Author Topic: Brainwashed Malthusian Zombies Parrot OVERPOPULATION MYTH on a Truth Forum  (Read 232465 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kiwidisenter

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Im interesting in hearing people thoughts on overpopulation? should we keep breeding as we please? have the chinese hit the nail on the head? as  sad and NWOish as it may sound and as much as we like to crusade aginst them, is there not a little bit of truth to overpopulation?
 we may be allright now and i can hardly talk from the comfort of my home in the lush and under populated land of NZ,and its a big world and im sure theres enough for a hell of a lot more of us. Although our lavish lifestyles is taking its tolls on this beutifull planet and it does worry me for myself and the future genreations! although not as much as the governments threaten us i still think it is an issue. ? ???
THE PEOPLE! UNITED! WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED!

Offline otero1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,362
Re: overpopulation, humane solutions?
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2008, 02:42:42 am »
I don't think it is an issue. People should be free to reproduce as much as they want. The circle of life is just that. People will die and people will be born. We don't need to have any type of limit.

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: overpopulation, humane solutions?
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2008, 03:14:11 am »
It's the QUALITY of life that is important, not the QUANTITY of life. We are so weak and unhealthy as a species now due to modern medicine, agribusiness and eugenicists messing with our natural immunities and strengths. We are not overpopulated, we are teetering on the brink of extinction! Don't believe the hype.

Big business keeps us all alive, if they pulled the plug on the supply of food and services the majority of us would die of disease and starvation if we didn't tear each other apart first.

Hurricane Katrina was a test.

Hypothetically - what if all supply and services were cut, and I mean everything; phone (yes cells too), internet, TV, radio, electricity, water, food, gasoline, sewage, public transport. What would happen?

I posed this to a friend of mine, I ask him how long he thought it would take for a city to come completely unstuck, I mean riots, looting, murder, rape, arson, total chaos. I had told that I thought it might take a week.

He looked at me and said, "man I'd give it 48 hours"!

Now imagine all those psychopathic cops, troops and Blackwater contractors "helping out" in such an emergency.

Think about how fragile a species we have allowed ourselves to become and then reconsider. Are we really overpopulated?


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline adissenter2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,044
  • Revolt Time
Re: overpopulation, humane solutions?
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2008, 03:24:47 am »
the myth
thesis: overpopulation is going to use up all the resources therefore our materialistic lifestyle will be impaired
antithesis: population reduction through many means
synthesis: resources saved from those less that us Supermen in our Ivory towers, bow down and worship us and maybe while you are prostrate you will find fallen from our table a crumb to munch upon

............................................................................................

the real problem is selfishness and the lack of knowledge

the real solution is proper stewardship of the earth ( this has nothing to do with the United Nations and its eco-nazi sustainable development/agenda 21 legislation either )
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! Molon Labe! Come and take them!

Offline Cruise4

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,384
Re: overpopulation, humane solutions?
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2008, 05:39:22 am »
I also think there is no population crisis at all. There is a population density issue in places but thats been arranged deliberately. Left alone to live where we wanted and how we wanted most of the manipulated social issues would go away of their own accord. Nature balances itself. I look out my window and there's 5 miles in every direction of land that could be used for growing food. I believe there's something like 93% of falling water in the UK that isn't even collected. Its all myths. Immigration and regional economic disparity are tools of the trade for the NWO.

Offline echoes

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
Re: overpopulation, humane solutions?
« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2008, 12:43:52 pm »
read brave new world (& then brave new world revisited) for a discussion on this.  it is interesting to see someone's opinion that believes the world is overpopulated.
i am with otero1 tho...

Offline jesqueal

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,065
Re: overpopulation, humane solutions?
« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2008, 12:52:23 pm »
We are animals after all, and when animal populations grow too large nature has a way of cutting them back...
I don't think mankind has to come up with a solution to this one, the planet will do it for us. We probably won't like it.

But right now I don't think the planet IS overpopulated, I just think the current population is too wasteful. Uninitiated people will say something like; "well, if there were less Europeans, there'd be more food for Africans" but we the woken know that it is the SYSTEM that takes the food from the Africans, and the SYSTEM is driven by the Elite. Remove the Elite and allow natural human development to run it's course and many population issues will be solved. I'm not being cold-hearted, just pragmatic.

Offline lord edward coke

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,201
  • "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God"
    • sedm
Re: overpopulation, humane solutions?
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2008, 08:46:11 am »
Im interesting in hearing people thoughts on overpopulation? should we keep breeding as we please? have the chinese hit the nail on the head? as  sad and NWOish as it may sound and as much as we like to crusade aginst them, is there not a little bit of truth to overpopulation?
 we may be allright now and i can hardly talk from the comfort of my home in the lush and under populated land of NZ,and its a big world and im sure theres enough for a hell of a lot more of us. Although our lavish lifestyles is taking its tolls on this beutifull planet and it does worry me for myself and the future genreations! although not as much as the governments threaten us i still think it is an issue. ? ???
  not an issue!!!
"Liberty has never come from government.  Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is a history  of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it." http://sedm.org/

Offline Shepherd in wolves cloth

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
How can we define overpopulation of a planet? The population as a whole uses more resources of the planet than is healthy for the middle and long term.

First we should compute whether there is any overpopulation by using a sophisticated model. This already exists in at least in a simple form at the WWF, although in general you will probably not like the late prince Bernhard - who founded the WWF - but that not that relevant because he not longer amongst living humanity and probably most people working at the WWF just wanna do good things for the planet and therefore I do assume that we can basically trust the WWF. Lately I could fill in a questionare on their dutch site (http://www.wnf.nl/nl/home/index.cfm) but sadly the test is offline now.

The questions addressed issues like my energy and food usage and other basic needs that cost this planet resources. I then transcomputed my answers via model into a number that would point out how much surface of this planet I use to live (if you use bio-fuel you will use more surface because crops need space to grow, but if you are using others forms of (real) green energy then you will use less space; if you eat once or twice a week no meat than you will also use less space since not only cattle needs to live but the cattle also need crops; advice: eat less meat in order to decrease the so-called need for new world order) and I sadly I used more than was fair, but then I deliberately did the test again and filling in answers that are almost directly feasible adjustments in my behaviour and the the result was that I will do just fine both for nature as my responsibility to humanity less or equal of fair space on this planet.

Although there was an overview where in general the population of Africa is doing fine according to this model and Americans where doing less fine, I do NOT blame Americans for that because you/they have been intentionally conditioned to consume more than is good for the planet and handing you over the financial means by selling (there is nowhere free credit since you either pay rent for it or really work for the money) you credit without any obligations to care for nature. But please be wise, please decrease learning by mistakes but prevent unnecessary mistakes by sound thinking, planning and organising.

If anyone have an alternative or even better model to compute how much overpopulation we have got and whether we have truly got overpopulation at all, please go ahead and discuss such a model openly such that we can improve ourselves.

How can humanity voluntarily decrease it's procreation rate? That is decreasing conception numbers (and therefore birth numbers, I'm against provoked abortion, but if an unborn child has too much pain of an incurable disease or if the mothers life is at risk then these are exceptions in my opinion; a child has the right of a loving mother and a dead mother cannot love that easily and I do not know how the emotional/spiritual-mother-child-bond can be created artificially). But how?...

In my opinion biomedical researches and ethical pharmaceutical developers should create together hormonal products (pills) that will make the the female biological clock tick longer, thus lengthen the period in live where human females are able to reproduce. This would make no sense if religious or other leaders would say we should procreate because it is in the Christian bible or any other reason. In the Cristian bible there is also prescribed that one shall take stewardship for nature and animals and therefore anyone who ands the ethical guidelines of the bible should think themselves what is most relevant in this period of time, in the situation where we're in on earth and that we somewhat postpone procreation until we can inhabit Mars or the Moon or whatever planet is free and it is proven wise to inhabit. But that is maybe talking to much in the future for somepeople.

I'm not an biomedical expert, but I am most probably going to start a minor in biomedical sciences at a university this year and I will network this idea unless you can convince me that there is nothing but evil in this whole idea.

How does the option to take hormonal pills that will lengthen fertility voluntarily decrease conception numbers? It will work for women who first like to have a economic career and afterwards create offspring (I do not regard it as wise to have both at the same time, both parent part-time will work, but both parent fulltime is disastrous for the child emotional development, you can tell a kid wise things but if it is not within love what will it gonna do with the knowledge and the wisdom and will their minds truly absorb and digest knowledge if their need for love is not satisfied enough and if that need is not satisfied enough they will seek compensation in pleasurable things that might be harmfull on the long run). If this whole idea gets popularized through the corporate media - and maybe some alternative media too -and if it really safe for the women their physical and emotional health (this time do it ethically investors!; so let the investors control and weaken their perceived need for greed and choose for real integrity and not the shiny appearance of reputation of having such integrity while being ethically dumb in the meantime.

Why such pills are needed anyway? Because the intuitional urge to procreate before the fertility period ends is so ingrained in our DNA and that is even more significant in female DNA that we have to come up with realistic solutions that give women the opportunity to procreate when both theyselves want it, they can afford the raising of a child (both financially as also having enough time have fun together with your child and discuss what he had learned on school and through social experiences and learn him or her critical thinking on both education and social behaviour because most schools are not interested in doing so) and their is enough place (read: enough resources) on this planet (or also on another one in the future).

Do you have got a better idea to slow population growth down or can you improve this one? Please react. Also critic is welcome.
It's propably a better strategy to make Britain and Holland fall out of the NWO, because a smaller country is easier to overtake and the world main stream media could not cover it up.

Offline Revolt426

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,190
Actually, a major method currently being used is destroying the entire World Economic System so it cannot sustain the current population levels, not even a 1/4 of it.

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Overpopulation is a lie.

It has been a lie for 400 years.

read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathon Swift
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

sociostudent

  • Guest
Or watch the documentary called "demographic winter"...it talks about how Malthus was wrong. Our replacement fertility rate is actually quite low, and it talks about the financial consequences of a lost workforce due to infertility and social conditioning to have less children.

Offline maim

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
    • NewWorldOrderNWO
Overpopulation is a lie.

It has been a lie for 400 years.

read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathon Swift
indeed, its over-capitalism that's using up the resources, not over-population

Offline LoreOnTerror

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
I agree over population is B.S. If you think there's too many people on earth take it in your own hands and take your own life. Problem solved.
“If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched.” - George H.W. Bush

"There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don’t know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president." - Kurt Vonnegut

Offline Revolt426

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,190
Overpopulation is dependent on the will of the Government to invest in infrastructure. To populate more we need clean water supplies, agriculture and technology, and means of transportation. Our system invests nothing in any of the above - not since JFK have these things been looked at hence depopulation will occur without doing this things immediately.

It is a fraud to say, we cannot do anything about it, but it is real in the aspect, that we are being systematically murdered.
"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.

Offline snafu

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • No more time to play patty cake...
everyone has kids for different reasons.  for men its the poon tang, for women, the monthly checks. 
Can someone send me some anthrax?

sociostudent

  • Guest
everyone has kids for different reasons.  for men its the poon tang, for women, the monthly checks. 

Once again, we here at the forum stand in awe of your "wisdom", snafu ::)

Offline snafu

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • No more time to play patty cake...
what lol, attack the problem at its source.
Can someone send me some anthrax?

Offline xTruthSeekerx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,328
someone ban both snafu and this eugenic fruit cake

Offline xTruthSeekerx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,328
he's just an endless fountain of wisdom..hey wait, that's not wisdom, that's PEE

Offline IridiumKEPfactor

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,668
It has already been stated But.

Overpopulation is the kneejerk reaction to really saying that there are to many people living in the same area. "Congestion" movement frustration. "Infrastructure" and the delivery of needed services will correct that.

Offline snafu

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • No more time to play patty cake...
dude why u got to hate, im just tryin to be funny, see the funny thing is if you saw me in real life you wouldnt be laughin
Can someone send me some anthrax?

theexcogitator

  • Guest
I don't think you guys are considering the fact that when you have a more crowded area, there will be a need for more rules of conduct within that area.  This can be generalized to systems.  Given a fixed area, in order that a system with increasing units of composition continue, order must be applied to those units.  Basically, this translates into the need for more laws, complex subsystems, and laws for those complex subsystems.  The ability to maintain a larger population is not the problem.  The problem is that with a increasing population, freedoms will decrease.  Just to give an example.  Say there was 500 acres of land available.  I like to build helicopters, and they make a lot of noise when I fly around in them.  If, at first, there were only two people on this plot of land, the other person could be far enough away from me such that the noise did not disturb him.  If, however, there were 2000 people divided on the land equally, my flying my helicopter would cause people near by the pain of the loud noise.

Separately, over population does not have to mean the inability of natural resources to maintain a population.  It can simply mean that there will not be sufficient resources for those coming into the society.  IE, those who have resources have no reason to give to those who have insufficient resources, and so, any additional population will find there to be insufficient resources.  Its kind of funny that government is grabbing more land and at the same time claiming they want to help out the average citizen.  IE, they are restricting an available resource while simply diluting another (money).

Offline snafu

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • No more time to play patty cake...
how about we stop fighting these wars and instead spend time taking care of people instead of murdering them.  much more cost effective
Can someone send me some anthrax?

theexcogitator

  • Guest
how about we stop fighting these wars and instead spend time taking care of people instead of murdering them.  much more cost effective
I suspect the depression will be a lot more cost effective.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
indeed, its over-capitalism that's using up the resources, not over-population

that is also a lie.  it is feudalism/slavery by deception.

capitalism does not exist anywhere I know and has not been in the US for at lease 100 years.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline NinjaGaijin

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
  • MYSPACE/DJNINJAGAIJIN
    • SUBTERFUGE SEMINARS MYSPACE
Overpopulation is a lie.

It has been a lie for 400 years.

read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathon Swift

Yep

We aren't growing now anyway as most people have children late in life (if at all), and tend to only have one or two. Many couples have no children, which would have been unusual 50 years ago..

The earth balances itself out. Perhaps more people are being born gay now as well as a genetic answer to any overpopulation concerns (not stating as fact just idea, if we burden our species to near extinction with overpopulation, genetic/evolutionary response may kick in to give us more ways to reduce number of births).

I was so sucked into the over-population idea until a few years ago - but seeing the elitists plans for population reduction .. makes me definitely think again. Now I think we could easily support 6-10 billion people - IF we used the technologies ALREADY developed (but restricted by various special interests), we could surely inhabit this world in an ecologically viable manner.

Bio-fuel method was patented a year ago - allowing petrol/oil to be refined from decaying biomatter like plant, animal material etc!!

We can solve any problem we face as long as we are not controlled by psychopaths that do not want us to survive.
myspace.com/djninjagaijin / toxemiarecords.com / toxemiarecords.999.org

Offline Unintelligable Name

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,630
Overpopulation is indeed a lie.

The problem is too many people on a system that was never designed for the amount of people that are using it

Examples of what I mean:

Too many people living in areas with no source of natural clean water
Too many people who do not grow their own food
Too many people living alone or in large houses in areas of high population

Our numbers have to be shifted around and more spread out, we need better technology to harness clean water in areas where it is no abundant, and we need a larger percentage to grow their own food.

Disclaimer: I just woke up and I am never a source of infinite, infallable truths and I never claimed to be. So shut up about it, it's just my opinion.

Offline Unintelligable Name

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,630
Or watch the documentary called "demographic winter"...

I've seen it, I win points!

Offline NinjaGaijin

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
  • MYSPACE/DJNINJAGAIJIN
    • SUBTERFUGE SEMINARS MYSPACE
yep too right mate.

there is plenty of land, such as deserts and underwater.. inside the earth.. we could make room, just would require innovation as you stated for food, water, oxygen and waste disposal methods..

but if we put our minds to it, anything we want is possible given enough dedication and time (imo).. we could survive 10-12 billion people on this earth, given enough planning and care.

But we can never have nations that care, as long as they a) pretend to be representing the people of the country, instead of global elitist interests and b) nations disagreeing with science of pollution and ecosystem - if one country decided (because I am hoping we still have countries and not a NWO!) that they thought it was alright according to their studies to dump nuclear waste right next to their neighbour, without a NWO or consensus between sovereign nations, or some sort of oversight, it just wouldn't work.

So in order to make a global ecological methology work you would need some sort of NWO system. But we have seen that any NWO system will actually work to DESTROY the planet it seems.. not support it.

So we're kind of screwed. The elitists want us to die, and they love to say it's our fault at the same time.

myspace.com/djninjagaijin / toxemiarecords.com / toxemiarecords.999.org

KarnEvil9

  • Guest
The population of industrialized nations tends to stablize over time. I'm sure most of you saw the population pyramids in your college human geography classes. Here is one for Denmark. The second one is for Somalia. Both are projected to 2025.







So, we can see that unstable, underdeveloped nations like Somalia have a large majority of people between the ages of 0-4, yet there is a sharp dropoff towards the top, i.e., people don't live very long. However, in a nation like Denmark, the population is largest in the center groups, showing the "normal" trend for stablization, in other words, there would be no "overpopulation" if the first model were the "norm".
Finally, here is the projected model for the US:



Notice how as we move towards 2050, the 0-4 and younger ages just above begin to expand, presumably as a result of an influx of third world populations from underdeveloped nations.
These population pyramids make an interesting study and can lead to all kinds of questions and conjecture.
Why do the elites, who have full knowledge of these statistics, want to keep the world in a state of mayhem? Would it be easier for them to just kill us than to actually try and resolve this situation? I think you all know the answer.

theexcogitator

  • Guest
When was the projection to 2050 made?  My guess is that it is an overprojections based on growth housing markets and expanding business.  Given the financial stress of today, people will tend to have less kids on average, and immigration will decrease.

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
indeed, its over-capitalism that's using up the resources, not over-population

It is over elitism that is screwing with everything... manipulated "Mob" like control of markets, engineered shortages, and crises, licensing as protection racket-ism for us and carte-blanc for the lawless and powerful few. They maintain control with Digital/HD media driven fears. Manufactured out of whole cloth. Things like Al-CIAda, global climate/asteroid/space alien catastrophes, bird flu, and the list goes on.  Malthusian ideas retreaded for the umpteenth time and every generation falls for it without fail. 

In industrial or technological societies reproduction falls to replacement level rapidly due to the creation of a myriad other entertainments, and broader "more with less" creativity... Try to understand that top down controlled Capitalism and Communist socialism are systematically the two hands of the same giant elitist "suck them in" gorgon, working us all toward a eugenics based Feudalism which the elite few will control utterly... Once you get firm on that idea, you are on the road to solving the problem... and the American Founding Fathers will begin to make sense to you.  All free market capitalists to a man.

JTCoyoté

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power
any government has is the power to crack down on
criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals,
one makes them. One declares so many things to be
a crime that it becomes impossible to live without
breaking laws."
~Ayn Rand

KarnEvil9

  • Guest
When was the projection to 2050 made?  My guess is that it is an overprojections based on growth housing markets and expanding business.  Given the financial stress of today, people will tend to have less kids on average, and immigration will decrease.

Oh yeah, I just noticed the text on the animation turned light when I linked it to here. The animated graph starts in 1950 and ends at 2050. You can highlight it and see the text better.

Quote
My guess is that it is an overprojections based on growth housing markets and expanding business.

That, and projections of immigration numbers from 3rd world countries.

Quote
Given the financial stress of today, people will tend to have less kids on average, and immigration will decrease.

From what I've been reading in the news (I think there was an article on PP as well), many of the migrant workers from countries such as Mexico, Honduras, etc. are finding the situation here bad enough to actually return home.

Offline NinjaGaijin

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
  • MYSPACE/DJNINJAGAIJIN
    • SUBTERFUGE SEMINARS MYSPACE
random thought: this forum is what I read in Ender's Game (Orson Scott Card) in which the entire world interacted about pressing issues.

We just need EVERYONE on here :)

Bless this forum. This is the ultimate usage of the internet. We must convince people to throw down their shackles of warez, pron, social networking. .and rise to the challenge of the intellectual forum.
myspace.com/djninjagaijin / toxemiarecords.com / toxemiarecords.999.org

Offline fred.greek

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
Population: Presenting numbers...
« Reply #35 on: May 05, 2009, 10:35:32 pm »
DEMOGRAPHICS FOR THE LONG-TERM

Population evenly distributed across an age range of 1 to 80.  Average births do not exceed replacement with children born to parents who in an age range of 20 to 40.

There is no need for new home construction.  Family homesteads, each an area approximately 100' x 100' (about ¼ acre) house multi-generation families of 8 to 10 people. 

Homesteads are arranged into neighborhoods, each a square six homesteads on a side, twenty total.  These surround a central courtyard 400' x 400'. Each neighborhood association (about 40 acre) is a gathering averaging 160 to 200 people.

Neighborhoods are arranged into villages, each a square eight neighborhoods on a side (one square mile).  The central 40 acres is reserved for shops, schools, etc., putting schools and business within roughly ½ mile of every homestead.  Each village contains 60 associations and is a gathering of 9600 to 12,000 people, with around 120 to 150 people of each age (grade in school).   

Villages are arranged in a grid eleven on a side, with a city core of nine square miles in a central “X”.  The city has 112 villages and averages 1,075,200 people, around 13,400 of each age. 

Add water collection, farming and forest for materials, and the city needs to be about 55 mile x 55 mile.

If basic education is considered as age 6 thru 18, there are 80,640 kids in school, requiring 4032 teachers. 

Aiming for an educated workforce, and low stress "elder" years, consider the educated workforce to be ages 22 thru 56, this is around 407,400 people.  Minus 4032 as teachers and 2% of the total, or 21,504 as gardeners, the employable population is 444,864.  The city is large enough to sustain demand for specialists in education, medicine, sciences, etc. 

CONSIDERING GREATER LEVELS

An eco-city of a million can be a tool to preserve education and skills, and continue development.  It obviously exceeds the capabilities of a dispersed hunter gatherer society of the same population of a million, or any other non-urban approach. 

I do not see how a dense, yet ecological community would be able to significantly exceed a population of 1 million, or occupy an area less than that set out above, which if you have limited rainfall, is an area 55 miles on a side (3025 sq. mile).  Nor do I see how the same million spread less-dense could maintain the level of interaction necessary. 

Yet to house 6+ billion people, it would take SIX THOUSAND such eco-cities, which would cover over 18 million square miles.  The total temperate area of the Earth is around 37 million square miles. 

What we actually have in place at this time is worse.  We have 6+ billion people disbursed over the six continents of the globe, which logically means that our present cumulative human footprint EXCEEDS this area.  Yet with our current "system", with all of the additional, non-renewable input, we still cannot provide adequately for the population.

To implement such low-energy eco-cities in sufficient time to provide for the entire present population appears to require magic.

If we wanted to limit ourselves to diverting say  10% of the total productive land space to human activity, it would be 3.7 million square miles, limited to around 1,200 of such cities, or a total global population of 1.2 billion.  That population though could live in relative abundance, and peace. 

Setting aside for the moment the arbitrary laws written by humans, what would be the minimum physical requirements of peaceful interaction of individual ecological communities? 
 
Retired but still working in the garden...

Offline albinolime

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
If there are any volunteers that want to end their lives for the betterment of humanity, have them stand in front of the people about to go up against all the weapons we face, so that the survivors can live in relative peace and freedom.
Operation: Meat Shield


Offline res1st

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Hello there,

Beside all the horrible ideas about depopulation:

I don't know what I should respond when it comes to the assertion that it is indeed necessary to realize depopulation because the human race is growing exponentially.

Can you explain to me why this argument fails or is at least weak?

Thank you.

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #39 on: July 24, 2010, 05:51:49 am »
Are we talking about just gently suggesting people voluntarily limit the number of children they have or are we talking about killing people off, forcibly sterilizing them and forcing women to have abortion etc.

I think that makes a big difference.

But I'm being kinder/more generous than a lot of other folk around here might be.

I think you need to be a lot clearer about what you are talking about.

This is very vague, and yes, on the surface of it suspicious.

(BTW, I don't necessarily believe it is the state's business to preach to us about this, though, or a host of other ethical/moral issues.)