How to reduce the human population ???

[OnyxKnight]

Because my thoughts on this issue keep being twisted out of context, and things are implied which I never have said ... I'm retiring from this topic and any further discussion. Its not a productive ground.

Enjoy your numbers debate.

[Robin]

Posted by gripreaper (here)
Its almost as if they WANT to expand the population exponentially, while telling us they are helping to solve it for our own good. Seems like one big fat lie to me. Why would they continue to rape and pillage this planet with total disregard for their own survival, as well as the survival of the genome? Makes no sense unless....

They are planning on leaving the planet, or they are planning a huge ritualistic human sacrifice to appease their gods, the greatest collective energy vamp in history. These are the only two answers which make any sense at all.

You definitely make some good points here. It is very puzzling and somewhat contradictive of the PTB to be handling the population the way they are. I personally think that many of the plans of the PTB have been foiled, including all of their nukes being rendered inert through the past decades.

Posted by OnyxKnight (here)
41 Bil. is the best stable number. But by that time we need to have a second threshold, preferably without such limitations as local biosphere (like Mars). I'm sorry to keep bringing it up, but its closest and the most feasible.

I'm curious how you come to this number, Onyx? Does this come from a specific study or is this a personal estimate?

Posted by OnyxKnight (here)
If some solutions reach practical use, there wont be any need to wait till there are 40 billion humans here. More ethical, and green suggestions, I made some while back (perhaps it was a different thread that BG made). Such designs should provide enormous territory for not only animal survival, but also repopulation. Old areas will grow back, and deserts should become green again.

I know what you are alluding to. I've been interested in architectural for a while now and have taken the time to hear a lot of differing perspectives on how we can redesign our cities to increase sustainability while fitting more humans on the planet. I have found massive flaws in every single design. TED design talks have many different talks that deal with this exact topic. I've watched most of them but I still think that we are not thinking for the benefit of Earth and all its inhabitants. We need to abandon the notion of human superiority, start considering ourselves an integral part of nature, rather than separate, and design our society in a way that mimics natural systems.

The problems with building upwards, rather than horizontal, lies chiefly with sociological constraints. Yes, we have the materials to build more elaborate structures, but we cannot factor in human behavior in statistical analyses.

I've seen designs of buildings that can support hundreds of levels, contain trees and gardens, and even be fire resistant. In theory, this is indeed a plausible solution to a growing population. But again, the problems revolve around human happiness.

I do not believe anybody when they say that they are truly happy living in a city. Whenever I hear somebody say that they love cities, all that I think is that they have been successfully brainwashed. By living with people in a condensed atmosphere, I observe that people tend to lose all touch with reality.

It's kind of like quicksand. The more humans separate themselves from nature, the more they feel comfortable introducing more and more things that continue to separate them from nature (cars, iPhones, films, plastic toys, etc.). It is a trap that is not easy to get out of.

Like I've mentioned, irregularity is a good thing. Sure, we can make taller and more sustainable buildings, and even plant our own trees to make them seem more "nature-attuned"...but they are still artificial. History has shown that humans have created an artificial reality both in societal structures and in ecosystems.

We have built cities to keep the masses of people focused on materialism. Europeans brought over plants and animals from Europe when they colonized North America, and now North America is riddled with invasive species that dominate the local wildlife. When humans try to alter their reality, only negative things ensue.

If we are going to build sustainable towns for people to live in, we cannot integrate nature into our framework. We need to introduce our framework into nature that mimics natural systems. In other words, I think we need to start over. I think it would be easier to demolish whole cities (after removing people) and to rebuild a more sustainable environment than to reform existing cities.

We need to focus on biomimicry:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=n77BfxnVlyc

[Robin]

I would actually like to hear more input from members about a world-wide mandate to place a child-restriction law in effect.

Here are my thoughts:

I have thought very hard for a long time on the issue of human population. The only real solution that I can come up with that does not involve mass murders (which of course I am against!!) is to come together as humanity, recognize that there is a human overpopulation issue, and decide that a child-restriction law should be considered and implemented.

I know what all of you are thinking: Just what we need, more control! You are just as cruel as the current people running the world for even entertaining the notion! Having children is one's natural unalienable right!

Here are my arguments for such thoughts:

• Yes, I understand that it does mean more control. If I had a preference, it would be for humanity to come together as a whole, master the art of self-governance, and hold one another responsible. Lets take the power away from our governments and implement a child-restriction mandate not necessarily into a law, but as a societal norm. Instead of punishing somebody for having three children, when the mandate is two children maximum, let us self-govern ourselves by subtely shaming those who break the tradition.
  
  Let us slowly implement such an idea for a while until it becomes a societal norm. It really isn't that difficult. We have made far more harmful societal norms than what I am suggesting!
  
  Also, if we continue to have a money system, why not reverse the way we tax families. Instead if giving parents who bear more children more money, why not we tax them for having more children? Just an idea...
• I have more sympathy and empathy for humanity than the average person. It doesn't hurt to at least bring the topic up, lest we pass up what may be a feasible solution.
• Yes, having children is our natural right as citizens of this planet. But extreme times call for extreme measures. As ol' Einsten says, which is often quoted on Avalon:
  "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Believe me, I know that this is a touchy subject...especially for mothers. But what if we were able to implement such a child-restriction mandate for, say, fifty years through self-governance? In fifty years time, the population would be reduced and we could begin rebuilding a better society.

That's my solution, so now you don't have an excuse to call me out for not coming up with any!

As I mentioned in my comment #85, I sincerely think that if we don't take responsibility for our actions, including population number and ecological footprint, then Earth will do it for us. And it won't be pretty...mass extinctions have occured in the past and they can happen again.

[AutumnW]

I don't think I have any more right to have children than my dog has to have pups. Procreating at this point is a privilege.

[Eram]

Posted by OnyxKnight (here)
Because my thoughts on this issue keep being twisted out of context, and things are implied which I never have said ... I'm retiring from this topic and any further discussion. Its not a productive ground.

Enjoy your numbers debate.

Hi OnyxKnight,

I have not seen your words being twisted or placed out of context... ?

To me personally, this discussion is of great value (your input included), since a lot of points of view are presented, which allows for a more balanced understanding about the whole issue.

[Rocky_Shorz]

Posted by SamwiseTheBrave (here)

Posted by Kindred (here)
First off... all this talk about 'overpopulation', is just so much programming by the 'controllers'.

It's getting very tiresome to read the comments of proponents of 'depopulation', as it does Not address, much less, acknowledge what you are truly suggesting... i.e; Mass Murder.

Posted by Rocky_Shorz (here)
actually, this planet going completely green will allow it to grow to 50 billion people...

Posted by skippy (here)
My personal estimate for equilibrium was at 20 billion, but Rocky's 50 billion people must be closer to the truth. Thanks Rocky to put things into perspective.

Hey guys,

I know that this is a frustrating and touchy topic, but please try and see the bigger picture of the human population's influence on planet Earth.

Honestly, I am trying very hard to understand how anybody can say that there is no human overpopulation problem. Those of us who are putting out rational arguments supporting the notion that humans are overpopulated are just as empathetic as you. We are for the most part optimistic, but we are also realistic.

There have been many great arguments put forth on this thread and others, and if you have not taken the time to read through them, then I highly suggest you do so. If you have not looked and seriously thought about my arguments and other members' arguments, then you are just opposing our notion blindly.

I'm starting to think that some of you are arguing for the sake of arguing to pass some time.

Please understand that when looking at human population objectively, from an ecological and sociological perspective, humans are overpopulated.

Even if you provide the argument that there is plenty of space and resources, you must consider human happiness and, most importantly, the comfort of all other Earth denizens.

I for one do not like to live in crowded cities with buildings stacked with food-growing systems. I do not like seeing hundreds of other people walk by me every second of every day. I do not like noise pollution. I do not like buildings and other structures being constructed so close together as to compress the very air that I breathe.

And neither do other organisms. Anybody who does has fallen into the trap that thinking that cities are sustainable and beautiful. They are concentration camps and have purposely been designed this way.

I like open space. I like miles and miles of pristine nature that is not tampered with human interference where I can freely roam and bathe in the natural systems that nature provides. I like breathing fresh air from trees that have grown from a seed placed in the ground by natural forces, not uniformly by man in a crowded city.

I like going outside and seeing Earth that has grown a forest through natural processes. I like irregularity and I like assymetry. Cities that grow forests within buildings are not pleasing to me. It is not natural to me. Humans on this planet focus too much on uniformity. Nature does not form straight, linear structures for a reason. Think about it.

Animals and plants and fungi and everything in between need a lot of space, too. If we create corridors of nature, organisms do not have the space they need to roam for foraging and mating purposes. You must understand this. Different species have different niches. They need a lot of open space that is not crossed with man-made roads or buildings.

If we do not provide this space for humans (like me) and other organisms, then we are limiting the amount of intrinsic happiness that they have. If we continue building, then naturalists like myself will be less and less satisfied with daily living. Other organisms, who also experience emotions in different ways, are not as happy either.

By allowing a lot of open space, we are allowing nature to continue its ecological systems unimpeded. We allow bees to pollinate flowers (including our crops), we allow grizzly bears to find mates through vast stretches of open forest, we allow ants to aerate soil, etc. etc. etc.

Forests that develop through an infinite amount of universal systems are beautiful and sustainable. We cannot even fathom understanding how a pristine forest comes into being...so why should we tamper with it? One system, created by humans, creates a bare, broken, unsustainable form of living.

Please understand this. We cannot continue to produce more humans. We just cannot.

BG has lived a year past the doctors estimates, and wants to share something with the world before passing...

I stepped in to give him hope beyond what he was seeing.

I traveled to other human planets, enormous cities, with woods and crops starting at their edges...

no 20 lane highways, they have mass transit connecting the cities...

I was shown this for understanding, that life on earth isn't hopeless, just way off the path we were meant to be on...

greed ends when the money system collapses, good riddance...

many bankers will die with nothing worth living for, good riddance...

oil is no longer needed in the new world, oilmen will die without a reason to keep going... good riddance

the world will find peace, so soldiers will become a part of us, wars no more... good riddance

crime will drop so cops become public servants, not on a mission to kill before being killed... good riddance

now I'm tired of all the hopelessness, the whiners saying a bunch of us have to die for this planet to continue, as far as I'm concerned you can hop in the controllers group and stuff your heads in the sand like an ostrich...

it is not hopeless, we are the think tank deciding how we are going to move forward, the controllers are watching hoping for someone who can give them answers, so here we have gathered and here, we will give the answers.

we are not just the gifted, we are the beautiful minds connected to the universe.

we can brush the controllers aside in a thought, but I prefer they continue working, but under the new rules we are deciding on for this planet...

right here, right now...

[skippy]

Posted by Rocky_Shorz (here)
..it is not hopeless, we are the think tank deciding how we are going to move forward, the controllers are watching hoping for someone who can give them answers, so here we have gathered and here, we will give the answers.

we are not just the gifted, we are the beautiful minds connected to the universe.

we can brush the controllers aside in a thought, but I prefer they continue working, but under the new rules we are deciding on for this planet...

right here, right now...

So be it!

Posted by dianna (here)
..Human life should always be treated as precious and special. How can there possibly be too many of us?

.. If people are God conscious, there is virtually no limit to the population the earth can comfortably support.

.. If the people are good, then no matter how numerous they are, they will be able to cooperate peacefully and, with the blessings of God, receive ample resources from Mother Earth. On the other hand, even a very limited population of bad character can make the planet into a hell.

No comment..

[Rocky_Shorz]

and Sam, don't take my last post as a slam on you, too many have given up seeing no hope for the future sinking into darkness with no sign of light...

I'm always around to flip on the light when necessary.

the educated and rich are too busy and tired for families larger than 2 kids...

the poor can't afford to do anything but make babies, that will never change and the more kids the more aid they receive. So yes there are many things that can be done. Offering to stop the baby factories while they are on the delivery table is the only answer... No financial aid unless they accept makes it hard to say no, most ladies having a baby never want another creature if you ask when pain is at a peak.

the controllers want to stop white abortions, and stop all with colored skin from ever having another baby...

this world is a mixing bowl of multiple planets races, so their wishes aren't meant to be.

we are being watched over and intervention is happening when necessary

BG talks of a mysterious council that Onyx speaks with personally

so why should we listen to what he is sharing when sitting around guessing makes us feel better?

I gave up a gorgeous 5 bedroom home on a huge spread and moved into a condo, I had grass in my yard, not veggies so it wasn't productive space. We can all comfortably live with less.

but as the world grows it needs to be smarter, not the collision course with disaster we are currently on.

[Gekko]

Posted by Rocky_Shorz (here)
the poor can't afford to do anything but make babies, that will never change and the more kids the more aid they receive. So yes there are many things that can be done. Offering to stop the baby factories while they are on the delivery table is the only answer... No financial aid unless they accept makes it hard to say no, most ladies having a baby never want another creature if you ask when pain is at a peak.

Rocky, as long as CEOs are making hundreds of times as the average worker, this scenario would be misogynistic at best. As you improve conditions for women, birth rates tend to drop naturally as far as I'm aware. Treating women like cattle makes things worse for everyone. Even if such measures are aimed only at the poorest among them (a favored scapegoat), it sends out a subtle but very harmful message to all.

[Rocky_Shorz]

actually that is what I was really thinking, as the world's population becomes more educated, as incomes increase, it is a natural tendency to have smaller families.

some times I take the devil's advocate roll, being a husband, standing with my wife while she was delivering, if some bean counter moron came up trying to force her to sign acceptance of infertility.

I would have slowly peeled her fingers back, wiped the blood off from where her fingernails had sliced through my hands, picked up the bean counter and tossed him out the window...

so no that isn't an answer

free drug stores for stoners...

the only catch is you need to take a 5 year birth control shot to get free drugs...

both males and females...

[Rocky_Shorz]

it's been 3 years since the controllers sent Charles to us to get us thinking about running the world, and what we would do differently...

because we argue all sides of a matter, it divided their group, each wanting a different direction for our future...

we've had time to think, so give me your best shot, and holding hands and singing Kumbaya around the campfire will change nothing so try and keep that to a minimum.

the fact we can make changes to this world with only a thought, is all we need to know.

and Sam...

not everyone was in those huge cities...

nature lovers, get all the nature they want, paid as park rangers, or wild animal care specialist...

your buddy will be Sasquatch...

that's always been their preference...

[OnyxKnight]

@Rocky - Yes, you can sense the 'Charles' presence in topics like these. Funny that you mention it was 3 years ago. Seems like a seed was planted, it grew, and now is blossoming.

[Robin]

Okay guys...seriously? You are starting to make some serious accusations which I can only see deriving from misunderstandings. If you want to continue this overpopulation debate, please read over all of my comments. You are making some bold claims saying that those who advocate the notion of human overpopulation being a problem are being influenced from outside, malevolent sources. This is very upsetting and dissapointing.

If you look through every single comment I made about human overpopulation, not once have I advocated the obliteration of humanity to reduce the population; not once did I say that I dislike the company of humans; not once did I say that it is impossible for humans to live in communities. I have looked at this topic both objectively and subjectively and have offered very valid arguments that are supported by a great detail of evidence:

• Post#6: My suggestion on how to rebuild a new paradigm looking at the Big Picture.
• Post#32: My argument that this issue is due to limited resources more so than limited space.
• Post#35: My argument that Earth-changes and disclosure will directly and indirectly reduce the population whether we like it or not.
• Post #56: My argument that we need more pristine space for organisms to assist humanity in food production and other mutualistic associations.
• Post#77: My supporting commentary with quotes by Aldo Leopold, a brilliant naturalist who was a pioneer in the field of ecology, conservation, and eco-philosophy. Those not familiar with him and his work NEED to research him and his work.
• Post #85: My argument that Earth is a living entity that decides how life will exist and interact on her surface...and causes mass extinctions to self-correct herself into a balanced state.
• Post #122: My argument that true, pure happiness comes from humans enjoying open space and giving open space to organisms that require different niches to prosper.
• Post #142: My argument that our current paradigm of producing artificial living quarters goes against natural living systems and physical laws, and that repairing existing cities to make them more eco-friendly is illogical, unsustainable, and inefficient.

Once more, I am a very empathetic person. I love humans, but I also love every other organism on this planet that deserves to prosper (rather than survive) on this planet. Yes, cities can be built to be sustainable, but not in our current paradigm. This is where we can agree.

I have been duly observing humanity for a while, and thus I have taken a position of open-mindedness. I accept all forum members' arguments, thoughts, and opinions with an open heart and open mind...but this does not mean that I will throw up a white flag when my arguments are bashed needlessly.

I have pondered all arguments equally, and not one single argument advocating NO human overpopulation problem has been convincing enough for me to accept or agree with on some level. Some of you are simply stating that Earth could support 20+ billion people but are not expanding your arguments. It is heresay, and therefore false, if you do not give us valid reasoning for your conclusions or theories.

I have only begun to put out rational arguments to suggest there is a human overpopulation problem and am more than glad to continue. But I only ask to keep accusations and negativity aside. I just want happiness for myself, all of humanity, and all other Earth inhabitants just like most people. The topic being discussed on this thread is what I consider to be the most important topic for humanity to address if we are going to enter an era of peace and prosperity.

I sincerely believe that human overpopulation is the cause for every single problem going on in the world today. Now, this could be because of our illogical and broken paradigm, but it is so nonetheless. If we had a different paradigm, maybe my claim is false, but a whole new paradigm is very far away and cannot be analyzed with mere predictions.

[jookyle]

The idea that the Earth is over populated and that problems are arising because of it are perpetuated by two kinds of people:
1.People who believe bull**** told to them by those in power who like to use overpopulation as a source of misdirection for the real problem.

2.Undereducated dolts who like to hear themselves talk.

The fact of the matter is there is no over population and the problems that are given as a result of overpopulation are the result of a system that creates and utilizes uneven development, exploitation of the "third world", and the profit incentive over the human incentive.


The world currently produces three times more food than it consumes. This food is then disposed of as it can not bring profit. Children in Africa, hell children in New York City, are not starving due to the lack of food in the world, they do so because of a purposeful ill-distribution of resources. The food is there and it is being kept from them because a starving people is much easier to take advantage of and much easier to keep from organizing. It's hard to fight when you don't have the food to give you the energy to walk across the room. Let me repeat this again, the world produces three times the amount of food it consumes yet there are still starving children.

Sustainable recourses aren't used because profit cannot be made from them. And the problem with this is not just one of money but one of control. Free energy, which doesn't need super advanced alien technology, is extremely possible. Both on macro and micro levels. Electric cars and cars that have run on super cell batteries have existed. It has been proven time and time again that the largest cities to the smallest rural areas can be powered by a field of solar panels. Some may then say, well the world is running out of water. Bull****; the world is contaminating drinkable water. You don't have to contaminate water, it's just more profit friendly to do so. Again, there's been tons of studies that have shown that you don't need to. And there is more than enough water to be transported to areas that are suffering from a direct geographical lack of it.

Also, the trend shows that the growth of the human population has actually slowed for the past half-century.

[mosquito]

I'm with you Sam ....

[Shezbeth]

Jookyle, you must know that those in a position to 'do something' cannot do something, and those in a position to "make a change" can enact no change.

The question simply is "Who will fill such ignominious roles if we do not?"?

At least, that is my individual interpretation.

[blufire]

Posted by mariposafe (here)
I'm with you Sam ....

Me too Sam.

[davyj0nes]

Perhaps the aliens can come and save us from ourselves.

[Robin]

Okay. I'm starting to get a bit frustrated. But nonetheless I will try to respond without offending.

Posted by jookyle (here)
The idea that the Earth is over populated and that problems are arising because of it are perpetuated by two kinds of people:
1.People who believe bull**** told to them by those in power who like to use overpopulation as a source of misdirection for the real problem.

2.Undereducated dolts who like to hear themselves talk.

Have you not read over all of the comments written on this thread and others concerning the human population? If not, then you are posting blindly to simply argue for the sake of arguing. If you are going to make these two accusations, then please do so after reading the entire thread.

What you have stated has been stated by others with similar intentions and opinions on this thread many times, though in different words. I have reiterated over and over again that I am approaching this subject with careful deliberation through subjective and objective analysis.

Most of the people in this world who believe that humans are overpopulated are educated, empathetic, open-minded biologists and humanitarians. I am a truth seeker, an educated biologist, and a humanitarian. I am also optimistic and more importantly, realistic.

Posted by jookyle (here)
The fact of the matter is there is no over population and the problems that are given as a result of overpopulation are the result of a system that creates and utilizes uneven development, exploitation of the "third world", and the profit incentive over the human incentive.

You just heavily contradicted yourself here. I agree that our current paradigm is the cause of this population issue, which I previously mentioned, in which case you are agreeing with me that humans are overpopulated.

Posted by jookyle (here)
The world currently produces three times more food than it consumes. This food is then disposed of as it can not bring profit. Children in Africa, hell children in New York City, are not starving due to the lack of food in the world, they do so because of a purposeful ill-distribution of resources. The food is there and it is being kept from them because a starving people is much easier to take advantage of and much easier to keep from organizing. It's hard to fight when you don't have the food to give you the energy to walk across the room. Let me repeat this again, the world produces three times the amount of food it consumes yet there are still starving children.

Sustainable recourses aren't used because profit cannot be made from them. And the problem with this is not just one of money but one of control. Free energy, which doesn't need super advanced alien technology, is extremely possible. Both on macro and micro levels. Electric cars and cars that have run on super cell batteries have existed. It has been proven time and time again that the largest cities to the smallest rural areas can be powered by a field of solar panels. Some may then say, well the world is running out of water. Bull****; the world is contaminating drinkable water. You don't have to contaminate water, it's just more profit friendly to do so. Again, there's been tons of studies that have shown that you don't need to. And there is more than enough water to be transported to areas that are suffering from a direct geographical lack of it.

Also, the trend shows that the growth of the human population has actually slowed for the past half-century.

Though it has slowed down, who is saying that this will continue to be the trend? The way it is going we will not have a viable, sustainable population size for another 100 years. We can't wait this long to go without a massive change in society (for the better). We are in some dire times where we cannot continue to live the way we have been living.

Where do you think this food all comes from? First off, it is GMO food. I'm not saying we can't produce this much organic food, but that organic farming requires a whole shift in a paradigm. This would take a very long time to implement that I can foresee many problems arising before we transition into an only organic food system.

Do you know how much space agriculture takes up? Do you know how many fields of what was once pristine forest has been cut down to fit in crops to feed the present population? Do you eat meat? If you eat meat, then we haven't even factored in the land given purely for meat production, such as cow pastures! Do you even take the time to realize this? Good grief.

Do you not think that the land we use for agriculture was taken greedily by humans, causing the deaths of countless wildlife and the death of sustainable cultures of indigenous peoples? Do you understand this?

Do you realize that fields of solar panels also take up a ton of land, dispelling countless wildlife? Even if you discount the need to have wildlife for aesthetic reasons, we still need native bees to pollinate our crops...which depend on open land to carry out their natural life cycles.

Freshwater is a limited resource. Period.

You, my friend, need to think before you speak. Please do the research before posting such nonsense. Please read the entire thread before spitting out words.

[gripreaper]

I guess many who are following this thread missed this one: Samsara really outlines what its like when populations get too dense and too large.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...e-documentary-

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=S0223nwxCSA