Overpopulation

Leifer

Senior Member.
Does overpopulation add to pollution, oil demand, and increased burdens on local, nationwide, and global governments ?
(EDIT...local resources too.)

(I hate to be a downer...but please debunk me, if warranted.)

Does "donation feeding" the poor in a country that cannot sustain it's population already, help raise more poor peoples, thereby exacerbating the problem ?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Overpopulation is a problem. Although that's a bit of a truism, if it were not "over" population, then everything would be fine. Describing something as overpopulation is already assuming that it's too many for something - usually the food supply, but yes obviously there's going to be some correlation with pollution and oil usage.

Populations stabilize in developed countries. I think that to stabilize the world population, the best course of action is to encourage education in developing countries.

You have to be clear when talking about population if you ever have discussion with conspiracy theorists. For many of them any discussion regarding population is automatically flagged as evil, and probably heading towards genocide. When Bill Gates talks about population control as an effect of reducing child death rates from malaria, they think he's intending to sterilize people with evil vaccines. Really he want's healthy children, so people can plan their families, leading to population stability.

From a humanitarian perspective, it's hard to argue against feeding the hungry in times of crisis, but ultimately the goal should be to stabilize the country, and a stable population will follow.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
If we don't "help" the starving.....does that mean we are in essence...killing them....if in fact we have excess resources or monies to help them ?
Ethical and political and tough question there.

Is it "to each his own ", in an atheistic mentality ?
In certain religious mentalities, we are all a sort of "God's children"....and deserve attention once conceived.
But in a Darwinian mindset...only the strongest survive.

It seems inherent to an extent...to "help" the poorly disabled....and feel an amount of emotion, when fellow humans are in trouble or dying.
....regardless of religion, or moral attitude.
Example....It is extremely rare that a person watching someone begin to drown, will not proceed to immediately assist and help save that person.
However, this was not because of a religious teaching, per say.....there seems to be a need to keep humanity alive. That may have come from childhood conditioning...that other lives are very important.....or from the empathetical understanding that if a family member dies....there is great sadness -- which no one desires.

Is it best for the sustainability of the planet, and the majority of the living...to inadvertently (edit, or purposefully) limit the "help" to the doomed masses....and by not providing support, leave them to Darwinian perish ?
Am I an asshole for thinking this ? Have I lost my morals ? or am I being a hardcore realist ?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Reducing food production is not a good way of controlling the population. It's far too destabilizing, and causes unnecessary suffering. It's also a ridiculously oversimplification of the problem. It's a blunt tool.

Europe has a stable, even reducing population, but not because they don't have enough food.
 
Yes, it's quite an accessible way of explaining Dunbar's number. The wikipedia article is rather dry, and The Tipping Point is rather long.


Mick,

I believe the answer is yes but I want to be sure. I also realize this is like a year old (this thread) but a search of overpopulation retruned but a few hits and this was the most applicable.

Is it your stance that "Overpopulation", the idea that there are more people on the planet then the planet can support or that the growth rate will bring the total population to a number too large for the planet to support, that this idea is a myth?

Thanks

BCC
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick,

I believe the answer is yes but I want to be sure. I also realize this is like a year old (this thread) but a search of overpopulation retruned but a few hits and this was the most applicable.

Is it your stance that "Overpopulation", the idea that there are more people on the planet then the planet can support or that the growth rate will bring the total population to a number too large for the planet to support, that this idea is a myth?

Thanks

BCC

Well, what happens when the planet can't support a certain size population? The planet does not go poof, what happens is people die.

One way or another, population growth is self-limiting, the question is if it's going to be a nice stable limit - like in many European countries, or if it's going to be a nasty brutal limit, like in Rwanda.

There's no question that the planet could support 10 billion, or even 20 billion if everyone were to act with that as a goal. Theoretically there's no problem. In practice there's a lot of human problems. Realistically the easiest way to reduce the risk of problems like war and famine is to try to reduce the rate of population growth.
 

cheeple

Member
Mick,

I believe the answer is yes but I want to be sure. I also realize this is like a year old (this thread) but a search of overpopulation retruned but a few hits and this was the most applicable.

Is it your stance that "Overpopulation", the idea that there are more people on the planet then the planet can support or that the growth rate will bring the total population to a number too large for the planet to support, that this idea is a myth?

Thanks

BCC
I tend to like people so I dont share Bill Gates, Oprah Winfreys idea that we need to lower the population especially when what they mean is to start with Africa first then work their way around the world, the Eugenics program is already in effect, through the FDA's approval of Artificial sweetners like Aspartame and the Chlorocarbon sucralose, I actually cured myself of Diabetes by giving up my Diet Sodas everyday now I drink Coke from Mexico made with pure Sugar EVERYDAY and I no longer have diabetes and my doctor has taken me off Medication, I quit smoking ANOTHER Eugenics tool and beat High Blood Pressure, I gave up Fluoride which is an aluminum byproduct and I think it also contributed to curing myself of diseases. Our Continent can sustain an expanding population we have the land and the favorable weather.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Bill Gates does not want to "lower the population" he wants to lower the population growth rate...and there is a big difference.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
How old are you cheeple? I'm 45 and I have fluoridated water and toothpaste, and I drink a lot of diet soda, I eat GMOs and non-organic food, and my health is fine. It's just an anecdote of course, but it's a counterexample - if there some eugenics program going on, then how am I avoiding it?
 

cheeple

Member
well first off, I am glad you are well, you are still young, Artificial sweetners are poison, I gave them up and cured myself of Diabetes, the effects manifest themselves differently, some people get Anxiety from Aspartame, and others contributes to Diabetes, I've given them up along with Fluoride, it's already in my toothpaste, I dont feel the need to ingest it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/the-taste-of-coke-is-all-in-your-head/



The actual study:

http://goranlab.com/pdf/Ventura Obesity 2010-sugary beverages.pdf



So despite what is on the label, it's chemically not that different to HFCS coke. Bit of an urban myth.


 
Last edited:

cheeple

Member
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/the-taste-of-coke-is-all-in-your-head/



The actual study:

http://goranlab.com/pdf/Ventura%20Obesity%202010-sugary%20beverages.pdf



So despite what is on the label, it's chemically not that different to HFCS coke. Bit of an urban myth.


Just curious why did you feel the need to show me Mexican coke had HFCS? I never mentioned anything about HFCS, I also go to burger King and get regular old Coke and i know for a fact it's made with HFCS, it's Artifical sweetners that I avoid, not HFCS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Just curious why did you feel the need to show me Mexican coke had HFCS? I never mentioned anything about HFCS, I also go to burger King and get regular old Coke and i know for a fact it's made with HFCS, it's Artifical sweetners that I avoid, not HFCS.

Because I though you were making a point about it when you mention it was made with pure sugar:

I actually cured myself of Diabetes by giving up my Diet Sodas everyday now I drink Coke from Mexico made with pure Sugar EVERYDAY and I no longer have diabetes and my doctor has taken me off Medication

So you think regular coke would work just as well for curing diabetes then?
 

cheeple

Member
Oh yeah well I had read once that Mexico banned HFCS and since they produce sugar cane they were still using it, the real reason I drink it cause my favorite restaurants have Pepsi on tap which served me well for years cause I absolutely LOVE diet pepsi, but I dont like regular pepsi I prefer coke and they happen to have a fridge full of coke in bottles.
 

Mat

Member
We are vastly overpopulated.

The solution isn't Illuminati plagues or the "depopulation agenda," but empowering and educating the women of the third world with the same family planning measures women have had in the first world since the 1960s.

Drop The Pop:)
 

cheeple

Member
Personally I think whoever wrote the Georgia Guidestones got a little confused about what a "billion" was, and actually intended to write 5,000,000,000, as the population at that time was about 4.4 billion, and that would make a lot more sense, seeing as they talk about "maintaining", not "reducing".

Six years after the Georgia Guidestones were erected Robert Christian revealed that his initial number of 500 Million was Too HIGH.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's Robert Christian's book (along with some other stuff)

https://www.metabunk.org/files/Common Sense Renewed.pdf

Sample:



He talks about "a few generations of single child families", so I guess he does want some significant reduction. I think it would still take well over 100 years to get down to 0.5 billion though. As China demonstrates, having a single child policy does not actually reverse population growth, as the existing population tends to both have children and then not die for 50 years.
 
Last edited:

farbot

New Member
China has also stopped with their policy because they experienced that such a policy has problems as well... Even 'forgetting' the strict measures of forced abortion when somebody got caught on having a second child, their demographic evolution will run into difficulties in several years time when the generation of the one child policy will have to put their shoulders under the economy for the largess of people who leave the workforce. Traditionally people who aged got taken care off by their son or sons (China not having a pensionsystem like some western countries have A

Although, truth be told, that is also eroding, a year ago we had a series of interviews and articles in Belgium about hidden poverty among elders because their pensions where in no way sufficient to keep up their living requirements. Belgium like so many other Western countries experiencing population decline, hence the problems of 'greying' of the population as they call it here) I literally noticed that this problem would be bigger than what they used to tell us, in that a younger/smaller workforce will have to take care of a larger non-workforce, while at the same time in democratic votes the non-workforce will outnumber the work-force.... next stop: tension-ville.

Anyway, back to China: their pension-system was tradition, sons take care of the aging parents...which in a one child policy system has some drawbacks...mainly that people who had girls either hid them, aborted them, killed them at birth,.... so that they at least would have a boy (leaving less females in that generation than average)

Mick, I don't get your reasoning with the not dying for 50 years. The length of life has no structural problem with population growth, only the amount of offspring people have. If a country gets more developed, life expectancy rises, so in absolute numbers you are always going to get a seemingly faster growing populace due to this factor. But if the...I think it is 2,1 childs/couple is not reached, structurally you will have a decline after the initial growth, due to the growth from life expectancy rising that will eventually sort itself out.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, I don't get your reasoning with the not dying for 50 years. The length of life has no structural problem with population growth, only the amount of offspring people have. If a country gets more developed, life expectancy rises, so in absolute numbers you are always going to get a seemingly faster growing populace due to this factor. But if the...I think it is 2,1 childs/couple is not reached, structurally you will have a decline after the initial growth, due to the growth from life expectancy rising that will eventually sort itself out.

I was talking about how long it takes for a one-child policy to start reducing the population, based on population age density. A one child policy is only going to lead to an immediate decline in population if your population has been stable for the last 70 years. If it's been growing, then a larger portion of the population will be young. So when they have children, they still more than replace the people who are dying off at the other end.

In other words, the birth rate is still higher than the death rate for many years after the policy comes into effect. When China started the one-child policy in 1979, the birth rate was three times the death rate. Now it's about 1.4x the death rate - the population is still growing. In fact if you look at the population of China, the growth rate change has been very slow.

 
Last edited:

farbot

New Member
Ok, back on track, that was actually my idea on the matter, but I wrongly interpreted your statement (I thought you meant that 'people living longer' has a structural dimension on the demographic evolution)
 

farbot

New Member
Besides it is still growing, but when the pre-one-child-policy generation dies you will start to see a swing towards declining numbers (if the birth rate doesn't go way over 2.1/couple that is)
 

Mat

Member
Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature........lol

Absolutly! I think the precepts are actually some of the most the most profound statements of human well-being ever written.

They make great fodder for the most paranoid of conspiracy theorists who hear Alex Jones or whoever shout about them, but dont actually think for themselves.

For starters Cheeple, they dont say reduce population, they say maintain. There is no mention in any of the precepts as to how to get down there, but global family planning would be a good way, wouldn't it?

And if you look at the other precepts they are so good. Avoid petty laws... seeking harmony...international disputes.

I very much am glad there are even the most kookie of conspiracy theorists, but I am convinced (and have been for years) that they are mistaken when they say the precepts are malign.

Read them in your own voice, not Alex Jones's, and ask yourself, is this statemnt good or bad. if you find any bad ones, I would love to discuss with you:)

Mat
 

Mat

Member
Personally I think whoever wrote the Georgia Guidestones got a little confused about what a "billion" was, and actually intended to write 5,000,000,000, as the population at that time was about 4.4 billion, and that would make a lot more sense, seeing as they talk about "maintaining", not "reducing".

I really think if they could get translations done in different languages, make untraceable payments and all that jazz they would not have a number carved in stone that they meant was an order of magniture differerent.


Moreover, 500 million would seem pretty good if you live in a future megaslum... I am sure we can all agree on that.
 

farbot

New Member
I think the 'typo' or miscalculation option is a little farfetched myself. Who-ever the person is or his agenda or his goals.... spending all that money, translating it in several languages,....
 

farbot

New Member
Absolutly! I think the precepts are actually some of the most the most profound statements of human well-being ever written.

They make great fodder for the most paranoid of conspiracy theorists who hear Alex Jones or whoever shout about them, but dont actually think for themselves.

For starters Cheeple, they dont say reduce population, they say maintain. There is no mention in any of the precepts as to how to get down there, but global family planning would be a good way, wouldn't it?

And if you look at the other precepts they are so good. Avoid petty laws... seeking harmony...international disputes.

I very much am glad there are even the most kookie of conspiracy theorists, but I am convinced (and have been for years) that they are mistaken when they say the precepts are malign.

Read them in your own voice, not Alex Jones's, and ask yourself, is this statemnt good or bad. if you find any bad ones, I would love to discuss with you:)

Mat

People only ever hear the 500 million number and almost never look any further. Besides...if you are against internationlism, there are a few more statements on there that some people might find offensive/insidious/....
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think the 'typo' or miscalculation option is a little farfetched myself. Who-ever the person is or his agenda or his goals.... spending all that money, translating it in several languages,....

Well assuming the book is genuine, it goes on at some length about how effort needs to be expended on determining the "optimum" population, and also mentions several generation of single child families. So I now think it was a deliberate number, but not set in stone (except in the literal sense :) )

https://www.metabunk.org/files/Common Sense Renewed.pdf

It's all kind of silly though, as this is simply the work of one guy, and we've no idea what any shadowy "elite" people think about this - unless you think Ted Turner rules the world.
 
Last edited:

cheeple

Member
Well assuming the book is genuine, it goes on at some length about how effort needs to be expended on determining the "optimum" population, and also mentions several generation of single child families. So I now think it was a deliberate number, but not set in stone (except in the literal sense :) )

https://www.metabunk.org/files/Common Sense Renewed.pdf



It's all kind of silly though, as this is simply the work of one guy, and we've no idea what any shadowy "elite" people think about this - unless you think Ted Turner rules the world.

Funny you mention Ted Turner, what a piece of NWO Scum

“A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon magazine

Of course I doubt he's including himself in his Eugenics dreams.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cheeple

Member
It's not funny, that's exactly why I mentioned him. Several people have suggested the stones were his creation.

And he's not including ANYONE in his Eugenics dreams. He's not suggesting killing people, just a one-child policy for 100 years.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...e-child-policy-to-save-planet/article1825977/

But he's not in charge, is he?

Ted Turner urges a global 1 child policy, but he himself has 5 children, I refer to my previous comment,

"Of course I doubt he's including himself in his Eugenics dreams"

As far as him being in charge of anything he's just been swept into the anti-humanity rhetoric as alot of people have, in the scheme of things he's no Rothchild or Rockefeller.
 
Top