PDA

View Full Version : The Overpopulation Myth and the Misplacing of Money by Philanthropy



Tesla_WTC_Solution
27th March 2013, 20:37
I read yesterday that some loser billionaire bored-ass geeky playboy put more money into "improving contraception", i.e., inventing a "better condom". This was the same donkey's butt who let loose a whole jar of GMO mosquitoes onto the audience of his own special interests conference. Can you believe no one taught that pencil neck script kiddy a lesson? Just joking..... sigh.

:twitch:

Anyhow, I wanted to point out the obvious once again, that all these "white knight philanthropists" are providing plenty of viruses and defective drugs, experimental approaches in general and misery galore, to the indigenous peoples of Africa and other nations, but they aren't providing much in the way of water or food. They aren't improving the infrastructure, using new methods of agriculture and building, doing anything to empower these suffering people.

:hail:

Some leftover misery from the Great Depression must be enabling this horrible attitude of Eugenics-motivated philanthropy, because our amazing planet is more than capable of hosting not only single billions, but hundreds if not thousands of billions of humans. We wouldn't even have to give up anything. With improved building and agricultural methods, people can live in great density and still enjoy the benefits of nature.

:wizard:

A good example of a fine mind who believed in the ability of Earth to sustain a large population was Robert Heinlein. His science fiction novels envisaged a such a world, where hundreds of billions of people live in relative plenty and the privatized space race has dominated the public mindset.

What castoff mode of thinking, borne of poverty, must motivate the wealthy. They fear something they've never experienced. This is not the fear of the slave or the soldier. This is a fear they've manufactured and fed to their children in order to ensure the furtherance of their abominable New World Order.

There, I said it. Some of today's philanthropists would have us be slaves, or worse, be dead! All because they SAY that they're afraid of a large population being a bad thing for planet earth.

Whose side are they on, anyway? The same jerkwads who fund illegal geoengineering are ALSO the ones who spout crap about "too many people".

:peep:

I hope that soon, "too many people" wake UP to this horrible farce and realize, there is power in numbers, and thanks to numbers, we're going to kick the ass of the NWO.

By the way, old ugly white men who make a living killing black fetuses should be drawn and quartered!!!! :( imo even if their kids are billionaires...

The most powerful form of mind control is WHAT YOU TELL YOURSELF!!! :flame:

over and out!
/endrant

ghostrider
28th March 2013, 00:41
I love how the billioinaire thinks because of his bank account, his words are more important than others ... money doesn't buy common sense ... you have it or you don't , it can't be taught ...

sigma6
28th March 2013, 03:56
way to let 'er rip Tesal... (isn't fun to tease out every adjective possible!) Well said... they are greedy, selfish, self serving, and yet I am sure their bloodline is well represented in their private controlled banking families, with many children and grandchildren and great grandchildren... no problem there... Living souls that can't respect all other living souls on this planet are worse then a disease to the rest of mankind. Like Nick Rockefeller said "what do you care?... just look after your own family" Freedom can't include harming others by intent or negligence...

grannyfranny100
28th March 2013, 10:07
Tesla, love all the adjectives!!!!

Tesla_WTC_Solution
28th March 2013, 10:31
I might have gotten a bit over-excited.

But you guys know what I was trying to say, LOL

RMorgan
28th March 2013, 12:38
Hello my friend,

I agree with 90% of your post, except that I know overpopulation is not a myth.

Earth has a limited size, a limited amount space and resources, thus, Earth can only handle a limited amount of population, specially humans, which have the largest ecological footprint among all other animals.

Anyway, there´s a pretty good article about it, written by Mike Adams, from Inforwars. I recommend it. Here´s the link:

http://www.infowars.com/the-overpopulation-myth-myth/


...The question of overpopulation is not — and has never been — how many humans the planet can physically hold in terms of cubic meters and physical volume. The question is how many humans the biosphere can support in terms of sustainable life.

This isn’t a complicated thing to understand: Your physical body could fit in a box that’s 24 x 24 x 80 inches. It’s called a coffin. But your biological needs require a far larger footprint on the planet. You need water, for starters. Where does it come from? I guarantee you use far more water each day than falls on a 24″ x 24″ piece of land. The water needs of a single person vastly outpace the physical space that person occupies. The entire population of Los Angeles, for example, needs literally thousands of square miles of water basin space to capture all the water that’s pumped into their artificial city.

You need food. Where does the food come from? Vast tracts of land that need sunshine, water and soil. It’s not hard to imagine that the food needs of a single person on our planet probably exceed one thousand square meters of land. If we really squeezed the entire global population into the state of Texas, where would they grow their food?

You produce biological waste. Where does all your waste go? Processing that waste and “recycling” it back into the ecosystem requires huge amounts of land space. Nature needs a large, functioning ecosystem to dilute, process and transform the waste products of humanity, and in fact nature isn’t even keeping up.

All told, the amount of land space required to support one human life is immensely larger than the amount of physical space occupied by one human body. This is classically called the “ecological footprint” of a human being...

Cheers,

Raf.

thunder24
28th March 2013, 13:40
The Earth does have a critical mass point as far as population... we are no where near that point...

Under the current structure and mind frame mayb it seems like that...

How much food is thrown away each and every day that if not wasted would feed the hungry... those hungry are not adding any additional land needed to feed them, for their food is already being produced. I fly over swaths of north america and see no houses for miles if any.... The amount of land needed for humans to live and produce food is not that great of a space. Now with verticle and indoor farming being thrown in the mix... production takes even less land..... which land can be used for forests to give us oxygen...

the planet is not overpopulated...social conditioning has failed again...at least from this chair...

peace

donk
28th March 2013, 13:42
"Philantropy" is code for MONEY LAUNDERING and TAX SHELTER in an overwhelming majority of all cases...

greybeard
28th March 2013, 13:53
A friend pointed out to me that highest % of people are over 50.
The young people are having smaller families.
The seeming over population is self correcting.

Chris

Paul
28th March 2013, 16:20
A friend pointed out to me that highest % of people are over 50.
The young people are having smaller families.
The seeming over population is self correcting.
The more prosperous nations do have a rising median age, with smaller families, yes.

However the media age is not over 50 anywhere I know of. For example, from the CIA World Fact Book (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2177.html), the median age in the USA is 37.1 years. Japan is quite a bit older at 44.6; Russia and parts of Europe are older; much of Africa has median ages below twenty. The world median age is 28.4 years; Monaco is highest at 48.9; Uganda is lowest at 15.0

TargeT
28th March 2013, 16:37
A friend pointed out to me that highest % of people are over 50.
The young people are having smaller families.
The seeming over population is self correcting.
The more prosperous nations do have a rising median age, with smaller families, yes.

However the media age is not over 50 anywhere I know of. For example, from the CIA World Fact Book (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2177.html), the median age in the USA is 37.1 years. Japan is quite a bit older at 44.6; Russia and parts of Europe are older; much of Africa has median ages below twenty. The world median age is 28.4 years; Monaco is highest at 48.9; Uganda is lowest at 15.0


Global life expectancy at birth: total population: 67.59 years

Global median age
total: 28.4 years

male: 27.7 years

female: 29 years (2009 est.)
--------------------
Population growth rate: 1.096%
note:this rate results in about 145 net additions to the worldwide population every minute or 2.4 every second (2012 est.)

by the numbers we are slowly growing? seems like it would be much more rapid with the jump from 6 to 7 billion world population.. I thought it was fairly quick, hardly anything to panic over though.

(Uganda suprisingly has a life expectancy around 53; which either speaks of recent massive die offs (war) or population explosion. )

Rahkyt
28th March 2013, 16:39
Hear, hear, Selah, Hosannah, Amen and Ashe.

Well said, WTC. It is, undoubtably, a eugenics agenda that has been a long time in the making. World-wide in scope and originating in the West for a limiting of most indigenous populations and a reseeding of the world with the preferred population.

Margaret Sanger as the main proponent of eugenics and the sterilization of certain populations was the founder of Planned Parenthood, which has enjoyed mainstream approbation for decades now. The policies of genocide are pervasive and an underlying and poisoned stream of the Western metanarrative, now nigh unconscious in their acceptance by the majority of the world's populations.

If they will work is yet to be seen but that they exist is beyond argumentation and doubt. The paradox of these initiatives is that, around the world, it is the preferred population that is experiencing the highest rate of decline by choice, as affluence in urbanized society has necessitated a reduction in the number of children by those enjoying the benifits of society the most.

RMorgan
28th March 2013, 17:03
The problem with medium term overpopulation is not the overpopulation itself, but the current ecological footprint of each human being.

Right now, within our current scenario, we are already far beyond the sustainability ideal. If we continue to live our current average middle-class lifestyle, twenty or thirty years from now, it will be impossible to live in this planet.

The current average middle-class individual ecological footprint is beyond unsustainable. There´s no way every one in the world could live this lifestyle. We would have to change the very meaning and definition of middle-class.

Currently, if we wanted to give every one in this planet a good living condition, we would have to dramatically, I mean really dramatically, reduce consumerism, which is basically the root of the overpopulation issue.

After reducing consumerism, we would have to create new technologies to process our own excrement properly; Currently, most part of our poo end up in rivers and then oceans.

Also, we would be forced reduce other sources of pollution to close to zero. Fishing is another big problem as well, since currently we´re literally in the process of extinguishing fish and, consequently, all oceanic life.

So, if we want everyone to live a happy life in an overcrowded world, we would need to:

1-Reduce consumerism dramatically. A complete cultural revolution, in other words.
2-Eliminate all kinds of pollution.
3-Control and regulate the amount of resources we take from nature and maximize recycling.

Basically, we must mold our current technological state to achieve an ecological footprint which is equivalent to the one of indigenous cultures.

Anyway, I can say with total confidence that, within our current paradigm, overpopulation is indeed a huge problem.

The major problem, right now, is this system, where money/profit rules; Eugenics and mass murder is much more "cost effective" than reshaping civilization.

Raf.

blufire
28th March 2013, 18:21
As technologically advanced humans or at least our current level of technology allows us to feed and care for the global population and therefore we are not overpopulated.

But imagine if a natural or contrived catastrophe or event took away the technological ability to feed our current population, what do you think would happen? Millions if not billions would die of starvation.

In a true natural ecologically balanced system we (humans) are extremely overpopulated not to mention humanity is in no way ecologically in balance with the rest of biological inhabitants of this planet.

If we cannot sustain our population in a balanced healthy eco system then perhaps we should redefine what it means to be overpopulated.

Paul
28th March 2013, 18:47
by the numbers we are slowly growing? seems like it would be much more rapid with the jump from 6 to 7 billion world population.. I thought it was fairly quick, hardly anything to panic over though.

(Uganda suprisingly has a life expectancy around 53; which either speaks of recent massive die offs (war) or population explosion. )

Most nations are still growing ... as best as I recall, Japan and Russia are already shrinking or close to it. The US would be about holding steady if it were not for the immigration, especially from Mexico in recent years, and parts of western Europe would likely be steady or already shrinking a bit, but for the Muslim immigration. Africa and some other poorer regions are growing rapidly, and the world population continues to grow.

Rahkyt
28th March 2013, 18:48
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/24/population-hysteria-damaging

Why population hysteria is more damaging than it seems


Seven billion is a big number. It doesn't seem quite so big, however, if you think that 7 billion of us could fit into the state of Texas and live there with a population density enjoyed by the residents of New York City.

But a major concern is the impact yet more humans will have on the health of the planet – and it's for this reason that population anxiety has become a concern for people already worried about climate change and resource scarcity.

The United Nations, in its latest revision is projecting 9 billion by 2050 – and even 10 billion by 2100 – before world population stabilises and starts to decline. That's the "medium fertility variant" projection – it would be 8 billion by 2050 declining to 6 billion by 2100 if you used the low fertility variant, and up to 16 billion if you used a high one. Which should serve as a bit of a warning about the nature of projections.

The entire argument for overpopulation is specious.


Facts and figures

• Fertility is declining. The global average is now 2.5 children per woman. In the developing world the rate fell from six children to about three between 1950 and 2000. (Source: UN population division)

• Between 2010 and 2050, 45 countries are expected to decrease in population size. China's population should start shrinking in 2023. (Source: UN population division)

• The CO2 emissions of the average US citizen are 19.9 tonnes per year, and of the average African citizen 1.2 tonnes per year. (Source: IEA, 2009)

• Industrialized countries with 20% of the world's population are responsible for 80% of the accumulated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

• The world is already growing enough grain to feed a population of 10 billion on a vegetarian diet. (Source: Fred Pearce, Peoplequake, 2010)

• Of the 2bn tonnes of grain grown in the world in 2008, under half was eaten directly by people. (Source: Fred Pearce, Peoplequake, 2010)

• Americans throw away 50% of the food they buy, and Britons 30%. Farmers grow 25% more than needed to meet the aesthetic standards of supermarkets. In economically booming India, large amounts of food rots in warehouses and gets thrown away while the poor go hungry because they cannot afford to buy it. (Source: Tristram Stuart, Waste, 2009.)

• Land sold to speculators increased from 4 million hectares in 2006 to 60 million (the size of France) in 2009.

And to quote an overused but true fact:


The whole world's population could fit in the state of Texas. Amazing as it may seem, the entire population of the world can be housed in the U.S. state of Texas, and very comfortably indeed, with each person enjoying a living far in excess of that now available to all but the most wealthy.

Consider these facts: The land area of Texas is some 262,000 square miles* and current UN estimates of the world's population (for 12 October 1999) are about 6 billion.** By converting square miles to square feet? remember to multiply by 5,280 feet per mile twice? and dividing by the world's population, one readily finds that there are more than 1,217 square feet per capita.

A family of 5 would thus occupy more than 6,085 square feet of living space. Even in Texas, that's a mansion.

These numbers apply to just one-story, ranch house-type dwellings. With a housing mix of multi-story buildings, including town houses, apartment buildings and high rises, appreciably greater living space could be provided. Such an arrangement would allow ample land for yards and all the necessary streets and roads.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world would be completely empty, available for all of mankind's agricultural, manufacturing, educational, and recreational activities!

Population Research Institute
Steven W. Mosher
President

*The World Almanac, 1999
**UNPD "World Population Prospects," 1998 UN Revision

Arguments that the world is overpopulated remain untrue. And there is enough space and resources to feed them. If there is a cataclysm of some sort it is a cataclysm with all attendant horrors implicit.

blufire
28th March 2013, 19:17
Arguments that the world is overpopulated remain untrue. And there is enough space and resources to feed them. If there is a cataclysm of some sort it is a cataclysm with all attendant horrors implicit.

Not with our current level of technology, resources or ability. Obviously people who believe this have never gardened on a large level let alone understand what it takes to farm on a massive scale.

Most of this ‘space’ that is always spoken of is in no way suitable for farming. And to convert this land to farmable land would be a monumental task both physically and financially . . . .

Not to mention what it would do to the ecological balance of the area and then eventually the planet if we continue to destroy the ecological and biological balance.

Tesla_WTC_Solution
29th March 2013, 16:11
edit: you guys have been busy in here!! lol


Vertical farming and other improved greenhouse methods will eventually render traditional field farming obsolete.
Already, a greenhouse possessing much less square footage than an overtilled field can produce significantly more food.
Considering that we had a breakthrough in building manufacturing last year, with the advent of the large scale 3D printer,
there is no excuse at all for people with means to refrain from helping the poor.

Another thing is, I don't think all of the "experts" necessarily know more than we do about climate and population.
They're like Bill Nye: Loud, arrogant, outrageous, and mediocre.
We humans have the innate ability to think for ourselves.

I choose not to believe the myth of our times, that there is not enough to go around.
It is only within our broken financial system that there is not enough.

I saw how much food got thrown away every day at the grocery store, and realized, the world isn't the problem,
our imperialist country is the problem.

8(