy of Revelations is way off base?

For once, science and the bible agree, and you deny both?

I don't advocate government run population control. Instead I hope that humans will learn to manage their own breeding to curb population growth. Replacement reproduction only. Having more than 3 children shouldn't be a crime, but it should be worthy of boycotting and ostracism in accordance with free market principles.


Historically, prosperity leads to lower birth rates. It appears that the biological urge to breed is driven at least partially by the ability to keep offspring alive. Even in Catholic families, the 9 - 12 children per family is far less common than it was even two generations ago.

abacabb
03-15-2013, 09:46 AM
Think there's too many people? Then kill yourself. - Alex Jones

BAllen
03-15-2013, 09:52 AM
Do a little experiment. Pour some sugar next to an anthill. If you give them some food, they won't need to come in your house anymore, will they? I mean, it's the humanitarian thing to do right? Better than killing them. Do this every day, and you will be over-run with ants.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 09:57 AM
Right now, deductions are given when there should be added expense to compensate for additional children. I believe that the parents should be held accountable for the resources used by their children.

Got 5 children? You should pay 5 times more than the home with 1. The negligence of these parents would equate to children growing up without adequate resources (education) - let the selfish and reckless pay their debts.

In addition, public service announcements should include Bob Barker urging octomoms to have to have a sterilization procedure performed. If you cant afford 4 chilren, maybe you should "invest" in such a procedure after delivering your 3rd child (or fathers as it may be - whoever wants to voluntarily go through the procedure).

Let market forces drive population.

Not sure if serious.

erowe1
03-15-2013, 09:58 AM
Do a little experiment. Pour some sugar next to an anthill. If you give them some food, they won't need to come in your house anymore, will they? I mean, it's the humanitarian thing to do right? Better than killing them. Do this every day, and you will be over-run with ants.

"Ants" means brown people. Right?

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 10:00 AM
Do a little experiment. Pour some sugar next to an anthill. If you give them some food, they won't need to come in your house anymore, will they? I mean, it's the humanitarian thing to do right? Better than killing them. Do this every day, and you will be over-run with ants.

How about we just teach these men, women, and children to fish? In the mean time, let's not stop giving them fish. That's how they eat for a day. But over the long run, how about we empower them all to care for themselves? How about we advance technology (perhaps through GMOs - GASP!) to the point where crops can grow in regions that are currently not fertile and water can be supplied to regions that are currently barren? We can do these things. Through charity and free markets, we can do these things! We can eliminate want and suffering, by working hard and fulfilling the obligation each of us has to care for ALL human beings.

Your callous disregard for other living creatures has no place in civilized society.

green73
03-15-2013, 10:01 AM
I am a wildlife biologist. I see in real time the effects of population cycles among rodents and other small mammals. From crash, to growth, to overpopulation, and back to crash. It happens about every 7 years in Rats, and is fascinating to watch. At the peak population when there is no longer enough food to support the population, three effects take place: The animals begin agressively competing for resources to the point even of killing and eating members of their own species, and pitting family groups against one another (War). The animals begin to suffer from lack of food and nutrition becoming gaunt and weak (famine). The animals, in their weakened state and in cramped living conditions, find diseases rampant and epidemic ravishing through their populations (pestilence). Finally, there is death of between 10-90% of the population (die off percentage has many variables and is hard to predict ahead of time. A particularly hard winter or draught typically increases the die-off percentage).

From my perspective, the prophecy of Revelations looks like a competent naturalist who has also witnessed wild animal cycles making a prediction of what wide-scale global human overpopulation will look like. I could make the same prediction. It's hard to know when that time will come as human technology advances agriculture, water collection, and sanitary capabilities, but sooner or later our growth will exceed our tech development. Occasionally it does regardless. The plague that wiped out about 1/3 of Asia and Europe in the middle ages was in fact an overpopulation crash. At that time, the agricultural and sanitary technology were not up to the task of caring for the number of people on the Eurasian continent. People were still fairly geographically restricted in those days too, but imagine what happens if our globally integrated populations experience the same kind of disasters...


Ecologists distinguish between species that rapidly reproduce (multiple litters/year) and species such as humans, which are slow to produce and to mature and are more adaptable. I'm sure you are familiar with this (r selection, k selection). Humans are not r selected. It's wrong to compare them to rats.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 10:01 AM
"Ants" means brown people. Right?

BAllen is the only person I've ever called a racist before. I can think of no better word to describe him.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 10:03 AM
The problem with that is that we aren't rats. Animals are here for our use, to eat and to let other animals eat.

So, that's it for you, eh? The meaning of all life in the universe is dinner?

BAllen
03-15-2013, 10:05 AM
BAllen is the only person I've ever called a racist before. I can think of no better word to describe him.

How befitting that you use a label created by the Marxists, when you have no argument.

tttppp
03-15-2013, 10:06 AM
Overpoluation leads to increased specialization and innovation in the work force. Two terrible things.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 10:07 AM
How befitting that you use a label created by the Marxists, when you have no argument.

Not sure how you can say that I have no argument. You make one racist post after another. You are either a raving nationalist who believes in white superiority, an elitist who dislikes poor minorities around the world, or both. Humans are not burdens, sir. Nearly everything you post implies that you feel otherwise.

BAllen
03-15-2013, 10:09 AM
How about we just teach these men, women, and children to fish? In the mean time, let's not stop giving them fish. That's how they eat for a day. But over the long run, how about we empower them all to care for themselves? How about we advance technology (perhaps through GMOs - GASP!) to the point where crops can grow in regions that are currently not fertile and water can be supplied to regions that are currently barren? We can do these things. Through charity and free markets, we can do these things! We can eliminate want and suffering, by working hard and fulfilling the obligation each of us has to care for ALL human beings.

And THAT is the crux of the problem. If they are taught to fish, so to speak, it is being neutralized by the church teaching against birth control, which swells the population beyond what it can sustain, because the church IS STILL FEEDING them beyond their sustainable numbers!!

BAllen
03-15-2013, 10:13 AM
Historically, prosperity leads to lower birth rates. It appears that the biological urge to breed is driven at least partially by the ability to keep offspring alive. Even in Catholic families, the 9 - 12 children per family is far less common than it was even two generations ago.

Excellent point, and the reason is, they are using birth control which is against the church teachings. Third worlders don't know any better. Church gives them food and tells them no birth control. So, this perpetuates an ever expanding pool of starvation.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 10:15 AM
And THAT is the crux of the problem. If they are taught to fish, so to speak, it is being neutralized by the church teaching against birth control, which swells the population beyond what it can sustain, because the church IS STILL FEEDING them beyond their sustainable numbers!!

You make it sound as though they are living high on the hog and leading lives of comfort on someone else's unwilling dime.
No one is being forced to make donations to churches to help your starving "ants" (read, black people) -- decent people see the poverty, starvation, and suffering that others are forced to endure and have taken it upon themselves to volunteer time and money to alleviate it. In the short term, there is no alternative to charity.

Antischism
03-15-2013, 10:15 AM
How befitting that you use a label created by the Marxists, when you have no argument.

All you ever do is call everything Marxism if it doesn't fit your political ideology. I'd say it's you who needs to work on his/her arguments.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 10:16 AM
All you ever do is call everything Marxism if it doesn't fit your political ideology. I'd say it's you who needs to work on his/her arguments.


He's just the inverse of an Obamabot who cries "racism" at every opportunity. It's equally pathetic.

Victor Grey
03-15-2013, 10:21 AM
There isn't a net overpopulation crisis. There is an overpopulation crisis, in some areas of the world.

bolil
03-15-2013, 10:30 AM
"So how do we solve this problem? Well, frankly, we don't. Because we're such an infantile race of stupid creatures just barely more intelligent than apes, we are going to ride this crazy train of idiocy right into the ground. We are going to burn out this planet, kill the ecosystem, poison the waters and taint the skies. And most of the population is going to giggle all the way to their own graves as they perish from the very same systems of self-destruction they voted for at the polling booths."

Pretty much nails it. I would add that while a person can be quite clever, people are quite dumb.

erowe1
03-15-2013, 10:47 AM
And THAT is the crux of the problem. If they are taught to fish, so to speak, it is being neutralized by the church teaching against birth control, which swells the population beyond what it can sustain, because the church IS STILL FEEDING them beyond their sustainable numbers!!

In specifically which third world countries is this happening?

Sola_Fide
03-15-2013, 10:51 AM
Population Growth As Propaganda
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north986.html

Brian4Liberty
03-15-2013, 10:54 AM
This is crazy conspiracy talk. Nothing bad could happen with a perpetual growth scheme. Knock off this crazy talk, time to grow the money supply to keep up with the population growth. That Bernanke is a genius!

moostraks
03-15-2013, 11:01 AM
Desert reclaiming...
http://permaculture.org.au/2007/03/01/greening-the-desert-now-on-youtube/


Food Forests, Fungi, Land, Rehabilitation, Salination, Soil Biology, Swales, Trees
This is just one example of how permaculture can transform the environment, and, in so doing, dramatically change lives. By evidencing the dramatic transformation possible in the world’s worst agricultural scenarios, we hope to make people stand up and listen


Sustainable living:
http://urbanhomestead.org/

For over a decade, we have proved that growing ones' own food can be sustainable, practical, successful and beautiful in urban areas. We harvest 3 tons of organic food annually from our 1/10 acre garden while incorporating many back-to-basics practices, solar energy and biodiesel in order to reduce our footprint on the earth’s resources.

Government led by corporate greed is stifling individual innovations and solutions. As for large families, they generally practice less narcissistic consumerism than smaller families do.

The rationale of people on the forum lately has become rather hateful. If people cannot find it in their hearts to love others and be a part of the solutions and supportive of private charities choices then there will be more government solutions in response. How can one persuade others to liberty when all they have is contempt for anyone who is different from them?

Icymudpuppy
03-15-2013, 11:03 AM
Ecologists distinguish between species that rapidly reproduce (multiple litters/year) and species such as humans, which are slow to produce and to mature and are more adaptable. I'm sure you are familiar with this (r selection, k selection). Humans are not r selected. It's wrong to compare them to rats.

ALL species experience overpopulation. R selected species just go through cycles much faster. K selected species still experience overpopulation, just at much larger intervals. Rats about 7 years. raccoons and coyotes about 25, Bats (a very K selected 30 year lifespan, 1 offspring/year) about 150 years. Humans.... ?

brushfire
03-15-2013, 11:10 AM
Not sure if serious.

Well, maybe I didnt explain myself well enough. Bear with me...

Accountability. People make better decisions when they exposed to the consequence. Just as in the free market.
When government subsidizes procreation, which it does now, parents are less judicious as to how many they have, if any at all. The tax code favors families over single individuals. The same with property taxes (at least in IL). People get more deductions and are exposed to a disproportionate cost for having children. So those without children end up paying for other people's children. This is how government subsidizes population growth. You can call it a burden of society, or whatever, but IMO its wrong.

If the parents were required to pay the full costs for having children, they would be less inclined to have so many kids.

Just as with drugs and other things, there will still be tragedies. Innocent children will be born into dysfunctional families, with crack addict mothers, who have 6 children, from 6 different fathers... IMO the right way to address those cases are with service announcements, promoting voluntary sterilization, or charities who may help with the costs of having "too many" children. Again, voluntary, not forced by government... I'm not suggesting anyone has to do anything, but when we as parents, start allowing the government to subsidize our children, we really do lose our parental rights to the state.

I'm hoping that I wasnt clear enough, but I'm interested in opinions on my take. Am I off base on this? It would seem to me that I have the proper libertarian view on the matter. I dont hate children (I'm a parent myself). I simply dont believe in burdening my neighbors to pay for my kids to attend a government school. I'd rather have the full responsibility and send my children to a school of my choice. I also dont believe its fair for me, a father of 2, to pay for my neighbor's 6 kids. Actions have consequences... What's wrong with that?

parocks
03-15-2013, 11:12 AM
Social security relies on population growth, or old people dying a lot quicker. (or raising the retirement age)

brushfire
03-15-2013, 11:16 AM
Social security relies on population growth, or old people dying a lot quicker. (or raising the retirement age)

True... we should get rid of that garbage too, IMO. Let me opt out, and keep my paycheck to invest as I wish.

erowe1
03-15-2013, 11:18 AM
Social security relies on population growth, or old people dying a lot quicker. (or raising the retirement age)

Social Security is not designed with an eye toward the distant future. It's designed with an eye toward the next election.

parocks
03-15-2013, 11:26 AM
Social Security is not designed with an eye toward the distant future. It's designed with an eye toward the next election.

Well, back in the day we didn't have too few young people. Roe v Wade was a population control measure.

TonySutton
03-15-2013, 11:36 AM
Desert reclaiming...
http://permaculture.org.au/2007/03/01/greening-the-desert-now-on-youtube/




Sustainable living:
http://urbanhomestead.org/


Government led by corporate greed is stifling individual innovations and solutions. As for large families, they generally practice less narcissistic consumerism than smaller families do.

The rationale of people on the forum lately has become rather hateful. If people cannot find it in their hearts to love others and be a part of the solutions and supportive of private charities choices then there will be more government solutions in response. How can one persuade others to liberty when all they have is contempt for anyone who is different from them?

When you see the things Geoff Lawton is doing in Australia, the Dervaes Family in Pasadena and the also look at Joel Salatin in Virgina and Mark Shepard in Wisconsin. It is easy to see that everyone everywhere can easily create self sustaining food systems nearly anywhere in the world that will support the human species.

Danan
03-15-2013, 12:20 PM
Think there's too many people? Then kill yourself.

This.

There is no such thing as "overpopulation". That's either a disgusting value judgement or a positive statement not based on facts at all, depending on the intended meaning.

No single person is an excessive mistake and we can easily support our population with food. If I had to, I could afford to buy a multiple of my usual purchase at the grocery store every time I go there. But I don't have to spend all my income on food (like people for millennia had to) because of our high productivity. The reason why many people in Africa struggle to survive, is because of their low productivity, it has nothing (or not much) to do with natural limitations of our planet, or even their region.

In fact, standards of living are consistently going up, not down, as world population steadily grows. Even (or especially) in poor countries. If you look at poor countries without too many harmful institutional obstacles, they catch up to Western countries enormously fast.

Fear of overpopulation is most of the time either based on misunderstanding economics, or just a form of elitism and racism. Interestingly, it's never the immediate environment that's overpopulated. It's always the poor, the weak and the lazy, who are not part one's group, who shouldn't exist, or at least procreate. That sentiment goes back at least to Plato and it's quite frankly disgusting.

How does an additional human being affect me at all? They don't take my resources. They can't really influence my life in any way.

BAllen
03-15-2013, 12:24 PM
This.

There is no such thing as "overpopulation". That's either a disgusting value judgement or a positive statement not based on facts at all, depending on the intended meaning.

No single person is an excessive mistake and we can easily support our population with food. If I had to, I could afford to buy a multiple of my usual purchase at the grocery store every time I go there. But I don't have to spend all my income on food (like people for millennia had to) because of our high productivity. The reason why many people in Africa struggle to survive, is because of their low productivity, it has nothing (or not much) to do with natural limitations of our planet, or even their region.

In fact, standards of living are consistently going up, not down, as world population steadily grows. Even (or especially) in poor countries. If you look at poor countries without too many harmful institutional obstacles, they catch up to Western countries enormously fast.

Fear of overpopulation is most of the time either based on misunderstanding economics, or just a form of elitism and racism. Interestingly, it's never the immediate environment that's overpopulated. It's always the poor, the weak and the lazy, who are not part one's group, who shouldn't exist, or at least procreate. That sentiment goes back at least to Plato and it's quite frankly disgusting.

How does an additional human being affect me at all? They don't take my resources. They can't really influence my life in any way.

Third world has been taking our jobs. What percentage of third world is getting more prosperous? I'd wager it's a few at the top. That is why our standard of living is falling. Don't you get it? The globalists want an entire planet of third world wage earners. That is why they push for more immigration into our countries. To drive down our standard of living.

heavenlyboy34
03-15-2013, 12:27 PM
Social Security is not designed with an eye toward the distant future. It's designed with an eye toward the next election.
+rep

ZENemy
03-15-2013, 12:28 PM
Social security relies on population growth, or old people dying a lot quicker. (or raising the retirement age)


ObamaCare is working on that part.

angelatc
03-15-2013, 12:28 PM
How befitting that you use a label created by the Marxists, when you have no argument.

He does it all the time. This is symptomatic the liberal infiltration that I complain about. These people simply can't have a discussion without trying to turn the conversation into an attack of the posters they disagree with.

You're a racist I'm a Marxist. Nice to meet you.

angelatc
03-15-2013, 12:31 PM
And THAT is the crux of the problem. If they are taught to fish, so to speak, it is being neutralized by the church teaching against birth control, which swells the population beyond what it can sustain, because the church IS STILL FEEDING them beyond their sustainable numbers!!

But that's not true. The American Catholic church still holds birth control to be a sin, and yet Catholics quietly limit the size of their families. Seriously, if we were truly dedicated to the movement, we should be telling our friends to have as many babies as possible in order to keep up with the higher birth rates of the welfare voters.

familydog
03-15-2013, 12:43 PM
The rise in government and mass agriculture match the rise in unsustainable population. Get rid of both and you solve the problem.

BAllen
03-15-2013, 12:58 PM
But that's not true. The American Catholic church still holds birth control to be a sin, and yet Catholics quietly limit the size of their families. Seriously, if we were truly dedicated to the movement, we should be telling our friends to have as many babies as possible in order to keep up with the higher birth rates of the welfare voters.

Third worlders haven't evolved enough to differentiate. They still have high birth rates, and the church teachings keep it going there.

erowe1
03-15-2013, 01:02 PM
Third worlders haven't evolved enough to differentiate.

You can tell by the looks of them that they're not long out of the trees. Right?

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 01:03 PM
He does it all the time. This is symptomatic the liberal infiltration that I complain about. These people simply can't have a discussion without trying to turn the conversation into an attack of the posters they disagree with.

You're a racist I'm a Marxist. Nice to meet you.

If either of you two think that I'm a Marxist you're dumber than I gave you credit for.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 01:04 PM
Third worlders haven't evolved enough to differentiate.

And you aren't racist.

Anti Federalist
03-15-2013, 01:08 PM
Meh.

30 years ago, we were all going to die from starvation due to energy and raw materials shortages.

The US will be energy independent by 2025 if current trends continue, and we still have not touched any offshore resources off the east coast, most of the west coast and Great Lakes.

The current population boom is the result of incredible advances in medicine and agriculture that happened over the last 100 years or less.

100 years is a blink of an eye. This, too, shall pass.

I will say this, though; as population increases, freedom decreases.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 01:11 PM
Desert reclaiming...
http://permaculture.org.au/2007/03/01/greening-the-desert-now-on-youtube/




Sustainable living:
http://urbanhomestead.org/


Government led by corporate greed is stifling individual innovations and solutions. As for large families, they generally practice less narcissistic consumerism than smaller families do.

The rationale of people on the forum lately has become rather hateful. If people cannot find it in their hearts to love others and be a part of the solutions and supportive of private charities choices then there will be more government solutions in response. How can one persuade others to liberty when all they have is contempt for anyone who is different from them?


This post is excellent. We need to be an inclusive, forward-looking, movement, focused on allowing man to be as free, creative, and prosperous as he can dream to be. Disparaging "third world," humans as savages who aren't "evolved" is pathetic, deranged, elitists, and harmful. It wins us nothing politically or spiritually.

dancjm
03-15-2013, 01:11 PM
Poverty leads to overpopulation. Raise the standard of living for everyone and population levels will stabilize.

If we used the technological advancements made in the last century properly, we could mitigate our impact on the environment completely.

"Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has, as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity." - Nikola Tesla -1919

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 01:12 PM
Meh.

30 years ago, we were all going to die from starvation due to energy and raw materials shortages.

The US will be energy independent by 2025 if current trends continue, and we still have not touched any offshore resources off the east coast, most of the west coast and Great Lakes.

The current population boom is the result of incredible advances in medicine and agriculture that happened over the last 100 years or less.

100 years is a blink of an eye. This, too, shall pass.

I will say this, though; as population increases, freedom decreases.


I agree, until the last sentence. I don't think you can issue such a blanket statement. It sounds good, but it certainly isn't true. The population is much higher now than it was centuries ago, and humanity is MUCH more free than it once was. Hell, just consider the two most populous countries, China and India. China, though still a tyranny, is hardly the Maoist hell that it was just a generation or two ago.

Tod
03-15-2013, 01:12 PM
I love living out in the country and wish I had enough money to buy all the land within a five mile radius so I didn't have any neighbors at my elbow.

green73
03-15-2013, 01:13 PM
ALL species experience overpopulation. R selected species just go through cycles much faster. K selected species still experience overpopulation, just at much larger intervals. Rats about 7 years. raccoons and coyotes about 25, Bats (a very K selected 30 year lifespan, 1 offspring/year) about 150 years. Humans.... ?

I don't know that all species experience overpopulation. Obviously, Man has not. Not on a global level, and that's what this article is about. The example you gave of the plague in Europe does not speak to overpopulation but pestilence, something K species are very vulnerable to regardless of the carrying capacity.

I didn't know that about bats. 150 years? I have a good friend from college who has made a bit a name for himself in field. I'll have to pick his brain on that. Right now they too are facing a pestilence problem. But were they ever at the carrying capacity?

Tod
03-15-2013, 01:15 PM
I will say this, though; as population increases, freedom decreases.


Winning quote ^

It is inevitable.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 01:17 PM
I love living out in the country and wish I had enough money to buy all the land within a five mile radius so I didn't have any neighbors at my elbow.


I've lived in cities, I've lived in suburbs, and I've lived in the country. My fondest experiences were in cities, but the cities were safe, clean, and cultured, and I had plenty of disposable income. Suburban and country life have definite perks though and I've certainly enjoyed my time in those settings as well.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 01:18 PM
Winning quote ^

It is inevitable.

But it isn't even remotely true. Most of humanity lived in hard tyranny for a huge portion of its existence. Now, it doesn't. The population living without representative governments, magna cartas, constitutions, etc, was much smaller than what we have now. We've been growing in number, and expanding our freedoms.

Just because America is no longer a bastion of freedom, relative to what it once was for white men, does not mean this trend is representative for all of mankind.

Anti Federalist
03-15-2013, 01:20 PM
I agree, until the last sentence. I don't think you can issue such a blanket statement. It sounds good, but it certainly isn't true. The population is much higher now than it was centuries ago, and humanity is MUCH more free than it once was. Hell, just consider the two most populous countries, China and India. China, though still a tyranny, is hardly the Maoist hell that it was just a generation or two ago.

Granted, to a certain degree.

Free to do what, though?

100 years ago you could go pretty much anywhere in the whole damn world you wanted to, with no "papers".

30 years ago you could walk down the street without being under constant surveillance.

10 years ago your "sail fawn" and half a million other gadgets were not logging your location 24/7.

I honestly think the authoritarians of today have figured out something the Roman Caesars knew a thousand years ago:

Give the people the illusion of freedom, and provide a certain level of luxury, and just about despotism can be gotten away with.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 01:24 PM
100 years ago you could go pretty much anywhere in the whole damn world you wanted to, with no "papers".


You could, in America. About 150 years ago, brown people couldn't go where they wanted to go. Hell, today they're still asked for their papers, stopped, and frisked.



30 years ago you could walk down the street without being under constant surveillance.


You could, in America. The Soviet Union and many other countries throughout Asia, Africa and South America were still living in tyranny.



I honestly think the authoritarians of today have figured out something the Roman Caesars knew a thousand years ago:

Give the people the illusion of freedom, and provide a certain level of luxury, and just about despotism can be gotten away with.


Bread and circus is nothing new. You know that. And you know that "none are more enslaved than those who believe themselves to be free" was said, and true, centuries ago too.

It's really easy to be a cynic who only sees the negative things that are happening around the world and domestically. The news bombards us with images of those things, and horror stories sell better than anything else. Be above that. You're smart enough to find the truth. And the truth is that for almost every human being on Earth, life is better than it would have been 1000 years ago, 100 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, even 5 years ago or less. Humanity, in spite of government involvement, is advancing in the right direction. We are progressing.

kcchiefs6465
03-15-2013, 01:25 PM
We are nothing more than a nanosecond in the span of time. The world will sort this out. Give it some time.

Keep worrying about overpopulation. We will create something to extinct us all soon enough. How's that for human ingenuity?

As if we are that damned important anyways...

Anti Federalist
03-15-2013, 01:29 PM
But it isn't even remotely true. Most of humanity lived in hard tyranny for a huge portion of its existence. Now, it doesn't. The population living without representative governments, magna cartas, constitutions, etc, was much smaller than what we have now. We've been growing in number, and expanding our freedoms.

Just because America is no longer a bastion of freedom, relative to what it once was for white men, does not mean this trend is representative for all of mankind.

On a macro scale, you are right, at this point in time.

Like I said, 100 years is the blink of an eye.

But in that blink, and that expansion of freedom that you noted there was also the very worst genocides and atrocities ever recorded.

On a micro scale, there is no argument that, as a rural resident tucked away up in the hills of NH, with a good sized patch of land underneath me, I enjoy more freedom in my daily life than a city dweller living in an apartment in Brooklyn.

jbauer
03-15-2013, 01:33 PM
LOLOLOL I'm sure someone has pointed this out to you by now. But parents with more kids do pay more for their "cost" of raising kids. They buy bigger houses, they buy bigger vehiles that use more fuel. There is an argument to be made about parents on the government tit but those who choose to use their resources to have children should be free to do so. As for the tax credtis, $1k/child credit PLUS $3800ish/deduction doesn't add up to much. You're taking about $1250-$2000ish which is about enough to get you through January. IF you're paying your own way for your kids the tax credits aren't a reason to have more....

Fyi I have 2 kids and have been snipped and clipped I've replaced my species for future generations to sort out.


Right now, deductions are given when there should be added expense to compensate for additional children. I believe that the parents should be held accountable for the resources used by their children.

Got 5 children? You should pay 5 times more than the home with 1. The negligence of these parents would equate to children growing up without adequate resources (education) - let the selfish and reckless pay their debts.

In addition, public service announcements should include Bob Barker urging octomoms to have to have a sterilization procedure performed. If you cant afford 4 chilren, maybe you should "invest" in such a procedure after delivering your 3rd child (or fathers as it may be - whoever wants to voluntarily go through the procedure).

Let market forces drive population.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 01:35 PM
On a macro scale, you are right, at this point in time.

Like I said, 100 years is the blink of an eye.

But in that blink, and that expansion of freedom that you noted there was also the very worst genocides and atrocities ever recorded.

On a micro scale, there is no argument that, as a rural resident tucked away up in the hills of NH, with a good sized patch of land underneath me, I enjoy more freedom in my daily life than a city dweller living in an apartment in Brooklyn.


Well, generally, cities demand that residents give up freedoms. However, NYC is a terrible example. Their idiot king is an authoritarian nutjob who is ruining what should be an amazing cultural and financial center. Personally, living in several different cities, I can say that I was basically always able to go where I wanted, as I wanted, when I wanted.

Zippyjuan
03-15-2013, 01:42 PM
Mike Adams is all over both sides of the issue. "The world has too many people" and he is also against people rumoured to be trying to reduce populations (Ted Turner and Bill Gates are NOT killing off people though some like to think so). He is just "anti" everything it seems. People are ruining everything and killing off each other is his mantra.


So how do we solve this problem? Well, frankly, we don't. Because we're such an infantile race of stupid creatures just barely more intelligent than apes, we are going to ride this crazy train of idiocy right into the ground. We are going to burn out this planet, kill the ecosystem, poison the waters and taint the skies. And most of the population is going to giggle all the way to their own graves as they perish from the very same systems of self-destruction they voted for at the polling booths.

When the world hits overpopulation (and some areas do hit that point from time to time as food and water resources run out), people will start dying off. That is the natural cycle.

KingNothing
03-15-2013, 01:44 PM
Mike Adams is all over both sides of the issue. "The world has too many people" and he is also against people rumoured to be trying to reduce populations. He is just "anti" everything it seems. People are ruining everything and killing off each other is his mantra.



When the world hits overpopulation (and some areas do hit that point from time to time as food and water resources run out), people will start dying off. That is the natural cycle.

Mike Adams is really good at endearing himself to the lunatic fringe. Using half-truths to push hyperbole is definitely a good money-making idea.

brushfire
03-15-2013, 02:01 PM
Mike Adams is really good at endearing himself to the lunatic fringe. Using half-truths to push hyperbole is definitely a good money-making idea.

Care to comment on my post?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?407748-The-overpopulation-myth-MYTH&p=4924931&viewfull=1#post4924931

Cutlerzzz
03-15-2013, 02:03 PM
Far fewer people as a percentage of the worlds population face starvation and water shortages than ever before.

Most of Europe, China, Russia, and Japan are faced with declining populations. US population growth has slowed dramatically in the last 50 years. Sooner or later the same will happen to the other half of the world when they get wealth.

There is no overpopulation. In 100 years starvation will not even exist at this rate.

parocks
03-15-2013, 02:38 PM
This.

There is no such thing as "overpopulation". That's either a disgusting value judgement or a positive statement not based on facts at all, depending on the intended meaning.

No single person is an excessive mistake and we can easily support our population with food. If I had to, I could afford to buy a multiple of my usual purchase at the grocery store every time I go there. But I don't have to spend all my income on food (like people for millennia had to) because of our high productivity. The reason why many people in Africa struggle to survive, is because of their low productivity, it has nothing (or not much) to do with natural limitations of our planet, or even their region.

In fact, standards of living are consistently going up, not down, as world population steadily grows. Even (or especially) in poor countries. If you look at poor countries without too many harmful institutional obstacles, they catch up to Western countries enormously fast.

Fear of overpopulation is most of the time either based on misunderstanding economics, or just a form of elitism and racism. Interestingly, it's never the immediate environment that's overpopulated. It's always the poor, the weak and the lazy, who are not part one's group, who shouldn't exist, or at least procreate. That sentiment goes back at least to Plato and it's quite frankly disgusting.

How does an additional human being affect me at all? They don't take my resources. They can't really influence my life in any way.

More people are more difficult to control.

parocks
03-15-2013, 02:43 PM
ObamaCare is working on that part.

yeah. a bad answer.

A Son of Liberty
03-15-2013, 02:54 PM
There isn't a net overpopulation crisis. There is an overpopulation crisis, in some areas of the world.

Absolutely.

I live in a very rural area, but within 2 hours drive of 3 major metropolitan centers. The majority of those drives are through very rural areas.

It's all a matter of perspective. I could imagine living in the city and thinking that there is a "population crisis". I've made a conscious, logical decision to live where I do because I don't have to depend on "services" to sustain my life. An EMP could be detonated over my head tomorrow, and I KNOW I would survive. In the city, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions, would die. That is indeed a population crisis, a mere 2 hours away from me. Here? Not at all.

Brian4Liberty
03-15-2013, 08:03 PM
100 years is a blink of an eye. This, too, shall pass.

I will say this, though; as population increases, freedom decreases.

It depends on the demand. When supply outstrips demands, each individual becomes worth less. A mass die off will benefit the individual. Black plague leads to the enlightenment.

Petar
03-15-2013, 08:19 PM
//

alucard13mmfmj
03-15-2013, 08:20 PM
Why not just let ourselves over-populate? Nature dictates that over population = lots of dead people until it reaches equilibrium. No need to mess with it now. It is a natural process/cycle.

BAllen
03-15-2013, 08:23 PM
Why not just let ourselves over-populate? Nature dictates that over population = lots of dead people until it reaches equilibrium. No need to mess with it now. It is a natural process/cycle.

Why not head it off at the pass, and prevent needless suffering? It could be done, you know. Get the church to hand out condoms with instructions to go along with the food they give. Or, why not give them any aid, and let them die off now?
The problem is the third worlders will overpopulate our countries, then the death panels will kill off people at random. They're already bringing diseases into this country. Diseases we had eradicated long ago. They need to stay in their own countries and let the diseases diminish their own populations, not ours.

paulbot24
03-15-2013, 08:32 PM
Abundance vs. Scarcity. Some see the world's resources as abundant with plenty to support the human race. Others see the world's resources as scarce, hence the need to fight and hoard its resources. Then there are the central planners that know this planet's abundance, but treat them as scarce out of pure greed. No amount would ever be enough for the third group. I'm not preaching some communist hippy crap here, I am condemning the Rockefeller and Rothschild tumors that are never satiated. They likely invented the scarcity concept to blind us from the obvious abundance this planet offers while tossing us just enough crumbs to watch us fight to amuse themselves.

alucard13mmfmj
03-15-2013, 08:45 PM
It depends on the demand. When supply outstrips demands, each individual becomes worth less. A mass die off will benefit the individual. Black plague leads to the enlightenment.

yep. nature will find a way to kill a bunch of us really fast that science cant save most of us.

BAllen
03-15-2013, 08:54 PM
Abundance vs. Scarcity. Some see the world's resources as abundant with plenty to support the human race. Others see the world's resources as scarce, hence the need to fight and hoard its resources. Then there are the central planners that know this planet's abundance, but treat them as scarce out of pure greed. No amount would ever be enough for the third group. I'm not preaching some communist hippy crap here, I am condemning the Rockefeller and Rothschild tumors that are never satiated. They likely invented the scarcity concept to blind us from the obvious abundance this planet offers while tossing us just enough crumbs to watch us fight to amuse themselves.

Correct. The Rockefellers and Rothschilds were two of the schemers behind the Frankfurt School.

talkingpointes
03-15-2013, 09:12 PM
You could break this down into a formula I would assume. TL;dr

Icymudpuppy
03-15-2013, 09:15 PM
I don't know that all species experience overpopulation. Obviously, Man has not. Not on a global level, and that's what this article is about. The example you gave of the plague in Europe does not speak to overpopulation but pestilence, something K species are very vulnerable to regardless of the carrying capacity.

I didn't know that about bats. 150 years? I have a good friend from college who has made a bit a name for himself in field. I'll have to pick his brain on that. Right now they too are facing a pestilence problem. But were they ever at the carrying capacity?

Pestilence is a result of overpopulation.

BAllen
03-15-2013, 09:31 PM
Hypocrites preach sterilization of pets to prevent unwanted starvation, yet scream if you suggest birth control for humans.
:confused:

heavenlyboy34
03-15-2013, 09:44 PM
Hypocrites preach sterilization of pets to prevent unwanted starvation, yet scream if you suggest birth control for humans.
:confused:
You don't see a difference between pets and humans? SRSLY? :eek:

BAllen
03-15-2013, 09:54 PM
You prefer to let humans suffer needlessly in disease, pestilence, and starvation? How heartless of you. You care more about the suffering of animals than you do humans.

Warrior_of_Freedom
03-15-2013, 09:55 PM
anyone that doesn't believe in overpopulation obviously never drove in new jersey

kcchiefs6465
03-15-2013, 09:56 PM
Hypocrites preach sterilization of pets to prevent unwanted starvation, yet scream if you suggest birth control for humans.
:confused:
You sound like Margaret Sanger sometimes.

Hopefully you are referring to methods used voluntarily. I don't always get that from your posts.

I don't see why anyone would have a problem with people voluntarily using birth control or condoms or what have you.. Population is no near a breaking point but if they don't want to have kids yets, that's their prerogative. I hope you agree that it should be voluntary and should not specifically be targeted to any one race, creed, etc.

It is my personal belief, that we will only be able to 'poison' the earth for so much longer. Whether this breaking point comes from God or from our own arrogance I could not say. As in, whether our axis is shifted causing another great flood, or whether we create a virus etc., or nuclearly annihilating ourselves I do not know. All three really aren't that far out there. Worrying about overpopulation, is a waste of life imo. Even if we do somehow miraculously not kill ourselves, and the population becomes too high, nature will deal with it more efficiently than we think we can.

Bring it on.

John F Kennedy III
03-15-2013, 10:32 PM
In Arkansas. :D

The world is not overpopulated, God doesn't make mistakes like that, and he made everyone alive today or they wouldn't be here. If you think it is not his will, then you must think we humans have that power over the creation of human life, I can assure you we do not. At any moment God could stop any new human life from being created, he gives life, we don't.



Why does it mean we humans must be capable of creating human life just cuz someone said our lives aren't his will?

The Gold Standard
03-15-2013, 11:39 PM
Free people engaging in voluntary transactions is the best and only solution for the allocation of scarce resources. If food is so scarce that it costs a fortune, a lot of people will come up with ways to produce more of it, even if it means farming on the moon to do it. We don't need the government to ration our resources or annihilate the dark skinned people. We need them to get the fuck out of our way.

Kregisen
03-15-2013, 11:47 PM
I'm not going to read the first 10 pages, or even start a debate with anyone.......but here is my two cents:

Population growth is inversely proportional to development. Developed countries, such as Europe, are actually declining in population, (each mother has less than 2 kids in her lifetime). Poorer countries, on the other hand, such as those in Africa, are what is driving the population growth in the world.

It's important to note that the vast majority (not all) of poor countries are getting more developed every year, as the metrics for tracking this (look on worldbank.org if curious) show. As long as this trend continues, human population growth will likely start slowing down.

Again though, do not want to debate anyone on this, so if you disagree, go look at the stats on worldbank, but this is what the facts show, and it's a pretty safe bet to say as development continues population growth will likely slow down in the world.

Later all. Have fun.

The Gold Standard
03-16-2013, 12:03 AM
I'm not going to read the first 10 pages, or even start a debate with anyone.......but here is my two cents:

Population growth is inversely proportional to development. Developed countries, such as Europe, are actually declining in population, (each mother has less than 2 kids in her lifetime). Poorer countries, on the other hand, such as those in Africa, are what is driving the population growth in the world.

It's important to note that the vast majority (not all) of poor countries are getting more developed every year, as the metrics for tracking this (look on worldbank.org if curious) show. As long as this trend continues, human population growth will likely start slowing down.

Again though, do not want to debate anyone on this, so if you disagree, go look at the stats on worldbank, but this is what the facts show, and it's a pretty safe bet to say as development continues population growth will likely slow down in the world.

Later all. Have fun.

This is another good point. People in poor countries need a lot of kids so they can work because they don't have the capital goods to be productive enough to just have the adults work.

It is the same reason children had to work in the U.S. up to the turn of the 20th century, and why child labor went away after the industrial revolution produced an abundance of capital goods able to make American workers the most productive in the world.

And as the government has taken over the economy over the last century and destroyed our capital infrastructure, we see the opposite happening again. First it was one working parent, then two. Now kids are moving back home to pitch in. Soon they will have to repeal child labor laws for families to be able to make enough money to survive.

Mini-Me
03-16-2013, 12:10 AM
Some of the best posts in this thread are the two right above mine. The realization that some of the people on this site (of all places) are unaware of these simple truths is disheartening. Developed countries barely reproduce at replacement rate, notwithstanding population growth from immigration. Part of it is because we don't need child labor to survive, part of it has to do with birth control, and part of it has to do with more developed culture/art/science/etc. giving people more options for how they want to spend their lives than raising small armies, etc. With the continued development of the third world, even the Malthusian UN has projected that world population levels will plateau and start declining this century.

The Gold Standard is absolutely correct about our own situation too: Our petrodollar-driven transition from an economy that produces wealth to an overregulated service economy has completely neutered our productivity and thrown us into a race back to the bottom. It's temporary, and circumstances will eventually force us to rebuild, but the transition back to productivity won't be pretty...I just hope it doesn't come suddenly from a hyperinflationary collapse.

KrokHead
03-16-2013, 06:19 AM
• In America, India and China, underground water aquifers that produce the food that feeds the population is plummeting rapidly. Many aquifers will be dry by 2040, including the Ogallala Aquifer (http://www.naturalnews.com/031658_aquifer_depletion_Ogallala.html) that stretches from Texas to South Dakota and provides irrigation for the breadbasket agricultural hub of America.

True, we're using a lot of water. As a result, water will be more expensive, reducing the amount of water consumed.


• The pollution produced by the current population is murdering every ecosystem imaginable. Oceans are dying, coral reefs are dying, rivers are dying and rainforests are dying. (http://www.naturalnews.com/023579_fish_fishing_ecosystems.html) If the human population were small compared to the total carrying capacity, we shouldn't see the natural ecosystems dying all around us.

I remember this is elementary school, as soon as I survived past 1998 I figured out most of it was a lie. Not that I like mindless pollution, but a lot of it is a result of a lot of western goods being imported to countries that don't give a shit about pollution while keeping Western masses unemployed.


• Soils are disappearing across the world's agricultural centers. (http://www.naturalnews.com/029176_topsoil_food_production.html) We are losing topsoil at a record pace around the world, and once those top soils are gone, food production yields plummet. (You can't feed the world by growing food in sand.)

True, as a result food will be more expensive. The good news is that this may stop the obesity epidemic but they'll probably just make monster plants that way we could still have Doritos and Mickey D's.


Humanity's voracious appetite for energy has led to the global proliferation of "Earth-killing" technologies such as nuclear power plants. The Fukushima disaster proved that demand for power has caused energy industries to risk the viability of human life across the planet in order to produce more power for humanity's artificial cities.

Every form of power kills something. It's those fucking environmentalists who don't want dams and windmills put up. Life's not Sim city where we can just built a handful of fusion power plants and call it a day.


• Hydrocarbons continue to drive the world economy, yet there's very good evidence that oil supplies in the Middle East are drying up (production is falling). While the planet can produce more hydrocarbons over millions of years, it cannot double its oil supply in a few decades. Thus, the demand for oil vastly outstrips the ability of the planet to produce it.

The Nazis managed to make synthetic fuel and fuel will become more expensive, and the way of making it will change.


• Look at the outrageous crowding in cities like New York and Los Angeles. The highways exist in a seemingly endless logjam, and there's hardly a public open space left remaining anywhere in these cities, with New York's Central Park being the rare exception.

Matters what route you take to work, at least in NY there are a lot of routes. From my observations if you're around Yonkers, New Rochelle, Nassau, or approaching GWB before 7:30 you'll be fine. Stick it out to 7 pm and all the highways, even the Van Wyck are moving by then. Yeah traffic sucks and I'd love for the demand for commuter trains to increase. The traffic problem will be alleviated by authoritarian HOV laws likely in the future because the money to build new highways and create right of way won't exist.

That part about parks is garbage. There's parks everywhere in the city, usually with playgrounds and basketball courts. When I go to Church in Queens, I see the baseball field with football (American and regular) and Cricket games occurring and youth playing basketball. There's even enough room on the fields for people to take their dogs in the morning to lay a deuce. There's a number of parks everywhere and people do have trees on their property, the Northeast isn't just some barren desert. People usually hate parks due to the fear of crime and what gets sold there after 9 pm, but parks create more PARKING!!!


Housing shortages and housing building materials shortages (wood, concrete, steel) are all very, very real. This is why building homes has become ridiculously expensive over the last few years. China is buying concrete and steel from the USA and shipping it overseas on large sea freighters.

Building homes has become more expensive because a lot of lumber and materials are being made by renewable sources over the past 25 plus years. Before you could just go annihilate a forest but there's is a vested interested in always having trees and stuff grow in a controlled fashion that way you could keep selling material. Also, lumber quality has declined dramatically because it is all virtually new growth.


• The depletion of ocean fisheries is also very real. As the human population over-fishes the oceans in search of food, ocean life is experiencing an unprecedented die-off. Many species have plummeted to "red alert" levels due to over-fishing.

As a result fish have become more expensive, and farmed.


Autism is skyrocketing, cancer is striking younger and younger children, and the food is increasingly tainted with pollutants caused by humankind.

I agree with you, but logically those things were always there (maybe to not as great of a degree) but instead autistic kids were just "stupid" and made fun of, and kids who died young was from a "tragedy."


From a galactic perspective, humankind wears the "dunce" hat. In fact, we are probably referred to by other intelligent civilizations as the "radioactive hominids" because we are stupid enough to detonate hundreds of nuclear weapons on our own planet, followed by building hundreds more nuclear power facilities, all of which are extremely vulnerable to a solar flare event that could kill virtually all human life on the planet.

All life forms are mindlessly self-destructive. Cattle will graze until their land is barren, cats will kill animals they don't eat and contaminate their water and food because they feel like it, deer hop in front of cars because they find it funny...

Anyway, the only way to save the planet is to educate the human race as a whole to be more responsible. You shouldn't have four children with three different men, you should leave the water running because your utilities are free, you should own a three ton behemoth when you commute sixty miles each way to work alone, you should run your power like it's Vegas, but people will and they have the freedom to. Solve it free market style, take away the "welfare" (I'm generalizing housing assistance, ebt, etc.) and make people bear the cost of their stupidity, eventually it will decrease to the point where one can afford.

Neil Desmond
03-16-2013, 07:35 AM
After all that condescension about how easy the math is, I couldn't find where in the article the author actually calculates how much land each person needs. I'm guessing the reason for that is that if they did, it would show that the world is nowhere near overpopulated.
You can fit more than twice the world's population into rhode island if you give each person standing up an average area of 2 square feet:

Source for size of area of Rhode Island: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_island

1,214 square miles = 33,844,377,600 square feet, which is about 34 billion square feet

7 billion people x 2 square feet per person = 14,000,000,000 square feet

2 x 14 billion square feet is 28 billion square feet < 34 billion square feet

green73
03-16-2013, 07:36 AM
Pestilence is a result of overpopulation.

I think the Malthusians put that into the science.

jonhowe
03-16-2013, 07:41 AM
In Arkansas. :D

The world is not overpopulated, God doesn't make mistakes like that, and he made everyone alive today or they wouldn't be here. If you think it is not his will, then you must think we humans have that power over the creation of human life, I can assure you we do not. At any moment God could stop any new human life from being created, he gives life, we don't.

Not trying to be rude, but could you clarify if this post is a joke or serious?

BAllen
03-16-2013, 08:04 AM
Not trying to be rude, but could you clarify if this post is a joke or serious?

He MUST be joking. Though they are some religious zealots who actually believe that. And they are the ones making the problem worse.......MUCH worse.

BAllen
03-16-2013, 08:09 AM
Developed countries barely reproduce at replacement rate, notwithstanding population growth from immigration.


If this is true, and they are advancing, then why the hell do they come by the millions into our countries?????

abacabb
03-16-2013, 09:57 AM
True, we're using a lot of water. As a result, water will be more expensive, reducing the amount of water consumed.



I remember this is elementary school, as soon as I survived past 1998 I figured out most of it was a lie. Not that I like mindless pollution, but a lot of it is a result of a lot of western goods being imported to countries that don't give a shit about pollution while keeping Western masses unemployed.



True, as a result food will be more expensive. The good news is that this may stop the obesity epidemic but they'll probably just make monster plants that way we could still have Doritos and Mickey D's.



Every form of power kills something. It's those fucking environmentalists who don't want dams and windmills put up. Life's not Sim city where we can just built a handful of fusion power plants and call it a day.



The Nazis managed to make synthetic fuel and fuel will become more expensive, and the way of making it will change.



Matters what route you take to work, at least in NY there are a lot of routes. From my observations if you're around Yonkers, New Rochelle, Nassau, or approaching GWB before 7:30 you'll be fine. Stick it out to 7 pm and all the highways, even the Van Wyck are moving by then. Yeah traffic sucks and I'd love for the demand for commuter trains to increase. The traffic problem will be alleviated by authoritarian HOV laws likely in the future because the money to build new highways and create right of way won't exist.

That part about parks is garbage. There's parks everywhere in the city, usually with playgrounds and basketball courts. When I go to Church in Queens, I see the baseball field with football (American and regular) and Cricket games occurring and youth playing basketball. There's even enough room on the fields for people to take their dogs in the morning to lay a deuce. There's a number of parks everywhere and people do have trees on their property, the Northeast isn't just some barren desert. People usually hate parks due to the fear of crime and what gets sold there after 9 pm, but parks create more PARKING!!!



Building homes has become more expensive because a lot of lumber and materials are being made by renewable sources over the past 25 plus years. Before you could just go annihilate a forest but there's is a vested interested in always having trees and stuff grow in a controlled fashion that way you could keep selling material. Also, lumber quality has declined dramatically because it is all virtually new growth.



As a result fish have become more expensive, and farmed.



I agree with you, but logically those things were always there (maybe to not as great of a degree) but instead autistic kids were just "stupid" and made fun of, and kids who died young was from a "tragedy."



All life forms are mindlessly self-destructive. Cattle will graze until their land is barren, cats will kill animals they don't eat and contaminate their water and food because they feel like it, deer hop in front of cars because they find it funny...

Anyway, the only way to save the planet is to educate the human race as a whole to be more responsible. You shouldn't have four children with three different men, you should leave the water running because your utilities are free, you should own a three ton behemoth when you commute sixty miles each way to work alone, you should run your power like it's Vegas, but people will and they have the freedom to. Solve it free market style, take away the "welfare" (I'm generalizing housing assistance, ebt, etc.) and make people bear the cost of their stupidity, eventually it will decrease to the point where one can afford.
Way too much truth in this post, take that enviromentalnuts.

Mini-Me
03-16-2013, 01:13 PM
If this is true, and they are advancing, then why the hell do they come by the millions into our countries?????

I said developed countries, as in "our countries" (in your words), and I said notwithstanding population growth from immigration. In other words, our population growth is not coming from our own birth rates, which are basically under control even despite the welfare state and inner city poverty. Our population growth is coming almost entirely from immigration, and European population growth is coming [more than] entirely from immigration.

The high birth rates are all in the other countries which are still developing, and that's where net immigration comes from. African countries for instance have totally ridiculous birth rates. As time goes on and they become more developed like us (and it is gradually happening already), their birth rates will drop for the same natural reasons they dropped to (sometimes below) replacement level in the US, Europe, etc. Even the historically Malthusian UN acknowledges this, and they project world population will plateau and start declining this century for these reasons. Reread Kregisten's post, The Gold Standard's posts, and my post if you still don't understand. The idea of explosive, never-ending population growth is not based in reality but in hysterical delusions...and in elitist authoritarian schemes for population control.

Teenager For Ron Paul
03-16-2013, 02:32 PM
I believe that nature is like a pendulum. Things make it sway back and forth in population, climate, etc., but it always comes back to equilibrium.

RickyJ
03-16-2013, 03:03 PM
Not trying to be rude, but could you clarify if this post is a joke or serious?

God gives life, if you don't believe that then you will be in for a rude awakening upon your death.

Zippyjuan
03-16-2013, 05:16 PM
If this is true, and they are advancing, then why the hell do they come by the millions into our countries?????

How many countries do you own?

PaulConventionWV
03-16-2013, 05:36 PM
The overpopulation myth MYTH

Friday, March 15, 2013
by Mike Adams (http://www.naturalnews.com/039490_overpopulation_myth_ecological_footprint_po pulation_collapse.html), the Health Ranger

I keep hearing, even among some in the alternative media, that the overpopulation of humans on our planet is a myth because "all the people in the world could fit in the state of Texas."

Sure they can, but then where would they pee?

This is not an idle question. The argument that the world isn't overpopulated merely because they could theoretically all be squeezed into one large land mass is an utterly fallacious argument, and I need to urge my friends in the alternative media to stop making this argument because it doesn't fly.

The question of overpopulation is not -- and has never been -- how many humans the planet can physically hold in terms of cubic meters and physical volume. The question is how many humans the biosphere can support in terms of sustainable life.

This isn't a complicated thing to understand: Your physical body could fit in a box that's 24 x 24 x 80 inches. It's called a coffin. But your biological needs require a far larger footprint on the planet. You need water, for starters. Where does it come from? I guarantee you use far more water each day than falls on a 24" x 24" piece of land. The water needs of a single person vastly outpace the physical space that person occupies. The entire population of Los Angeles, for example, needs literally thousands of square miles of water basin space to capture all the water that's pumped into their artificial city.

You need food. Where does the food come from? Vast tracts of land that need sunshine, water and soil. It's not hard to imagine that the food needs of a single person on our planet probably exceed one thousand square meters of land. If we really squeezed the entire global population (http://www.naturalnews.com/population.html) into the state of Texas, where would they grow their food?

You produce biological waste. Where does all your waste go? Processing that waste and "recycling" it back into the ecosystem requires huge amounts of land space. Nature needs a large, functioning ecosystem to dilute, process and transform the waste products of humanity, and in fact nature isn't even keeping up.

All told, the amount of land space required to support one human life is immensely larger than the amount of physical space occupied by one human body. This is classically called the "ecological footprint" of a human being. It's not a conspiracy theory and it's not something fabricated by Al Gore: We really do need a LOT of space to meet the demands of food, water, energy, resources, waste processing and so on.

Thus, the argument that "the entire population of the world could fit inside the state of Texas" is complete nonsense. You can fit a dozen people in a phone booth, but if you leave them in there for too long, they will die. If you cut off Los Angeles from the rest of the world, it will die. If you cut off New York City from the rest of the country, it will die. To support life, people need far more land mass on the planet than their physical bodies occupy.

"Carrying capacity" is a real concept

The Earth obviously has a finite amount of any given resource. The water volume is finite (but reusable if cleaned by nature). Oxygen production is finite. The amount of sunlight radiation reaching the surface of the planet is finite. Soil is finite. Rare earth minerals are finite. Oil is finite at any given moment in time, even if the Earth does produce more oil over long periods of time.

Given that all these things are finite -- and therefore not unlimited -- the global population that depends on these things for sustenance must obviously be finite as well. Anyone who argues that the human (http://www.naturalnews.com/human.html) population can be "unlimited" even while depending on finite resources is being ridiculous.

Clearly, by all foundations of logic, there is a limited "carrying capacity" of the planet, meaning there is a finite number of human beings who can be supported by the biosphere.

It's not rocket science to realize this, yet I still hear people arguing that overpopulation is a "myth" because the Earth has no limits. That's absurd. Of course the Earth has limits. If the Earth had no limits, it would be larger than the solar system, larger than the Milky Way, and larger than the entire galaxy. Because infinite is greater than any integer. If you give me a really, really large number, like 1.2 to the power of 10 to the power of one trillion, infinity is still larger than that. So to argue that the Earth's resources are "infinite" is to admit you are mathematically retarded.

The real question is this: Have we already exceeded the carrying capacity of this planet with finite resources, or is it still far off?

Those who say overpopulation is a myth insist that the current human population -- over 7 billion people -- is nowhere near the carrying capacity of the planet and that we can continue to double our population every few decades for the foreseeable future. If that were true, then the current population would need to be living in harmony with the planet, with an excess buffer of fresh water, food (http://www.naturalnews.com/food.html), topsoil, ocean life, watershed areas and so on.

And yet, when I look around I do not see a civilization living in harmony with the ecosystem. In fact, I see a civilization living on borrowed time, having already vastly exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet to the point where a population collapse is inevitable.

Human civilization is living on borrowed time

What are the signs that we are living on borrowed time? Let me name just a few:

• In America, India and China, underground water aquifers that produce the food that feeds the population is plummeting rapidly. Many aquifers will be dry by 2040, including the Ogallala Aquifer (http://www.naturalnews.com/031658_aquifer_depletion_Ogallala.html) that stretches from Texas to South Dakota and provides irrigation for the breadbasket agricultural hub of America.

• The pollution produced by the current population is murdering every ecosystem imaginable. Oceans are dying, coral reefs are dying, rivers are dying and rainforests are dying. (http://www.naturalnews.com/023579_fish_fishing_ecosystems.html) If the human population were small compared to the total carrying capacity, we shouldn't see the natural ecosystems dying all around us.

• Soils are disappearing across the world's agricultural centers. (http://www.naturalnews.com/029176_topsoil_food_production.html) We are losing topsoil at a record pace around the world, and once those top soils are gone, food production yields plummet. (You can't feed the world by growing food in sand.)

• Humanity's voracious appetite for energy has led to the global proliferation of "Earth-killing" technologies such as nuclear power plants. The Fukushima disaster proved that demand for power has caused energy industries to risk the viability of human life across the planet in order to produce more power for humanity's artificial cities.

• Hydrocarbons continue to drive the world economy, yet there's very good evidence that oil supplies in the Middle East are drying up (production is falling). While the planet can produce more hydrocarbons over millions of years, it cannot double its oil supply in a few decades. Thus, the demand for oil vastly outstrips the ability of the planet to produce it.

• Look at the outrageous crowding in cities like New York and Los Angeles. The highways exist in a seemingly endless logjam, and there's hardly a public open space left remaining anywhere in these cities, with New York's Central Park being the rare exception. Housing shortages and housing building materials shortages (wood, concrete, steel) are all very, very real. This is why building homes has become ridiculously expensive over the last few years. China is buying concrete and steel from the USA and shipping it overseas on large sea freighters.

• The depletion of ocean fisheries is also very real. As the human population over-fishes the oceans in search of food, ocean life is experiencing an unprecedented die-off. Many species have plummeted to "red alert" levels due to over-fishing.

I could go on, but the point is that when I look around, I do not see a world functioning with excess capacity. I see a world that seems to be over-tapped, over-exploited, over-farmed and over-populated. Nearly every river that empties into the oceans creates a massive "dead zone" of chemicals, heavy metals and pharmaceutical runoff. Chemical contamination has become so alarmingly bad that every person reading this carries 250+ synthetic chemicals in their bodies that don't belong there. Autism is skyrocketing, cancer is striking younger and younger children, and the food is increasingly tainted with pollutants caused by humankind.

This is not the description of a planet with excess carrying capacity. This is a description of a planet that is DYING.

Another fallacious argument about the overpopulation myth

Yet another poorly-conceived argument used by the "overpopulation myth" supporters goes like this:

The world isn't overpopulated because populations are actually falling in many developed nations like Japan.

Yes, that's the entire logic of the argument. But the logic forgets to take into account that populations are falling in selected areas precisely because they are already overpopulated there.

Tokyo, by any stretch of the imagination, is wildly overpopulated. The population of Tokyo, in fact, has vastly exceeded the carrying capacity of the entire island nation of Japan, requiring vast inputs of resources and food from other land masses around the globe. If Japan halted all imports, the population of Tokyo would starve to death in a matter of weeks.

The primary reason why Japan's population is in decline is because intelligent young Japanese couples look around and see skyrocketing costs for housing (caused by overpopulation), skyrocketing costs to feed a new baby (caused by overpopulation), skyrocketing costs for home construction, clothing, education and other things... all caused by overpopulation (i.e. too many people and not enough resources or open space).

The decline in Japan's population is a classic example of a self-regulating population that sees the overcrowding (and all the economic penalties which accompany it) and make a conscious decision to not reproduce.

Yet, somehow, the overpopulation myth (http://www.naturalnews.com/overpopulation_myth.html) people say Japan's declining population is proof that it's not overpopulated!

Wow, that's the complete opposite of reality.

But beware of population control eugenicists

All this does not mean, by the way, that I support the globalist population control agenda. Governments and global controllers are seizing upon the overpopulation problem and using it to justify mass murder.

The population control agenda is being run right now, right under your nose, through programs like toxic vaccines, free abortions, geoengineering pollution (chemtrails) and GMOs. The point of all this is to collapse the human population and get it "closer to zero," as Bill Gates often explains.

People like Gates and Ted Turner openly admit they are pursuing population control measures, but they call it safe-sounding things like "reproductive health." In no way do I support their death agendas for the human race, and I do not support their contention that the global population should be reduced by 90% or so (depending on who you ask). Ted Turner wants the population to be no more than 1 billion people. That means somehow six billion people have to die.

So how do we solve this problem? Well, frankly, we don't. Because we're such an infantile race of stupid creatures just barely more intelligent than apes, we are going to ride this crazy train of idiocy right into the ground. We are going to burn out this planet, kill the ecosystem, poison the waters and taint the skies. And most of the population is going to giggle all the way to their own graves as they perish from the very same systems of self-destruction they voted for at the polling booths.

From a galactic perspective, humankind wears the "dunce" hat. In fact, we are probably referred to by other intelligent civilizations as the "radioactive hominids" because we are stupid enough to detonate hundreds of nuclear weapons on our own planet, followed by building hundreds more nuclear power facilities, all of which are extremely vulnerable to a solar flare event that could kill virtually all human life on the planet.

I predict the human race will destroy itself and collapse back to a tiny population of ragged survivors. Even beyond that, I say this has likely already happened at a smaller scale. We are not the first civilization to rise and fall on this planet, nor will we be its last. Our planet is full of evidence of lost civilizations that were once great yet perished into oblivion. There is convincing evidence that an atomic blast happened in the Middle East thousands of years ago. There is also evidence that ancient civilizations possessed highly advanced technologies that have since been lost. (A full discussion of this is covered in Jim Marrs' new book, Our Occulted History. (http://www.amazon.com/Our-Occulted-History-Conceal-Ancient/dp/0062130315))

We modern humans stomp around the planet with a twisted sense of arrogance intertwined with obliviousness, having no idea what destroyed previous civilizations on our planet yet somehow believing we are immune to such outcomes. We believe we are "superior" but can't answer the question, "Superior at what?" Making nuclear bombs? Manufacturing synthetic pesticides? Creating genetic monstrosities that dot the agricultural landscape?

This is not progress, and it's not sustainable life on a planet. Unless we change very soon, we will destroy ourselves and render the overpopulation problem moot. Before long, no one will even be left alive to care that there even existed an evil creature named "Bill Gates." It matters not one inkling in the timescale of our planet's existence.

When future archeologists dig up our modern-day cities to study humanity's dark past, they will find mercury, plastic bags, pill bottles, toxic electronics and fragments of human bone giving off curiously high levels of radiation. They will wonder what calamity struck the human race and caused the collapse of global civilization, and they will likely rise up out of the ashes to make the same mistakes we are making.

Humanity is a race of short-term thinkers, and short-term thinkers have no real future on any planet. From a sufficiently distant perspective, our entire civilization looks like little more than a colony of hungry bacteria spreading across the surface of a petri dish until nothing is left to eat and the entire system collapses. Don't kid yourself: We are not as smart as you've been led to believe. If we were, then why would we poison our own food, water, soils, skies, infants, oceans, crops and planet?

Now hold on just a second. You're the one telling us that vaccines are tools of genocide, and yet you believe all of the hype that overpopulation is a real problem? Who do you propose takes care of this problem? The state? I'm afraid I don't follow the logical segue from "vaccines are murder" to "humans are an infestation." Sure, maybe you didn't say that, but the overpopulation idea is coming from the same people who brought you vaccines. Where do you think you learned about the idea that the earth is overpopulated? School? The news media? Who told you that?

Overpopulation is only supported by propaganda just like vaccines are supported by propaganda. By the way, I've never heard anyone say that the world's population could fit inside the state of Texas. It could, but that's not really a convincing argument. The truth is that they could all fit inside the city of Jacksonville, FL... twice. We could all have 20 square metres (or was it yards) to ourselves within the area of England. Not the UK, just England.

PaulConventionWV
03-16-2013, 06:03 PM
And the churches keep feeding third worlders, which makes the problem worse, not better. It swells a population that cannot sustain itself.

Yep. It would be better if we just let them die and suffer. This is why I hate eugenicists and pseudo-eugenicists who pretend to be wary of the eugenicists by saying they don't like genocide. That's a small comfort considering the very premise of the problem you're describing: the idea that some people should die because we somehow know how much land mass a single person requires. Try moving to the country. I bet you could find plenty of space for yourself. Never mind that population decline in urban areas isn't because of overpopulation. If everyone decided to move if they thought their areas was too crowded, I bet you they could support themselves just fine. The continent of Africa is well able to sustain all of the people who inhabit it. The problem is the faulty redistribution: the greed and the restriction of resources by governments: the same governments that tell us we are like a pest that needs to be eliminated. Move to the country, and you could find plenty of space for yourself with no shortage of natural resources. Why can't everyone just do this? If you think 7 billion, a population that can fit into HALF of Jacksonville, FL, is too much, then you must think that the only sustainable land mass is one where we all live a mile apart as if the whole world was some backwoods hick country where the LACK of civilization is a real problem. Never mind the fact that we have plenty of places like that, but the idea that no urban population can be sustained is just a pure fallacy.

The reason Tokyo and other developed areas are declining is because child-bearing has become less of a priority. The more educated you are, the more of a burden a child becomes. This is obvious enough to anyone who has went to college and tried to avoid, at all costs, having a child or becoming pregnant. People just don't want to do it anymore. That's why the population is falling. It's because people are dying at a faster rate than they are being born in those areas, not because their population can't be sustained. Even if that were the case, do you see everyone there wallowing in misery, or is it actually possible to have a good life in an urban area? Not EVERYONE in Tokyo is miserable from all the over-population. The place actually seems to get along alright, so why is this population curve such a big deal? Nature will regulate itself, and if you think it's too crowded in Tokyo, then you don't have to live in Tokyo. There are plenty of places where you and your family can live off of your own small plot of land, and not extraneous amounts of resources are needed.

/rant

I'm so sick of people buying into this bullshit.

PaulConventionWV
03-16-2013, 06:21 PM
So you think the prophecy of Revelations is way off base?

For once, science and the bible agree, and you deny both?

I don't advocate government run population control. Instead I hope that humans will learn to manage their own breeding to curb population growth. Replacement reproduction only. Having more than 3 children shouldn't be a crime, but it should be worthy of boycotting and ostracism in accordance with free market principles.

You might as well get used to it, then, because humans are never going to be so systematic that they can automatically alter their breeding habits by being aware of the capacity of the ecosystem and how close the planet is to breaching its capacity. Just imagine trying to take all that into account the next time you have sex. The whole idea of humans learning to manage themselves according to their ecosystem's capacity is based on the idea that we can even know those things in the first place. People starving doesn't mean the world is nearing its capacity. Not even close. People have been starving since the beginning of civilization, and yet we pretend that there is no way that somebody could just move out of the city and find a place in the country where they could VERY EASILY sustain themselves on what is in their immediate environment. There's no shortage of this space, either. If the whole population of the world can fit in the city of Jacksonville, FL twice, then imagine what it would look like if we were all spread out evenly. Society wouldn't even be practical if that were the case. We would all be secluded, and that doesn't even take into account the family. Each INDIVIDUAL man, woman, and child, would be so secluded amongst themselves that it would be near impossible to communicate with more than a few people.

PaulConventionWV
03-16-2013, 06:22 PM
Think there's too many people? Then kill yourself. - Alex Jones

I approve this message.

PaulConventionWV
03-16-2013, 06:27 PM
How about we just teach these men, women, and children to fish? In the mean time, let's not stop giving them fish. That's how they eat for a day. But over the long run, how about we empower them all to care for themselves? How about we advance technology (perhaps through GMOs - GASP!) to the point where crops can grow in regions that are currently not fertile and water can be supplied to regions that are currently barren? We can do these things. Through charity and free markets, we can do these things! We can eliminate want and suffering, by working hard and fulfilling the obligation each of us has to care for ALL human beings.

Your callous disregard for other living creatures has no place in civilized society.

I don't believe we will ever solve the problem of human suffering, but yes, charity has a place in our world. It is not a bad thing. We will always be imperfect, and therefore, humans will always suffer, just as they always have.

Philhelm
03-16-2013, 06:30 PM
Wouldn't overpopulation be a self-correcting problem?

PaulConventionWV
03-16-2013, 07:14 PM
Third world has been taking our jobs. What percentage of third world is getting more prosperous? I'd wager it's a few at the top. That is why our standard of living is falling. Don't you get it? The globalists want an entire planet of third world wage earners. That is why they push for more immigration into our countries. To drive down our standard of living.

Dey terk er jerbs!

Neil Desmond
03-16-2013, 07:19 PM
Wouldn't overpopulation be a self-correcting problem?
What qualifies as a correction to overpopulation? Complete eradication of the human species?

BAllen
03-16-2013, 07:25 PM
Nature will balance things out, correct? With disease and pestilence. That is what is happening in the third world. Most here agree with that? Okay. Advanced countries have eradicated many diseases, and use birth control. Are you with me? Okay. The problem is that these third world people are bringing their diseases and their poor breeding habits into this country and poisoning us with it. Do you understand, now what I'm talking about? Many Africans think they can cure aids by having sex with virgins. I kid you not. So, what happens when they come here and breed with Americans? Or when they bring tuberculosis here? Guess what? It's YOUR problem, now!! Why allow them to bring their underdeveloped, destructive ways to poison us? Let nature weed them out where they are, instead of taking us down with them.

PaulConventionWV
03-16-2013, 07:30 PM
Far fewer people as a percentage of the worlds population face starvation and water shortages than ever before.

Most of Europe, China, Russia, and Japan are faced with declining populations. US population growth has slowed dramatically in the last 50 years. Sooner or later the same will happen to the other half of the world when they get wealth.

There is no overpopulation. In 100 years starvation will not even exist at this rate.

That assumes constant production... People have always starved, even when the world's population was a mere fraction of what it is now. I agree that there is no overpopulation, but starvation will never be eradicated because some people just aren't as productive as others, and those people will struggle.

PaulConventionWV
03-16-2013, 07:55 PM
Why not head it off at the pass, and prevent needless suffering? It could be done, you know. Get the church to hand out condoms with instructions to go along with the food they give. Or, why not give them any aid, and let them die off now?
The problem is the third worlders will overpopulate our countries, then the death panels will kill off people at random. They're already bringing diseases into this country. Diseases we had eradicated long ago. They need to stay in their own countries and let the diseases diminish their own populations, not ours.

While I do feel that you are probably a hopeless case, I will go ahead and try to explain the position of reason in contrast to your deluded ramblings. "Heading it off at the pass" creates more problems than it cures. People have always starved since the beginning of civilization because of the difference in production between people. The cycle of nature, of life and death, of population and overpopulation, has gotten us farther than any of us could have gotten if nature were subject to our direction. Why, then, would we try to disrupt the cycle by trying to cure something we know nothing about? We don't even know what the "problem" originates from, never mind how to stop it.

Also, condoms aren't going to help the third world production problem. First of all, they most likely won't use them. There is a reason these people are having kids. It's not because they don't know how to avoid it, it's because they see no reason to. They need farm hands and people to help increase their production. They know this better than you do, so you imposing your way of life on them is elitist and arrogant, not to mention presumptuous.

The whole idea that cutting aid to the poor would help alleviate the problem of poverty is fallacious from the start. The cycle of life has gone on for a long time without your input. People have donated and helped the poor since the beginning of civilization, just as there have always been the starving poor since the beginning of civilization. There is no "problem" to prevent. It's all in your head. The cycle of life and death, of population and overpopulation, INCLUDES all this charitable giving. Did you think the church just invented charitable giving only recently? What of people who try to modernize and make third world countries more efficient? Are these charitable people also perpetuating the problem? You act like all charity is a bad thing because it ONLY inflates capacity and never makes meaningful contribution to society. If that were the case, then America would never be what it is today because more people to help improve the efficiency of sustaining a high population wouldn't even help. You act like there is no such thing as charity that actually improves lives. You are wrong and what's more, you don't even know what you are talking about. It is impossible to know these things. The idea that the poverty problem is based on overpopulation is not founded in any factual basis. If I were you, I would beware of proposed solutions that assume there is a problem when the source of said problem is virtually impossible to pinpoint. It is purely conjecture and nonsense. Like I said, life has gone on much longer than any of us were around, so for us to think that we have an idea of what the world is going through is just laughable at best. It is so arrogant that it is not even worthy of consideration that you might know what's best for the world's problems. Nature and the free market have always prevailed and continued life despite tyranny and times of great hardship. The world shall overcome, and there's really nothing you can do to disrupt the cycle without being completely unaware of the effects of your action. You don't even know if your proposed solution will help the problem or make it worse. How could you be so arrogant as to think that you know anything how the world functions, much less how to alter a cycle that's gone on for thousands of years for the better? It's completely arrogant and stupid at the same time. It's a sign of the worst kind of stupid, the kind that thinks it knows how to help other people against their will.

PaulConventionWV
03-16-2013, 07:59 PM
You prefer to let humans suffer needlessly in disease, pestilence, and starvation? How heartless of you. You care more about the suffering of animals than you do humans.

Way to frame the debate in your best interest there, pal. It takes a really messed up person to be as heartless as you are, all the while thinking you are a god.

PaulConventionWV
03-16-2013, 08:11 PM
What qualifies as a correction to overpopulation? Complete eradication of the human species?

What makes you think overpopulation would ever be so catastrophic that it caused everybody in the entire world to die? This thread is full of hyperbole and fail.

BAllen
03-16-2013, 08:20 PM
Way to frame the debate in your best interest there, pal.

It's called winning an argument.



It takes a really messed up person to be as heartless as you are, all the while thinking you are a god.

Not surprising you resort to personal attacks. It is a sign of losing the argument.
;)

BAllen
03-16-2013, 08:27 PM
While I do feel that you are probably a hopeless case, I will go ahead and try to explain the position of reason in contrast to your deluded ramblings. "Heading it off at the pass" creates more problems than it cures. People have always starved since the beginning of civilization because of the difference in production between people. The cycle of nature, of life and death, of population and overpopulation, has gotten us farther than any of us could have gotten if nature were subject to our direction. Why, then, would we try to disrupt the cycle by trying to cure something we know nothing about? We don't even know what the "problem" originates from, never mind how to stop it.

Also, condoms aren't going to help the third world production problem. First of all, they most likely won't use them. There is a reason these people are having kids. It's not because they don't know how to avoid it, it's because they see no reason to. They need farm hands and people to help increase their production. They know this better than you do, so you imposing your way of life on them is elitist and arrogant, not to mention presumptuous.

The whole idea that cutting aid to the poor would help alleviate the problem of poverty is fallacious from the start. The cycle of life has gone on for a long time without your input. People have donated and helped the poor since the beginning of civilization, just as there have always been the starving poor since the beginning of civilization. There is no "problem" to prevent. It's all in your head. The cycle of life and death, of population and overpopulation, INCLUDES all this charitable giving. Did you think the church just invented charitable giving only recently? What of people who try to modernize and make third world countries more efficient? Are these charitable people also perpetuating the problem? You act like all charity is a bad thing because it ONLY inflates capacity and never makes meaningful contribution to society. If that were the case, then America would never be what it is today because more people to help improve the efficiency of sustaining a high population wouldn't even help. You act like there is no such thing as charity that actually improves lives. You are wrong and what's more, you don't even know what you are talking about. It is impossible to know these things. The idea that the poverty problem is based on overpopulation is not founded in any factual basis. If I were you, I would beware of proposed solutions that assume there is a problem when the source of said problem is virtually impossible to pinpoint. It is purely conjecture and nonsense. Like I said, life has gone on much longer than any of us were around, so for us to think that we have an idea of what the world is going through is just laughable at best. It is so arrogant that it is not even worthy of consideration that you might know what's best for the world's problems. Nature and the free market have always prevailed and continued life despite tyranny and times of great hardship. The world shall overcome, and there's really nothing you can do to disrupt the cycle without being completely unaware of the effects of your action. You don't even know if your proposed solution will help the problem or make it worse. How could you be so arrogant as to think that you know anything how the world functions, much less how to alter a cycle that's gone on for thousands of years for the better? It's completely arrogant and stupid at the same time. It's a sign of the worst kind of stupid, the kind that thinks it knows how to help other people against their will.

If they'd listen and use the condoms, coupled with good hygiene, they wouldn't need so many children because they would have a healthier population that would actually live. Is that so hard for you to understand? If they fail to follow advice that is given them, guess what? That's their problem! Let them destroy themselves with it, and learn from their mistakes, as we did! The fact that modern hygiene and medicine is being offered to them is, in itself, saving them from much worse suffering then they would have without any aid at all. So, we have already given them enough information for them to sustain their own livelihood. You said they wouldn't use condoms, Well, whose fault is that? I'll clue you in.........THEIRS!!!

You still have not answered the question of why we should let them in here to poison us?

PaulConventionWV
03-16-2013, 08:44 PM
It's called winning an argument.

Winning an argument isn't the same as being right.


Not surprising you resort to personal attacks. It is a sign of losing the argument.
;)

I resort to personal attacks because you are really messed up. Don't make the mistake of thinking this debate is based in fact. We are simply contrasting our own ideals because there really is no way to know if there really is a problem that can even be fixed. We simply don't have the information to have a reasoned debate and so I am simply pointing out how morally bereft you must be in order to think you are so smart you are willing to wager your knowledge against the lives of millions. There is no winner in an argument like this because there are no facts to determine who is right. There is just hyperbole and conjecture, so don't ever think you have the upper hand because I recognize how messed up your world view is. I am simply challenging your conceptions of how the world works and you are responding by repeating the same old mantra without any regard to the lack of factual basis for your argument.

PaulConventionWV
03-16-2013, 08:47 PM
If they'd listen and use the condoms, coupled with good hygiene, they wouldn't need so many children because they would have a healthier population that would actually live. Is that so hard for you to understand? If they fail to follow advice that is given them, guess what? That's their problem! Let them destroy themselves with it, and learn from their mistakes, as we did! The fact that modern hygiene and medicine is being offered to them is, in itself, saving them from much worse suffering then they would have without any aid at all. So, we have already given them enough information for them to sustain their own livelihood. You said they wouldn't use condoms, Well, whose fault is that? I'll clue you in.........THEIRS!!!

You still have not answered the question of why we should let them in here to poison us?

And what do you mean by "them"? How do we screen people who come into our country? Who decides if they get to stay or have to turn around and go back where they came from to wallow in their filth?

What I am saying is, you can't cure the overpopulation problem. It's part of the natural cycle of life and it's really not any more of a problem than farming in the desert is. There are certain things that will cause you difficulty in life that are out of your control. So don't try to fix them. Just trust that life will come full circle.

Charitably giving condoms is no more of a solution than charitably giving things that will actually help sustain a higher population rather than try to diminish it. You just happen to think diminishing the population is the only option and the only way to help people, which is patently absurd.

Diminishing the population doesn't help improve the living conditions of the remaining population like a new, more efficient technology would.

Cutlerzzz
03-16-2013, 09:57 PM
That assumes constant production... People have always starved, even when the world's population was a mere fraction of what it is now. I agree that there is no overpopulation, but starvation will never be eradicated because some people just aren't as productive as others, and those people will struggle.
That's the point. People are becoming more productive at unprecedented rates. In the last 200 years starvation has become a thing of the past in the Western world. Now China and India (as well as Vietnam, Indonesia, and several smaller countries) are on pace to eliminate hunger in the future with their growth rates, while Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore have already done so.

PaulConventionWV
03-16-2013, 10:06 PM
That's the point. People are becoming more productive at unprecedented rates. In the last 200 years starvation has become a thing of the past in the Western world. Now China and India (as well as Vietnam, Indonesia, and several smaller countries) are on pace to eliminate hunger in the future with their growth rates, while Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore have already done so.

Right, but production will go down as the population keeps declining.

silverhandorder
03-16-2013, 10:48 PM
Overpopulation is a myth. Developed countries will simply not produce kids when resources become expensive. When cost of living rises so much that you can barely sustain your self you will not have a kid. Problem solved.

And even if someone does not know about birth control those kids will not be able to survive.

bolil
03-16-2013, 10:55 PM
Overpopulation is a myth. Developed countries will simply not produce kids when resources become expensive. When cost of living rises so much that you can barely sustain your self you will not have a kid. Problem solved.

And even if someone does not know about birth control those kids will not be able to survive.

And now we, as a species, have reached, again, the point where superfluity reigns.

Cutlerzzz
03-16-2013, 11:40 PM
Right, but production will go down as the population keeps declining.

Higher population creates a larger division of labor and more minds. Having more people will just lead to more innovation.

Carson
03-17-2013, 12:04 AM
The overpopulation myth MYTH

Friday, March 15, 2013
by Mike Adams (http://www.naturalnews.com/039490_overpopulation_myth_ecological_footprint_po pulation_collapse.html), the Health Ranger

I keep hearing, even among some in the alternative media, that the overpopulation of humans on our planet is a myth because "all the people in the world could fit in the state of Texas."

Sure they can, but then where would they pee?

Snip...



Same place they do now?

http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/morestuff/twostoryouthouse.jpg

Carson
03-17-2013, 12:13 AM
This sentence is not quite correct. It is not the demand for power that caused Fukushima but the demand for weaponizable plutonium, as the method they use is not the only method for producing nuclear power, just the only one with plutonium as a by-product.

If we're going to solve capacity issues, finding a cheap source of abundant energy is at the top of the "to-do" list, and categorically discarding the use of nuclear power makes the problem essentially unsolvable with today's technologies.

I'm not sure if it is true or even true in this case but...

A long time ago I heard that you could produce more weapons grade material by running the reactors in very low power mode. The one near us was always shut down for some reason or other.

Neil Desmond
03-17-2013, 06:45 AM
What makes you think overpopulation would ever be so catastrophic that it caused everybody in the entire world to die? This thread is full of hyperbole and fail.
How do you figure that I made such an assertion or argument? It's a hypothetical, not a claim. It's like asking what qualifies as time travel - it doesn't necessarily mean that time travel is possible.

BAllen
03-17-2013, 07:50 AM
More proof:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

PaulConventionWV
03-17-2013, 08:36 AM
Higher population creates a larger division of labor and more minds. Having more people will just lead to more innovation.

I agree, but I was talking about the declining population of Europe. People will still starve because production will go down as the population DECLINES. The problem of starvation won't be eradicated by the fact that Europe's population is going down.

PaulConventionWV
03-17-2013, 08:39 AM
How do you figure that I made such an assertion or argument? It's a hypothetical, not a claim. It's like asking what qualifies as time travel - it doesn't necessarily mean that time travel is possible.

What's your point, then?

PaulConventionWV
03-17-2013, 09:02 AM
More proof:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

First of all, "more" proof??? You haven't even offered any in this thread except your own ramblings. Unless, of course, you think what you say qualifies as proof without any backing.

Second of all, that video does not say anything about birth control or charitable giving. It says IMMIGRATION cannot help the problem because the effects of immigration are so little on the countries that people are emigrating from that it won't make a difference. Moreover, there is only one little claim in the entire video that more immigration would "overwhelm" our nation's infrastructure. OK. That's one claim in the video that kind of relates to what you're saying, and there is still nothing backing it up. Besides, that claim doesn't really mean immigration, as it is, is a bad thing. For all we know, this could be just the right amount of immigration.

All in all, the video seems to support MY point of view, rather than yours; the view that helping people build infrastructure in their own countries is a good way to help them. It does not say ANYTHING about how charitable giving is supposedly swelling the population beyond its means. For every church giving out food, or the means of survival, there is another charitable giver helping to build infrastructure in those same countries. The population has been growing since the beginning of time and this type of charity has always existed, so what makes you think that the world is going to encounter some unusually large catastrophe NOW? Where's your real proof?

osan
03-17-2013, 03:34 PM
I do not recall who it was, but a year or so ago someone here claimed that the planet could carry 100 billion human beings and expressed an eagerness to see it be so, punctuated with something to the effect of "I can't wait".

The article in the op may be flawed in certain details, such as the claims about nuclear power, but on the whole it is dead nuts on the money.

The author raises the question of whether we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet. The answer predicates on the sort of planet that is to be considered. From my point of view, the answer is a likely "yes". Why? Because we are producing food not by the natural capacities of the arable lands but through the synthetically augmentations of petrochemical fertilizers. Were we to stop using such enhancements today, within a year much of the world would be starving. This is a truth that cannot be escaped, and huge populations would be then faced with the choice of changing their lifestyles fundamentally or facing death by malnutrition.

The more people we put on the ground, the less wilderness we can maintain, unless we go even loonier with artificial means of production of the basics. That last bit has worked out in ways that are questionable on their best days. Either way, we are indeed playing a game close to that of a zero-sum; close enough for non-trivial discomfort.

Neil Desmond
03-17-2013, 09:24 PM
What's your point, then?
I'm just inquiring at the moment, boss. Whether or not I have a point to make will depend on the response. Is there a reason for being ardent?

Mani
03-18-2013, 12:28 AM
The reason Tokyo and other developed areas are declining is because child-bearing has become less of a priority. The more educated you are, the more of a burden a child becomes. This is obvious enough to anyone who has went to college and tried to avoid, at all costs, having a child or becoming pregnant. People just don't want to do it anymore. That's why the population is falling. It's because people are dying at a faster rate than they are being born in those areas, not because their population can't be sustained. Even if that were the case, do you see everyone there wallowing in misery, or is it actually possible to have a good life in an urban area? Not EVERYONE in Tokyo is miserable from all the over-population. The place actually seems to get along alright, so why is this population curve such a big deal? Nature will regulate itself, and if you think it's too crowded in Tokyo, then you don't have to live in Tokyo. There are plenty of places where you and your family can live off of your own small plot of land, and not extraneous amounts of resources are needed.

/rant

I'm so sick of people buying into this bullshit.


Tokyo is actually a really fun place to go. In my visits to Japan and Tokyo and surrounding areas, people are SO FRIENDLY, happy, pleasant, respectful. There's a lot of people, but it didn't seem like some overpopulated mess of soon to be Armageddon. The city and it's inhabitants seemed to be going on just fine.

BAllen
03-18-2013, 08:42 AM
Higher population creates a larger division of labor and more minds. Having more people will just lead to more innovation.

Great! The third world is full of people so their swelling population of 'creative minds' will solve all their hunger, disease and pestilence problems!
Oh, wait. They doesn't work. Starvation and disease is rampant. Never mind.

Ender
03-18-2013, 12:51 PM
Anyone who thinks the world is over-populated has never been through the mid-west

Just sayin'. ;)

green73
03-18-2013, 12:53 PM
Anyone who thinks the world is over-populated has never been through the mid-west

Just sayin'. ;)

Or flown over Europe at night.

Cutlerzzz
03-18-2013, 02:12 PM
Great! The third world is full of people so their swelling population of 'creative minds' will solve all their hunger, disease and pestilence problems!
Oh, wait. They doesn't work. Starvation and disease is rampant. Never mind.

Just like the West 300 years ago, Japan 150 years ago, China and the East Asian Tigers 50 years ago.

scottditzen
03-18-2013, 02:36 PM
anyone that doesn't believe in overpopulation obviously never drove in new jersey

So true ha ha.

I'm from a formerly small town in NJ. In 20 years I saw the the population quadruple and the quality of life plummet. People who love strip malls and gridlocked traffic may disagree with me on my perspective of quality of life, however.

Now I live in Cleveland Ohio - a city with thousands of empty houses that needs maybe a half million people to move here just to right itself.

Anyhow, the questions of just how many people our planet can support should be interesting. Too bad the debate seemingly cannot be had without ridiculous hyperbole attached to it.

jllundqu
03-18-2013, 03:01 PM
I can't wait until they start to populate Mars! Then we can f_ck up the whole solar system!!! Send a few ships to Europa and whammo! We've spread the human virus on a whole new level! haha!

heavenlyboy34
03-18-2013, 03:09 PM
I can't wait until they start to populate Mars! Then we can f_ck up the whole solar system!!! Send a few ships to Europa and whammo! We've spread the human virus on a whole new level! haha! Maybe we should start with the moon like Newt suggested. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/newt-gingrich-promises-moon-base-flights-mars-reality/story?id=15449425 If only Boobus had voted Newt, we could be living on teh moon!