PDA

View Full Version : World population question

jiminii
4th June 2013, 12:52
ok if we took and gave every man 10 feet square in all of los angeles to san bernardo so ... just say 60 mile by 60 miles .. that is 3600 miles
now 5280 feet per mile .. means if I divide that in 10 foot we have 528 people every 10 feet from Los angeles to San Bernardino .. that is 60 miles and that means we can put 31680 people every 10 feet from los angeles to san bernardino multiply this by 60 miles going north and south we have 1,900,800 people in los angeles in every 10 foot square in a 60 mile by 60 mile square city ... so figure it out .. do you think you can put 1 person every 10 foot square in a 60 times 60 mile city ... ???? and come up with more than 2 million ... now I took the train from Hong Kong to Shanghai .. there is only small cities along the way and in between there all this farms .. and once in a while I can see a farmer in a field ... and only a few big cities .. but they would be more like the size of portland oregon and one big shanghai that is about the same size area as Los angeles ..

so please tell me how they can come up with a figure like 7 billion people on the planet

jim

naste.de.lumina
4th June 2013, 12:58
Thousands of this together can help to make a picture.

http://n.i.uol.com.br/ultnot/album/111109rocinha_f_028.jpg
Favela da Rocinha - Rio de Janeiro

jiminii
4th June 2013, 13:04
Thousands of this together can help to make a picture.

http://n.i.uol.com.br/ultnot/album/111109rocinha_f_028.jpg
Favela da Rocinha - Rio de Janeiro

ok stake them 20 high ... that is 20 story building 60 miles by 60 miles you still only get 40,000,000

Bill Ryan
4th June 2013, 13:23
-------

There are enormous tracts of the planet with no people: mountains, forests, jungles, deserts, tundra, snow and ice. Anyone who has flown from Sydney to Perth (or done the five day drive!) can confirm. Or even flying from LA to NY, you can look down and see just how much land is unpopulated.

The 7 billion number is certainly correct. It's been carefully tracked for decades. The more interesting question is: how many people could the Earth really accommodate, if we got our act together with free or very low-cost energy, and equitable distribution of food, resources and raw materials?

jiminii
4th June 2013, 13:27
anyway ... 10 x 10 x 10 is a 10 cubic feet x 20 .. would be 20 high times 528 would be 10560 in one row 20 high for 60 miles times 528 columns going north and south equals 5,575,680 .. maybe this is more accurate number

jim

Bill Ryan
4th June 2013, 13:33
Thousands of this together can help to make a picture.

Favela da Rocinha - Rio de Janeiro

ok stack them 20 high ... that is 20 story building 60 miles by 60 miles you still only get 40,000,000

Exactly -- that may be the real population of Greater Cairo. (Which may be the largest city in the world, so chaotic that the population has never properly been counted.)

You only need 175 of those to make 7 billion.

jiminii
4th June 2013, 13:43
Thousands of this together can help to make a picture.

Favela da Rocinha - Rio de Janeiro

ok stack them 20 high ... that is 20 story building 60 miles by 60 miles you still only get 40,000,000

Exactly -- that may be the real population of Greater Cairo. (Which may be the largest city in the world, so chaotic that the population has never properly been counted.)

You only need 175 of those to make 7 billion.

but we are only talking about a building 60 miles by 60 miles by 20 story high
can't see it would be possible to build a building with 10 cubic feet per person in los angles ... there is a lot more space than that

jiminii
4th June 2013, 14:00
Thousands of this together can help to make a picture.

Favela da Rocinha - Rio de Janeiro

ok stack them 20 high ... that is 20 story building 60 miles by 60 miles you still only get 40,000,000

Exactly -- that may be the real population of Greater Cairo. (Which may be the largest city in the world, so chaotic that the population has never properly been counted.)

You only need 175 of those to make 7 billion.

but we are only talking about a building 60 miles by 60 miles by 20 story high
can't see it would be possible to build a building with 10 cubic feet per person in los angles ... there is a lot more space than that

i mean by observation if you gave every person a 10 foot cubic square of space .. 60 miles by 60 miles by 20 high ... you would be able to see many more people in los angeles .. per 10 feet .. but you can drive for miles and only see a few on the streets .. some waiting for buses .. etc etc .. so I think thet 40 million is way over what is actually there

jim

Ilie Pandia
4th June 2013, 14:09
This thread makes a few hidden assumptions:

1. That we can live only on the Earth's surface (excluding underwater cities, floating cities, satellite cities) - this is a scarcity based assumption - easily made obsolete with Free Energy (that we have for some time now)

2. It also assumes that in an abundant world we will continue to multiply at an exponential rate - This may or may not be the case - data (that I don't have a link to right now) suggests that population declines in abundant societies, since giving birth to workers no longer makes sense.

3. It also assumes we will not be able to leave the planet. This again may be true, since some suggest we need "Earth's frequency" to survive, but we may be able to adapt of find solutions to this.

The over-population problem is not really a problem in my view. Is just an effect of scarcity thinking and suppression of Free Energy tech.

jiminii
4th June 2013, 14:14
-------

There are enormous tracts of the planet with no people: mountains, forests, jungles, deserts, tundra, snow and ice. Anyone who has flown from Sydney to Perth (or done the five day drive!) can confirm. Or even flying from LA to NY, you can look down and see just how much land is unpopulated.

The 7 billion number is certainly correct. It's been carefully tracked for decades. The more interesting question is: how many people could the Earth really accommodate, if we got our act together with free or very low-cost energy, and equitable distribution of food, resources and raw materials?

I see what you're saying ... just wondering if they are putting disinformation there too ... as a kind of fear

jim

jiminii
4th June 2013, 14:24
This thread makes a few hidden assumptions:

1. That we can live only on the Earth's surface (excluding underwater cities, floating cities, satellite cities) - this is a scarcity based assumption - easily made obsolete with Free Energy (that we have for some time now)

2. It also assumes that in an abundant world we will continue to multiply at an exponential rate - This may or may not be the case - data (that I don't have a link to right now) suggests that population declines in abundant societies, since giving birth to workers no longer makes sense.

3. It also assumes we will not be able to leave the planet. This again may be true, since some suggest we need "Earth's frequency" to survive, but we may be able to adapt of find solutions to this.

The over-population problem is not really a problem in my view. Is just an effect of scarcity thinking and suppression of Free Energy tech.

right and it is the cabal that is creating the scarcity ... I am wondering too ... that if they align the planet with the sun making both poles perpendicular so there is no ice and we have weather similar to mediterranean sea ... world wide .. we would have a lot more areas to grow food .. and if we become part of this galactic government .. we will be able to use their technology to remove some of the water to make it more viable

just a thought

jim

spiritguide
4th June 2013, 14:34
The real math would be to figure out how many acres of land are available on earth for habitation. Consider free energy and bio diversity meaning every acre is usable. Now take the reported world population and see how many acres each individuals would have. Then you can be creative and factor this to include family units. My bet is you would find an over abundance of acres vs people. Without political boundries and greed we would have no limitations. IMHO

TargeT
4th June 2013, 14:41
The over-population problem is not really a problem in my view. Is just an effect of scarcity thinking and suppression of Free Energy tech.

IMO

The "over-population" problem is a control problem; veiled with fear (exemplified by scarcity). With every single major society having a hierarchal control structure, the control structures themselves start to see how "more" is not better after a certain point, as the hierarchy can only support (or shall we say, control) so many subordinates.

I would venture to guess that the earth could comfortably support some 80 billion people, though we would have to change a bit in how we see "garbage" and perhaps stop cementing over everything.

jiminii
4th June 2013, 14:54
The over-population problem is not really a problem in my view. Is just an effect of scarcity thinking and suppression of Free Energy tech.

IMO

The "over-population" problem is a control problem; veiled with fear (exemplified by scarcity). With every single major society having a hierarchal control structure, the control structures themselves start to see how "more" is not better after a certain point, as the hierarchy can only support (or shall we say, control) so many subordinates.

I would venture to guess that the earth could comfortably support some 80 billion people, though we would have to change a bit in how we see "garbage" and perhaps stop cementing over everything.

I heard on one site that they have a garbage problem solved ... if we are part of the government up there,.. they said they could put portals here where they can dump all the garbage in the portal and it would go to some place like a planet still molten and effect nothing there ... in exchange for trade with us .. another portal to send products here ...

so I think we got the future covered

jim

chancy
4th June 2013, 15:04
Hello Everyone: Just checking Wikipedia for world population it's broken down into continents. Here is the link. It's quite interesting when you see each continents population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_population

enjoy
chancy

TargeT
4th June 2013, 15:08
I heard on one site that they have a garbage problem solved ... if we are part of the government up there,.. they said they could put portals here where they can dump all the garbage in the portal and it would go to some place like a planet still molten and effect nothing there ... in exchange for trade with us .. another portal to send products here ...

so I think we got the future covered

jim

Well since nature creates closed loops (for the most part) I think it would be a mistake to try and circumvent this style of process. "Garbage" is just a resource waiting to be tapped, it's either bio waste which can be used for future foods, or material waste which can be repurposed and re-used.

shipping our "used" matter elsewhere without repurposing it would create balance issues, I don't think that is a very intelligent solution (if it's even possible, I don't mean to say that I think it is via this discussion).

as we move out of our infant understanding of how to live on this planet into a more integrated understanding I think words like "garbage" will change dramatically.

spiritguide
4th June 2013, 15:33
Chancy, thanks for the reference. Using the above reference and rounding the figures these are my results.

World land in square miles = 57.5 million square miles

World population in billions = 6.9 billion people

People per square mile = 13

Being overcrowded is not a problem, industrialization and mass production with control of the economy is what forced folks into large population centers to support the controllers.

Love, respect and harmony is what is needed with the earth being here for our support as it always has been.

Peace!

Ilie Pandia
4th June 2013, 15:39
May I point out that "people" (aka humans) are not the only ones than need to live on this planet :becky:?

Any solutions we came with must honor all living creatures, otherwise it's just our Ego at a whole new level :).

sirdipswitch
4th June 2013, 16:01
Over-population, is just a matter of perspective. First of all, how much room would 7 Billion people actually need?

If you gave each person to be counted, for counting purposes, a little piece of land, 2 feet by 2 feet, to stand on, you could then count them quite easily. chuckle chuckle.

That 2x2 would give each person, 4 square feet, of land to stand on. Now, how many square feet do 7 Billion people need, to be counted.?

I've done the calculations, which I am not going to fill up space with here, you can get out your handy little calculater, and do it yourself, if you wish, but... 7 Billion people will not fill up the state of Road Island.

Road Island, in these United States, for those of you not familliar, is our smallest state. And it is very, very, tiny. When looking at a map, of the entire country, those 7 Billion people, would be a very, very, very, tiny little "SPECK", way over on the very edge of these United States.

If we then spread them across this land, giving each, an acre, of land, to live on, there would be plenty of room for all, and each would have enough to grow their own garden and have ample to eat, and all of the rest of the land could be used for growing Live Stock and such. And we would then have room for the rest of those 80 Billion people that TargeT said we could hold. ccc.

The only problem we have at this time, is not population, but "pss Poor" planning.

Look at Los Angeles, some of the most fertile farm land in the world, and they covered it all up with houses. How many places have they done this? And one of our biggest problems, is corporate farming. Yep! Giant corporations, that own millions and millions of acres, that we the people could use to sustain ourselves on. Give the land back to the familly... problem solved. And Monsanto, wouldn't have a place to experiment with their GMO crops.ccc.

Paul
4th June 2013, 16:20
Look at Los Angeles, some of the most fertile farm land in the world, and they covered it all up with houses.
The Central Valley (middle of the state of California) is some of the most fertile farm land in the world ... and it's growing lots of food.

The Los Angeles basin would be rather too dry in most parts for serious farming, but for all the water redirected from the Colorado river and used for irrigation (and lawn sprinklers.)

RMorgan
4th June 2013, 17:10
-------

The more interesting question is: how many people could the Earth really accommodate, if we got our act together with free or very low-cost energy, and equitable distribution of food, resources and raw materials?

Hey Bill,

Interesting question indeed.

That depends on the established medium standard of living.

For now, if every person in the planet consumed like middle class Americans, we would essentially need 10 Earth like planets just to provide the resources plus another 2 just to dump the trash.

So, we know for sure that right now it´s physically impossible for everyone in the world to have an American like middle class lifestyle.

Therefore, if equal life quality distribution for everyone on the planet will ever be accomplished, we will need to reinvent the concept of what it means to be part of a middle-class.

Basically, we would have to eliminate greed and permanently eliminate the consumerist concept that in order to be happy you have to accumulate stuff. Either we do this by punishment, which is more viable, or by a revolution of consciousness, which is very unlikely to happen but possible nonetheless.

A realistic global middle class, more precisely a global single class, must have access to good shelter, good food, good water, good leisure activities and good public services, all of it absolutely focused on generating the minimum amount of waste and on minimum consumption of resources.

The problem is that what is good for some, isn´t good for others. Defining a common meaning of good is just as hard as defining a common meaning of need.

So, one way or another, for global equality to be possible, we would have to fall into some kind of improved, reinvented socialism, with central rules fairly defining what people need in order to have a good life quality standard and the amount of belongings which people would be allowed to accumulate.

As long as we live in a system where social status is attached to the possession of goods, where greed is socially and financially rewarded, a balanced society is an impossible goal.

Establishing a global limit of the amount of riches a person can accumulate is a start, coupled with a rigid global maximum wage limit and a fair global minimum wage.

Theoretically, a well regulated socialist meritocratic system would be ideal, but there´s a huge difference between theory and reality, as history already proved numerous times.

Eliminating the pyramid system and replacing it with a more horizontal approach is extremely necessary but also extremely difficult.

As for overpopulation, seeing it as just a matter of how many people could physically occupy the amount of habitable space in the planet is utter ignorance; There is an overwhelming number of other extremely important variables that should be taken in consideration.

Raf.

sirdipswitch
4th June 2013, 17:13
Yep! Know what you're sayin Paul, but it did grow great Oranges. ccc.

However, they did cover up Santa Clara Valley, with houses, do to massive expansion from Silicon Valley.

The point I was getting at, is that too many times, it was the good farm land that attracted the people, but then instead of building on the outskirts of that farm land, and saving it for growing food, they just kept covering it up.

But even so, there is still ample land for all, if the govt. would just turn loose of it, such as ending corporate farming, and giving it back to the people. But... untill WE, change something, that ain't gonna happen.

thunder24
4th June 2013, 19:05
alot of old farms in the appalachians are being sold for houseing... vast fields... Im sure it going on all over the place in the United states. I like what Raf said....

to add two cents... i think a revolution in coinsciouness can happen; through education and example. The system as is needs to truly be evaluated... Tons of food go in the garbage here in the United States from grocery stores and farms alike... so before we say we can't feed everybody, we need to look at who owns the distribution channels for the food to reach destinations, and what destinations are the distributors not providing it for. In no way do I think the system needs to stay in place... just saying there are some things about it, that aren't looked at 360.

also... i don't remember being one...but the native americans seemed to have it down ok... sure they had wars but with in the tribes seemed ok, from what i'v read...

peace, feed the world

spiritguide
4th June 2013, 19:27
Raf, The human being is not here to control. From reading your statement above you point out systems for control. If one has comfort of the basics of shelter, food and clothing and expends their energy in just providing this, what control is needed beyond respect. Why expend energy through a third party when one could do this by one's self by expending those energies with mother earth after all she provides all that is needed and always has. If one has a special need then barter and gifting/sharing are useful tools. Just my opinion.

We all need to be pioneers!

From the online free dictionary...

pi·o·neer (p-nîr)
n.
1. One who ventures into unknown or unclaimed territory to settle.2. One who opens up new areas of thought, research, or development: a pioneer in aviation.
3. A soldier who performs construction and demolition work in the field to facilitate troop movements.
4. Ecology An animal or plant species that establishes itself in a previously barren environment.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of early settlers: the pioneer spirit.2. Leading the way; trailblazing: a pioneer treatment for cancer.
v. pi·o·neered, pi·o·neer·ing, pi·o·neers
v.tr.
1.
a. To open up (an area) or prepare (a way): rockets that pioneered outer space.
b. To settle (a region).2. To initiate or participate in the development of: surgeons who pioneered organ transplants.
v.intr.
To act as a pioneer: pioneered in development of the laser.

Peace!

Ilie Pandia
4th June 2013, 19:43
I see a lot of posts promoting austerity measures, returning to a tribal more simple life and so on.

Complexity is not necessarily a bad thing! The human organism is a much more complex system than unicellular life and arguably allows for a more enriched experience of life. (just to give an example).

Most of the solutions I see on this thread are really rooted in an old way of thinking. The truth is (dare I say) that we do not know the full potential of the human creativity and ingenuity. Some argue that it is infinite.

What I am trying to say is basically this: do not look for a permanent solution to population issue... there is none. But it is enough to just liberate the human creativity. Most humans today live in survival mode where their creativity is channeled to putting something on the table. The rest are drugged into a state they mistake for freedom and happiness, while being slaves in a golden, perfumed cage.

We are just a few thousands people here, working on this, thinking about it.. imagine if say 5 billion would put their minds to solving our problems. Their solutions may be totally out of "our tiny box" that we are thinking in right now.

I can easily imagine an exponential development of the human race (not in numbers!) once we are freed to be truly creative! And to be truly creative you need to be out of survival mode. You need health supporting food, pure water, clean air and shelter. I submit to you, that if this goal is reached the exploding development can hardly be imagined at this point. Our so called "solutions" would be totally surpassed by innovative ways of thinking and looking at our problems.

And I personally know of no other means to free us, faster and safer, than clean Free Energy. I wish more people would see things like this. Then it would be easy creative play.

Billy
4th June 2013, 19:57
The over-population problem is not really a problem in my view. Is just an effect of scarcity thinking and suppression of Free Energy tech.

IMO

The "over-population" problem is a control problem; veiled with fear (exemplified by scarcity). With every single major society having a hierarchal control structure, the control structures themselves start to see how "more" is not better after a certain point, as the hierarchy can only support (or shall we say, control) so many subordinates.

I would venture to guess that the earth could comfortably support some 80 billion people, though we would have to change a bit in how we see "garbage" and perhaps stop cementing over everything.

I heard on one site that they have a garbage problem solved ... if we are part of the government up there,.. they said they could put portals here where they can dump all the garbage in the portal and it would go to some place like a planet still molten and effect nothing there ... in exchange for trade with us .. another portal to send products here ...

so I think we got the future covered

jim

As much as i could not agree with humanity expanding onto other planets. I know you have already deleted the below text on the other thread. Thank you for that.

I also do not think we have the universal right to dump our crap on any other planet. Would that include nuclear waste? I am not sure if you are seeing the bigger picture here Jim. some of your ideas are very materialistic. Who decides which planets to dump our crap on? Mankind has a peculiar narrow mindset sometimes. That life can only exist on other planets if that life is the same makeup as earthy humans.

Many universal beings have many different forms and densities and those beings may exist on planets that humanity believes that life could not exist. And because of the difference in densities we may not even be able to see them.

Was not planet earth at one time in the early stages only molten rock. We have no idea what the greater plan is for planets that to us look uninhabitable.

The purpose is to inform all beings there is a new civilization game for planet earth that will be contributed to from the most power on base 2 and to all the most powerful on this planet ... you KNOW who you are .. and to anyone else who wants to join in and play this game.

To all earth people who wish to play this game.

4. Inform all beings about the second purpose of the New Civilization Game:
travel to other planets and systems for the expansion of the New Civilization

We have the power and they KNOW IT ...
lets take back our planet ...

jim

I love playing the co-creating game.
I do not believe we have the universal right to expand humanity on other planets. That was done to us and look at the pickle it got us in. We hopefully learn the lessons from our own experiences.

Peace

I am not against what you are trying to do Jim. We just have to create agreements that suits everyone on earth and our brothers and sisters in the universe. Humanity requires to reduce consumption and their waste dramatically.

And i agree with Ilie and target,

Adding There is plenty to go around if all was balanced and shared equally also Plenty space for more in a fair and balanced society.

peace

Bubu
4th June 2013, 20:54
First things first. First we have to get our act together and kick out those bastards that are creating chaos in our planet. With humanity getting along nicely we can then accurately count the population and see clearly how many people the earth really can accommodate. Not mentioning the technology which they have hidden from us that can enable us to live on or beneath the water or in the air. And Yes of course we need more space because we are using it irresponsible as art and bill pointed. Have you notice who are purposely promoting this irresponsibility amongst the people?You're barking at the wrong tree.
"The essence of the genius is knowing what to ignore". AE
There are more pressing issues that needs attention.

Sidney
4th June 2013, 20:59
-------

There are enormous tracts of the planet with no people: mountains, forests, jungles, deserts, tundra, snow and ice. Anyone who has flown from Sydney to Perth (or done the five day drive!) can confirm. Or even flying from LA to NY, you can look down and see just how much land is unpopulated.

The 7 billion number is certainly correct. It's been carefully tracked for decades. The more interesting question is: how many people could the Earth really accommodate, if we got our act together with free or very low-cost energy, and equitable distribution of food, resources and raw materials?

I see what you're saying ... just wondering if they are putting disinformation there too ... as a kind of fear

jim

You have to admit, they lie about everything else, why would they not lie about census results. I too, fully agree, though that there is no overpopulation. There is just a huge mis-handling of rations, of space,food etc. Obviously another affect of a corrupt (or any)
hierarchy.

blufire
4th June 2013, 21:30
Regarding what to do with the garbage and waste that our growing human population produces . . . this is already being addressed through technology such as Biochar. http://www.biochar-international.org/IBI-organization-members

At this link notice the organization member at the bottom . . .Waste Management Association of Australia. Most people are under the misconception that Biochar is a benign use of products from vegetation type biomass and the technology can be used in this manner. But the more massive need and by the way VERY lucrative reason for Biochar Technology is to burn garbage and sewage produced by overcrowded humans.

And oh . . . by the way . . . Biochar technology is brought to you by none other than Monsanto and other like corporations.

As we go into the future there WILL BE even more places on our planet where people are crammed together like sardines in a tin. There will be no eco-balanced system in these sad places. But the people who live in these areas will be ‘maintained’ by technology such as biochar waste management and gmo food.

There are and will be many more places on earth that will continue to be eco sustainable and balanced. These places will be filled with those who choose to live a self sustained and responsible way of life.

It is a choice . . . . be taken care of or take care of your self.

Sunny-side-up
4th June 2013, 21:34
Cram them in lol
Yes we could go on cramming in more and more but!
yes there is great tracts of open uninhabited land even now, thank god!
I hate to think of every foot of land that is not used for food production being turned into concrete ant hill's 0.o
We need to balance out some how and keep some wilderness for our children and children's children!

Until we can stop acting like a mad killing virus there is no hope for planet Earth.
Our enlightened future self's have to sort this while we are still physical beings.

I believe we have filled the planet up enough already, well past it actually.

greybeard
4th June 2013, 21:37
A couple of videos I listened to recently claimed that advances of all kind came much more rapidly when there is a large population and that we were not at optimum population yet.
Also the claims is that there is sufficient food and resources to feed everyone.
Another issue is that when people have a quality of life the birth rate goes down.
It would seem that raising the standard of living for all would cure quite a lot of the ills of this world---dont ask me how.

Chris

Ps while some look on the Thrive Documentary with some suspicion I cant help but feel that it is in the main positive.

naste.de.lumina
4th June 2013, 22:18
I see a lot of posts promoting austerity measures, returning to a tribal more simple life and so on.

Complexity is not necessarily a bad thing! The human organism is a much more complex system than unicellular life and arguably allows for a more enriched experience of life. (just to give an example).

Most of the solutions I see on this thread are really rooted in an old way of thinking. The truth is (dare I say) that we do not know the full potential of the human creativity and ingenuity. Some argue that it is infinite.

What I am trying to say is basically this: do not look for a permanent solution to population issue... there is none. But it is enough to just liberate the human creativity. Most humans today live in survival mode where their creativity is channeled to putting something on the table. The rest are drugged into a state they mistake for freedom and happiness, while being slaves in a golden, perfumed cage.

We are just a few thousands people here, working on this, thinking about it.. imagine if say 5 billion would put their minds to solving our problems. Their solutions may be totally out of "our tiny box" that we are thinking in right now.

I can easily imagine an exponential development of the human race (not in numbers!) once we are freed to be truly creative! And to be truly creative you need to be out of survival mode. You need health supporting food, pure water, clean air and shelter. I submit to you, that if this goal is reached the exploding development can hardly be imagined at this point. Our so called "solutions" would be totally surpassed by innovative ways of thinking and looking at our problems.

And I personally know of no other means to free us, faster and safer, than clean Free Energy. I wish more people would see things like this. Then it would be easy creative play.

I have a similar thought.
Most likely this scenario people's lives will be unimaginably different for the better.
We would have about 6 billion people to help create instead of worrying about having to eat every day.

naste.de.lumina
4th June 2013, 22:32
I see a lot of posts promoting austerity measures, returning to a tribal more simple life and so on.

Complexity is not necessarily a bad thing! The human organism is a much more complex system than unicellular life and arguably allows for a more enriched experience of life. (just to give an example).

Most of the solutions I see on this thread are really rooted in an old way of thinking. The truth is (dare I say) that we do not know the full potential of the human creativity and ingenuity. Some argue that it is infinite.

What I am trying to say is basically this: do not look for a permanent solution to population issue... there is none. But it is enough to just liberate the human creativity. Most humans today live in survival mode where their creativity is channeled to putting something on the table. The rest are drugged into a state they mistake for freedom and happiness, while being slaves in a golden, perfumed cage.

We are just a few thousands people here, working on this, thinking about it.. imagine if say 5 billion would put their minds to solving our problems. Their solutions may be totally out of "our tiny box" that we are thinking in right now.

I can easily imagine an exponential development of the human race (not in numbers!) once we are freed to be truly creative! And to be truly creative you need to be out of survival mode. You need health supporting food, pure water, clean air and shelter. I submit to you, that if this goal is reached the exploding development can hardly be imagined at this point. Our so called "solutions" would be totally surpassed by innovative ways of thinking and looking at our problems.

And I personally know of no other means to free us, faster and safer, than clean Free Energy. I wish more people would see things like this. Then it would be easy creative play.

I have a similar thought.
Most likely this scenario people's lives will be unimaginably different for the better.
We would have about 6 billion people to help create instead of worrying about having to eat every day.

But I believe that for this to work one of the first steps would be the extermination of money.

I Am Money

by Scooter

My real name is Currency, but those that think they know me, call me Money.

Thanks to multi-generational conditioning, you unconsciously accept me in your life as normal and necessary. You use euphemisms to help you ignore my true character, by safely referring to me as a “medium of exchange”, and I’ve adapted numerous nicknames like bucks, dough, scratch, bread , juice and Benjamins. I like these references as they tend to disarm thinking minds.

Most people have no idea where I come from, and I like it that way. I create division by my very nature and I place arbitrary values on everything, including life. But I have no actual value other than that which you, and the other users, give me with your energy and time. By my nature, I enslave people and entire groups of people (protest if you will… but you are not immune). I am viral in nature and millions of people get paid with me just to keep track of me. I am extremely powerful and very unforgiving.

Doubting my power? I can create situations and circumstances that would otherwise probably not exist:

- Have several total strangers prepare, serve and clean-up an entire meal for you and your family at a restaurant.
- Get someone with less of me to mow your lawn.
- Buy shoes and clothing made by nameless, faceless children in far-away places that lack me.
- Use me to increase your “quality of life” by replacing your 42″ LCD with a 50″ LED.
- Buy a motor vehicle when others can’t afford a bicycle.
- Put YOUR kids in a safer neighborhood and better schools.
- Take a vacation to try to forget about me, while at the same time, spending lots of me in the process.
- Purchase a piece of paper from a university that suggests that you are intellectually superior, so you can take more of me from those deemed less intelligent, or that have not purchased the piece of paper themselves.
- Display me in various ways to demonstrate how successful you are.
- Attract people with me… friends, clients… even a wife or a husband.
- Spend me on hobbies, diversions and chemicals designed to help you forget about the process of getting me.
- Invest me so I magically reproduce myself (you don’t really now how this works, but you pretend to).
- Trade your time and freedom for me. I think you call it a job?
- Get your illnesses treated if you have a enough of me.
- Use me to help bring comfort to your life in a world where many are suffering.
- Pay people to govern you.
- With enough of me, you could run for a political office.
- Build a church with me, create a religion with me.
- Use me to worship your favorite sports teams.
- Lie, cheat or steel to get me.
- Have others lie, cheat and steal to get me, so you feel innocent.
- Wage wars using me.
- Get others to wage wars using me, so you feel innocent.
- Use me to determine which people should succeed, and which should fail.

I have only a few masters; those that created me. They work for the god that is printed on me. The rest of you are simply unwitting disciples.

You will think about me today, directly or indirectly, over 500 times.; how to get me, hold on to me, but mostly how to spend me. This keeps you completely detached from who and what you really are, and my masters like it that way. While I may be powerful, I’m nothing compared to what you were… before me.

Source: http://www.zengardner.com/i-am-money/

turiya
4th June 2013, 23:17
jiminii wrote:

so please tell me how they can come up with a figure like 7 billion people on the planet
Bill Ryan wrote:

The 7 billion number is certainly correct. It's been carefully tracked for decades.
Since when is this "Official Story" so easily accepted? Meaning, of course, the so-called "Official Government" facts & figures... are they really so accurate & reliable?

I can easily offer some "official" figure estimates that show that the population is in decline. As well as, for reasons of "national security", facts on population decreases are purposefully being withheld:

Chris Thomas wrote:

"According to the Akashic, the world population peaked at 7.4 billion in 1996. Since then it has been rapidly falling to the point where it is currently between 3.8 and 3.9 billion and it is continuing to drop."
Iraq's ministry of social affairs estimates 4.5 million children have lost one or both parents... 14% of the population are orphans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/26/iraqis-cant-turn-backs-on-deadly-legacy)

"The US government sought to prevent WHO from surveying areas in southern Iraq where depleted uranium had been used and caused serious health and environmental dangers." A WHO report, the result of a landmark study conducted with the Iraqi ministry of health, has been "delayed". Covering 10,800 households, it contains "damning evidence", says a ministry official and, according to one of its researchers, remains "top secret". The report says birth defects have risen to a "crisis" right across Iraqi society where depleted uranium and other toxic heavy metals were used by the US and Britain."
The Consequences of the U.S. Use of Depleted Uranium in Iraq
by Jeremy R. Hammond (http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2013/05/28/the-consequences-of-the-u-s-use-of-depleted-uranium-in-iraq/)

"In February 2004, Scotland’s Sunday Herald reported that a WHO sponsored study concluding that inhalation of DU could lead to cancer was “suppressed”. Dr Keith Baverstock, the principle author of the report, which was completed in 2001, and the WHO’s top expert on radiation and health for 11 years, alleges that it was deliberately kept secret. “Our study suggests that the widespread use of depleted uranium weapons in Iraq could pose a unique health hazard to the civilian population,” Baverstock said, adding that “There is increasing scientific evidence the radioactivity and the chemical toxicity of DU could cause more damage to human cells than is assumed.” According to one WHO official, “The article was not approved for publication because parts of it did not reflect accurately what a WHO-convened group of international experts considered the best science in the area of depleted uranium.” In other words, it was not considered fit to print because the report contradicted earlier findings. Among the report’s conclusions were that DU particles, which can be blown around by wind, are likely to be inhaled by civilians for years to come and that once inside the body, its radiation and toxicity could lead to the growth of malignant tumors and an increased risk of cancer."

Japan leads the world in population collapse

TOKYO, April 19, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Japan is seeing the most rapid decline in population of any country on earth, according to the World Population Data Sheet (http://www.prb.org/pdf12/2012-population-data-sheet_eng.pdf) produced by the U.S. Population Reference Bureau.
The Telegraph: Using wi-fi on a laptop 'damages sperm', study suggests
By Andrew Hough 30 Nov 2011 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8924820/Using-wi-fi-on-a-laptop-damages-sperm-study-suggests.html)
"Researchers discovered a personal computer using wi-fi that is placed near male reproductive organs reduced sperm quality and the chances of men experiencing fatherhood."
GM corn set to stop man spreading his seed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2001/sep/09/gm.food)

"'We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies,' said Epicyte president Mitch Hein."
Research suggests we may actually face a declining world population in the coming years.
By Jeff Wise|Posted Wednesday, Jan. 9, 2013
"A somewhat more arcane milestone, meanwhile, generated no media coverage at all: It took humankind 13 years to add its 7 billionth. That’s longer than the 12 years it took to add the 6 billionth—the first time in human history that interval had grown. (The 2 billionth, 3 billionth, 4 billionth, and 5 billionth took 123, 33, 14, and 13 years, respectively.) In other words, the rate of global population growth has slowed. And it’s expected to keep slowing. Indeed, according to experts’ best estimates, the total population of Earth will stop growing within the lifespan of people alive today... And then it will fall.

This is a counterintuitive notion in the United States, where we’ve heard often and loudly that world population growth is a perilous and perhaps unavoidable threat to our future as a species. But population decline is a very familiar concept in the rest of the developed world, where fertility has long since fallen far below the 2.1 live births per woman required to maintain population equilibrium. In Germany, the birthrate has sunk to just 1.36 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/21/germany-birthrate-low-falling), worse even than its low-fertility neighbors (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html) Spain (1.48) and Italy (1.4). The way things are going, Western Europe as a whole will most likely shrink from 460 million to just 350 million by the end of the century. That’s not so bad compared with Russia and China, each of whose populations could fall by half. (http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Research/POP/proj07/index.html?sb=6) As you may not be surprised to learn, the Germans have coined a polysyllabic word for this quandary: Schrumpf-Gesellschaft (http://www.focus.de/kultur/medien/debatte-die-schrumpf-gesellschaft_aid_215090.html), or “shrinking society".

American media have largely ignored the issue of population decline for the simple reason that it hasn’t happened here yet. Unlike Europe, the United States has long been the beneficiary of robust immigration. This has helped us not only by directly bolstering the number of people calling the United States home but also by propping up the birthrate, since immigrant women tend to produce far more children than the native-born do.

But both those advantages look to diminish in years to come. A report issued last month by the Pew Research Center found that immigrant births fell (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/29/u-s-birth-rate-falls-to-a-record-low-decline-is-greatest-among-immigrants/) from 102 per 1,000 women in 2007 to 87.8 per 1,000 in 2012. That helped bring the overall U.S. birthrate to a mere 64 per 1,000 women—not enough to sustain our current population.

Moreover, the poor, highly fertile countries that once churned out immigrants by the boatload are now experiencing birthrate declines of their own. From 1960 to 2009, Mexico’s fertility rate tumbled (http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/26/opinion/passel-cohn-mexican-immigration/index.html) from 7.3 live births per woman to 2.4, India’s dropped (http://www.spiked-online.com/site/printable/13302/http://www.spiked-online.com/site/printable/13302/) from six to 2.5, and Brazil’s (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-12-29/world/35286762_1_fertility-rate-demographic-shift-silva) fell from 6.15 to 1.9. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, where the average birthrate remains a relatively blistering 4.66, fertility is projected to fall below replacement level by the 2070s. This change in developing countries will affect not only the U.S. population, of course, but eventually the world’s.

Why is this happening? Scientists who study population dynamics point to a phenomenon called “demographic transition.”

“For hundreds of thousands of years,” explains Warren Sanderson, a professor of economics at Stony Brook University, “in order for humanity to survive things like epidemics and wars and famine, birthrates had to be very high.” Eventually, thanks to technology, death rates started to fall in Europe and in North America, and the population size soared. In time, though, birthrates fell as well, and the population leveled out. The same pattern has repeated in countries around the world. Demographic transition (Demographic transition (DT) refers to the transition from high birth and death rates to low birth and death rates as a country develops from a pre-industrial to an industrialized economic system.), Sanderson says, “is a shift between two very different long-run states: from high death rates and high birthrates to low death rates and low birthrates.” Not only is the pattern well-documented, it’s well under way: Already, more than half the world’s population is reproducing at below the replacement rate.

If the Germany of today is the rest of the world tomorrow, then the future is going to look a lot different than we thought. Instead of skyrocketing toward uncountable Malthusian multitudes, researchers at Austria’s International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis foresee the global population maxing out at 9 billion some time around 2070. On the bright side, the long-dreaded resource shortage may turn out not to be a problem at all. On the not-so-bright side, the demographic shift toward more retirees and fewer workers could throw the rest of the world into the kind of interminable economic stagnation that Japan is experiencing right now (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/without-babies-can-japan-survive.html?_r=1&).

And in the long term—on the order of centuries—we could be looking at the literal extinction of humanity.

That might sound like an outrageous claim, but it comes down to simple math. According to a 2008 IIASA report (http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/IR-08-022.pdf), if the world stabilizes at a total fertility rate of 1.5—where Europe is today—then by 2200 the global population will fall to half of what it is today. By 2300, it’ll barely scratch 1 billion. (The authors of the report tell me that in the years since the initial publication, some details have changed—Europe’s population is falling faster than was previously anticipated, while Africa’s birthrate is declining more slowly—but the overall outlook is the same.) Extend the trend line, and within a few dozen generations you’re talking about a global population small enough to fit in a nursing home."

I could spend more time posting a leading cause of deaths being the result of medical treatment, vaccinations, GMOs, Chemtrails, Geo-Engineering, etc... but you get the idea. Not sure why some of you are not seeing the Agenda 21 roll-out that is happening in front of your own eyes. It is called “Agenda 21” because its requirements are to be fully implemented before the year 2100.

Cheers... turiya :cool:

Hawkwind
4th June 2013, 23:32
ok if we took and gave every man 10 feet square in all of los angeles to san bernardo so ... just say 60 mile by 60 miles .. that is 3600 miles
now 5280 feet per mile .. means if I divide that in 10 foot we have 528 people every 10 feet from Los angeles to San Bernardino .. that is 60 miles and that means we can put 31680 people every 10 feet from los angeles to san bernardino multiply this by 60 miles going north and south we have 1,900,800 people in los angeles in every 10 foot square in a 60 mile by 60 mile square city

I'm pretty sure your initial calculation is way, way off. Yes, a linear mile is 5280 ft, but a square mile is 5280x5280= 27,878,400square feet. If you alot 10x10= 100 square feet per person you get 278,784 people per square mile x 3,600 square miles would be 1,003,622,400, a little over 1 billion people. Thankfully, we aren't there yet.

Etherios
5th June 2013, 00:15
- All the talks about returning to old times and ways of living i think is what the elite are planning for us slaves.
- All the talks about how the west is eating up 10-20 times more than the rest of the world so they should cut down what they are doing is totally wrong. You dont bring everyone to poverty so they can all share the same fate. You change the way of living to everyone.
- The overpopulation is a myth ... the problem is money and consumerism. Who needs that? Those that control us through money. The moment we stop living so that we can spend and consume but start to think long term and in the future (Why a car breaks in 3-5 years when in the 30-40s they were making the cars last for 30-40 years? - Cause that way the car makers will lose money.)
- Its all about our mentality and our way of thinking ... not our numbers and our locations.
- The biggest polluters in the planet are the factories and the power generation buildings we are been forced to use. Human life isnt polluting ... the way they produce what we need (in order to profit more) is polluting the planet.

Last i am starting to find more and more evidence that the human race is at the brink of extinction. The civilized world (including parts of asia and africa) have birth rates of just above 1 ratio. That means that every generation we have a 50% decrease in population. The hole immigration scheme is to hide the fact that the west is dieing. Moshanto and the chemicals we eat and drink ... our unhealthy way of lives all points to fertility and sickness. There will be times when fertile females and males will be a treasure ... and it wont be too far in the future.

We have the tech and man power to fix the planet ... if only they let us do it.

blufire
5th June 2013, 00:49
We have the tech and man power to fix the planet ... if only they let us do it.

I’m not picking on you directly Etherios, I'm just using your comment and this type of comment I truly do not understand.

They are not keeping me from doing what I am doing to improve and create an abundant way of living for my family and those around me.

How are ‘they’ not letting us do it (fix the planet)?? I am serious! Each of us did our part to be harmful to our planet.

Each of us can ‘fix it’ by not continuing to aide them.

But how many of you really will? How many really will actually stop going to a grocery store or use cell phones or buy cars and dream to buy fancy ‘better’ homes and other materialistic stuff. How many will stop striving and fighting in futility to have more money and wealth?

How many of you will actually be satisfied living a simple life?

How many? Not many I betcha.

You choose . . . so if you choose to continue to aide ‘them’ in destroying the planet then stop whining and blaming ‘them’. You are just as guilty as those you call vile names and fling hatred toward. It is the pot calling the kettle black.

But is this scenario even possible? Is it? What would truly happen within a month’s time if going to the grocery store was not an option?

What would your community look like . . .what would your life be?

You choose . . .we all choose . . . and then you live in peace with your choice or torture yourself and those around you.

And Bill . . . why would it be our ‘right’ in any way to fill the earth with as many people as possible by whatever means? I as a human have no more ‘rights’ to the natural resources our blue gem provides than any other biological form.

jiminii
5th June 2013, 00:49
ok if we took and gave every man 10 feet square in all of los angeles to san bernardo so ... just say 60 mile by 60 miles .. that is 3600 miles
now 5280 feet per mile .. means if I divide that in 10 foot we have 528 people every 10 feet from Los angeles to San Bernardino .. that is 60 miles and that means we can put 31680 people every 10 feet from los angeles to san bernardino multiply this by 60 miles going north and south we have 1,900,800 people in los angeles in every 10 foot square in a 60 mile by 60 mile square city

I'm pretty sure your initial calculation is way, way off. Yes, a linear mile is 5280 ft, but a square mile is 5280x5280= 27,878,400square feet. If you alot 10x10= 100 square feet per person you get 278,784 people per square mile x 3,600 square miles would be 1,003,622,400, a little over 1 billion people. Thankfully, we aren't there yet.

I am laughing

I figured I had something wrong there ..hahaha

jim

naste.de.lumina
5th June 2013, 00:54
The accumulation is a necessity when you have an uncertain future.
If we all had assured that all we need for each day of our future, from basic to trivial'll be there beside always just go and pick up would not be necessary to accumulate.
Everyone would do their best what else you were confortable and pleasurable.
Art, bread, ships, bike, toys, games, etc..
What you create can all enjoy and vice versa.

CdnSirian
5th June 2013, 01:24
Ilie has brought up the essence of the entire Wade Frazier thread - started by Bill Ryan here:

While, the topic of this thread is about the reality of our population numbers on the planet, the discussion has inevitably turned to "should we have this population, if the numbers are right"?

As we are heading right now, reducing the population seems to be a good idea.

But if it's a topic that interests you - the possibilities of unimaginable abundance on Planet Earth - and many of the points Ilie raised such as we may not need to live ON the planet and more new ideas - I recommend you read this thread.

Since Wade is on a break and is not posting 1.78 new posts a day, here is your chance to catch up. :)

mosquito
5th June 2013, 01:31
I have only 2 words to say to all those people who believe they can simply expand the human populatipon to fit the land mass.

EASTER ISLAND

If we continue expanding, consuming, disposing, manufacturing at the rate we are, the same fate awaits us.

Vitalux
5th June 2013, 01:38
ok if we took and gave every man 10 feet square in all of los angeles to san bernardo so ... just say 60 mile by 60 miles .. that is 3600 miles
now 5280 feet per mile .. means if I divide that in 10 foot we have 528 people every 10 feet from Los angeles to San Bernardino .. that is 60 miles and that means we can put 31680 people every 10 feet from los angeles to san bernardino multiply this by 60 miles going north and south we have 1,900,800 people in los angeles in every 10 foot square in a 60 mile by 60 mile square city ... so figure it out .. do you think you can put 1 person every 10 foot square in a 60 times 60 mile city ... ???? and come up with more than 2 million ... now I took the train from Hong Kong to Shanghai .. there is only small cities along the way and in between there all this farms .. and once in a while I can see a farmer in a field ... and only a few big cities .. but they would be more like the size of portland oregon and one big shanghai that is about the same size area as Los angeles ..

so please tell me how they can come up with a figure like 7 billion people on the planet

jim

Jim if you want to have even more fun......try and go backwards to see how many years it would take to end up back at only two individuals.

Just factor an average doubling period and count the periods.

You might get just as much of a surprise. :confused:

jiminii
5th June 2013, 01:48
ok if we took and gave every man 10 feet square in all of los angeles to san bernardo so ... just say 60 mile by 60 miles .. that is 3600 miles
now 5280 feet per mile .. means if I divide that in 10 foot we have 528 people every 10 feet from Los angeles to San Bernardino .. that is 60 miles and that means we can put 31680 people every 10 feet from los angeles to san bernardino multiply this by 60 miles going north and south we have 1,900,800 people in los angeles in every 10 foot square in a 60 mile by 60 mile square city ... so figure it out .. do you think you can put 1 person every 10 foot square in a 60 times 60 mile city ... ???? and come up with more than 2 million ... now I took the train from Hong Kong to Shanghai .. there is only small cities along the way and in between there all this farms .. and once in a while I can see a farmer in a field ... and only a few big cities .. but they would be more like the size of portland oregon and one big shanghai that is about the same size area as Los angeles ..

so please tell me how they can come up with a figure like 7 billion people on the planet

jim

Jim if you want to have even more fun......try and go backwards to see how many years it would take to end up back at only two individuals.

Just factor an average doubling period and count the periods.

You might get just as much of a surprise. :confused:

actually I got what I wanted .. seems some really clever people here are able to show us the population is going down not up ...hahaha

so I can let this go too.

jim

ghostrider
5th June 2013, 03:00
the issue is zone laws, notice most cities everyone gathers in one area, most of the countryside has no one, the ptb set it up so people bunch up together , they make it difficult to move far into the country, no water, no electric , some utility companies wont provide service that far out ... the system is set up to make money on us , all living in close to downtown for city limit zone laws ... and yes there are more than 7 billion people on earth ...if we would just spread out , say every home must have 2 acres clearance to the nearest home ...we are just too bunched up ...

RMorgan
5th June 2013, 12:40
I have only 2 words to say to all those people who believe they can simply expand the human populatipon to fit the land mass.

EASTER ISLAND

If we continue expanding, consuming, disposing, manufacturing at the rate we are, the same fate awaits us.

Yes, my friend.

Besides, people forget that Earth is not our property.

Countless other species need their space to survive and thrive; I´m not talking about making reservations for them, I´m talking about giving them real space.

Another major factor is that some places on earth are too extreme for us to live comfortably; The extreme north and south, deserts, super-dense rain forests, swamps, etc... Even if we had the tech to make such regions habitable, it simply is not safe to mess around with Earth´s natural climate order. Everything is exactly where it´s supposed to be.

Just these two factors, out of many many others, leaves us with a very limited habitable space to occupy.

Raf.

CD7
5th June 2013, 13:09