The Unspeakable Topic --- Population

[Matt P]

In my opinion, overpopulation is a lie meant to plant fear and doubt into the minds of people and have them accept their own elimination. It boggles the mind that people actually speak positively of how nice it would be if 6 billion or more of us were just wiped from the face of the earth.
Population is not the problem, it's HOW we live that is. I know it is possible to have a technologically advanced...and billions large...society that is also in harmony with the natural world. Many have figured this out, we just haven't taken it to a planetary level yet. We will, though.

Matt

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Jupi7er (here)
Of course destruction isn't so bad, long as it isnt me, right ?

Hi there! Please do restore your severely edited opening post.... this is a very valuable and valid topic. I'd like to read what you have to say.

[Heyoka_11]

Posted by Jupi7er (here)
and him who bends over to smell the rose can be poked in the eye and be blinded and miss the point

Far out! What happened while I was out mending my front fence?

Jupi7er, what I am reading tells me that you are not in your happy place.

As giovonni has already asked, "So what's the point?". Here's the point in my humble opinion: understand that it is totally pointless worrying over situations over which you have no control. In previous posts you appear to have voiced some form of faith in a higher power, so now's the time to exercise it. Your fundamental purpose in this incarnation is to form a relationship with the creative power which is the souce of love itself: this far surpasses the passing woes that we find ourselves surrounded by on a daily basis. Just forget about the world as it is for a while and take some time out for yourself. The universal law of balance dictates that there is just as much that is good at this point in time as there is bad, so start looking for the good, and stop empowering the bad by obsessing over it.

We have all been poked in the eye whilst stopping to smell a rose, so just move on and find a new rose. I know that's easier said than done, but just try!

Your opinion is valued, so please re-instate the material that you have removed.

Truly wishing you a happier day tomorrow,

Tony.

[Citizen No2]

The O/P was in reference to a book called The Limits to Growth about the computer simulation of exponential economic and population growth with finite resource supplies, run by MIT in the early '70's.

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth


All the info that the O/P alluded to can be found here: http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=326


Why the mysterious deletion of the thread by the O/P on the grounds that "he was speaking to people he didn't know"?

Strange that........... given that this is a forum, on a website, on the internet.......... what was I saying in a different thread about critical thinking?



Regards.


P.S. The O/P also stated that he arrived at the same conclusion as MIT when he was aged 16, had run to earlier conclusions aged 14 and had been researching this topic for 44 years.

[giovonni]

Note, i was not privy to all of the deleted post on this thread ...
So perhaps Paul can enlighten us to what was previously posted.

Clarification from Bill: lucidity had posted a totally inappropriate, hateful critique. (Yes, the topic is controversial, and evokes passionate views, but needs and deserves to be discussed with intelligence and respect.) His post was removed, as were a couple of replies that referenced it, and he was unsubscribed for two weeks.

[Bill Ryan]

.
I wrote this here on a similar thread called How to reduce the human population ???, a couple of years ago: (the post is copied)

~~~~~

I read Paul Ehrlich's important red-flag-raising book The Population Bomb way back in the 1970s.



I no longer have the book (does anyone have an electronic copy?) -- but one sentence that has remained with me to this day is this one:

(paraphrased)

Ehrlich showed that by something like 2050 the world's population was projected to be something like 20 billion or more (these figures are from memory). He then wrote:

"As this is clearly impossible, something will happen to prevent it."

He stated explicitly that if humans didn't prevent this from happening through appropriate and workable controls (of some kind), then nature would take its course.

Global population would fall catastrophically through exactly the same means that have always occurred in the natural world: famine, disease, and conflict.

His book has been much criticized, but everything he wrote is still very real to me. I totally agree with many of Ehrlich's conclusions. The problem is how to reduce the world's population without forcibly killing everyone off, directly or otherwise.

Planet Earth simply cannot carry the unnatural load. The natural world is being trashed mercilessly and ruthlessly: it can't go on for much longer. Ecologist James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia Hypothesis, has stated that in his opinion it's already too late, and we are all already past the point of no return.

That claim alone should give us pause for great thought. 'Too late', just as with a human body, means that in Lovelock's opinion, the Earth now has an fatal illness that's no longer curable. And that means that it will die.

Already apparently on the way to that, the oceans and forests are dead or dying, and in the sixth mass extinction since the life began on earth, we're losing hundreds of species every day: tens of thousands a year.

We're all very myopic about this. But the future increasingly looks like it may be something out of a bad Mad Max movie. This is part of what (I think!) this thread is about.

Do read:

The Sixth Extinction
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newf...eldredge2.html

[Citizen No2]

I do not understand the high emotion attached to this topic.

We haves finite space and finite resources and, what seems to me, infinite appetite.

Something needs to 'give'.


I would place myself at the front of the queue of a de-population programme.


Regards.


P.S. Maybe if a payment was offered to the families of people willing to 'check-out', maybe those that were tired, ill, had a good life/bad life, anyone that felt that they were ready to find out if there really is something after this life...... I see it as a logical choice and a personal choice.

[Pam]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

Posted by Jupi7er (here)
...
I could never find any internet links of the M.I.T study till this year ONE appeared.


This MIT computer model study of earth (the first ever in this age) study from 1972 showed that earth's bio-web crashes at 3.1 billion people, invoking a global mass-extinction. The computer model studies included all earth species as integral elements to mutual survival, it took into account how much land is required for all species to survive, and excluded polar regions, mountain tops, desserts, oceans, etc as uninhabitable. The end result was earth's bio-matrix collapses when human population reaches 3.1 billion, this is the point of no return.

...

...Because I've researched this for 44 yrs I will say in adavance Ive heard all the arguements. ...

My guess is that right now, in 2015, no one has an application that could possibly include 1% of all the variables, and access to a cluster of supercomputers to run the application.

I mean, NIST tells me they have a computer simulation model of why concrete and steel WTC Building #7 was standing one moment and on the ground 6.5 seconds later "due to office fire."

I know MIT is prestigious and all, but why are you convinced that they even knew what all the variables were/are?

And, I have to say, if I find myself in a liferaft that holds 10 and there are 20 people in it with me, my first thought isn't going to be who's going overboard, but rather, how are we going to make the seemingly impossible work?

Did the MIT algorithm take into account US "American"-sized portions of food, and critically, was it the 1972 American "big ol' slab o' meat" for dinner type of diet, or a vegan diet? You think that wouldn't drastically alter the outcome? How much room does each human get? What if I need more room (do we up the production of soylent green?) What energy source is used in the computer model, and how would the outcome change (and change drastically) if the energy source changes from carbon/fossil to [_________] <---(solar, geothermal, "zero-point", ...) Vertical, aquaponic, and hydroponic farming techniques were too new in 1972 to have a meaningful specified parameter for the algorithm. Whatever was the answer to "how much protein, carbohydrate, and fat be grown on 1 acre, in 1 year?", it isn't the same answer as in 2015. There is no reason that every new home couldn't be built with an integrated vertical garden (and older homes retrofitted.) Now how many acres of farmland/pounds of food from outdoor fields do we need?

The outcome of planetary life, human and non-human, over time, is a problem with way, way, WAY too many variables to ever design a computer program to predict.

To me, the bottom line on this is that you probably do sincerely believe the planet can only hold 3 billion people, because you believe that 1972 study. It's true, "we" are killing-off species at a terrifying rate and polluting ourselves to death - so how does the MIT computer model change when global capitalism is stopped? Most of the environmental destruction is not necessary for survival, and not even necessary for living with some (moderate) "modern conveniences." So the rate of destruction is dependent on corporate greed, to a great extent.

The Rodale Institute did a very large, very long study and concluded that organic farming can produce the same number of pounds of food as "toxin-based" farming, from an equally-sized field. Other than some brazen lies by Monsanto, Syngenta, and their ilk, printed on prospective investor propaganda, GMO crops do not produce more food per acre than non-GMO crops - so your inclusion of the "need" for GMO is (as of this writing) wrong. Unless you are really speaking about tools of slow genocide. Is that really what you mean? Is it a hyperbolic statement, or do you really want "breeders" to have their lives deliberately shortened by forcing them to eat GMOs and pesticides?

Thank you for this wonderful post, Dennis. This is the kind of thinking that keeps me coming back to PA. We need to be able to critically assess all information we receive and you have provided a great example of how to do that.

[Pam]

.


P.S. Maybe if a payment was offered to the families of people willing to 'check-out', maybe those that were tired, ill, had a good life/bad life, anyone that felt that they were ready to find out if there really is something after this life...... I see it as a logical choice and a personal choice.[/QUOTE]




Author Kurt Vonegut coined the phrase "ethical suicide parlors". In his books, you were allowed a free meal at a Howard Johnson's and off you went to be pleasantly erased from existence. I always felt there was some merit in this concept. It is so much better then sloppy suicide attempts and lives of quiet desperation. If one no longer has a desire to live, why consume space and resources?

[Citizen No2]

A very successful hotelier I knew did just that, with dignity and his wife by his side, in pleasant surroundings. He was becoming gravely ill and losing his motor functions, mind still pin sharp, and decided that it was time to go.

What is wrong with that?


Regards.

[Hawkwind]

We've collectively been over this topic several times now. So, I'm just going to go from memory rather than investing a lot of time (again) tracking down source documents. In 2010 the UN published their estimates of global population up to 2100, based on the best models they have available. Recognizing the large number of unknowns the report presented three projections, high (considered the worst possible scenario) of nearly 16 billion and rising, middle (considered the most probable scenario) of a little over 10 billion and relatively stable, and low (considered the best possible scenario) of about 6.25 billion and falling. The report also mentioned a fourth scenario which simply took the average growth rate at the time and projected it 90 years into the future. The result of that projection, if memory serves, was something over 60 billion, which the writers simply dismissed as a real possibility. My point is, regardless of how accurately we can or cannot model population growth, there of necessity exists a limit to what the planet can sustain. My own opinion, after having examined the best evidence I have available, is that we are either rapidly approaching or have already exceeded that limit.

There also exists a far more conservative limit to the number of humans which can exist in harmonious balance with all other life on the planet, and that number has unquestionably already been exceeded. As Dennis pointed out, there are way to many factors in that equation to model, and even if that were possible, the criteria being evaluated are largely subjective. We can, however, compare (for example) Native American populations and lifestyles prior to the arrival of Europeans and modern American populations and lifestyles. I believe a general consensus can be reached that the former was far more in harmony with the environment than the later, and that population density at least plays a large part in that determination. The best estimates I'm aware of put that population at about 100 million for the Americas North and South, and current population at about 972 million. Extrapolated world-wide, that would represent a global population of about 740 million as compared to the actual number of over 7.2 billion. So, if the objective is to live in harmony with the rest of life on the planet, I submit stabilizing and then reducing the global population is at least a necessary part of a solution.

As Bill pointed out some time ago, the only karmically correct means to achieve that is through voluntarily reducing the birth rate. My best guess is that every possible effort is already being made by the powers that be to promote exactly that. My best guess is also that they have decided that these measures were insufficient to accomplish their goals within the required timeframe, and are taking other actions as well. I'm certainly not condoning it, but I have come to view it as an unfortunate and relatively heartless decision rather than an entirely evil one.

To use the analogy Dennis presented, if you find yourself along with 20 other people in a lifeboat meant for 10, the most appropriate course of action is to look for ways to make a seemingly impossible situation work. There may, however, arrive a point when it becomes clear that there simply are no courses of action available in which all 21 people will survive, and what then?

[tessfreq]

The population conversation is a land-mine for sure. Mostly due to the answers we come up with, don’t feel good. Deciding who stays and goes? This is not something we can do. So, to me, that means this is not the answer, it goes against our ‘nature’.

I truly believe in the conversation, though. And here where we don’t know anyone, basically, we are allowed to flesh out our ideas and research and see what a collective can come up with or add. I know I can’t think of everything.

We do the math and see we are not sustainable at these levels of increase. They’ve increased over time and maybe the answer is to decrease over time. Are we really at the 11:59:59th hour? Or can we handle this without fear?

Oddly, I felt relief from the words ‘too late’, it released the needing to do something right now, when I really CAN’T do anything right now to solve this major issue. It made me feel like ‘whew, that’s over, ok now lets really solve the problem.

Whenever I see this topic talked or written about I see major fear involved, rightfully so, of course. But, I really don’t think we will find the solution from that stance.

[GlassSteagallfan]

According to a July 26, 2015 interview with Dane Wigington:

The climate engineering issue is the most significant environmental factor on the planet at this time.

'We are in the sixth extinction cycle right now'

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=y41eF0-PtdI

[Hazelfern]

Posted by giovonni (here)
Note, i was not privy to all of the deleted post on this thread ...
So perhaps Paul can enlighten us to what was previously posted.

Clarification from Bill: lucidity had posted a totally inappropriate, hateful critique. (Yes, the topic is controversial, and evokes passionate views, but needs and deserves to be discussed with intelligence and respect.) His post was removed, as were a couple of replies that referenced it, and he was unsubscribed for two weeks.

I was following this from the beginning and I need to ask, why was he unsubscribed for 2 weeks?

I may have missed a post or two but I thought his OP was very thought provoking. Was a line crossed? >>>>BTT<<<<

[Sierra]

Posted by Nonin (here)

Posted by giovonni (here)
Note, i was not privy to all of the deleted post on this thread ...
So perhaps Paul can enlighten us to what was previously posted.

Clarification from Bill: lucidity had posted a totally inappropriate, hateful critique. (Yes, the topic is controversial, and evokes passionate views, but needs and deserves to be discussed with intelligence and respect.) His post was removed, as were a couple of replies that referenced it, and he was unsubscribed for two weeks.

I was following this from the beginning and I need to ask, why was he unsubscribed for 2 weeks?

I may have missed a post or two but I thought his OP was very thought provoking. Was a line crossed? >>>>BTT<<<<

Hi Nonin,

Jupi7er is the OP of this thread, not Lucidity. Lucidity was sent on vacation for insulting Jupi7er, and Heyokah_11. He was sent on a two week vacation, instead of one week, because the mod team has previously asked him to quit insulting members to no effect.

Jupi7er has erased his own posts.

[Selkie]

I don't buy into the over-population idea. I trust the earth to know what is "too many", and to take corrective measures if and when it pleases Her. In the natural world, that's always how it is...populations rise, and then fall when they exceed their carrying capacity. We are not exempt.

p.s. Populations naturally limit themselves when they feel materially secure enough to do so. In other words, the more materially secure they feel, the fewer children they feel like they need to have, although there is generally a 50-year (two generation) lag time.

[Innocent Warrior]

If our population was surpassing our knowledge and technology, then fair enough, but that's not the case. We're polluting and damaging the planet and have limited resources because of greed, because of corporations running countries, because knowledge and technology is being withheld from us.

We are already too controlled, controlled by greedy psychopaths. The solution to these problems has nothing to with anything about controlling humanity. Control is what landed us in this mess.

You want population control? Here's an idea, how about all the elites hop into their space ships and go to Mars or wherever, and never come back...problem solved.

[awakeningmom]

Posted by tessfreq (here)
The population conversation is a land-mine for sure. Mostly due to the answers we come up with, don’t feel good. Deciding who stays and goes? This is not something we can do. So, to me, that means this is not the answer, it goes against our ‘nature’.

I truly believe in the conversation, though. And here where we don’t know anyone, basically, we are allowed to flesh out our ideas and research and see what a collective can come up with or add. I know I can’t think of everything.

We do the math and see we are not sustainable at these levels of increase. They’ve increased over time and maybe the answer is to decrease over time. Are we really at the 11:59:59th hour? Or can we handle this without fear?

Oddly, I felt relief from the words ‘too late’, it released the needing to do something right now, when I really CAN’T do anything right now to solve this major issue. It made me feel like ‘whew, that’s over, ok now lets really solve the problem.

Whenever I see this topic talked or written about I see major fear involved, rightfully so, of course. But, I really don’t think we will find the solution from that stance.

I think the fear and anger over this topic stems, in large part, from the belief that someone else is making all of the decisions on who stays and who goes for the rest of humanity. And since many of us believe that these decision-makers represent the very worst of humanity - i.e., those who have been trying to kill off large populations by toxic stealth (vaccines, GMO's, chemtrails) -- and who have never included themselves or their families in the "must go" pile, it's obvious why solution-seeking conversations are so hard to come by on this topic.

[Bubu]

The more the merrier

[Heyoka_11]

Posted by Citizen No2 (here)
P.S. Maybe if a payment was offered to the families of people willing to 'check-out', maybe those that were tired, ill, had a good life/bad life, anyone that felt that they were ready to find out if there really is something after this life...... I see it as a logical choice and a personal choice.

G'day Citizen No2,

Well that's certainly a thought provoking suggestion, but please allow me to disagree with it to some extent.

Here in Australia, the subject of voluntary euthenasia for the terminally ill, or those living with incureable, chronic pain, will occasionally find its way into the media, and immediately opinions are polarised. Those who can empathise with the terminally ill's suffering are more prone to see the benefit to the individual in being allowed to end their lives. As heartbreaking as it may be for their families, they too would be, I hope, better able to handle such a decision, as who wishes to see someone that they love suffer during their final days. As the saying goes, "You wouldn't let a dog suffer, would you?". Then there are those who simply cannot or will not entertain any such notion, and I shall use a broad brush stroke here and suggest that at the heart of their objection is a lack of appreciation of the interconnected nature of birth, life, and death (and re-birth if you believe in reincarnation as I do). Here's the thing though: whilst not necessarily voluntary in nature, euthenasia is already practiced worldwide in the form of paliative care, where for those who are drawing close to taking their last breath, are in pain and perhaps incoherent, morphine is administered at an increasing rate until the body simply shuts down. This is how my Mother's life ended over eight years ago, and I was glad that paliative care was available to end her suffering.

Now some of the reasons that you have suggested for choosing to "check-out" include being tired: I am assuming there here you mean tired of life. We all get tired of life now and then, and this is where we learn that we are not an island, and should turn to others for support, who's lives are enrichened by being given the opportunity to assist. Can you imagine having a family member, someone that you love dearly, get tired of life and choose to check out? You have suggested that it a personal choice, but I suggest that in many instances it would be a selfish choice that would wreak devestation upon others.

The next reason to check-out you have suggested is illness, which if terminal, I have already written about above. If the illness is not terminal then this involves shades of grey. If the illness involves incurable, chronic pain, that turns each and every day into endless misery, and all avenues of treatment have been exhausted, then it is definitely a personal choice, and one which, as in the case of the terminally ill, the family should be able to come to terms with: back to the dog. If the illness did not involve chronic pain, was not terminal, but simply made life less pleasureable, then I cannot make any form of judgement. Each case would have to be evaluated on its own merit.

Next is having had a good/bad life, and here I have a problem. "Well, I've had a good life, and now it's time to check-out". Sorry, this makes no sense to me at all. If you have a good life, then continiue to see it through to it's natural conclusion, as nature intended you to. Once again, it is not a personal choice as others will suffer. Now to a bad life: "Well, my life has been one crap experience, and now it's time to check-out". This is commonly refered to as suicide, and there are many who have come to this point in their lives, only to have their lives turned around. If the check-out clinic was just around the corner, i.e. it was made all to easy, then too many lives would needlessly be lost, especially youth, as what teenager's life hasn't turned to crap at some stage? But wait, would there be an age limit that one would have to reach prior to being given the right to check-out? Sounds like Logan's Run in reverse. Again, others will doubtlessly suffer. I consider that, in the majority of cases, this would be a selfish choice as well, not a personal one.

Lastly you suggest that simply wishing to "find out if there really is something after this life" as justification to check-out if one should so choose. I shall simply bundle this in with "having had a bad life" and call it suicide. Once again, others will suffer. Ending your life to satisfy your curiosity as to what may come next is totally illogical, and not a personal choice.

You started your post suggesting that a payment could be offered to the family of the individual who decides to check-out. Sorry, but I find that thought abhorent: what price on a human life? I for one would not wish to live in a dystopian society where such payments were made as a means of population control. I think that I would simply go and find my cave!

I appreciate and respect both your post and your views, and I hope that you are able to respect my right to disagree where I feel the need to do so.

All the Best,

Tony