Author Topic: Brainwashed Malthusian Zombies Parrot OVERPOPULATION MYTH on a Truth Forum  (Read 231388 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #40 on: July 24, 2010, 06:25:04 am »
Is Human Population
Really the Problem?

http://www.jefflindsay.com/Overpop.shtml

Quote
The high population density of China pales in comparison with that of prosperous Taiwan or rich and clean Switzerland. New Jersey also has a much higher population density than China, but only the most hardened would advocate forced sterilizations and forced abortions to save New Jersey from collapse. Having been in Switzerland, New Jersey, and China, I can say that the quality of life (environmental quality, income, life expectancy, and health care) is vastly superior in the first two, where the population density is higher. What's the difference? The political and economic systems must be taken into account. If a system hinders rather than rewards human productivity and impedes efficient utilization of resources through central planning, then the problem may not be due to numbers of people.

But could it be that we are running out of space? Walk through New York, Calcutta, or Hong Kong and experience the incredible crowding: surely there just isn't room for all these people. Yes, there are crowded places in the world. There are strong economic and social incentives for people to cluster together. If Manhattan were spread out over the state of Montana, it's economic power would be greatly diminished (and a lot of moose would be mugged). Yet leave these population centers, and we find a remarkably unpopulated planet.

How much land does it take to hold 6 billion people? To give you an idea, consider the small nation of Japan. It has about 143,000 square miles of area. One square mile has 5280 * 5280 = 27.9 million square feet. Japan has a total of about 4 trillion square feet, enough to give each person of the earth 670 square feet. If we housed people in families of four in simple two-level buildings (8 people per building, one family of four per level), each building could be on a lot of over 5300 square feet. (Of course, I've ignored that fact that many parts of Japan would be unsuitable for dwelling places, and I've neglected the land needed for roads, parks, schools, etc.) In a land area as small as Japan, the entire population of the earth could be housed on lots of 5300 square feet, with 8 people per lot. That's smaller than the typical American lot of about 8000 square feet, but it's not unbearably small.If we insisted on American standards, with only 4 people per lot of at least 8,000 square feet, then Gale Lyle Pooley shows that an area the size of Texas plus Nevada would be adequate (op. cit., p. 93). That would make those two states less attractive, perhaps, but it would leave the rest of the world for food production, animal reserves, nature movies, Woodstock festivals, or whatever. In terms of the real resources of this planet, we are not overpopulated.

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline stangrof

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,402
    • http://www.ipernity.com/home/stangrof
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #41 on: July 24, 2010, 06:33:57 am »
Easy, India: A bit more than A billion people, Africa: 900 milion people, 1) compare the size of the land 2) if they would be allowed to develop their economies, the birth rate would fall as it did in the north.
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone elses opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.
Oscar Wild
twitter :https://twitter.com/stangrof

Offline phosphene

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,826
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #42 on: July 24, 2010, 06:42:35 am »
respond with questions.

Ask him if he believes in overpopulation, why hasn't he jumped off a cliff yet?
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua

Offline res1st

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #43 on: July 25, 2010, 02:26:10 pm »
respond with questions.

Ask him if he believes in overpopulation, why hasn't he jumped off a cliff yet?

This is a very weak response in my opinion. The issue is not that we are supposed to kill ourselves immediately but that if the population growth continues like it is at the moment we will have the problem of "who of us two has to die so that the other can live?".
This means that we should think about how to prevent such a scenario by interfering with the current growth rate. So I think given the presumption that we are heading for a scenario like that, it is perfectly reasonable to think about depopulation for the future such as one child laws or sterilizations or stuff like that. It is much better to prevent people having kids than to kill those kids.
But this argument is only a good one if the presumption is true.

citizenx posted something where this presumption is attacked and I have to check it out more deeply, I've only skimmed through it so far.

Offline CaptBebops

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #44 on: July 25, 2010, 03:03:59 pm »
Regarding India, go get a visa (you need one now for India -- didn't used to) and hop on a plane and visit Bombay.  In fact as you land at Bombay and it isn't in the middle of the night just take a look out the window.  You'll see horrible slums.  And then ask how well that 1 billion plus people in India is working for them.

Overpopulation is indeed one area I disagree with Alex on.   The issue is we don't have the infrastructure for everybody to have children like puppies.  Buckminster Fuller pointed out back in the 1960s that we could support such a large population but the establishment (the elite) won't support it because they would have to give up control.  Children are not pets and you damn well better have an income to support a large family if you want one because there is no value in raising kids in squalor.  In fact it is a form of cruelty.


Offline URpwneddude

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • "You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #45 on: July 25, 2010, 03:25:42 pm »
respond with questions.

Ask him if he believes in overpopulation, why hasn't he jumped off a cliff yet?

Why not ask if you can just kill him?  Tell him that you need to get into practice as the overpopulation will require quite a culling.  <sarcasm off>
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #46 on: July 25, 2010, 03:33:29 pm »
it is perfectly reasonable to think about depopulation for the future such as one child laws or sterilizations or stuff like that. It is much better to prevent people having kids than to kill those kids.
It is not the government's job, IMO, to kill kids ("A Modest Proposal"?) OR force people to be sterilized OR to mandate the number of children they can have.

You wish to give far too much power to government.

Do you want the U.S. to have a one child policy?  For how long?  Who decides?

Forced serilizations?  Who would you have the government sterilize and why?

I disagree with your "plan" vehemently.

Quote
citizenx posted something where this presumption is attacked and I have to check it out more deeply, I've only skimmed through it so far.
I certainly didn't attack the idea that overpopulation isn't a problem.  I merely didn't address it at all.  You are putting words in my mouth (keyboard).

Personally, I am not sure overpopulation is a real problem now or in the future.

But even if it is, it is not necessarily the role of governement to "fix" it -- or to "fix" people.

(BTW, I don't think you should kill yourself, but have you had yourself "fixed"?)



My questions focus on the steps you say you would have government take, because I am trying to get you to see that by giving such vast power to government in these matters you may only wind up further enslaving man, though I get the feeeling that no amount of persuasion will suffice in this case.

Offline res1st

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #47 on: July 25, 2010, 04:12:45 pm »
I believe that you got my post wrong.

I certainly am very open to good arguments that support an anti-depopulation opinion.

I really don't want any government to have a sterilization law or one child law. As you clearly pointed out, the power that would be given to the government would be too enormous.

However IF (and I seek good arguments that this "IF" is NOT true) overpopulation is as big of a problem as they sell it, then one has to ask how to prevent it and as far as I thought about it, the only solution that is not completely cruel is having some one child laws or sth like that. This is in my opinion way better than leave the problem by itself and to the people and see what happens. When the predictions are correct, then genocide would be the inevitable result. So I would blame a government much more for not taking action although they heard the warnings.
However in this solution it is implied that there is no other way for stopping the growth. Maybe there are other factors that are important and that are not considered enough. I am not a sociologist so teach me if you can.

Again: I am not arguing for depopulation. I just need arguments that are compelling. When you talk to some stranger and tell him about depopulation he/she could answer: "Well sounds horrible but someone has to take action if necessary".


Offline sharpsteve

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,358
    • Twitter Me
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #48 on: July 25, 2010, 04:28:32 pm »
Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM

2.1 Kids: Stable Population
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBS6f-JVvTY


Offline phosphene

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,826
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #49 on: July 25, 2010, 04:30:23 pm »
(and I seek good arguments that this "IF" is NOT true)
trying to prove a negative is a logical fallacy.

Carl Sagan's Contribution
From: The Demon-Haunted World: (Chapter 12 - The Fine Art of Baloney Detection.)
"Appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist -- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: there may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #50 on: July 25, 2010, 04:45:32 pm »
...it is perfectly reasonable to think about depopulation for the future such as one child laws or sterilizations or stuff like that.
Now you are saying you don't want these things.  If you really have made up your mind, the point is moot, I think.


Quote
I really don't want any government to have a sterilization law or one child law. As you clearly pointed out, the power that would be given to the government would be too enormous.

I'm confused here.

Why the devil's advocate thing?  What do you really think?

My mother voluntarily limited herself to two children.  I have one child.  My wife and I have discussed it.  We may have one more child, but do not want more than two.

AS for other people, I have no control over them, but I think if we did away with the welfare state as it is, you wouldn't see quite so many technologically induced octuplets, KWIM?

AS for government, I know for sure I don't want to grant it that power over others.  Period. If persuasion won't work to get people to act responsibly, Ma Nature has her own way of doing things.  People may see in times that less can be more.  They may voluntarily limit the number of children they have.

However, most scientists who have studied it say human population levels will probably level off and begin to decrease any way in the future, perhaps in this century. Future non-problem from what I can see.

Offline res1st

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #51 on: July 25, 2010, 05:22:17 pm »
If persuasion won't work to get people to act responsibly, Ma Nature has her own way of doing things.  People may see in times that less can be more.  They may voluntarily limit the number of children they have.

If u mean by nature evolution, evolution is cruel and death is it's queen. If you think nature will take care of it then I have to say that given evolution took place it is now the time that evolution takes the next step namely being more intelligent than other species which is in the end nothing but eugenics. Do you see where my problem is? There are a lot of people who are for the next step in human evolution whatever this is in their opinion. So leaving it by nature.. this can mean a lot (of bad things).

And your "may"s are exactly what I mean. What if not? Why should the destiny of mankind be "decided" by the stupid mass?
"Why take the chance of failing when we the elite can route human evolution into the right direction?" This is how the elite is motivated I guess. This is how they justify putting toxic things in our food and water without giving up every moral reasoning.


Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #52 on: July 25, 2010, 05:31:07 pm »
You want to control and manage everything.

Good luck with all that.



When I was a boy once, somebody gave me a duckling one year -- maybe for Easter.  My father made me take it to the reflecting pond at GM tech center where he worked and release it when it was fully grown.  He wanted me to respect nature and he wanted me to know that a wild thing cannot be kept indefinitely.  It was an important lesson.

Would my domestically raised duck survive?  Would it be accepted by the flock?  Would it live or would it die?

I was giving up control, allowing nature to take its course.

It is an important lesson you have to learn somehwere along the way.

(What I have learned since then is that wild animals should also never be kept as pets or in zoos, either.)

Shut down the human zoo! Let my people go.

Offline res1st

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #53 on: July 25, 2010, 05:39:56 pm »
trying to prove a negative is a logical fallacy.

Carl Sagan's Contribution
From: The Demon-Haunted World: (Chapter 12 - The Fine Art of Baloney Detection.)
"Appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist -- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: there may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."



What exactly is your motivation behind a post like this?

There are arguments why depopulation is right and all you want to respond is simply "I don't have any good arguments why depopulation is wrong but still this does not prove that depopulation is not wrong." ?
Well what do you get out of this? Not much in my opinion.


Offline phosphene

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,826
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #54 on: July 25, 2010, 05:46:56 pm »
But this argument is only a good one if the presumption is true.
You don't argue, you ask questions. If they cannot supply answers to their own theories, then they look stupid.

thats why you question the presumptions.....

How many people, exactly, can the Earth "sustain"?
How many people are on the planet right now?
What is the square footage of the Earth's landmass?
Are you prepared to discontinue your own procreative instincts just because of a few books and news reports?

Most clowns who parrot the depopulation agenda cannot even answer a few basic questions about the BS coming outta their mouth. Once they realize and admit they dont know wtf theyre talking about, then, maybe, theyll wake up.
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua

Offline res1st

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #55 on: July 25, 2010, 05:47:58 pm »
You want to control and manage everything.

Good luck with all that.



When I was a boy once, somebody gave me a pet duck one year.  My father made me take it to the reflecting pond at GM tech center where he worked and release it.  He wanted me to respect nature and he wanted me to know that a wild thing cannot be kept indefinitely.  It was an important lesson.

Would my domestically raised duck survive?  Would it be accepted by the flock?  Would it live or would it die?

I was giving up control, allowing nature to take its course.

It is an important lesson you have to learn somehwere along the way.

(What I have learned since then is that wild animals should also never be kept as pets or in zoos, either.)

Shut down the human zoo! Let my people go.


Now you are attacking me instead of responding to my objection. I never claimed that what I write is my opinion but rather this can easily be the reasoning others might have. In order to speak against depopulation one should know how to respond to certain arguments. This is my whole motivation for this thread.
And giving an analogy of wild animals doesn't help either. If we are also "wild" then maybe we should try to control this wilderness in order not to be immoral. Because wild animals also kill for example. There is a reason why we can reason in my opinion. So let's use it.

Offline res1st

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #56 on: July 25, 2010, 05:51:19 pm »
Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM

2.1 Kids: Stable Population
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBS6f-JVvTY



Thank you very much. This is what I was looking for.

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #57 on: July 25, 2010, 05:57:07 pm »
Check it out, this is the second thread the op has started basically looking for the same information, ostensibly.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=180410.0

Are you looking for information or "arguments" or both?

Beta test of some sort?


Offline goforward

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 625
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #58 on: July 25, 2010, 06:26:36 pm »
here's the problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

here's a simple answer:

     "Here is the difference between the animal and the man. Both the jayhawk and the man eat chickens, but the more jayhawks the fewer chickens, while the more men the more chickens. Both the seal and the man eat salmon, but when a seal eats a salmon there is a salmon the less, and were seals to increase past a certain point salmon must diminish; while by placing the spawn of the salmon under favorable conditions man can so increase the number of salmon as to more than make up for all he may take, and thus, no matter how much men may increase, their increase need never outrun the supply of salmon.

    "In short, while all through the vegetable and animal kingdoms the limit of subsistence is independent of the things subsisted, with man the limit of subsistence is, within the final limits of earth, air, water and sunshine, dependent upon man himself. And, this being the case, the analogy which it is sought to draw between the lower forms of life and man manifestly fails."

henry george

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/oregan-p-j_on-henry-george.html
Matthew 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,002
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #59 on: July 25, 2010, 06:30:19 pm »
Thank you very much. This is what I was looking for.  

Quote
the assertion that it is indeed necessary to realize depopulation because [Is?] the human race is growing exponentially.

It's not! see : Brainwashed - SDT - The Second Demographic Transition - One in five childbearing women childless (double from 1 in 10)
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #60 on: July 25, 2010, 06:42:31 pm »
This reminds me of Children of Men




Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #61 on: July 25, 2010, 07:12:11 pm »
It's not! see : Brainwashed - SDT - The Second Demographic Transition - One in five childbearing women childless (double from 1 in 10)
Precisely, women in the Western world (which uses the most resources per capita) and the industrialized deomocracies as a whole have been limiting the number of children they have for some time -- well below replacement rate.

Is the op suggesting our government intervene in the population rates of other countries?  What is the upshot of all this?

Our country's internal population rate is not going up.  How far down does it need to go in his opinion.

Restricting immigration -- though perhaps a good ideas for other reasons -- would have a ngligible effect on world population as a whole.

So, what is the op suggesting?

Or is he suggesting nothing?

Merely, looking for information and useful arguments as he says? Why?

Offline res1st

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #62 on: July 26, 2010, 02:16:39 am »
Yes I am merely looking for good arguments and I have received a lot of information through the two threads.
The other thread is not the same as this, because overpopulation is just one argument why we should have eugenics. Also in the other thread I asked for good sources which one could really quote (like from Russells book or something).

If you really need to know my motivation: I am a philosophy student and I am currently writing on an assignment (10-15 pages) about eugenics. The text must not be descriptive about eugenics rather it has to have arguments in it and I hope to find good arguments why we should NOT have any kind of eugenics. And merely describing the horrible present conditions won't suffice in a philosophical paper.

Instead of attacking me and figuring out what I really want you could have used the time to give some good sources as the others did that I will check out. Instead of working with me you are working against me because you are paranoid and think I am some kind of illumanti invader of the forum or what? Seriously one should always be allowed to question things no matter if it is the official story of 9/11 or why eugenics or depopulation is necessary.

Peace

Offline attietewd

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,667
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #63 on: July 26, 2010, 02:23:00 am »
If every person who thought over population was a problem were then targeted to help eliminate it by being put to death, no one would be talking about it.  IMO
“Thus, condemnation will never come to those who are in Christ Jesus…”

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #64 on: July 26, 2010, 02:31:08 am »
Thomas Malthus's work usually where a lot of these overpopulation arguments stem from. He was basically doom-mongering about this hundreds of years ago.

http://www.henrygeorge.org/popsup.htm

There are some counter-arguments at the link, I think they're expressed better than I can do it.

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #65 on: July 26, 2010, 03:02:29 am »
The other thread is not the same as this, because overpopulation is just one argument why we should have eugenics. Also in the other thread I asked for good sources which one could really quote (like from Russells book or something).
Well, you bring up an important point.  Overpopulation and eugenics are two different things , however, over the course of the twentieth century the ideology of eugenics (American in origin) kind of morphed into pouplation control.  So, these things are very much related.

 
Quote
If you really need to know my motivation: I am a philosophy student and I am currently writing on an assignment (10-15 pages) about eugenics. The text must not be descriptive about eugenics rather it has to have arguments in it and I hope to find good arguments why we should NOT have any kind of eugenics. And merely describing the horrible present conditions won't suffice in a philosophical paper.
Actually, I had guessed you were a student. (Undergrad. I assume.) I was a college and university instructor.  Asking random posters on a random intenet forum is probably not a good way to get out of doing your own research for your paper, BTW.

Quote
Instead of attacking me and figuring out what I really want you could have used the time to give some good sources as the others did that I will check out.
Don't see anything I said that was an attack or a personal attack.  Yes, I was questioning your motives which you had not disclosed.

Quote
Instead of working with me you are working against me because you are paranoid and think I am some kind of illumanti invader of the forum or what? Seriously one should always be allowed to question things no matter if it is the official story of 9/11 or why eugenics or depopulation is necessary.
I am paranoid?  Are you a clinical psyciatrist or psychologist?  Care to define your terms?  Do you even know what that means?

As for "working against you", I wasn't even aware we were "working" -- or working on the same thing.

As for Illuminati, I knew you were too immature to be a member of some nefarious organization bent on world-conquest.  If you were, I assume you would have more important things to do.  Don't flatter yourself

Quote
Peace
Peace out

Offline DAVIDE MTL

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,550
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #66 on: July 26, 2010, 09:17:53 pm »
Regarding India, go get a visa (you need one now for India -- didn't used to) and hop on a plane and visit Bombay.  In fact as you land at Bombay and it isn't in the middle of the night just take a look out the window.  You'll see horrible slums.  And then ask how well that 1 billion plus people in India is working for them.

Overpopulation is indeed one area I disagree with Alex on.   The issue is we don't have the infrastructure for everybody to have children like puppies.  Buckminster Fuller pointed out back in the 1960s that we could support such a large population but the establishment (the elite) won't support it because they would have to give up control.  Children are not pets and you damn well better have an income to support a large family if you want one because there is no value in raising kids in squalor.  In fact it is a form of cruelty.


The elite have created a false reality of overpopulation with mass immigration and cramming everyone in the cities.

Offline Kilgore Trout

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,449
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #67 on: July 26, 2010, 09:40:16 pm »
What would be great is if the government didn't make the movtivation to have kids so strong. Instead of giving people more welfare and food stamp benifits , they take a percentage away for each new child they have. The way it is now there is no negative motivation to continue to have children. In this way people would become more responsible and less apt to keep mating at such a fast pace.
"I do not believe that there were, at the Council of Nicea,
three persons present who believed in the truth of what was set down.
If there were, it was on account of their ignorance."
J. M. Roberts, "Antiquity Unveiled", 1892

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #68 on: July 27, 2010, 12:47:58 am »
What would be great is if the government didn't make the movtivation to have kids so strong. Instead of giving people more welfare and food stamp benifits , they take a percentage away for each new child they have. The way it is now there is no negative motivation to continue to have children. In this way people would become more responsible and less apt to keep mating at such a fast pace.

I don't hear anyone advocating that, and it is a small proportion of women that do this. So small as to be negligible compared to the outright theft employed by criminal international bankers\oligarchs and the resulting imbalance in land ownership\resources.

Offline Kilgore Trout

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,449
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #69 on: July 27, 2010, 04:24:28 am »
I don't hear anyone advocating that, and it is a small proportion of women that do this. So small as to be negligible compared to the outright theft employed by criminal international bankers\oligarchs and the resulting imbalance in land ownership\resources.

The American "Social Services" system is set up in such a way as to break up intact families , make it impossible for working families to get any sort of assistance , all the while supporting unchecked procreating. In this way the hope it seems is to land men who do try in jail and then the mothers on full government assistance. then the children of theses families will eventually end up in prison as well, more money for the state through forced labor and tax revenue.
"I do not believe that there were, at the Council of Nicea,
three persons present who believed in the truth of what was set down.
If there were, it was on account of their ignorance."
J. M. Roberts, "Antiquity Unveiled", 1892

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #70 on: July 27, 2010, 04:31:57 am »
The American "Social Services" system is set up in such a way as to break up intact families , make it impossible for working families to get any sort of assistance , all the while supporting unchecked procreating. In this way the hope it seems is to land men who do try in jail and then the mothers on full government assistance. then the children of theses families will eventually end up in prison as well, more money for the state through forced labor and tax revenue.

There is that, but I don't think the end goal is more people  :P

Offline tosso

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #71 on: July 27, 2010, 05:44:11 am »
open google map and you will see that overpopulation is a myth .... we have technology at this moment to shelter and feed 100 bilion people ..but controlers keep that technology in secret ....every human life is priceless   PERIOD
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation.
One is by the sword. The other is by debt." - John Adams

Offline attietewd

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,667
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #72 on: July 27, 2010, 12:08:14 pm »
Quote
The Overpopulation Myth       
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 10:30 

  http://www.simplyshrug.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63:the-overpopulation-myth&catid=31:general&Itemid=50

According to the US Census Department, the World population is shy of 6.8 billion; for purposes of this editorial and to keep things relevant for the next few years, I will round up to 7 billion.  And in the interest (or tortured masochism) of fellow mathematical-leaning folks, I will include the relevant calculations as entered on my trusty Hewlett Packard HP-28S calculator (a true beauty of a computing device) I will show the appropriate RPN keystrokes as well.

 

The population of the world we will define as 7 billion.  What is the density of a large US city, say New York City as a whole?  Well, New York City is 790 square kilometers, and has a population around 8.3 million people, giving us a density of (8.3<EEX>6<ENTER> 790 ÷) giving us a density of about 10,500 people per square kilometer.  Now granted, NYC is not the wide-open spaces, but it is a density that millions live with in a space-loving nation like the US, so it shouldn't be considered too packed.

 

So how much land would we need to house all 7 billion of us if we lived in such density?  Well, we would need (7<EEX>9<ENTER> 8.3<EEX>6<ENTER> 790 ÷ ÷) 666,265 square kilometers.  A big area, no?  Well, let's look further...

 

Upon examining the US, we find out that Texas fits the bill nicely.  In fact, Texas has 261,797.12 square miles of land, and that is (261792.12<ENTER> 1.602<ENTER> 1.602 × ×) 671,877.17 square kilometers!  Which is, in fact, more than the area we need to house all 7 billion of us at typical New York City densities.  Meaning every man, woman, and child living and breathing on the face of the Earth could fit in relative comfort within the land territory of the State of Texas.

 

The other 49 states: empty.  Canada?  A wasteland as empty as the northern extremes of Nunavut.  Europe?  Empty.  Asia?  Nobody home.  Africa, Australia, South and Central America, all the islands?  None left.  The entire world outside of Texas contains not a single living, breathing person.

 

But how realistic is that?  Surely water would be a problem wouldn't it?  Well, let's find out...  It is recommended that 50 liters per person, per day, be used as an adequate amount for consumption, sanitation, and cooking.  That works out to (7<EEX>9<ENTER> 50 × 1<EEX>9 ÷) 350 billion liters of fresh water, per day, to keep all of us properly hydrated.  That's a lot of water!  Given  there are 1000 liters per cubic meter, we need 350 million cubic meters of fresh water, every day.  Yes, a large volume!  But is it really?

 

Take the Columbia River, the 4th largest in the US, and the main division between the States of Washington and Oregon.  The average outflow of water is 7,500 cubic meters per second.  How long would it take the Columbia to give us our 350 million cubic meters of fresh water?  Well, it would take (350<EEX>6<ENTER> 7500 ÷) 46,667 seconds.  Or (46667<ENTER> 60 ÷) 777.8 minutes.  Or (777.8<ENTER> 60 ÷) just under 13 hours.

 

With just over half the daily average outflow of the Columbia River, we could meet the freshwater needs of the entire world's population.  Now, that is a big pipeline to Texas, but if we could get everyone there in the first place, the pipeline is child's play!

 

To recap: so far, we can put every living person on the planet within the land territory of Texas, with density about equal to New York City (not just Manhattan; all 5 buroughs).  And we can give them all adequate water with just over half the water from the Columbia River.

 

But what about food?  Clearly that is of concern!  Well, apparently 300 square meters will feed one person for one year.  Since a kilometer is 1000 meters, we could feed (1000<ENTER> 1000 × 300 ÷) 3333 people per square kilometer.  We'll call it 3000 people per square kilometer to make things even.  And that means (7<EEX>9 <ENTER> 3000 ÷) 2,333,333 square kilometers to feed everyone.

 

The total farmland in the US is about 922,000,000 acres.  There are 247.1 acres per square kilometer, so that is (922<EEX>6<ENTER> 247.1 ÷) 3,731,282 square kilometers.  Hey, that's more than 2,333,333!  In other words, the farmland in the US could feed everyone!

 

So what have we neded up with?  Well, every person in the world could live inside of Texas without overcrowding.  We could all have water with just the Columbia River alone.  And we could easily feed ourselves with just the farmland within the US as it exists.

 

Canada.  Mexico.  Alaska.  Central America.  South America.  Europe.  Asia.  Africa.  Australia.  Greenland.  All the islands.  All the oceans.  The Great Lakes.  All empty, devoid of people.  No need to farm or live there.

 

Now that we have the numbers, are we really overpopulated?  I would argue a resounding "NO" and I think any who say otherwise are simply not adding it up.
“Thus, condemnation will never come to those who are in Christ Jesus…”

Offline CaptBebops

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #73 on: July 27, 2010, 02:20:56 pm »
The elite have created a false reality of overpopulation with mass immigration and cramming everyone in the cities.
Then also go to the Indian countryside and see how it's working for them.  People here must be horny and anxious to change baby diapers.  ;D

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #74 on: July 27, 2010, 02:44:26 pm »
Then also go to the Indian countryside and see how it's working for them.  People here must be horny and anxious to change baby diapers.  ;D


Industrialised countries have stable or declining birth rates. Any stats will show this.

Since you mentioned babies, yeah, I have no problem with providing for and raising 3-4 children. Are you suggesting population controls?

Offline Kilgore Trout

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,449
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #75 on: July 27, 2010, 03:16:36 pm »
So almost everyone here thinks the goal of the NWO is population reduction...? Think about this though; If there are less people this means they have less control. If there are less people then that means less wage slaves , less bodies for labor , all in all less sweat equity product. why would they want less of us when we are their Atlas's? Their not gonna walk around in flowing robes having dominion over the few who are left. The human spirit will not tolerate that kind of display for long , they need us , we guard them , we help them stand up , without us they are crippled.
"I do not believe that there were, at the Council of Nicea,
three persons present who believed in the truth of what was set down.
If there were, it was on account of their ignorance."
J. M. Roberts, "Antiquity Unveiled", 1892

Offline attietewd

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,667
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #76 on: July 27, 2010, 03:35:01 pm »
Quote
Posted by Kilgore Trout: So almost everyone here thinks the goal of the NWO is population reduction...?

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
Quote
It is easier to kill one million people, than it is to control them



Listen to his speech...he is definitely nutz.  CFR Meeting: Zbigniew Brzezinski Fears The Global Awakening http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaMonYzPO0c


“Thus, condemnation will never come to those who are in Christ Jesus…”

Offline Kilgore Trout

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,449
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #77 on: July 27, 2010, 03:39:20 pm »
Yeah I get that there a some psychopaths out there , but controling less people means less overall control.
"I do not believe that there were, at the Council of Nicea,
three persons present who believed in the truth of what was set down.
If there were, it was on account of their ignorance."
J. M. Roberts, "Antiquity Unveiled", 1892

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #78 on: July 27, 2010, 03:57:07 pm »
Yeah I get that there a some psychopaths out there , but controling less people means less overall control.

Automation  ;)

Take the USAF drones. The plan is to make a larger and larger portion of the force drone controlled. Far less personnel required per aircraft. This permits a playstation mentality from an operator 12,000 miles away to propagate war without moral boundaries.

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,002
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #79 on: July 27, 2010, 04:10:38 pm »
So almost everyone here thinks the goal of the NWO is population reduction...? Think about this though; If there are less people this means they have less control. If there are less people then that means less wage slaves , less bodies for labor , all in all less sweat equity product. why would they want less of us when we are their Atlas's? Their not gonna walk around in flowing robes having dominion over the few who are left. The human spirit will not tolerate that kind of display for long , they need us , we guard them , we help them stand up , without us they are crippled.  

I've heard this before. Unfortunately with the advent of manufacturing robots / computers and the advances in technology (medical esp.) The "elite" do not "require" Billions of people. Also the more of us, the more of us they have to control us. They own (or believe they own) virtually all commodity resources. They no longer wish to mine any more. They do not wish to pump any more. They do not wish to grow any more.

The hamster has spun the wheel as fast as it wishes and now wishes to rest on it's laurels. They believe they have "won" , now they will continue the mop up operation to sterilize, starve, poison, infect and war the populations away.  

The elites requirements for "human resources" ie "people" is much less then the billions of people that are here.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5