APP - Overpopulation Myth

With the exception of Thorn, there hasn't been a single person posting on this subject of overpopulation that knows what the hell they are talking about.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
With the exception of Thorn, there hasn't been a single person posting on this subject of overpopulation that knows what the hell they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Set us straight then, IF you can.

Are we really overpopulated, or is that just the lie you need to justify your elitist death agenda?
 
In many senses yes we are. Some of the things I've seen stated here, like the area of sq.ft. available per person in Texas is just so freaken stupid.

First, human overpopulation is a relative term. Overpopulation is relative to the ratio of humans to available and sustainable resources needed to support those humans. It is also dependent on the means of resources used and distributed through out a population.

Resources one needs to consider to determine if a population is over populated and not sustainable are clean air, clean water, food, shelter, warmth, fuel/energy and other resources necessary to sustain life.

When overpopulation occurs competitive stress is placed on these life sustaining resources leading to a diminished quality of life. The primary indicator of overpopulation is when an organism (in this case human beings) consume resources at a rate which is faster than which they can be renewed, then that organism is over populated.

One such indicator of human over population is the relative correlation between population growth, food production and fossil fuels.

The Human population has been around for about 150,000 years. It took from then till about 1700 for human population to reach about 1 billion. It took from around 1700 to 1939 for the world population to reach around 2.3 billion. World population decreased by about 100 million by 1945 due to WWII and reached about 2.5 billion by 1950. It was around 1950 that the impact of world wide industrial food production methods had a staggering impact. Human population went from 2.5 billion to 6 billion in a mere 50 years. These modern industrial food production methods, in turn, are heavily reliant on the availability of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are intensely used in food production for planting, harvesting, fertilizer/pest control manufacturing and application, not to mention their use is hugely important in the distribution and storage of food. We also know that we are by far outstripping our sources of available fossil fuels. That is, those fossil fuels are being consumed at a far greater rate then which they are being renewed. Indications of over population are the intense competition seen for limited fossil fuel resources. For example, large wealthy nations with relatively sparse populations that dominate access to fossil fuels resources have an over abundance of food where as more densely, less developed nations have less access to fossil fuels and food resources for feeding their populations are highly strained. Again, this is solid evidence of over population.

I can use a similar example with fresh water. Explosive population growth has placed huge demands on the limited fresh water resources of the planet. Across the planet were seeing fast increases in deforestation, dessertification, lowering of aquifer levels, decrease of fresh water surface levels in open bodies of fresh water and decreased volumes in surface streams and rivers. In turn we are seeing increased competition for the finite fresh water rersources available in many parts of the world, this is, again, evidence of over population.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
In many senses yes we are. Some of the things I've seen stated here, like the area of sq.ft. available per person in Texas is just so freaken stupid.

First, human overpopulation is a relative term. Overpopulation is relative to the ratio of humans to available and sustainable resources needed to support those humans. It is also dependent on the means of resources used and distributed through out a population.

Resources one needs to consider to determine if a population is over populated and not sustainable are clean air, clean water, food, shelter, warmth, fuel/energy and other resources necessary to sustain life.

When overpopulation occurs competitive stress is placed on these life sustaining resources leading to a diminished quality of life. The primary indicator of overpopulation is when an organism (in this case human beings) consume resources at a rate which is faster than which they can be renewed, then that organism is over populated.

One such indicator of human over population is the relative correlation between population growth, food production and fossil fuels.

The Human population has been around for about 150,000 years. It took from then till about 1700 for human population to reach about 1 billion. It took from around 1700 to 1939 for the world population to reach around 2.3 billion. World population decreased by about 100 million by 1945 due to WWII and reached about 2.5 billion by 1950. It was around 1950 that the impact of world wide industrial food production methods had a staggering impact. Human population went from 2.5 billion to 6 billion in a mere 50 years. These modern industrial food production methods, in turn, are heavily reliant on the availability of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are intensely used in food production for planting, harvesting, fertilizer/pest control manufacturing and application, not to mention their use is hugely important in the distribution and storage of food. We also know that we are by far outstripping our sources of available fossil fuels. That is, those fossil fuels are being consumed at a far greater rate then which they are being renewed. Indications of over population are the intense competition seen for limited fossil fuel resources. For example, large wealthy nations with relatively sparse populations that dominate access to fossil fuels resources have an over abundance of food where as more densely, less developed nations have less access to fossil fuels and food resources for feeding their populations are highly strained. Again, this is solid evidence of over population.

I can use a similar example with fresh water. Explosive population growth has placed huge demands on the limited fresh water resources of the planet. Across the planet were seeing fast increases in deforestation, dessertification, lowering of aquifer levels, decrease of fresh water surface levels in open bodies of fresh water and decreased volumes in surface streams and rivers. In turn we are seeing increased competition for the finite fresh water rersources available in many parts of the world, this is, again, evidence of over population.
Click to expand...

Of course it has to do with resources. We could have so much more land under cultivation, and be using our technology to develop food growing technologies. But the powers that be are fearful of other people, and are afraid of losing control, so they restrict the food supply, and put prices so high that people starve..

Population reduction is a goal of the United Nations, so overpopulation is the myth they create to justify their inhumane treatment.

We could spend trillions on desalinization plants instead of bailing out bankers.

There aren't too many humans, there is intentionally bad logistics to make people suffer and ensure complete control of the planet by a self selected elite.
 
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth#FAQ4

What's the UNFPA? How do they profit from fear?
The United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) was founded in 1969, the year after Ehrlich published The Population Bomb. They have been involved in programs with governments around the world who deny their women the right to choose the number and spacing of their children. Their complicit work with the infamous "one-child policy" mandated by the government of the People's Republic of China, uncovered by an investigation of the U.S. State Department in 2001, led the United States to pull its funding.

The wealthy of the West, in their terror of poverty, have given copiously to the UNFPA and its population control programs. Visit Population Research Institute for more info.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Of course it has to do with resources. We could have so much more land under cultivation, and be using our technology to develop food growing technologies. But the powers that be are fearful of other people, and are afraid of losing control, so they restrict the food supply, and put prices so high that people starve..

Population reduction is a goal of the United Nations, so overpopulation is the myth they create to justify their inhumane treatment.

We could spend trillions on desalinization plants instead of bailing out bankers.

There aren't too many humans, there is intentionally bad logistics to make people suffer and ensure complete control of the planet by a self selected elite.
Click to expand...
Dude, you dont' get it. It's not about just how much land you have under cultivation. That don't mean shit if you dont' have the ability to put the seeds in the ground, fertilize and protect them from pest, cultivate and harvest the food produced, then transport, store and distribute that food to the people whom consume it. If you don't have the fossil fuels to provide the energy to accomplish these tasks the amount of land you want to have under cultivation doesn't mean shit because you are limited by available fuels sources.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Dude, you dont' get it. It's not about just how much land you have under cultivation. That don't mean shit if you dont' have the ability to put the seeds in the ground, fertilize and protect them from pest, cultivate and harvest the food produced, then transport, store and distribute that food to the people whom consume it. If you don't have the fossil fuels to provide the energy to accomplish these tasks the amount of land you want to have under cultivation doesn't mean shit because you are limited by available fuels sources.
Click to expand...

We have people power. People can grow food themselves. The centralization/specialization of food prodution is perhaps not the best idea.
 
Much of FL has been overpopulated for years.

The proof is in the water restrictions that have been in place for more than 10 years in many places.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I don't think water restrictions prove overpopulation.
Click to expand...

If we judge from where I live, water restrictions are a final, last gasp admission by local authorities that there is, indeed, a shortage of fresh water. Without fresh water there can be no crops, no kitchen gardens, no sustainable life. Too many of the existing fresh water resources are being depleted because they're being diverted to regions such as Arizona and southern California that do not have these resources. The mouth of the Rio Grande dried up in 2000 (National Geographic Magazine, Sept. 2001 edition), and the Colorado River and other waterways are seriously depleted. The Ogallalla Aquifer (sp?) is being systematically depleted and cannot be replenished. Nobody knows where the water came from in the first place, though speculation suggests the last ice age.

No water = no plants, no animals, no insects for pollination, no oxygen. That's the short list.

You've stressed the uses of fertilization to increase food yield. Remember that Mott pointed out that fertilizers and pesticides (also necessary for high yield) are both petroleum based and we're gobbling up that supply.

Most people here no longer have huge families, but there are exceptions (that 18 kids and counting family are now expecting their 19th, I hear). One grad student from our department came from a family of 22 kids, of which 14 had survived. Apparently that's common where he comes from.

We can't afford to do that any longer. Education seems to be the key, and a higher standard of living, which permits survival of existing children, tends both to provide education and to reduce the procreation rate.
 
Thorn said:
If we judge from where I live, water restrictions are a final, last gasp admission by local authorities that there is, indeed, a shortage of fresh water. Without fresh water there can be no crops, no kitchen gardens, no sustainable life. Too many of the existing fresh water resources are being depleted because they're being diverted to regions such as Arizona and southern California that do not have these resources. The mouth of the Rio Grande dried up in 2000 (National Geographic Magazine, Sept. 2001 edition), and the Colorado River and other waterways are seriously depleted. The Ogallalla Aquifer (sp?) is being systematically depleted and cannot be replenished. Nobody knows where the water came from in the first place, though speculation suggests the last ice age.

No water = no plants, no animals, no insects for pollination, no oxygen. That's the short list.

You've stressed the uses of fertilization to increase food yield. Remember that Mott pointed out that fertilizers and pesticides (also necessary for high yield) are both petroleum based and we're gobbling up that supply.

Most people here no longer have huge families, but there are exceptions (that 18 kids and counting family are now expecting their 19th, I hear). One grad student from our department came from a family of 22 kids, of which 14 had survived. Apparently that's common where he comes from.

We can't afford to do that any longer. Education seems to be the key, and a higher standard of living, which permits survival of existing children, tends both to provide education and to reduce the procreation rate.
Click to expand...

Our earth is 3/4 water. It's a logistics issue which could be solved if there was will enough to do it.

Are we paying farmers not to grow food? Yes or no.
 
http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/956
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SEEDS SELF-DESTRUCT AFTER ONE PLANTING, FORCING FARMERS IN "THIRD WORLD" NATIONS TO CONTINUALLY DEPEND ON FOREIGN COMPANIES FOR THEIR SEEDS.

One may not believe their eyes after reading this (AFRICANS OF SOUTHERN AFRICA, TROPICAL AFRICA, INDIA, THE WORLD, LISTEN GOOD).

According to the September issue of Scientific American Magazine, seed companies and their scientists are now thinking about developing genetically engineered seeds, from natural foods found in the tropics. These seeds will only be capable of producing foods ONCE, and the genetic engineers will have the power to sell more seeds, while the local seeds would become contaminated and local farmers would have to depend on foreign companies for their seeds.

In California, there is about 11 months of dry weather. In fact much of California is in the high mountains or desert regions, some of it is near the coasts or the far north. Yet, most of California's best land is in regions that were dry lake beds or deserts that are sometimes identical in looks to parts of West Africa Sahel and the regions of Sudan and Southern Africa. In fact after Texas, California has the type of hot climate (110-125 degrees F, that one finds in parts of Africa), yet because of good and efficient irrigation, California's billion-dollar industry is agricultural produce. (hear this African leaders...West Indians others...its agriculture)

Therefore, the idea of taking African seeds and having foreign scientists genetically engineer seeds to produce only once is really committing genocide. How can any nation on earth agree to this scheme of destruction and dependence
Click to expand...

This is what our best minds do with their time.

This reveals the true agenda of the elites.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Our earth is 3/4 water. It's a logistics issue which could be solved if there was will enough to do it.
Are we paying farmers not to grow food? Yes or no.
Click to expand...

By whom? C'mon, so far you're leaving all the work on the shoulders and inspiration of other people! If you don't understand what is required to do this, why are you so adamant that it's easy or even possible on the scale that would be required?

The real point is that in order to survive at any standard that we would deem acceptable, (or at all) we need the biological diversity that we have. That diversity requires that a balance be maintained, and too much stress or consumption of one resource at the expense of another will disrupt that balance and have far-reaching consequences. That means that we simply cannot afford for the human population to continue growing at its present rate. Education and increasing the standard of living worldwide are related ways to encourage the growth reduction rate voluntarily.
 
Thorn said:
By whom? C'mon, so far you're leaving all the work on the shoulders and inspiration of other people! If you don't understand what is required to do this, why are you so adamant that it's easy or even possible on the scale that would be required?

The real point is that in order to survive at any standard that we would deem acceptable, (or at all) we need the biological diversity that we have. That diversity requires that a balance be maintained, and too much stress or consumption of one resource at the expense of another will disrupt that balance and have far-reaching consequences. That means that we simply cannot afford for the human population to continue growing at its present rate. Education and increasing the standard of living worldwide are related ways to encourage the growth reduction rate voluntarily.
Click to expand...

By whoever.

Yes you and your proactive murder regime are certainly to be admired. NOT.

Your specious murderous logic is fradulent.
 
AssHatZombie said:
By whoever.

Yes you and your proactive murder regime are certainly to be admired. NOT.

Your specious murderous logic is fradulent.
Click to expand...

OK, you know that nobody is talking about murdering anybody. I haven't seen anything by anyone about "culling the herd" so to speak. The emphasis is on voluntarily keeping family size down, and that's perfectly easy and simple to do.
 
Thorn said:
OK, you know that nobody is talking about murdering anybody. I haven't seen anything by anyone about "culling the herd" so to speak. The emphasis is on voluntarily keeping family size down, and that's perfectly easy and simple to do.
Click to expand...

That's not the emphasis. The emphasis is on reducing human biomass with an array of anti-human brainwash regimes, and a real reduction in access to resources.

check this out

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/27/taking-on-the-overpopulation-myth/
In "Population Control," Mr. Mosher incisively explores the history and effects of the population control movement from a pro-people perspective, based on the belief that because each person has unique value, more people means more for all of us — more economic production, more potential for artistic and scientific achievement, more innovation. Another recent book on population control, "Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population" by Matthew Connelly, a professor of history at Columbia University, criticizes the human rights abuses committed by population controllers but also criticizes efforts by the Catholic Church and others to increase fertility in a world threatened by anti-natal forces.

Not only have the facts proved Mr. Mosher's Christian-derived beliefs true — the tremendous increase in global population since World War II has been accompanied by tremendous increases in prosperity and scientific achievement instead of the mass starvation and other disastrous consequences predicted by population controllers — but he sounds the alarm about the coming underpopulation crisis.Population control, including its First World variant of anti-family materialism, has become far too successful.

The world's population growth rate maxed out in 1965 and has been in sharp decline."The unprecedented fall in fertility rates that began in postwar Europe has, in the decades since, spread to every corner of the globe, affecting China, India, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America," says Mr. Mosher. "The latest forecasts by the United Nations show the number of people in the world shrinking by midcentury, that is, before today's young adults reach retirement age." The birthrate of Europe taken as a whole, from Ireland to Russia, is only 1.5 children per woman in her lifetime, far below the minimal replacement rate of 2.1. Latin America's is down to 2.4 and dropping fast. China's is 1.7. South Korea's is a mere 1.1. The United States is the only developed country at or above replacement rate; we're right at 2.1.

It used to be that folks relied on their children to help them on the farm or in their businesses, and especially in their old age. Economic incentives encouraged childbearing. But now socialism has taken over that role of families. "As [demographer] Phillip Longman has remarked, the modern nanny state has created a strange new world in which the most 'successful' individuals in material terms are the most 'unfit' in biological terms," Mr. Mosher writes."In all previous ages of human history wealth and children went hand-in-hand."

This brave new world in which children are both culturally and economically undesired could lead to the dissolution of whole societies, particularly Western ones, as they age and their social security systems go bankrupt through a dearth of taxpaying young people, Mr. Mosher suggests.
Click to expand...
 
Malthusian Murederous meme

Thomas Robert Malthus Classical economics

Thomas Robert Malthus
Birth February 13, 1766(1766-02-13)
(Surrey, England)
Death December 23, 1834 (aged 68)
(Bath, England)
Nationality British
Field demography, macroeconomics, evolutionary economics[citation needed]
Influences Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jean Charles Léonard de Sismondi
Opposed William Godwin, Marquis de Condorcet, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Ricardo
Influenced Charles Darwin, Francis Place, Garrett Hardin, John Maynard Keynes, Pierre Francois Verhulst, Alfred Russel Wallace, Karl Marx, Mao Zedong
Contributions Malthusian growth model

The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus FRS (13 February 1766 – 23 December 1834),[1] was a British scholar, influential in political economy and demography.[2][3] Malthus popularised the economic theory of rent.[4]

Malthus has become widely known for his analysis whereby societal improvements result in population growth which, he states, sooner or later gets checked by famine, disease, and widespread mortality. He wrote in the context of the popular view, in 18th century Europe, that saw society as improving, and in principle as perfectible.[5] William Godwin and the Marquis de Condorcet, for example, believed in the possibility of almost limitless improvement of society. So, in a more complex way, did Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose notions centered on the goodness of man and the liberty of citizens bound only by the social contract, a form of popular sovereignty.

Malthus saw such ideas of endless progress towards a utopian society as vitiated because of the dangers of population growth: "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man".[6] As an Anglican clergyman, Malthus saw this situation as divinely imposed to teach virtuous behaviour.[7] Believing that one could not change human nature, and that egalitarian societies were prone to over-population[citation needed], Malthus wrote in dramatic terms: "epidemics, pestilence and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and ten thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow, levels the population with the food of the world".[8]

Malthus placed the longer-term stability of the economy above short-term expediency. He criticised the Poor Laws,[9] and (alone among important contemporary economists) supported the Corn Laws, which introduced a system of taxes on British imports of wheat. He thought these measures would encourage domestic production, and so promote long-term benefit.[10]

Malthus became hugely influential, and controversial, in economic, political, social and scientific thought. Many of those whom subsequent centuries sometimes term "evolutionary biologists" also read him,[11] notably Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, for each of whom Malthusianism became an intellectual stepping-stone to the idea of natural selection.[12][13] Malthus remains a writer of great significance, and debate continues as to whether his direst expectations will come about.


[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus[/ame]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top