Author Topic: Brainwashed Malthusian Zombies Parrot OVERPOPULATION MYTH on a Truth Forum  (Read 233466 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kilgore Trout

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,449
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #80 on: July 27, 2010, 04:20:31 pm »
I guess , it just seems that the few left will not last , nor will they just let this all happen.
"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 Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,226
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Explain to ME why overpopulation is not a BAD argument
« Reply #81 on: July 27, 2010, 04:22:02 pm »
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?

Carefully examine all of the information I provided in the following thread:

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=117190.0
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline WarChest

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • I lift their veil of ignorance and see the truth
    • http://www.myspace.com/warchest_nc
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #82 on: July 27, 2010, 04:29:49 pm »
It's really simple.

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

How do you control that many people?

You can't.

So, you get the population down to a level that you can.
If a man were to know at the end of this days business there would come. But, it suffices to know that that the day will end and the end  be known.
If we meet again well then we’ll smile and if not, well then this parting was well made.
Col. Jason Rhodes USMC

Offline Polaris

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #83 on: July 27, 2010, 05:08:50 pm »
Overpopulation is a bad argument, because control freaks love it so much.
Next please...

Offline CaptBebops

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #84 on: July 27, 2010, 07:12:03 pm »
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?

Two children would be wiser.  In India many of the poor have as many as 9 children.  Their belief is that enough will survive to take care of them in old age but this is truly an outdated concept.  I'm not advocating controls as much as being smarter when it comes to the population.

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #85 on: July 27, 2010, 07:19:20 pm »
Two children would be wiser.  In India many of the poor have as many as 9 children.  Their belief is that enough will survive to take care of them in old age but this is truly an outdated concept.  I'm not advocating controls as much as being smarter when it comes to the population.

When did I say I was having them for that reason? This isn't India, and the birth rate in the UK is 1.6 children per woman. I'm hardly destroying the planet if I have a couple more. I'd be taking responsibility for them, obviously. I don't buy the "less children is smarter" line of reasoning. You may as well tell me I'm smart if I sterilise myself tomorrow.

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,509
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #86 on: July 27, 2010, 09:50:52 pm »
...  In India many of the poor have as many as 9 children.  Their belief is that enough will survive to take care of them in old age but this is truly an outdated concept. 

That's not as true anymore - India is down to an average  of three.

See: Brainwashed - SDT - The Second Demographic Transition - One in five childbearing women childless (double from 1 in 10)

Global Fertilty rates

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/completingfertility/4RevisedBASUpaper.PDF
ON THE PROSPECTS FOR ENDLESS FERTILITY DECLINE IN SOUTH ASIA
...
India comes particularly to mind. There is some indication that while survey respondents in India are perfectly willing to not have 4-5 children as child mortality falls and contraceptive services become easily available, they are not willing to do this endlessly. In particular, they are not willing to forego the one (and preferably two) sons that they see as essential for economic, spiritual and social salvation.
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

Offline attietewd

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,667
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #87 on: July 27, 2010, 09:57:51 pm »
Well lets see here, you have a population such as India, or Africa where the children are malnourished or sick, then you pump vaccines into already weakened immune systems....gee I wonder what that will do??  Sick mofos.  Why the hell don't they just drop a bomb and make it short and sweet instead of all this BS fake for show only remedy.  If anybody shouldn't breed its them...the creepelite.  As it stands right now the population is no longer replenishing itself.  The young are supposed to outnumber the elderly.  The young are the workers and producers.  But what the elite have accomplished is to mess with logistic.  If they didn't horde all the resources there WOULD be enough to go around.  But they (elite, makes me puke calling them that) are a cavernous pit who never have their fill.  They want it all and they want to control all.  And for those that think population control is a good idea....the mere fact that it is part of the global agenda should be enough to tell the average person that it's wrong.  What has the globalists ever pushed that was good for humanity and whereby they didn't profit from it?
“Thus, condemnation will never come to those who are in Christ Jesus…”

Offline decemberfellow

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,085
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #88 on: July 27, 2010, 10:03:44 pm »
Well said attietewd!
Rev21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


Who am I
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Fk6dt_uHo

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,226
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #89 on: July 28, 2010, 11:48:38 am »
But what the elite have accomplished is to mess with logistic.  If they didn't horde all the resources there WOULD be enough to go around. But they (elite, makes me puke calling them that) are a cavernous pit who never have their fill.

Exactly!

Contrary to Malthusian propaganda, the problem is not that the world itself is "overpopulated," but that the people of the world are overparasitized by ruling-class oligarchs.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #90 on: July 28, 2010, 12:10:44 pm »
Overpopulation is a bad argument, because control freaks love it so much.
Next please...

It has to do with responsible parents who can do simple arithmetic.

The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Unregulated rates of growth are simply selfish and irrational insanity. You can't just keep on making the same mistakes and expecting a different outcome. There has to be a still-creative happy, comfortable and non-destructive sustainable alternative or we will simply run out of futures.

Name-calling arithmetic "Malthusianism" does not address the solutions or the simple problems.

Offline antieugenicsbeekeeper

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #91 on: July 28, 2010, 12:30:00 pm »
Every time I have driven or flown from my home state (Ok) to Michigan, most of the land has very few, if any, houses and is mostly Monsanto GMO crop land. If we didn't have to depend on the mega agrabusinesses for food and instead grew it ourselves the overpopulation scam would fall apart in my opinion.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,226
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #92 on: July 28, 2010, 12:52:01 pm »
Unregulated rates of growth are simply selfish and irrational insanity.

On the contrary, what is truly selfish and irrational is ignoring how the ruling class parasites who wax hysterical about how "overpopulated" the world is (at least in the eyes of those foolish enough to ignore the billions of acres of uninhabited land) are the very same ones who created that alleged "problem" in the first place!

If that's news to any of the relative newcomers reading this, please see the following:

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=117190.msg725803#msg725803

Quote
You can't just keep on making the same mistakes and expecting a different outcome. There has to be a still-creative happy, comfortable and non-destructive sustainable alternative or we will simply run out of futures.

Name-calling arithmetic "Malthusianism" does not address the solutions or the simple problems.

Just like the "arithmetic" that's used to justify the global warming hysteria, the so-called "arithmetic" on which the "overpopulation" theory is based is fundamantally flawed, and the reason it's flawed is that it's based on Malthusian presuppositions -- the very presuppositions that were thoroughy debunked and discredited by Henry George over a century ago:

----------------------------------------

http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP7.html

Progress and Poverty

Book II: Population and Subsistence

Chapter 1: The Malthusian Theory, Its Genesis and Support

Behind the theory we have been considering lies a theory we have yet to consider. The current doctrine as to the derivation and law of wages finds its strongest support in a doctrine as generally accepted -- the doctrine to which Malthus has given his name -- that population naturally tends to increase faster than subsistence. These two doctrines, fitting in with each other, frame the answer which the current political economy gives to the great problem we are endeavoring to solve.

In what has preceded, the current doctrine that wages are determined by the ratio between capital and laborers has, I think, been shown to be so utterly baseless as to excite surprise as to how it could so generally and so long obtain. It is not to be wondered at that such a theory should have arisen in a state of society where the great body of laborers seem to depend for employment and wages upon a separate class of capitalists, nor yet that under these conditions it should have maintained itself among the masses of men, who rarely take the trouble to separate the real from the apparent. But it is surprising that a theory which on examination appears to be so groundless could have been successively accepted by so many acute thinkers as have during the present century devoted their powers to the elucidation and development of the science of political economy.

The explanation of this otherwise unaccountable fact is to be found in the general acceptance of the Malthusian theory. The current theory of wages has never been fairly put upon its trial, because, backed by the Malthusian theory, it has seemed in the minds of political economists a self-evident truth. These two theories mutually blend with, strengthen, and defend each other, while they both derive additional support from a principle brought prominently forward in the discussions of the theory of rent -- viz., that past a certain point the application of capital and labor to land yields a diminishing return. Together they give such an explanation of the phenomena presented in a highly organized and advancing society as seems to fit all the facts, and which has thus prevented closer investigation.

Which of these two theories is entitled to historical precedence it is hard to say. The theory of population was not formulated in such a way as to give it the standing of a scientific dogma until after that had been done for the theory of wages. But they naturally spring up and grow with each other, and were both held in a form more or less crude long prior to any attempt to construct a system of political economy. It is evident, from several passages, that though he never fully developed it, the Malthusian theory was in rudimentary form prescrit in the mind of Adam Smith, and to this, it seems to me, must be largely due the misdirection which on the subject of wages his speculations took. But, however this may be, so closely are the two theories connected, so completely do they complement each other, that Buckle, reviewing the history of the development of political economy in his "Examination of the Scotch Intellect during the Eighteenth Century," attributes mainly to Malthus the honor of "decisively proving" the current theory of wages by advancing the current theory of the pressure of population upon subsistence. He says in his "History of Civilization in England," Vol. 3, Chap. 5:

    "Scarcely had the Eighteenth Century passed away when it was decisively proved that the reward of labor depends solely on two things; namely, the magnitude of that national fund out of which all labor is paid, and the number of laborers among whom the fund is to be divided. This vast step in our knowledge is due, mainly, though not entirely, to Malthus, whose work on population, besides marking an epoch in the history of speculative thought, has already produced considerable practical results, and will probably give rise to others more considerable still. It was published in 1798; so that Adam Smith, who died in 1790, missed what to him would have been the intense pleasure of seeing how, in it, his own views were expanded rather than corrected. Indeed, it is certain that without Smith there would have been no Malthus; that is, unless Smith had laid the foundation, Malthus could not have raised the superstructure."

The famous doctrine which ever since its enunciation has so powerfully influenced thought, not alone in the province of political economy, but in regions of even higher speculation, was formulated by Malthus in the proposition that, as shown by the growth of the North American colonies, the natural tendency of population is to double itself at least every twenty-five years, thus increasing in a geometrical ratio, while the subsistence that can be obtained from land "under circumstances the most favorable to human industry could not possibly be made to increase faster than in an arithmetical ratio, or by an addition every twenty-five years of a quantity equal to what it at present produces." "The necessary effects of these two different rates of increase, when brought together," Mr. Malthus naïvely goes on to say, "will be very striking." And thus (Chap. I) he brings them together:

    "Let us call the population of this island eleven millions; and suppose the present produce equal to the easy support of such a number. In the first twenty-five years the population would be twenty-two millions, and the food being also doubled, the means of subsistence would be equal to this increase. In the next twenty-five years the population would be forty-four millions, and the means of subsistence only equal to the support of thirty-three millions. In the next period the population would be equal to eighty-eight millions, and the means of subsistence just equal to the support of half that number. And at the conclusion of the first century, the population would be a hundred and seventy-six millions, and the means of subsistence only equal to the support of fifty-five millions; leaving a population of a hundred and twenty-one millions totally unprovided for.

    "Taking the whole earth instead of this island, emigration would of course be excluded; and supposing the present population equal to a thousand millions, the human species would increase as the numbers 11 21 41 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, and subsistence as 11 21 3, 4, 5, 6, 71 8, 9. In two centuries the population would be to the means of subsistence as 256 to 9; in three centuries, 4096 to 13, and in two thousand years the difference would be almost incalculable."

Such a result is of course prevented by the physical fact that no more people can exist than can find subsistence, and hence Malthus' conclusion is, that this tendency of population to indefinite increase must be held back either by moral restraint upon the reproductive faculty, or by the various causes which increase mortality, which he resolves into vice and misery. Such causes as prevent propagation he styles the preventive check; such causes as increase mortality he styles the positive check. This is the famous Malthusian doctrine, as promulgated by Malthus himself in the "Essay on Population."

It is not worth while to dwell upon the fallacy involved in the assumption of geometrical and arithmetical rates of increase, a play upon proportions which hardly rises to the dignity of that in the familiar puzzle of the hare and the tortoise, in which the hare is made to chase the tortoise through all eternity without coming up with him. For this assumption is not necessary to the Malthusian doctrine, or at least is expressly repudiated by some of those who fully accept that doctrine; as, for instance, John Stuart Mill, who speaks of it as "an unlucky attempt to give precision to things which do not admit of it, which every person capable of reasoning must see is wholly superfluous to the argument." The essence of the Malthusian doctrine is, that population tends to increase faster than the power of providing food, and whether this difference be stated as a geometrical ratio for population and an arithmetical ratio for subsistence, as by Malthus; or as a constant ratio for population and a diminishing ratio for subsistence, as by Mill, is only a matter of statement. The vital point, on which both agree, is, to use the words of Malthus, "that there is a natural tendency and constant effort in population to increase beyond the means of subsistence."

The Malthusian doctrine, as at present held, may be thus stated in its strongest and least objectionable form:

That population, constantly tending to increase, must, when unrestrained, ultimately press against the limits of subsistence, not as against a fixed, but as against an elastic barrier, which makes the procurement of subsistence progressively more and more difficult. And thus, wherever reproduction has had time to assert its power, and is unchecked by prudence, there must exist that degree of want which will keep population within the bounds of subsistence.

Although in reality not more repugnant to the sense of harmonious adaptation by creative beneficence and wisdom than the complacent no-theory which throws the responsibility for poverty and its concomitants upon the inscrutable decrees of Providence, without attempting to trace them, this theory, in avowedly making vice and suffering the necessary results of a natural instinct with which are linked the purest and sweetest affections, comes rudely in collision with ideas deeply rooted in the human mind, and it was, as soon as formally promulgated, fought with a bitterness in which zeal was often more manifest than logic. But it has triumphantly withstood the ordeal, and in spite of the refutations of the Godwins, the denunciations of the Cobbetts, and all the shafts that argument, sarcasm, ridicule, and sentiment could direct against it, today it stands in the world of thought as an accepted truth, which compels the recognition even of those who would fain disbelieve it.

The causes of its triumph, the sources of its strength, are not obscure. Seemingly backed by an indisputable arithmetical truth -- that a continuously increasing population must eventually exceed the capacity of the earth to furnish food or even standing room, the Malthusian theory is supported by analogies in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, where life everywhere beats wastefully against the barriers that hold its different species in check -- analogies to which the course of modern thought, in leveling distinctions between different forms of life, has given a greater and greater weight; and it is apparently corroborated by many obvious facts, such as the prevalence of poverty, vice, and misery amid dense populations; the general effect of material progress in increasing population without relieving pauperism; the rapid growth of numbers in newly settled countries and the evident retardation of increase in more densely settled countries by the mortality among the class condemned to want.

The Malthusian theory furnishes a general principle which accounts for these and similar facts, and accounts for them in a way which harmonizes with the doctrine that wages are drawn from capital, and with all the principles that are deduced from it. According to the current doctrine of wages, wages fall as increase in the number of laborers necessitates a more minute division of capital; according to the Malthusian theory, poverty appears as increase in population necessitates the more minute division of subsistence. It requires but the identification of capital with subsistence, and number of laborers with population, an identification made in the current treatises on political economy, where the terms are often converted, to make the two propositions as identical formally as they are substantially. And thus it is, as stated by Buckle in the passage previously quoted, that the theory of population advanced by Malthus has appeared to prove decisively the theory of wages advanced by Smith.

Ricardo, who a few years subsequent to the publication of the "Essay on Population" corrected the mistake into which Smith had fallen as to the nature and cause of rent, furnished the Malthusian theory an additional support by calling attention to the fact that rent would increase as the necessities of increasing population forced cultivation to less and less productive lands, or to less and less productive points on the same lands, thus explaining the rise of rent. In this way was formed a triple combination, by which the Malthusian theory has been buttressed on both sides -- the previously received doctrine of wages and the subsequently received doctrine of rent exhibiting in this view but special examples of the operation of the general principle to which the name of Malthus has been attached -- the fall in wages and the rise in rents which come with increasing population being but modes in which the pressure of population upon subsistence shows itself.

Thus taking its place in the very framework of political economy (for the science as currently accepted has undergone no material change or improvement since the time of Ricardo, though in some minor points it has been cleared and illustrated), the Malthusian theory, though repugnant to sentiments before alluded to, is not repugnant to other ideas which, in older countries at least, generally prevail among the working classes; but, on the contrary, like the theory of wages by which it is supported and in turn supports, it harmonizes with them. To the mechanic or operative the cause of low wages and of the inability to get employment is obviously the competition caused by the pressure of numbers, and in the squalid abodes of poverty what seems clearer than that there are too many people?

But the great cause of the triumph of this theory is, that, instead of menacing any vested right or antagonizing any powerful interest, it is eminently soothing and reassuring to the classes who, wielding the power of wealth, largely dominate thought. At a time when old supports were falling away, it came to the rescue of the special privileges by which a few monopolize so much of the good things of this world, proclaiming a natural cause for the want and misery which, if attributed to political institutions, must condemn every government under which they exist. The "Essay on Population" was avowedly a reply to William Godwin's "Inquiry concerning Political justice," a work asserting the principle of human equality; and its purpose was to justify existing inequality by shifting the responsibility for it from human institutions to the laws of the Creator. There was nothing new in this, for Wallace, nearly forty years before, had brought forward the danger of excessive multiplication as the answer to the demands of justice for an equal distribution of wealth; but the circumstances of the times were such as to make the same idea, when brought forward by Malthus, peculiarly grateful to a powerful class, in whom an intense fear of any questioning of the existing state of things had been generated by the outburst of the French Revolution.

Now, as then, the Malthusian doctrine parries the demand for reform, and shelters selfishness from question and from conscience by the interposition of an inevitable necessity. It furnishes a philosophy by which Dives as he feasts can shut out the image of Lazarus who faints with hunger at his door; by which wealth may complacently button up its pocket when poverty asks an alms, and the rich Christian bend on Sundays in a nicely upholstered pew to implore the good gifts of the All Father without any feeling of responsibility for the squalid misery that is festering but a square away. For poverty, want, and starvation are by this theory not chargeable either to individual greed or to social maladjustments; they are the inevitable results of universal laws, with which, if it were not impious, it were as hopeless to quarrel as with the law of gravitation. In this view, he who in the midst of want has accumulated wealth, has but fenced in a little oasis from the driving sand which else would have overwhelmed it. He has gained for himself, but has hurt nobody. And even if the rich were literally to obey the injunctions of Christ and divide their wealth among the poor, nothing would be gained. Population would be increased, only to press again upon the limits of subsistence or capital, and the equality that would be produced would be but the equality of common misery. And thus reforms which would interfere with the interests of any powerful class are discouraged as hopeless. As the moral law forbids any forestalling of the methods by which the natural law gets rid of surplus population and thus holds in check a tendency to increase potent enough to pack the surface of the globe with human beings as sardines are packed in a box, nothing can really be done, either by individual or by combined effort, to extirpate poverty, save to trust to the efficacy of education and preach the necessity of prudence.

A theory that, falling in with the habits of thought of the poorer classes, thus justifies the greed of the rich and the selfishness of the powerful, will spread quickly and strike its roots deep. This has been the case with the theory advanced by Malthus.

[Continued...]

----------------------------------------

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #93 on: July 28, 2010, 01:33:27 pm »
On the contrary, what is truly selfish and irrational is ignoring how the ruling class parasites who wax hysterical about how "overpopulated" the world is (at least in the eyes of those foolish enough to ignore the billions of acres of uninhabited land) are the very same ones who created that alleged "problem" in the first place!

If that's news to any of the relative newcomers reading this, please see the following:

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=117190.msg725803#msg725803

Just like the "arithmetic" that's used to justify the global warming hysteria, the so-called "arithmetic" on which the "overpopulation" theory is based is fundamantally flawed, and the reason it's flawed is that it's based on Malthusian presuppositions -- the very presuppositions that were thoroughy debunked and discredited by Henry George over a century ago:

----------------------------------------

http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP7.html

He didn't "debunk" anything, he proposed the same reasonable and moral solutions all sane people would:

 
Quote
And even if the rich were literally to obey the injunctions of Christ and divide their wealth among the poor, nothing would be gained. Population would be increased, only to press again upon the limits of subsistence or capital, and the equality that would be produced would be but the equality of common misery. And thus reforms which would interfere with the interests of any powerful class are discouraged as hopeless. As the moral law forbids any forestalling of the methods by which the natural law gets rid of surplus population and thus holds in check a tendency to increase potent enough to pack the surface of the globe with human beings as sardines are packed in a box, nothing can really be done, either by individual or by combined effort, to extirpate poverty, save to trust to the efficacy of education and preach the necessity of prudence.

A theory that, falling in with the habits of thought of the poorer classes, thus justifies the greed of the rich and the selfishness of the powerful, will spread quickly and strike its roots deep. This has been the case with the theory advanced by Malthus.

Malthus simply presented the problem - he didn't propose any particular solutions. Smith was also right - if you want your children to be poorer within a culture of finite property (and property to sustain that), keep overgrowing the population.

The natural system is inherently self-compensating, the question is which counteractions we should all morally prefer to (hopefully) go on living with.

(not to mention to whose benefit the distasteful, destructive and immoral ones serve)

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,226
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #94 on: July 28, 2010, 01:43:56 pm »
He didn't "debunk" anything...

Wrong again.

First of all, contrary to your claim, when George wrote...

    "...nothing can really be done, either by individual or by combined effort, to extirpate poverty, save to trust to the efficacy of education and preach the necessity of prudence."

...he was not describing his position on the matter, but that of Malthus.

(That's what happens when you skim instead of read.)

Second, George explains in the rest of Book II of Progress and Poverty -- which you obviously didn't even skim, let alone than read -- why Malthus' theory on "overpopulation" is a complete and total fraud.

Since we can't both be right, we'll just have to let readers examine all of Book II and decide for themselves:

       http://www.econlib.org/Library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP7.html
       http://www.econlib.org/Library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP8.html#Book II, Chapter 2
       http://www.econlib.org/Library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP9.html#Book II, Chapter 3
       http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP10.html#Book II, Chapter 4
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #95 on: July 28, 2010, 01:53:44 pm »
Wrong again, George explains in the rest of Book II of Progress and Poverty -- which you obviously didn't read -- why Malthus' theory on "overpopulation" is a complete and total fraud.

Since we can't both be right, we'll just have to let readers examine all of Book II and decide for themselves:

       http://www.econlib.org/Library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP7.html
       http://www.econlib.org/Library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP8.html#Book II, Chapter 2
       http://www.econlib.org/Library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP9.html#Book II, Chapter 3
       http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP10.html#Book II, Chapter 4

I have read it thanks, and I appreciate your (and it's) rather dismissive 18th century point of view as still being somewhat valid, I'm just saying things have changed.

It's all well and good to say "grow and spread everywhere like wild weeds" just in case something bad happens, but then there just sooner comes the point where that "something bad" becomes us, ourselves.

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #96 on: July 28, 2010, 02:01:23 pm »
I have read it thanks, and I appreciate your (and it's) rather dismissive 18th century point of view as still being somewhat valid, I'm just saying things have changed.

You don't, or you wouldn't be comparing humans to wild weeds.

It's all well and good to say "grow and spread everywhere like wild weeds" just in case something bad happens, but then there just sooner comes the point where that "something bad" becomes us, ourselves.

Population will top out at around 10 billion even by UN estimates. So please explain that assertion.

Offline Kilgore Trout

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,449
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #97 on: July 28, 2010, 02:34:52 pm »
I think actually it may be easier to control more people given the herd mentality and how quickly "beliefs" can become "facts" among the herd. It would seem the lesser the number of people the easier it would be for that smaller number to band together concur and resist.
"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

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,509
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #98 on: July 28, 2010, 03:23:12 pm »
Population will top out at around 10 billion even by UN estimates. So please explain that assertion.

10 Billion, Even by UN estimates? Like they would go to the LOW side? - Not true anymore with SDT...

8-9 Billion is more likely Brainwashed - SDT - The Second Demographic Transition - One in five childbearing women childless (double from 1 in 10)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10578484.stm
Global population study launched by Royal Society -  12 July 2010
"The world's population has risen from two billion in 1930 to 6.8 billion now, with Nine Billion projected by 2050"

In 2009, UN projections for 2050 range from about 8 billion to 10.5 billion.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
:
WHY THE WORLD'S POPULATION WILL PROBABLY BE LESS THAN 9 BILLION IN 2300

In these projections, world population peaks at 9.22 billion in 2075. Population therefore grows
slightly beyond the level of 8.92 billion projected for 2050 in the 2002 Revision, on which these projections
are based. However, after reaching its maximum, world population declines slightly and then resumes increasing, slowly, to reach a level of 8.97 billion by 2300, not much different from the projected 2050 figure.

With alternative assumptions about fertility, long-range trends could be quite different.

Life expectancy is assumed to rise continuously, with no upper limit, though at a slowing pace dictated
by recent country trends. By 2100, life expectancy is expected to vary across countries from 66 to 97 years, and by 2300 from 87 to 106 years. Rising life expectancy will produce small  but continuing population growth by the end of the projections ranging from 0.03 to 0.07 per cent annually.



The median pop at 2050 by the UN's own projections is 8 billion and may be less!
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

Offline 2029itstarts

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #99 on: July 28, 2010, 03:43:23 pm »
 its the distribution of resources, and artificial scarcity. Hmm I wonder who controls the resources?

Offline freedom_commonsense

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,034
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #100 on: July 28, 2010, 04:00:55 pm »
10 Billion, Even by UN estimates? Like they would go to the LOW side? - Not true anymore with SDT...

I used that because it's the upper figure just so agentbluescreen won't complain that I used a conservative estimate  :P

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #101 on: July 29, 2010, 07:50:50 am »
its the distribution of resources, and artificial scarcity. Hmm I wonder who controls the resources?
You don't, or you wouldn't be comparing humans to wild weeds.

Population will top out at around 10 billion even by UN estimates. So please explain that assertion.

It may top out or not, but the reason for that would be sheer deprivation. Back in the 18th century people all lived fairly compact and locally sufficient self sustaining (largely agrarian) lives. First, (national) corporatism, then intellectual technological property and now transnational corporatism and trade transportation advances have changed all that.

While farm animals once produced and filled the 18th century stores with foods, modern agriculture on every scale is now the conversion of diesel into it.  Increased demands have been met only by the introduction and proliferation of inferior GMO and other advanced (proprietary) hybrid crops simply to meet the supply requirements. Nobody nowadays can live without hundreds of proprietary energy consuming gadgets and gizmos, costly, polluting, energy inefficient vehicles and mountains of packaged transnational-corporate name brand consumer goods.

Increasingly the production of food, waste management, the waste byproducts of manufacture, marketing and proliferation of "consumer" goods, pharmacological waste, militaristic destruction  and the reach for ever harder to get to oil is having profoundly adverse impacts on other important parts of our food chain. Pollution, deforestation, toxic contamination, ocean and waterway sulphuric and nitric acid rain contamination, global cooling, the disappearance of new arable lands, I could go on and on..

I HATE THIS TOPIC! :o

And then there is the fundamental problem with the very concept of private planetary resource ownership.


In a way we are all now like the American "indians" were, our forefathers have been terrorized into being contracted and trading away our birthrights to wealthy noble-corporate control freaks for so much beads and wampum.

I don't know the solution but I see lots of very serious problems here. Denial is a river in Egypt that does not seem to go away for long.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,226
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #102 on: July 29, 2010, 09:06:11 am »
I have read it thanks, and I appreciate your (and it's) rather dismissive 18th 19th century point of view as still being somewhat valid,

That's a rather arrogant and hypocritical thing to say, considering that the Malthusian theory on "overpopulation" which you're blindly defending is itself a 19th-century point of view. (The fact that ruling class propagandists now employ the use of 21st-century statistics is irrelevant if the formulas used to generate those statistics are based on the early 19th-century assumptions and presuppositions of the thoroughly discredited Thomas Malthus.)

Quote
I'm just saying things have changed.

Oh please, that's what control-freaks always say whenever they want to justify their dictatorial power grabs.

Case in point: "9/11 changed everything."

It's a bullshit premise when used to justify the demonization of the Bill of Rights, and it's a bullshit premise when used to justify the continuation of the ruling class's centuries-old tradition of waxing alarmist about "overpopulation."
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #103 on: July 29, 2010, 11:17:52 am »
That's a rather arrogant and hypocritical thing to say, considering that the Malthusian theory on "overpopulation" which you're blindly defending is itself a 19th-century point of view. (The fact that ruling class propagandists now employ the use of 21st-century statistics is irrelevant if the formulas used to generate those statistics are based on the early 19th-century assumptions and presuppositions of the thoroughly discredited Thomas Malthus.)

Oh please, that's what control-freaks always say whenever they want to justify their dictatorial power grabs.

Case in point: "9/11 changed everything."

It's a bullshit premise when used to justify the demonization of the Bill of Rights, and it's a bullshit premise when used to justify the continuation of the ruling class's centuries-old tradition of waxing alarmist about "overpopulation."

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/29/in_historic_vote_un_declares_access


In Historic Vote, UN Declares Access to Water a Fundamental Right


Quote from: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/29/in_historic_vote_un_declares_access
The United Nations General Assembly has declared for the first time that access to clean water and sanitation is a fundamental human right. In a historic vote Wednesday, 122 countries supported the resolution, and over forty countries abstained from voting, including the United States, Canada and several European and other industrialized countries. There were no votes against the resolution. We speak with longtime water justice activist, Maude Barlow.

Your antiquated "Bill of rights" even such as it is, is still woefully incomplete.

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #104 on: August 17, 2010, 11:41:57 am »
Are you forgetting how many people starved to death in the soviet union? Are you just being sarcastic?

And the same thing is about to happen in the Zionist Union and all over the rest of the developed world as well. It is already an endemic and seemingly "unsolvable fact of death" in the entire third world.

Idiotic morons simply cannot do the simple arithmetic of growth. Unrestricted irresponsible breeding is not a good thing. Sane and sensible population growth control within our Human Family is not murder, not controlling it IS...


Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,226
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #105 on: August 17, 2010, 12:02:47 pm »
And the same thing is about to happen in the Zionist Union and all over the rest of the developed world as well. It is already an endemic and seemingly "unsolvable fact of death" in the entire third world.

Idiotic morons simply cannot do the simple arithmetic of growth. Unrestricted irresponsible breeding is not a good thing. Sane and sensible population growth control within our Human Family is not murder, not controlling it IS...

Dude, spare us your Malthusian talking points already!

As I've already explained to you, ruling-class parasites have been waxing alarmist about "overpopulation" for centuries. And at the core of this orchestrated hysteria is ruling-class minion, Thomas Malthus, whose half-baked theories on overpopulation were thoroughly refuted and discredited by Henry George.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #106 on: August 17, 2010, 12:09:23 pm »
And the same thing is about to happen in the Zionist Union and all over the rest of the developed world as well. It is already an endemic and seemingly "unsolvable fact of death" in the entire third world.

Idiotic morons simply cannot do the simple arithmetic of growth. Unrestricted irresponsible breeding is not a good thing. Sane and sensible population growth control within our Human Family is not murder, not controlling it IS...



This over population nonsense is in the same boat as the global warming hoax and government ran healthcare. The globalists are using all to gain complete control over our everyday lives.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

kurtaxis

  • Guest
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #107 on: August 17, 2010, 04:29:51 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.

Population reduction to what they perceive as a manageable level.  If you take into consideration what the Georgia guide stones have written on them then 500 million would be manageable in comparison to 6 billion and counting.

http://thegeorgiaguidestones.com/Message.htm

charrington

  • Guest
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #108 on: August 17, 2010, 04:38:03 pm »
The earth's resources are already over taxed with the people it has now. At some point very soon it's a very serious issue.

2/3 of the earth is covered in water - right now only 1% is drinkable - part of that is polluted. You want to get desalination and drink ocean water - good luck with that. We can't clean the water we have now.

Food and water are just more bullet points on the list. There will be 7 billion people next year.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,226
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #109 on: August 17, 2010, 05:02:36 pm »
The earth's resources are already over taxed with the people it has now. At some point very soon it's a very serious issue.

This is yet another illustration of why well-meaning people need to stop parroting Malthusian dogma and start questioning it for a change.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the problem is the not that the world itself is "overpopulated," but that the people of the world are overparasitized by ruling-class oligarchs.

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160421.msg1060268#msg1060268

Quote
2/3 of the earth is covered in water - right now only 1% is drinkable - part of that is polluted.

That's not because there are too many "people," but because transnational corporations have been granted far too much power:

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkygXc9IM5U
       http://www.gangsofamerica.com/1.html

What next -- will someone claim that the plague of genetically modified food was caused by "overpopulation" instead of by a handful of criminals at Monsanto?  ::)

For crying out loud, people, please stop falling for the ruling-class scam of blaming the mere existence of the many for the crimes of the few.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

kurtaxis

  • Guest
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #110 on: August 17, 2010, 05:50:01 pm »
This is yet another illustration of why well-meaning people need to stop parroting Malthusian dogma and start questioning it for a change.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the problem is the not that the world itself is "overpopulated," but that the people of the world are overparasitized by ruling-class oligarchs.

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160421.msg1060268#msg1060268

That's not because there are too many "people," but because transnational corporations have been granted far too much power:

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkygXc9IM5U
       http://www.gangsofamerica.com/1.html

What next -- will someone claim that the plague of genetically modified food was caused by "overpopulation" instead of by a handful of criminals at Monsanto::)

For crying out loud, people, please stop falling for the ruling-class scam of blaming the many for the crimes of the few.

Another way of saying overparasitized  is that our needs have become so commodified that we have become dependent. 

I was wondering if this issue of overpopulation is really about the geographic displacement and concentration of individuals in cities.  A previous post in this thread noted that every person in the world could fit in an area the size of japan living as a family of four in two family dwellings occupying 5300 square feet.  If that is true, and one would have to consider the displacement of individuals in cities - as I said previously, then, there is plenty of land for all so this would point to a discussion of the politics of the debate. 

Who wants us to consider overpopulation and why? 

Aside from that, albeit it is no less important, it seems as if a discussion of urban overpopulation is to continue then why not focus on increasing the education level and prospects of the population.  Those who would seek a career or higher advancement would not dwell on offspring or delay them until they are economically fit; thereby, nullifying the need for an invasive  authoritative measure, but I guess such a population wold be difficult to control.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,226
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #111 on: August 17, 2010, 06:05:59 pm »
Who wants us to consider overpopulation

A tiny handful of criminal, parasitic, psychopathic, eugenics-obsessed robber barons.

Quote
and why?

Because they think they literally "own" the whole friggin planet; because they want to systematically murder at least 80% of us; and because they know that the more they can morally justify their depopulation agenda in the minds of the minions and goons-for-hire who lovingly serve them, the more faithfully and gleefully those minions and goons-for-hire will carry out that agenda on their (the robber barons') behalf.

And what is the primary means by which they justify this "end game" agenda? Malthusian propaganda!

Is it any wonder why the ruling class felt so threatened by Henry George's popularity?

       http://www.politicaleconomy.org/gaffney.htm
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

kurtaxis

  • Guest
Re: Explain to me why overpopulation is not a good argument
« Reply #112 on: August 17, 2010, 06:37:43 pm »
A tiny handful of criminal, parasitic, psychopathic, eugenics-obsessed robber barons.

Because they think they literally "own" the whole friggin planet; because they want to systematically murder at least 80% of us; and because they know that the more they can morally justify their depopulation agenda in the minds of the minions and goons-for-hire who lovingly serve them, the more faithfully and gleefully those minions and goons-for-hire will carry out that agenda on their (the robber barons') behalf.

And what is the primary means by which they justify this "end game" agenda? Malthusian propaganda!

Is it any wonder why the ruling class felt so threatened by Henry George's popularity?

       http://www.politicaleconomy.org/gaffney.htm


I definitely agree.

Those of the NWO through the UN are interested in depopulation for control so they argue it as a "problem" through their Biodiversity agenda. What you cite and mention could be an answer to the question of why the issue of  overpopulation is a problem.

It is a problem to discuss it  because those who wish to whittle the world population down to 500 million market it as one.


charrington

  • Guest
So we know that the NWO hold a position that is to basically eliminate most human. My question is, Whether or not you believe overpopulation exist at this time or not, sometime in the near future - there will be too many people for the earth's resources. Now this sounds evil when it's forced on you - but left to your own devices what is your answer to the issue.

What will you do? What plan will you have to STOP the growth?

It's not a matter of having enough "room". A mathematicians have calculated that there is enough room for every person on the planet to have 12 acres of his own land (as of 10 years ago).

It's the resources that are too few to provide for 8 billion people. AND the resources are being destroyed daily at massive rates. Toxins, pollutants, are killing the environment. Even though the earth has 2/3 water and less than 1% is drinkable and part of that is polluted and it's growing.

What do you think needs to be done?

charrington

  • Guest
No answers eh?

Offline poncho

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
Very tough question.

Before becoming awake, I did think over population was the number one problem on planet Earth.

I still think this after becoming awake. Perhaps the NWO is now my number 1, but I'm still not totally convinced that the NWO is real.  I'm a skeptic by nature, and I put the odds at 20% that NWO is real.  The odds jump to 50% if Isreal/US attack Iran soon.

Having said that population control, too me, is the single biggest reason I believe in the NWO.  The leaders of the world should be talking about it.  Pollution is mostly a problem because of it.  Not enough food is another example.  Wars are fought, because of it.  Etc...

Yet... no world leaders are talking about this critical subject.  Which tells me this:  They are talking about it, just behind closed doors.  Away from the public. 
And why would they do that?  Logic tells me, that is so, because we would not like what they are talking about...

---
As to your question:
If I was in charge, I would offer incentives for people to have few to no kids. Perhaps if you are voluntarily sterolized, you never pay taxes.  Perhaps you are given land.

I'm not so sure punishment for people having lots of kids will work.  I think they still will (look to China for that answer.)
Instead, I would look to those who are borderline about whether to have kids or not.  They are the ones who could maybe help maintain a viable human population on planet Earth.

I would allow anyone the ability to save eggs/sperm in vaults, so that if they change thier mind, they lose thier benefits, yet can still have a child.  Perhaps the sterilization is reversable.

---
Really, I would let the public choose this stuff via public voting.  I'm a firm believer that the public can truely vote in thier own self interests better than elected officials.  It's time for each citizen to cast votes electronically via open source code. (But that is a another topic, that is a can of worms.)

You didn't state your views...

Offline Michal Ptacnik

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,580
Changing the System.

Making first a separation of State and Economic sector, much in the fashion of the Separation of the Church and the State, then creating a program of determining goals of society through a republican slash expert analysis and prognostics, which would require the Private Business Sector to conform, not the other way around. Market, rigged or not, is not good in determining the long term goals, with it it's all about short term gains and the future goes to the dust bin. All the states will probably join up, or most, as it is now with the current System being basically world wide. This would mean that the Demographic Revolution will go through and people will multiply with much less vigor than they do now in the poorer countries, because in essence, there would be no poorer countries without the exploiters exploiting them and with the benevolent world system to support them during crises.

This does not authomatically mean socialism though I do believe we will travel through these waters eventually - especially if we allow The People to have a say in the System, which we definitelly should! - all the way to the calm seas of libertarian minimal state anarchism with a short but powerful list of reliable social securities as technology will progress.

When we are really overpopulated, 50 billion or so (many, many decades in the future), space colonization becomes a necessity, and we better start a lot earlier than that or we end up with many deaths because of untested equipment, etc. Terraforming is unnecessary, you can live under domes with artificial soil farming (hydroponics), much like you have in some labs.

If a large scale system change is unfeastible, it will be necessary to start at grassroots. Failing any one of those, and if a miracle does not happen (Alien Invasion, Second Comming, Global Awakening...) we will continue harming the ecosystem until we screw up really bad at one area, and then it will go south from then onwards. Not the global warming, something within the biosphere that will trigger mass extinction. This will force us to change, but with much blood spilled and through avenues (Orwell, Huxley...) that we wouldn't have to take if we had been willing to change when it was relatively painless.

Oh and... well, the ultimate solution is adopting true spirituality, learning to know God again, and we will effectively be able to ditch all that economics and politics nonsense for a system of Human Brotherhood that would be perfect and would work for ever and ever... oh well...

charrington

  • Guest
Michal have you seen these? I had this teacher in Colorado - tough grader but excellent teacher. These video's have been mentioned here in the past but they are REALLY worth a look -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=PlayList&p=D443635FA5F476E8&index=0&playnext=1

charrington

  • Guest
Very tough question.

Yet... no world leaders are talking about this critical subject.  Which tells me this:  They are talking about it, just behind closed doors.  Away from the public. 
And why would they do that?  Logic tells me, that is so, because we would not like what they are talking about...
Exactly ...

Offline Femacamper

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,380
  • TRUNEWS
    • TRUNEWS
Overpopulation is a myth. Population density is a problem in some areas, but even that can be addressed. Look at how Japan and Korea deal with it, giant skyscraper apartments everywhere.

90% of us live in cities...just decades it was 10%...all we need to do is repopulate the rural areas.

This will also solve food shortage issues if more people returning to managing their own crops.

As for water, it can be purified. Water rights need to remain in the hands of free people, not corporations or even the government.

Most of the scarcity problems in the world, such as economic and resource scarcity, are due to monopolies and government interference with the small guys.

As populations urbanize and industrialize, population naturally goes down, so if we do nothing, and society advances, this "problem" will disappear.