World faces overpopulation 'disaster'

[Ponce]

Like those buggers in a petric (?) dish and what happened on Eastern Island the situation will take care of itself..........or life boat Earth will sink into the ocean........at this time 35% of the world population don't have clean drinking water and one kid dies every ten seconds.
================================================== ==========


World faces overpopulation 'disaster' as number of people is set to rise by 75 million EACH YEAR.


The world is edging closer to overpopulation Armageddon as swelling cities drain the planet of its vital resources, a report warns today.
Population growth, especially in newly developing countries, is the 'defining challenge of the 21st century'.
It represents a greater potential threat than climate change, according to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
Only way is up? Population growth is the 'defining challenge of the 21st century' and represents a potential greater threat than climate change
Over the next six decades the world's population is expected to explode, soaring from 6.9billion to peak at 9.5billion in 2075, the report says.

Each year the number of people in the world is due to rise by 75million - equivalent to the entire population of the UK.

Most of the growth will be in the African continent, which is following in the industrial footsteps of Asia, and in cities.

The world's urban population is likely to increase from a 2007 figure of 3.3billion to 6.4billion in 2050.

More...All aboard the Ark Hotel! Giant biosphere is a 'self-contained haven' in event of climate change flood disaster

But without drastic changes there will not be sufficient resources to provide people with basic human needs such as water, food, energy and shelter, says the report, entitled Population: One Planet, Too Many People?

Climate change is likely to place even more stress on resources, resulting in as many as a billion people moving from inhospitable regions.

Water requirements are projected to rise by 30 per cent by 2030 while food resources will be stretched by a doubling of demand for agricultural produce by 2050.

Slum living, already forced on a third of the world's urban populations, will become even more widespread as cities became increasingly packed with people.

As a result billions could be at risk of hunger, thirst and appalling living conditions, creating tinderbox conditions that could ignite civil unrest and conflict.
'Staggering' rise: The world's urban population is likely to increase from a 2007 figure of 3.3billion to 6.4billion in 2050
The report, compiled with the help of more than 70 engineers around the world, sets out a series of 'engineering development goals' as a first step towards averting the looming disaster.

It calls for a global engineering initiative, modelled on the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals, to tackle the key problem areas of energy, water, food, urbanisation and finance.

Lead author Dr Tim Fox said: 'Towards the end of the century the world is going to come face to face with the challenges of the largest population explosion in human history.

'These headline figures really are staggering from a resources point of view and for the provision of the basic needs of human society.'

Engineering solutions such as reducing energy waste, improving food storage and extracting water from underground aquifers would allow the world to sustain a population of 9.5billion, said Dr Fox.

The cost would run into many trillions of pounds, but would be affordable if richer nations were willing to share financial as well as technological resources.

A key necessity is to help poorer nations 'leapfrog' the resource-hungry 'dirty' phase of industrialisation.
As population levels soar in newly emerging industrialised countries, those in developed parts of the world such as the UK and US are likely to stabilise or even fall, said the report.

The population of Europe is expected to decline by 20 per cent by 2050. However, the impact of global population growth would still be felt around an increasingly connected world where changes in one region could have an impact 'many thousands of miles away'.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346357/World-faces-overpopulation-disaster-number-people-set-rise-75-million-EACH-YEAR.html#ixzz1AvQyiGna

[chad]

don't blame me, i only had 2, because it's all i can afford to raise.

[Ash_Williams]

don't blame me, i only had 2, because it's all i can afford to raise.

Too bad for you 'cause we're gonna tax the hell out of you until you can afford zero so some african can feed his 12 kids.


Engineering solutions such as reducing energy waste, improving food storage and extracting water from underground aquifers would allow the world to sustain a population of 9.5billion, said Dr Fox.

The cost would run into many trillions of pounds, but would be affordable if richer nations were willing to share financial as well as technological resources.

Yep, we all gotta sacrifice to keep up exponential population growth. 'Cause that's good, for some reason.

[Book]

http://www.momlogic.com/images/merry-xmas-from-octomom-pmb-thumb-600x400.jpg

Octomom. Single unemployed mother of eight thanks all you American taxpayers.

:)

[Horn]

according to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers ???

Domo Arigato

[Ponce]

Comap sumida.

[Carbon]

http://www.momlogic.com/images/merry-xmas-from-octomom-pmb-thumb-600x400.jpg

Octomom. Single unemployed mother of eight thanks all you American taxpayers.

:)


Er... she's actually a mother of fourteen - only eight of them came out at once.

I still haven't received my card.

[Awoke]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ISYBezM_o1g/SP49Or46dfI/AAAAAAAAA3Y/Qbv77of3GXo/s320/woman
PANIC!!!




....or read this (http://gold-silver.us/forum/general-discussion/alternatives-to-kitco-gim2-and-thejoojooforum/msg124185/#msg124185).

[nunaem]

The earth can sustain many more billions of people. But it wont look like the earth anymore. No nature, no fauna, no flora except GM crops. We're nearing this point already.

Are the people that we have really that precious to sacrifice all other life forms for?

If we pursue a policy of intelligent eugenics, we can have fewer but better humans and more nature.

[Ash_Williams]

The earth can sustain many more billions of people. But it wont look like the earth anymore. No nature, no fauna, no flora except GM crops. We're nearing this point already.

Are the people that we have really that precious to sacrifice all other life forms for?

If we pursue a policy of intelligent eugenics, we can have fewer but better humans and more nature.

This may be the last generation that can still go somewhere in the world (with a moderate climate) miles away from the sounds, sights, or smells of anyone else and actually experience solitude.

I don't think eugenics is necessary. Just close and defend the border, protect our resources, and let those cultures that can't figure out that they should stop fcking find a solution for themselves or starve.

[chad]

i sometimes think that those who complain about overpopulation have never been to canada, alaska, the dakotas, nebraska, wyoming, montana, africa, etc.

hundreds of miles of vast nothingness but plants.

not every place is downtown atlanta.

[Ponce]

In order for the "modern" world to get here it will take about 20-25 years and by that time I could no longer be here.........we can hope, can't we?.........I can only hope that my damn cat is waiting for me like I asked her to do.

[nunaem]

i sometimes think that those who complain about overpopulation have never been to canada, alaska, the dakotas, nebraska, wyoming, montana, africa, etc.


What about Greenland? Antarctica? The Pacific ocean? The Moon? :oo-->

If we need to dump people into Canada, we DO have an overpopulation problem.

[chad]

you may have missed the part where i listed 5 u.s. states. i can list more underpopulated states if it would help you out.

[oldmansmith]

you may have missed the part where i listed 5 u.s. states. i can list more underpopulated states if it would help you out.



They are underpopulated for a reason. Cows need hundreds of acres apiece to live in many of those areas due to their aridity. No water, no food....

[chad]

a few posts back the world was ending because we were crowding out plants and cows. now, there's no cows there to begin with, and hardly any plants.

bottom line: imho, the overpopulation bomb topic is mostly hyperbole.

[horseshoe3]

The earth can sustain many more billions of people. But it wont look like the earth anymore. No nature, no fauna, no flora except GM crops. We're nearing this point already.

Are the people that we have really that precious to sacrifice all other life forms for?

If we pursue a policy of intelligent eugenics, we can have fewer but better humans and more nature.


Of course you would be allowed to live. It's those OTHER people that need to die. That the problem with eugenics. No one is willing to take one for the team.

[nunaem]

a few posts back the world was ending because we were crowding out plants and cows. now, there's no cows there to begin with, and hardly any plants.

bottom line: imho, the overpopulation bomb topic is mostly hyperbole.


It's not a matter of space for life, it's a matter of QUALITY of life. Quality that we are losing fast. If you want to live in a veritable China you should reconsider.






The earth can sustain many more billions of people. But it wont look like the earth anymore. No nature, no fauna, no flora except GM crops. We're nearing this point already.

Are the people that we have really that precious to sacrifice all other life forms for?

If we pursue a policy of intelligent eugenics, we can have fewer but better humans and more nature.


Of course you would be allowed to live. It's those OTHER people that need to die. That the problem with eugenics. No one is willing to take one for the team.


I am willing to go through the same hoops as anyone else. If I don't cut it the world is better off without my seed.

I should clarify that eugenics is not about killing people. It's just about providing incentives for healthy intelligent people to reproduce and disincentives for sick and imbecilic people to reproduce. In other words the opposite of what is in place today.

[Neuro]

The earth can sustain many more billions of people. But it wont look like the earth anymore. No nature, no fauna, no flora except GM crops. We're nearing this point already.

Are the people that we have really that precious to sacrifice all other life forms for?

If we pursue a policy of intelligent eugenics, we can have fewer but better humans and more nature.
I disagree to a degree... Earth could comfortably accommodate 20-30 billion intelligent people, with an improved Ecosystem... With for instance raised bed farming techniques, it would be sufficient with about a tenth of an acre to supply the nutritional needs of one person. With modern industrial farming you need one acre to supply the nutritional need of one person, and you will deplete soils, ground water, and you need to add artificial nutrients and pesticides, with an enormous energy input, and you destroy the biological diversity in the process. The opposite is true of raised bed farming, you improve soil year by year, 70% less water is needed, you only use natural nutrients and pesticides are not needed, because the biodiversity is much greater, the energy input is only muscular (another possibility is to use small solar powered robots). The garden that gives you this will encourage other life to live in it, and it will provide far better nutrition compared to what 99% of people live on today.

However I do feel that a large proportion of the current population needs to go before this can become reality, and I don't think eugenics is needed for it to happen...

[Carl]

As always, it's a self-correcting, non-problem. That's how nature works..............




.

[kregener]

World faces overpopulation 'disaster'

No, it does not.

[nunaem]

The earth can sustain many more billions of people. But it wont look like the earth anymore. No nature, no fauna, no flora except GM crops. We're nearing this point already.

Are the people that we have really that precious to sacrifice all other life forms for?

If we pursue a policy of intelligent eugenics, we can have fewer but better humans and more nature.
I disagree to a degree... Earth could comfortably accommodate 20-30 billion intelligent people, with an improved Ecosystem... With for instance raised bed farming techniques, it would be sufficient with about a tenth of an acre to supply the nutritional needs of one person. With modern industrial farming you need one acre to supply the nutritional need of one person, and you will deplete soils, ground water, and you need to add artificial nutrients and pesticides, with an enormous energy input, and you destroy the biological diversity in the process. The opposite is true of raised bed farming, you improve soil year by year, 70% less water is needed, you only use natural nutrients and pesticides are not needed, because the biodiversity is much greater, the energy input is only muscular (another possibility is to use small solar powered robots). The garden that gives you this will encourage other life to live in it, and it will provide far better nutrition compared to what 99% of people live on today.



Sounds interesting, I'll check this out. It still sounds far from ideal.


However I do feel that a large proportion of the current population needs to go before this can become reality, and I don't think eugenics is needed for it to happen...


Eugenics is not necessary if one is satisfied with the human race as it is. But when you realize the limitless horizons of artificial selection it is hard to be content. For me at least.



As always, it's a self-correcting, non-problem. That's how nature works..............




.


It's a non-problem for nature at least, in the long run. Can't say the same for us.

[MAGNES]

Close the borders to the third world, read them the riot act, smarten up, do not build them up,
no arms, no tech, no factories, no help, no more free ride, no more one way trade, help them
if you can, but that is it, no more free ride, NO MO, close the borders totally and let them deal
with their problems. The control masters won't allow this, their goal is to destroy European Man.
The planet will go with it.

[Ash_Williams]

No one's saying anyone needs to die.
Slowing or stopping the growth is not the same as death (as much as economists and politicians say it is).

I don't really care that much how crowded some places get, they can pack themselves 20 stories high if they want. I just don't want to be forced to pay for it. I don't want to have to give up what I have, in favor of "growth".

More people is going to mean one thing: "Hey, you have more clean water and food than you need. That's not fair. How's this fucker gonna feed his 12 votes, er, umm, kids? "

"That's a nice peice of land you got there... we're building affordable housing next door, so expect that stream running through your land to be full of diapers and used condoms from now on. Also we're raising your property tax 52% because someone has to pay for their cable tv."

"We can't allow organic farms anymore. Sorry but there's people that are starving and we can get 4x as much food by using GMO crops mixed with roadkill than your organic farm can produce. Stop being so selfish."

Yeah, parts of canada are pretty empty - now. Those are the places I was saying where you can still go and see what it's actually like to be a lone. Consider the rate of growth though... 1980: 4.5 billion. 2010: 7 billion. It's up about 78% in "my time" on the planet. There are still remote places now, but will there be in 2040?

Exponential growth. Population is going the way of the debt. Years ago an investment guy told me the US was the place to invest. I said no, the debt is getting so stupid. He said it's only 23% of gdp (I can't remember if 23 was the exact percent, but something like that.) I said ok, look at the chart, maybe it's 23% now but it's clearly going through the frigging roof. Today it's like 60 or 80% by the same measure.

So maybe the planet is just half full. Maybe it's just 1/4 full. That doesn't buy a lot of time because it's exponential growth.


Earth could comfortably accommodate 20-30 billion intelligent people,
Intelligent people aren't the ones contributing to the growth.

[BabushkaLady]

I can only hope that my damn cat is waiting for me like I asked her to do.


:ROFL:

Ponce? #1) Most cats do what they damn well feel like.

#2) you did say the cat is a Her?----See the same reasoning in #1

Sorry---Don't count on Her!

[Horn]

Estas Cadaverico

http://thecubaneconomy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Cuba-Population-Pyramid-2010.bmp

[Neuro]

Eugenics is not necessary if one is satisfied with the human race as it is. But when you realize the limitless horizons of artificial selection it is hard to be content. For me at least.
No matter if you are satisfied with the world as it is or not. I think we are edging closer to a disaster to humanity never previously seen (maybe with the exception of ICE AGE). Humanity needs to go through a cleansing face, were the 90% of the worlds population, can't think or act for themselves, and 9% abuse the imbalance to become ultra rich. And the remaining 1% of the population that are actually doing something constructive, support 90% of drones population, and the 9% of the parasites part.... A few percent of the drones and the parasites will wise up and survive, as will a similar proportion of creators succumb. But the result will be a far better human society compared to one that attempts eugenics to achieve the same goal as mother nature will achieve anyway!

They will just look at gold, and say, what's that! Give me something of value instead, like your furs to keep me warm in the night, corncobs to fill us up, a bottle of wine, and a chicken to savour... In return for a couple of days productive labour.

[Horn]

They will just look at gold, and say, what's that! Give me something of value instead, like your furs to keep me warm in the night, corncobs to fill us up, a bottle of wine, and a chicken to savour... In return for a couple of days productive labour.


I agree with you on the Ice Age & Eugenics, but what end are you sticking those corncobs into with your opinion on Gold???

[ShortJohnSilver]

Overpopulation is a phrase used for scaring people when they are too stupid to understand the scariness of "climate change" ...

[Neuro]

They will just look at gold, and say, what's that! Give me something of value instead, like your furs to keep me warm in the night, corncobs to fill us up, a bottle of wine, and a chicken to savour... In return for a couple of days productive labour.


I agree with you on the Ice Age & Eugenics, but what end are you sticking those corncobs into with your opinion on Gold???
No I just don't think gold will be considered that valuable any longer with 95% of worlds population extinct, and 100% of gold remaining. People will be less inclined to save for the future when the immediate future is at stake...

But this will first happen 5-15 years later before then you can make a handsome profit on gold vs useful items.

[nunaem]

Overpopulation is a phrase used for scaring people when they are too stupid to understand the scariness of "climate change" ...


Yeah, there's still plenty more places for us to go.. the Sahara, the Himalayas, Greenland, the Outback, Siberia, the Jungle, Arabia, the Ocean... And of course Antarctica.

Then, to the moon!

[ShortJohnSilver]

Overpopulation is a phrase used for scaring people when they are too stupid to understand the scariness of "climate change" ...


Yeah, there's still plenty more places for us to go.. the Sahara, the Himalayas, Greenland, the Outback, Siberia, the Jungle, Arabia, the Ocean... And of course Antarctica.

Then, to the moon!


Every American family could have a half-acre plot with a house on it in Texas, with space left over, and no one in any other part of the land mass ... does that give you an idea as to how unconcerned I am about your innumeracy?

[nunaem]

Overpopulation is a phrase used for scaring people when they are too stupid to understand the scariness of "climate change" ...


Yeah, there's still plenty more places for us to go.. the Sahara, the Himalayas, Greenland, the Outback, Siberia, the Jungle, Arabia, the Ocean... And of course Antarctica.

Then, to the moon!


Every American family could have a half-acre plot with a house on it in Texas, with space left over, and no one in any other part of the land mass ... does that give you an idea as to how unconcerned I am about your innumeracy?


All land is created equal, huh? You could fit the entire world population into Texas with room to spare, it proves nothing. You could give every America ten acres in Siberia and they would all die of dehydration in a week.

[ShortJohnSilver]

All land is created equal, huh? You could fit the entire world population into Texas with room to spare, it proves nothing.


All I can say is you haven't done the math... the USDA pays farmers millions a year to take their land out of production and grow nothing on it ... what does that tell you?

Drive through NJ, some of the best farmland in the country (believe it or not) ... look at how much is used for lawns that grow nothing but grass, big grassy areas in corporate parks, soccer and football etc. fields at every school ...

You want to pretend we are in the middle of a land crisis be my guest ... I am not going to assist you with keeping up the fantasy.

[nunaem]

All I can say is you haven't done the math... the USDA pays farmers millions a year to take their land out of production and grow nothing on it ... what does that tell you?


That soil is exhaustible.


Drive through NJ, some of the best farmland in the country (believe it or not) ... look at how much is used for lawns that grow nothing but grass, big grassy areas in corporate parks, soccer and football etc. fields at every school ...

You want to pretend we are in the middle of a land crisis be my guest ... I am not going to assist you with keeping up the fantasy.

So while everyone is living in Texas we can turn New Jersey in farmland?


As I said before, there is no population problem.. if you don't mind living in China in a few generations. If you like fresh air and wilderness and wildlife though...

I know the Earth can support more people, it's simply a matter of priorities. Do you want less nature and a lower standard of living in the future or not? Does Japan look like a great place to live or not?

[Horn]

No I just don't think gold will be considered that valuable any longer with 95% of worlds population extinct, and 100% of gold remaining. People will be less inclined to save for the future when the immediate future is at stake...

Guess, I just look back in history to when there was only 5% the population & it was more highly revered than today.

[Ponce]

LOL Horn........now the US is telling the Cuban people how many of them there should be.......

Lady? is a thing of the heart and not because she's female.........best companion and more faithfull partner that I had in 13 years.......I never, never, never, became angry with her, and for me that's saying a lot.....I don't mind saying that I changed a lot because of her..........once in a while, specially when eating chicken, I grab a piece and start looking for her.......oh well, pleaseant memories are nice to keep.......and now when something goes wrong or I feel sad all that I have to do is to think about her and I feel better.

[BabushkaLady]

I'm sorry Ponce---I didn't know you kitty isn't around anymore. That just stinks. :-[

I was playing on the stubborn female attributes you know . . .

[Ponce]

Well, as a female you should know hahahahahahaahhahaahahh........sometimes I'd call her and she would run away from me so that I'd would go in the house and two minutes later there she would be infront of me, her terms or the highway..........she was a female allright.

[kregener]

The whole "overpopulation" problem is just a tool of the NWO.

[nunaem]

The whole "overpopulation" problem is just a tool of the NWO.


They do want to use it their advantage and we should all keep our guards up for faux 'solutions'.

[kregener]

There is only one..."solution"...for their make-believe "problem".

[nunaem]

Make believe? Do 'Exponential Growth Curves' scare you? They should.

[kregener]

If over-population is an actual problem, it will be self-correcting.

[nunaem]

You don't say...

[nunaem]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2rTQpdyCFQ

Explanation of exponential growth.

I need a drink. :o

[ShortJohnSilver]

Make believe? Do 'Exponential Growth Curves' scare you? They should.


So two fake charts, one from a liberal editorial cartoonist and the other from the "population reference bureau" , are your rebuttal?

There is no actual way to show any sort of accurate population count from before, say, 1850.

Further, China, America, most if not all of Europe, is already at stabilization if not gradual decline at this point. That the charts you posted don't have the actual resolution to show the slowing of the curve or the decline, shows they are not showing a true picture.

Sorry, still not going to play along with your fantasy ...

[nunaem]

Make believe? Do 'Exponential Growth Curves' scare you? They should.


So two fake charts, one from a liberal editorial cartoonist and the other from the "population reference bureau" , are your rebuttal?

There is no actual way to show any sort of accurate population count from before, say, 1850.

Further, China, America, most if not all of Europe, is already at stabilization if not gradual decline at this point. That the charts you posted don't have the actual resolution to show the slowing of the curve or the decline, shows they are not showing a true picture.

Sorry, still not going to play along with your fantasy ...


You're contradicting yourself. I thought all of that New Jersey farmland was going to comfortably sustain population growth well into the future? A stabilization implies we're nearing the upper limits of possible population support and resource depletion. Once we reach that upper limit resources deplete and the standard of living will fall.

Or are there other factors limiting population growth besides resource maximization? What?

[vacuum]

Doesn't technology follow a similar exponential growth path?

[nunaem]

Doesn't technology follow a similar exponential growth path?


Yes, Moore's Law I believe, Ray Kurzweil thinks it will go on forever. I dunno.

But exponential growth can only go so far when dealing with things which have limits like resource usage or population, sooner or later there will be a crash.

[ShortJohnSilver]

Make believe? Do 'Exponential Growth Curves' scare you? They should.


So two fake charts, one from a liberal editorial cartoonist and the other from the "population reference bureau" , are your rebuttal?

There is no actual way to show any sort of accurate population count from before, say, 1850.

Further, China, America, most if not all of Europe, is already at stabilization if not gradual decline at this point. That the charts you posted don't have the actual resolution to show the slowing of the curve or the decline, shows they are not showing a true picture.

Sorry, still not going to play along with your fantasy ...


You're contradicting yourself. I thought all of that New Jersey farmland was going to sustain population growth well into the future? A stabilization implies we're nearing the upper limits of possible population support and resource depletion. Once we reach that upper limit resources deplete and the standard of living will fall.

Or are there other factors limiting population growth besides resource maximization? What?


I'm trying to remain polite ... but I do not understand where you are coming from re: stabilization, and your claim I am contradicting myself; perhaps I should have been clearer in that I meant demographic stabilization, that is, population in China, America, Europe is at or below replacement rate.

The Chinese population stabilized because they implemented a rather brutal set of policies including the one-child policy, lots of propaganda, and encouraging the growth of factories and urbanization. People used to have lots of children so that they would be looked after in their old age.

American/Europeans have decided to have less children, which is common when people move off the farm and there is less infant mortality.

Further, the influence of taxation which punishes having more children is not insignificant (actually, having more children while also holding down a job; welfare recipients seem to have a lot of children). Plus, of course, propaganda.

All of these influences have nothing to do with resources such as being able to grow food reaching a peak... there are about 34 MILLION acres in just the USA that have been taken off the market by the USDA, see for example: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jul/11/na-usda-urged-to-end-paying-farmers-not-to-grow-cr/ .

At the low end of typical yields for corn, 115 bushels per acre (Iowa typical yield 173 bushels per acre), this is (34 million * 115) 3,910 million, or 3.910 billion, bushels of corn; at 56 lbs per bushel, this end up being (3.910 billion * 56 / 2000) 109.48 million tons more corn per year, just for USA in a typical year.

How many more people could that feed? And this is without using any other land for farming.

(Admittedly, given that some oil is used for cultivating and producing fertilizers, this might affect oil prices; I have no way of determining that amount).

Can you admit that we are nowhere near "peak food", at the least?

[Horn]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LKZQT6pv_oU/TPeWHOeCckI/AAAAAAAABTk/X3QAG88ueLU/s1600/population+US.jpg

http://files.gereports.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/chart2.jpg

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2008/1/1/chindia3.jpg

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/een/001/images/article00_02a_4668.gif

[po boy]

The earth can sustain many more billions of people. But it wont look like the earth anymore. No nature, no fauna, no flora except GM crops. We're nearing this point already.

Are the people that we have really that precious to sacrifice all other life forms for?

If we pursue a policy of intelligent eugenics, we can have fewer but better humans and more nature.
I disagree to a degree... Earth could comfortably accommodate 20-30 billion intelligent people, with an improved Ecosystem... With for instance raised bed farming techniques, it would be sufficient with about a tenth of an acre to supply the nutritional needs of one person. With modern industrial farming you need one acre to supply the nutritional need of one person, and you will deplete soils, ground water, and you need to add artificial nutrients and pesticides, with an enormous energy input, and you destroy the biological diversity in the process. The opposite is true of raised bed farming, you improve soil year by year, 70% less water is needed, you only use natural nutrients and pesticides are not needed, because the biodiversity is much greater, the energy input is only muscular (another possibility is to use small solar powered robots). The garden that gives you this will encourage other life to live in it, and it will provide far better nutrition compared to what 99% of people live on today.

However I do feel that a large proportion of the current population needs to go before this can become reality, and I don't think eugenics is needed for it to happen...


Agreed now how many people are willing to put this into practice?

[nunaem]

Make believe? Do 'Exponential Growth Curves' scare you? They should.


So two fake charts, one from a liberal editorial cartoonist and the other from the "population reference bureau" , are your rebuttal?

There is no actual way to show any sort of accurate population count from before, say, 1850.

Further, China, America, most if not all of Europe, is already at stabilization if not gradual decline at this point. That the charts you posted don't have the actual resolution to show the slowing of the curve or the decline, shows they are not showing a true picture.

Sorry, still not going to play along with your fantasy ...


You're contradicting yourself. I thought all of that New Jersey farmland was going to sustain population growth well into the future? A stabilization implies we're nearing the upper limits of possible population support and resource depletion. Once we reach that upper limit resources deplete and the standard of living will fall.

Or are there other factors limiting population growth besides resource maximization? What?


I'm trying to remain polite ... but I do not understand where you are coming from re: stabilization, and your claim I am contradicting myself; perhaps I should have been clearer in that I meant demographic stabilization, that is, population in China, America, Europe is at or below replacement rate.

The Chinese population stabilized because they implemented a rather brutal set of policies including the one-child policy, lots of propaganda, and encouraging the growth of factories and urbanization. People used to have lots of children so that they would be looked after in their old age.

American/Europeans have decided to have less children, which is common when people move off the farm and there is less infant mortality.

Further, the influence of taxation which punishes having more children is not insignificant (actually, having more children while also holding down a job; welfare recipients seem to have a lot of children). Plus, of course, propaganda.

All of these influences have nothing to do with resources such as being able to grow food reaching a peak... there are about 34 MILLION acres in just the USA that have been taken off the market by the USDA, see for example: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jul/11/na-usda-urged-to-end-paying-farmers-not-to-grow-cr/ .

At the low end of typical yields for corn, 115 bushels per acre (Iowa typical yield 173 bushels per acre), this is (34 million * 115) 3,910 million, or 3.910 billion, bushels of corn; at 56 lbs per bushel, this end up being (3.910 billion * 56 / 2000) 109.48 million tons more corn per year, just for USA in a typical year.

How many more people could that feed? And this is without using any other land for farming.

(Admittedly, given that some oil is used for cultivating and producing fertilizers, this might affect oil prices; I have no way of determining that amount).

Can you admit that we are nowhere near "peak food", at the least?


I'm humbled.

You're right about the first world, I shouldn't have included them in my reasoning. Their affluence has more to do with their declining birth rates than environmental limitations and there is no shortage of food in the foreseeable future. I was speaking metaphorically about the NJ farmland representing global unused farmland, which is scarce in the old world, and nowhere to be found in most developing countries.
Developing countries are mainly the ones pushing their populations to the brink and even flooding excess population into the first world. These are the places I'm mostly concerned about, I'm sorry I wasn't clear on this.
China is a good example of a developing country nearly breeding itself to oblivion, requiring drastic measures.

[keehah]

All this talk of elite population planned control threads fall flat to my ears. (War, famine, bioweapons etc, are another issue IMO) Sure the UN writes reports on it, but this is the class of material such as reports on ending poverty etc. Not in the immediate corporate interests so it amounts to nothing. I do hear scientifically challenged people (such as AJ) rant against it in support of their denial of the problem or their particular type of mind control conditioning (Christian in AJ's case).

Yet the people of the Western World have, consciously or not, corrected this problem and slowed breeding to sustainable levels. It is our elites (economic think thanks, MSM, local developers and the politicians who profit from it) who still pimp growth via immigration, others to increase the numbers of their mind controlled flock, that continue their ponzi scheme economics destroying both civilization (affordability of resources, quality of life) and now the very ecosystem itself.



If over-population is an actual problem, it will be self-correcting.



You are right sir.

MASS EXTINCTION UNDERWAY (http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html)

The World Wide Web's Most Comprehensive Source
of Information on the Current Mass Extinction

Human beings are currently causing the greatest mass extinction of species since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If present trends continue one half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in less than 100 years

As a whole, led by our provincial money and power driven elites, we are not smarter than yeast, just more destructive.


China is a good example of a developing country nearly breeding itself to oblivion, requiring drastic measures.
Its even worst than that, now developing itself to oblivion:

Slate, Jan.10, 2010: The Chinese Eco-Disaster (http://www.slate.com/id/2280338/pagenum/all/#p2)

When Jonathan Watts was a child, he was warned: "If everyone in China jumps at exactly the same time, it will shake the earth off its axis and kill us all." Three decades later, he stood in the gray sickly smog of Beijing, wheezing and hacking uncontrollably after a short run, and thought: The Chinese jump has begun. He had traveled 100,000 miles crisscrossing China, from Tibet to the deserts of Inner Mongolia, and everywhere he went, he discovered that the Chinese state had embarked on a massive program of ecological destruction. It has turned whole rivers poisonous to the touch, rendered entire areas cancer-ridden, transformed a fertile area almost twice the size of Britain into desert—and perhaps even triggered the worst earthquake in living memory.

And don't forget for all those who want to continue growth, it will only be possible with fewer freedoms and more government controls. Assuming such controls will actually work to feed and not be used for corruption and the other fails of government much too common today.

I'll bet the earth could add another billion without destroying the ecosystem faster than we are now if we make eating meat illegal.
Another billion still if everyone but the farmers live in concrete towers.
Another billion still if no one drives a vehicle or flys in a plane for personal use.

And if we do all this we will only be able to continue the world population growth status quo for another 30 years.

Or we could keep living in houses, eating what we want, driving and flying (well peal oil is another issue) and have basically the same amount of kids we in the west have been having for the last several decades: 2 kids. And a few families can have more that two kids or we allow immigration to make up for the 0.2 more kids needed (for sustainability) and for those who don't have kids.

[Neuro]

No I just don't think gold will be considered that valuable any longer with 95% of worlds population extinct, and 100% of gold remaining. People will be less inclined to save for the future when the immediate future is at stake...

Guess, I just look back in history to when there was only 5% the population & it was more highly revered than today.


Well at those times you had possibly mined and refined 1% of the gold in the hands of humanity today. Anyway if people should ever get out of the grips of the banking tribe, they need to stop revere gold, because the tribe holds most of it... Silver, on the other hand is a totally different issue! ;)

[Ash_Williams]

If population isn't going to become a problem then by the same arguments I don't think debt will either. After all, there's still billions of dollars in texas which hasn't been taxed away yet.

Debt will find a way to self correct too but the question is how much damage it will do before it reaches that point.

It's the same question: do you like the idea of sacrificing what you have so this line can go even higher?

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4cd00bc24bd7c89768010000/chart.jpg

[Awoke]

It seems the simple things get overlooked when people are bent on maintaining an arguement.

again:




Oregon, a rather small state by comparison to others in the United States, has a total 95,607 square miles inside its borders. The world has approximately 4,000,000,000 (four billion) inhabitants. If the entire population moved to Oregon, all four billion, and left the remainder of the world completely devoid of human life, a family of four would have a piece of Oregon approximately 50' by 53'. The is about half the size of a typical residential lot in a subdivision.

The numbers are old, from a book published in 1985, but the point I am trying to impress is this:
The world is a big place, with a lot of resources. As unrealistic as it is, pretending everyone was jammed into 50' foot areas in Oregon, that would leave the REST OF THE WORLD DEVOID OF HUMAN LIFE based on the 1985 figures.

Sematics are sematics, more population? Pick a bigger State to use as an example, but the bottom line is Over-population is a fucking lie and a fear-mongering technique to sway people into believing we are all going to run out of food and water and die a horrible, slow, clothes-rending death.

Shut the doors to immigration, expel the jew, reinvigorate industry on our own continent, and we have everything we need to be just fucking fine.
All the opposites are happening because TPTB want to destroy white culture from within.



On a side note, I am curious to know what the "Exponential population growth curve" would look like in the USA if immigration (Legal and illegal) were non-existant...?

[Book]

They will soon reduce our planetary population to half a billion. That's all the slaves they need.

[kregener]

If population isn't going to become a problem then by the same arguments I don't think debt will either. After all, there's still billions of dollars in texas which hasn't been taxed away yet.

Billions? When TRILLIONS are needed?

BOTH the debt AND the overpopulation scare are tools of the NWO.

[gunDriller]

the world could easily support a population of 12 billion.

however, we would have to change our habits.

if the world consumes like Americans, the world can support 500 million to 2 billion people, sustainably (without polluting it).

the BP oil disaster illustrates the problem - the 7 billion people on earth want their gas and they want it NOW.


in order to support 12 billion, we would have to change our approach to "sanitation", among other things. for example, using our urine and excrement as food sources for animals that provide protein - animals like redworms and maggots.

i wonder if i could get a homeland security grant to study this ?

i'll invite Obama over for a Maggot Omelette.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/03/sollidalliance_omlette.jpg

of course, some people think Obama is a Maggot Omelette.

there may even be a rock band named Maggot Omelette.

[nunaem]

They will soon reduce our planetary population to half a billion. That's all the slaves they need.


Jefferson believed a society could only remain free while it remained agrarian. How many people could the US support in a purely or mostly agrarian society?

[Horn]

Yet the people of the Western World have, consciously or not, corrected this problem and slowed breeding to sustainable levels.

Sustainable, or unsustainable?

I'm receiving borderline reports from Bernanke, on an unsustainable growth pattern...

This is bad news for the housing sector & taxing schemes.

You'd better not let those two lines of thought intermingle.

[nunaem]

Yet the people of the Western World have, consciously or not, corrected this problem and slowed breeding to sustainable levels.

>:(

Great. It's ALWAYS the white guy that has to pick up the responsibility.



The numbers are old, from a book published in 1985, but the point I am trying to impress is this:
The world is a big place, with a lot of resources. As unrealistic as it is, pretending everyone was jammed into 50' foot areas in Oregon, that would leave the REST OF THE WORLD DEVOID OF HUMAN LIFE based on the 1985 figures.

Sematics are sematics, more population? Pick a bigger State to use as an example, but the bottom line is Over-population is a fucking lie and a fear-mongering technique to sway people into believing we are all going to run out of food and water and die a horrible, slow, clothes-rending death.


Again, it will be all large animals that go extinct long before we do.

And as Gundriller says increasing world population from this point onwards means a reduction in the standard of living for us. Not as bad as a slow death but I don't look forward to it.


On a side note, I am curious to know what the "Exponential population growth curve" would look like in the USA if immigration (Legal and illegal) were non-existant...?
For the US, at least, it would fall. But you should look at the world population figures.

If the US ceases all foreign aid as well the world population will stop growing as rapidly. The US' bread basket does more to grow the populations of shitty countries than our own country.

[DMac]

Overpopulation - Propaganda.

YAWN.

Wake me up to this BS non issue when we STOP using corn and sugar for fuel and switch to a hemp based fuel. Wow, soil depletion concerns just went away.

Wake me up to the no water BS for all issue when we make the technological leap of mass desalinization plants. They don't call it the blue planet for nothing, you know.

Wake me up to the BS energy crisis when we start recycling on mass scales, including the reuse of human waste.

The people of the world are literally eating, drinking, driving, pissing and shitting their way into a predetermined poverty due to the severe lack in technological progress. Technologies that are at least half a century old in understanding, if not much older, yet still not pursued in grand scale.

[keehah]

Your population density statistics deny the whole issue Awoke. Population living density has little to do with the overpopulation problem. Its about our impact on the environment. As many well publicised measures have reported, right now the world needs the sustainable environmental services that 4 planets could produce to live our lifestyle (again probably not taking into account the full impact of peak oil and some other issues).

So you squeeze them into Oregon, any 'savings' for reduced travel will be countered by the need for more energy dealing with shit as the water of the Columbia passes through human intestines several dozen times on its way to the sea.

So you would still need the environmental services of 4 planets if all those squeezed in people want the same lifestyle.
It really changes little overall.

_________
Dmac, technological advances in resource use tend make consumption worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

In economics, the Jevons paradox, sometimes called the Jevons effect, is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.

[Dogman]

Also it does not help to take out good and fertile land that can grow
crops , and pave it with asphalt and concrete. Or build houses and
strip malls on it.

IMO

[Book]

Its about our impact on the environment.



http://dadecosurf.com/files/u8/Delray_Sewage_Pic.jpg

Exactly. Oceans are our septic tank. half a billion toilets are better for Earth than seven billion toilets.

[Horn]

Yet the people of the Western World have, consciously or not, corrected this problem and slowed breeding to sustainable levels.

>:(

Great. It's ALWAYS the white guy that has to pick up the responsibility.

The entire world is rapidly becoming "1st world" or westernized. There are only isolated pockets of resistance left.

Be that as it may, The international financiers are always interested in quick solutions to these "unsustainable" crisis, to their sustainable interest equations.

[Ash_Williams]

Sematics are sematics, more population? Pick a bigger State to use as an example, but the bottom line is Over-population is a fucking lie and a fear-mongering technique to sway people into believing we are all going to run out of food and water and die a horrible, slow, clothes-rending death.

But how many people before it's not a lie?
And then, how long until we reach that point?

In the time I've spend on this earth the population has gone up about 77%. Assuming I don't die in an accident (which I likely will) I figure the number could easily triple in my lifetime. 4.5 billion may not have been too many. 7 billion might not be too many. 21 billion?

I've also seen the size of towns and cities I've lived in double. What is the advantage? It takes longer to get places, taxes are higher, crime becomes a problem, then the regulations and bylaws start. Where is the plus side for any of us? What possible advantage is there for anyone but the political elite? What good does it do to fill every mile of wilderness with more lawns and houses?

I've never been to china but I've been to india a few times. Go there if you want to see the benefits of more and more people. Their society has only declined as the population has risen. They've inflated away the value of life by printing too many people.

One of my coworkers is chinese. When the earthquake happened a few years ago she told me something that sounded crazy: The cities are so dense with so many high apartment buildings, that not everyone can come out of the buildings at the same time and fit on the streets. That's one of the reasons there was so much death.

Still not seeing the upside here:
http://www.nagoyahoo.com/web_images/caps.jpg

[nunaem]

They've inflated away the value of life by printing too many people.


Yeah this is true on a variety of levels, go to any rural area where people rarely see strangers and they are as nice as can be. Go to a big ass city and people HATE eachother.

[Awoke]

Your population density statistics deny the whole issue Awoke. Population living density has little to do with the overpopulation problem. Its about our impact on the environment. As many well publicised measures have reported, right now the world needs the sustainable environmental services that 4 planets could produce to live our lifestyle (again probably not taking into account the full impact of peak oil and some other issues).

So you squeeze them into Oregon, any 'savings' for reduced travel will be countered by the need for more energy dealing with shit as the water of the Columbia passes through human intestines several dozen times on its way to the sea.

So you would still need the environmental services of 4 planets if all those squeezed in people want the same lifestyle.
It really changes little overall.


I disagree.

Firstly, they are not "my" statistics, the are Eppersons.
Secondly, I am not proposing that we uproot every human and force them into a sigle area as a living quarters.

You guys are so hell-belt to uphold the overpopulation lie that you're not reading the content of my simple posts.

There are resources. More than enough. The point of the Oregon example to help people understand how small the population actually is in comparison to the rest of the entire planet.

I am 100% certain that overpopulation is a lie and a hoax.
I also disagree with your assertion that technological progress is detrimental to us.
TPTB have been and continue to supress technological advances far as long as North American history as we know it exists. (ie: Cars that run on hyrdogen and their only emmission is water? Supressed.)

In fact TPTB go a step further, and actively de-industrialize entire continents, so the people have to farm out fo neighbouring countries for products. Look at the USA Ship-building industry: Once thriving, now non-existant. Intentionally dismantled by TPTB.

In communist USSR, a similair tactic was used. The auto industry for example was compartmentalized in such a fashion that the axles would be built in one country, the steering assembleis in another, the tires in another, the frame in another. None of the countries could actually produce an automobil from their own resources, and they were totally co-dependant on the other countries for the rest of the componants required to release a finished product.
This way no country could risk attempting secession from the embodying United Soviet Socialist Republic.
Their lack of independant industry insured their imprisonment.

The same road is being laid before us now, slowly but surely. But deindustrialization is another topic.

Over population is a lie and a farce, and no one is going to convice me otherwise, especially when most "well publicised measures" that have "reported" are PTB-enabling outfits such as Popular Mechanics, etc.