Overpopulation-Dr. Albert A. Bartlett

[trenairio]

This is a lecture by Dr. Bartlett explaining that population growth is unsustainable.

[RMorgan]

This is a really interesting video indeed. I´ve seen it before.

Well, the point is that even with free energy, if we continue to breed like this, there wont be enough resources for us all.

The world´s population has doubled in the last 40 years and now it´s growing at an even faster rate. If it continues to grow like this, it will probably triplicate in the next 30 years and quintuple in the next 50 years.

There simply is no water, food and space for so many people. This is a fact.

I´m totally against depopulation, which means killing people, but we must find some way to prevent people to have so many children.

I´m talking about prevention, not abortion. How are we supposed to do it? I simply don´t know.

Raf.

[Carmen]

Many species, if not all! self regulate. For instance, goldfish only breed to the point that their pond can sustain them. Wolves in the wild, only the alpha male and female breed. The alpha male does not breed with other females. I'm sure there are many other examples. Animals do this by instinct/knowingness. They put on extra fur when the winter is going to be harsh. They know ahead of time. Why do humans not self regulate? We are like a cancer on the face of the earth, out of control and devastating our environment! Is it because we are separated from the instinctive intelligence that guides us in all ways?

[Carmody]

The record shows that we self regulate our population...when the quality of life for the individual, takes place. This seems to take a few generations to set in, mentally and physically. How we would endure such a phase is debatable.

We do have alternative plans taking place, though. GMO corn, for example. Mice fed it, cease to be able to reproduce at the third generation.

[Wind]

Nature will be always be the balancing force. But the so called "elite" have taken the depopulation of human race as their mission. They see it as a necessary evil. They also believe in natural selection, the survival of the fittest. They see this life as a race and they think they're the fittest and the smartest. But they're only mere psychopaths who do not care about human life because they cannot see the bigger picture.

[Maunagarjana]

This is a really interesting video indeed. I´ve seen it before.

Well, the point is that even with free energy, if we continue to breed like this, there wont be enough resources for us all.

The world´s population has doubled in the last 40 years and now it´s growing at an even faster rate. If it continues to grow like this, it will probably triplicate in the next 30 years and quintuple in the next 50 years.

There simply is no water, food and space for so many people. This is a fact.

I´m totally against depopulation, which means killing people, but we must find some way to prevent people to have so many children.

I´m talking about prevention, not abortion. How are we supposed to do it? I simply don´t know.

Raf.

With free energy comes massive water desalination operations. We could green the deserts if they would only let us. Not enough space? Take a look at Google Earth sometime. There's lots of space that could be used that we don't use now. Every time I fly over the western United States I see huge sections of empty land. How many billions of people could the Amazon basin itself support if need be? I've heard figures in the area of 20 billion. Also, we could be way more efficient with the way we design our communities, grow our food and allocate our resources.

[The Truth Is In There]

even without the expected worldwide disasters in 2013 and subsequent natural depopulation we're well on our way to depopulate the earth. most people just haven't realized yet what long-term impact events like fukushima or deepwater horizon have on health and reproduction, to say nothing of the vaccination-craze, chemtrails, fluoride, bromine, exitotoxins, gmo or the estrogen-like compounds in plants (soy, first and foremost) and plastics (bisphenol a, etc.) that disrupt the endocrine system and make you infertile.

make no mistake, the depopulation agenda has already been implemented decades ago. none of the things that later turned out to be unhealthy, even in terms of nutritional recommendations, happened by mistake. it's all part of the plan to make the population sicker, infertile and at the same time make tons of money through prescription drugs and useless/harmful medical treatments.

depopulation is already taking place, most of us just don't know it yet. the official population counts are fake, just like pretty much everything else that comes from "official" sources. the population is dropping since the 90s in most western countries and in those territories where it may still be growing they use vaccines, wars and other means to make sure the depopulation stays on course.

[HaveBlue]

Why not indeed Carmen? I think it is called social welfare. look whos doing all the breeding. Non producing 3rd generation welfare types who believe work is a 4 letter word! Yes, as in 'that' sort of 4 letter word!

[Bo Atkinson]

The "collective societies" (many if not most local or nearby ETs) would seem to agree on all decisions and outcomes unanimously. They would tend to suppress any possibility of creativity and then get locked into highly-regulated and materialistic lives-- Yet highly advanced technological lives which seek to expand by conquest of nearby planets. Rumaging the solar systems to extend their alliances and powers... (It has seemed to me: According to commentators like Marshall Vian Summers, George Kavassilas, George LoBuono)--- However such population expansion of collectives would seem to be mathematically increased in precise increments, based on very fixed, man-to-land ratios.

By contrast humanity seems to be a cosmic experiment with "an individualist society potential"... Potential because it is so difficult to mature an individualist-society, as a unified society... How would individuals unify? This seems to be the question. (I'd love to discuss that at length, in and of itself). Here we are under siege, more or less, paralyzed by more advanced, collectivist, highly technical ET societies-- Yet such collectivist ETs are possibly self-blocked in their spiritual development... Apparently doubtful there is any advantageous potential (for them) in spiritual development beyond the collective mindset -- However plotting a take over of earth through breeding of hybrids-- With some minor interest in acquiring insights to this spirituality which humans do loudly express---Yet they perhaps only see the politicized spirituality (orthodox religions as a means to brainwash). They do not see individualized spiritual attainments. While individual humans have attested unique spiritual experiences.

So, which spiritual experience sheds light on population stability? For a long time i felt that The Urantia Book had a very-noteworthy monologue on this subject. My limited understanding of this is: It had to do with a needed human realization, that breeding needed to be licensed, based on educational achievements (of applicant parents)... That the case of unwanted children is a cosmic crime, committed by shear ignorance, on the part of humanity. That the current state of children breeding children is a hopeless habit which needs a big wake-up call. That many if not most children do become 'unwanted' grown ups-- Proven by the huge discord at every human level. To be seen in broken families, cultural clashes, corporate-clashes and waring nationalism, world wide.

PS-- I tend to lean towards a preference for vast, undeveloped regions of the planet. I do not like the stack and pack concepts for human development. I have no children and feel life has been beautiful, despite the nearly unsurmountable tasks i set for myself. Quests and tasks can provide very meaningful and rich lifestyles for humans. We do not all need to produce children and then find that there are huge limitations in our challenging world. Many parents have found that for themselves and see it repeat for their children. I think that qualitative living needs to be provided before each birth is gestated. I do expect that individualism, is a gift from creation, to mount on a self-styled quest for the ultimate truths.

[RMorgan]

This is a really interesting video indeed. I´ve seen it before.

Well, the point is that even with free energy, if we continue to breed like this, there wont be enough resources for us all.

The world´s population has doubled in the last 40 years and now it´s growing at an even faster rate. If it continues to grow like this, it will probably triplicate in the next 30 years and quintuple in the next 50 years.

There simply is no water, food and space for so many people. This is a fact.

I´m totally against depopulation, which means killing people, but we must find some way to prevent people to have so many children.

I´m talking about prevention, not abortion. How are we supposed to do it? I simply don´t know.

Raf.

With free energy comes massive water desalination operations. We could green the deserts if they would only let us. Not enough space? Take a look at Google Earth sometime. There's lots of space that could be used that we don't use now. Every time I fly over the western United States I see huge sections of empty land. How many billions of people could the Amazon basin itself support if need be? I've heard figures in the area of 20 billion. Also, we could be way more efficient with the way we design our communities, grow our food and allocate our resources.

What are the consequences of taking that huge amount of water from the oceans? What are the consequences for the making all deserts green? What are the consequences of moving a lot of people to Amazon? How much space would be needed to plant crops and basic resources like cotton and wood to supply all this people? How much water would be needed to raise those crops? How to properly process so much excrement? How many new roads would have to be built? How much iron ore and other mineral resources would have to be extracted to supply such a huge demand? How many industries would have to triplicate their size and production? If people continue to eat meat by then, how much space would be needed for livestock? How much water and grains would be required to feed the livestock? How much methane gas the livestock would expel in the atmosphere? What would be the consequences of taking so many fish from the oceans?

There are too many questions without answer.

Remember, we´re talking about 30 years from now, which is not enough to solve all these problems and, since we´re talking about exponential population growth, these problems will also grow exponentially.

Eventually, the world´s population will double every decade, then at every five years, than every year and so on.

By extending our life expectation with modern medicine, we aren´t part of the natural process of balance anymore. Each one of us should assume responsibility and think a thousand times before having more than one child and eventually think about not having children at all.

Raf.

[778 neighbour of some guy]

Isnt the problem over concentration of population rather then over population in its self, how come the planet suddenly became overcrowded when people moved into cities??

I think we shoot to many movies and documentaries in cities, this seems to amplify the problem when actually the case is the rural areas become depopulated. This mass exodus to the cities is exactly playing into the hands of tptw, we are are nice and bunched up on a few square miles and easy to control.

Water, there is plenty of it there cannot be less water then there is, is harvesting the water thats the issue, food, with current day grows systems food can be produced vertically on the same square foot you previously could only harvest what was on that exact spot, even water consumption by crops can be drasticly reduced by organic container gardening.

I see no issues whatso ever, ok one, infrastructure, thats a whole other issue but it can be adressed.

Wasnt it Jim Marrs who said "the entire population of the earth at this moment can be comfortably housed in the state of Texas" .

[RMorgan]

I think you guys are underestimating this problem.

How much trouble do we have right now with consumerism, poverty, inequality, misery, water pollution, etc...

Ideally, an overcrowded world could work but we don´t live in an ideal world. You know it.

Currently we live within a terrible system. What guarantees do we have that this system will ever change, or at least change fast enough to avoid all these problems?

Also, again, I must say we´re dealing with exponential growth. We will need to find a way to stabilize the human population with preventive techniques. This is an undeniable fact.

There´s no way such a huge number of humans could coexist harmonically with the world, its environment and all other species that also have the right to live on this planet.

The world isn´t ours to do whatever we want. It´s completely selfish to think that we can keep having as many children as we want, ignoring the consequences.

Also, we can´t forget that the highest birth rate is among people who don´t have enough resources to properly raise their children. These children are already born into misery.

I don´t know where you guys live, but here in Brazil ( and I live in one of the richest cities of the country), you get used to see 17 years old crack addicted homeless girls with five or more starving children, begging for money at every traffic light.

Each of these five poor children, if they survive, will probably have other five children of their own when they´re 17 years old as well, and so on, like it´s been happening here for a long time.

We have huge favelas that grow at an alarmingly rate, which also increases inequality and criminality.

We´re not talking about middle-class families having a lot of kids. Most middle class families have no more than 2 children, statistically, and it only represents about 7% of the world´s population.

We´re talking about about poor and miserable families, which represent about 89% of the world´s population and each of these families having and average of 4 children, which are condemned to poverty and misery at the moment they are born.

This problem is incredibly more complex than you think. This is not only an environmental problem; it´s the most complex social-political problem humanity ever faced.

I think people who live in the so called "first world" countries should at least try to look to this problem by a broader angle. Have a trip to Africa or to any poor region of any "developing" country, then you´ll know what I´m talking about.

It´s too easy to talk about this subject and come up with utopian solutions when you haven´t seen people living in places like this. This are the places where the population is really growing:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FCbEzGmPwVI/TTnYFUniuEI/AAAAAAAACZo/t_sJ5-TXmxA/s1600/Dique-Vila-Gilda-hg-%2528450x338%2529.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HQ8Obrb2YUw/TwV7quWlW0I/AAAAAAAANAk/C6i3Vsg7DS0/s1600/CRIANA1.jpg

http://stoa.usp.br/narumi/files/3252/18257/crianca.jpg

Now tell me. How to convince people who can barely write their own names, to stop having children and use contraceptive methods? If you have any practical and feasible idea, you just saved the future of the world.

If we don´t find a way to prevent population growth, the people in charge of the system will just choose the "easy" way and just murder a lot of people, to prevent the system from collapsing.

Raf.

[Kindred]

Here's an item I offer in the understanding that our species has not reached the first Syllable of the word 'Civilization'. I encourage reading this in full, as it will provide a wonderful example of how a Truly Civilized society exists and Flourishes with a population Way beyond our current levels. It's our lack of Efficiency in all areas of society, and the outrageous disparities in distribution of the necessities of life that cause our current problems.

We Can Do Better - If We Choose To.

But, First and Foremost, is to get RID of the 'monetary control' aspect, from the top, down, as well as the MIC in ALL it's embodiments.

http://www.galactic.no/rune/iarga.html

In Unity, Peace and Love

[Agape]

I'd fully condone this message as factual and something that needs to be taken to consideration faster than the civilisation train, running already full speed , derails and turns belly up .

Life is precious, our lives and intelligence is all our equipment in the race against time and powers of nature . If mankind can not embrace responsibility for their evolution , it will exhaust not only planetary reserves but its own biological reserves .
Population growth has to be controlled by education , not by meeting the wrong ends of aggression, stress resulting from lack of privacy, poverty, noise, pollution .


Bringing new children to the society should really mean welcoming them to liveable space . Not to the middle of wars threatening them with extinction,
placing them to endless competition - consumption chain where only those who are willing to ignore others have real chance to win .


There are still so many orphan children in this world and those dying in dirt , in poverty , do they have to.

Are they better or worse than your own children , you think ?


If they were given a chance, they would grow to little wise men and ladies , artists, scientists and folks you will never meet because we're losing them on the way .

They might be people with more solutions .


I can't imagine why would intelligent civilisation lose everything if they have a choice .




:high5:

[Delight]

This is a really interesting video indeed. I´ve seen it before.

Well, the point is that even with free energy, if we continue to breed like this, there wont be enough resources for us all.

The world´s population has doubled in the last 40 years and now it´s growing at an even faster rate. If it continues to grow like this, it will probably triplicate in the next 30 years and quintuple in the next 50 years.

There simply is no water, food and space for so many people. This is a fact.

I´m totally against depopulation, which means killing people, but we must find some way to prevent people to have so many children.

I´m talking about prevention, not abortion. How are we supposed to do it? I simply don´t know.

Raf.

I know this is going to be a strange question. It was for me when i first considered it.
HOW do we know that the world IS overpopulated.

In driving through the US this summer, I saw very few people really.
The same source that lies about everything else conducts census.
By the way, in my own life and maybe because of my age, more people in my life are dying than babies being born.

My point here to me is that I never even questioned this "fact" until just recently. Some "facts" like global warming have been seen to waver in the sun like the glare off pavement. And now I question what reeally is the population, how can I check? I cannot physically count everyone.

Sure the cities and exurbs are crowded but even then, who's to really know what the REAL population may be in truth?

[RMorgan]

This is a really interesting video indeed. I´ve seen it before.

Well, the point is that even with free energy, if we continue to breed like this, there wont be enough resources for us all.

The world´s population has doubled in the last 40 years and now it´s growing at an even faster rate. If it continues to grow like this, it will probably triplicate in the next 30 years and quintuple in the next 50 years.

There simply is no water, food and space for so many people. This is a fact.

I´m totally against depopulation, which means killing people, but we must find some way to prevent people to have so many children.

I´m talking about prevention, not abortion. How are we supposed to do it? I simply don´t know.

Raf.

I know this is going to be a strange question. It was for me when i first considered it.
HOW do we know that the world IS overpopulated.

In driving through the US this summer, I saw very few people really.
The same source that lies about everything else conducts census.
By the way, in my own life and maybe because of my age, more people in my life are dying than babies being born.

My point here to me is that I never even questioned this "fact" until just recently. Some "facts" like global warming have been seen to waver in the sun like the glare off pavement. And now I question what reeally is the population, how can I check? I cannot physically count everyone.

Sure the cities and exurbs are crowded but even then, who's to really know what the REAL population may be in truth?


Well, there are several ways to point the population growth.

First, advances in medicine allow people to live longer than ever. Even if the birth rates were a constant, which they are not, if people are born and and people remain alive longer, the population is always growing.

The problem is that, every decade, people are able to live longer and more children are born than the previous one.

Also, just look at the growing production and demand of commodities. Each year, more food is produced, more resources are mined, more homes are built, more cities are expanded, more houses are demolished and replaced by apartment buildings, we have more traffic jams, etc...compared to previous years.

Your question is interesting, but population growth is a fact. Just look at the numbers. How many people used to live in your city ten years ago? How many people live there now? It´s easy for anyone to check it locally. With fewer exceptions, like vast rural areas, every city in the world is growing.

Raf.

[Delight]

Well, there are several ways to point the population growth.

First, advances in medicine allow people to live longer than ever. Even if the birth rates were a constant, which they are not, if people are born and and more people remain alive longer, the population is always growing.

The problem is that, every decade, people are able to live longer and more children are born than the previous one.

Also, just look at the growing production and demand of commodities. Each year, more food is produced, more resources are mined, more homes are built, more cities are expanded, more houses are demolished and replaced by apartment buildings, we have more traffic jams, etc...compared to previous years.

Your question is interesting, but population growth is a fact. Just look at the numbers. How many people used to live in your city ten years ago? How many people live there now? It´s easy for anyone to check it locally. With fewer exceptions, like vast rural areas, every city in the world is growing.
Raf.

I may live in an anomalous area?
In my "community" lots of real estate is empty. This is a rural area and it did have a boom earlier but some basic things like the local gas station closed recently. It had been here since 1988. Yes, it could be the economy but there is no mass transit here. There are lost of stores that used to have retail and I noticed the other day all the storefronts next to a local coffee shop were realtors.

I am very willing to admit I DO NOT KNOW.
Again, HOW DO YOU KNOW the world is gaining population?
Is this from your own experience?

Not intending to beat this concept into the ground but it was such a slap in the face to question this so rock bottom assumption I had to share it.

[RMorgan]

I may live in an anomalous area?
In my "community" lots of real estate is empty. This is a rural area and it did have a boom earlier but some basic things like the local gas station closed recently. It had been here since 1988. Yes, it could be the economy but there is no mass transit here. There are lost of stores that used to have retail and I noticed the other day all the storefronts next to a local coffee shop were realtors.

I am very willing to admit I DO NOT KNOW.
Again, HOW DO YOU KNOW the world is gaining population?
Is this from your own experience?

Not intending to beat this concept into the ground but it was such a slap in the face to question this so rock bottom assumption I had to share it.

Well, at least where I live, there are new neighborhoods being built every year where it used to be just woods.

There are entire neighborhoods which used to have only houses, being demolished to give place to hundreds of 12+ store apartment buildings.

The traffic jams are getting worse every year.

My fiancee has a furniture, decoration and accessories for babies company , which is growing exponentially every year. She´s recently moved her factory to a much larger place.

My father has a building company. He´s never built so much in his life. His company is growing more than ever.

Recently, one of the biggest maternity hospitals in South America was built here.

It´s ok to be suspicious about the government and its numbers, but population growth is pretty much a fact and can be independently verified by a huge number of different sources.

Raf.

[therealslimady]

Please check out this article folks, it may put a slightly diff slant on this thread.
from 2 billion to 7 in 60 odd years does sound crazy.
I too used to worry about there being too many people, I guess I believed all i heard in all these docu's and TV,
on tv! it must be true?

but then i heard you could fit the world population in Texas and there'd be 10m between every man, woman and child.
of course I didnt believe it, so as best i could i worked it out and it's spot on, try it out see for yourself.
it was a while ago now and can't rem exactly how i did it, but when I've got 10min to spare I'll try to rem.

then i heard that in places like china, who have a fair few people, are gonna have big prob's because
most chinese are now male due to the 1 child policy.

and firtility is also taking a dive, in both sexes.

anyway check it out and see what the other side says, then make ur mind up.

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

http://pop.org/projects/debunk-overpopulation-myth

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/26/population-crash-economy-good-planet

[trenairio]

MIT Predicts That World Economy Will Collapse By 2030

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-04/new-research-tracks-40-year-old-prediction-world-economy-will-collapse-2030


Forty years after its initial publication, a study called The Limits to Growth is looking depressingly prescient. Commissioned by an international think tank called the Club of Rome, the 1972 report found that if civilization continued on its path toward increasing consumption, the global economy would collapse by 2030. Population losses would ensue, and things would generally fall apart.
The study was — and remains — nothing if not controversial, with economists doubting its predictions and decrying the notion of imposing limits on economic growth. Australian researcher Graham Turner has examined its assumptions in great detail during the past several years, and apparently his latest research falls in line with the report’s predictions, according to Smithsonian Magazine. The world is on track for disaster, the magazine says.
The study, initially completed at MIT, relied on several computer models of economic trends and estimated that if things didn’t change much, and humans continued to consume natural resources apace, the world would run out at some point. Oil will peak (some argue it has) before dropping down the other side of the bell curve, yet demand for food and services would only continue to rise. Turner says real-world data from 1970 to 2000 tracks with the study’s draconian predictions: “There is a very clear warning bell being rung here. We are not on a sustainable trajectory,” he tells Smithsonian.
Is this impossible to fix? No, according to both Turner and the original study. If governments enact stricter policies and technologies can be improved to reduce our environmental footprint, economic growth doesn’t have to become a market white dwarf, marching toward inevitable implosion. But just how to do that is another thing entirely.

The image below can be found at: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Looking-Back-on-the-Limits-of-Growth.html#
http://media.smithsonianmag.com/images/Futurism-Got-Corn-graph-631-thumb.jpg

[trenairio]

Please check out this article folks, it may put a slightly diff slant on this thread.
from 2 billion to 7 in 60 odd years does sound crazy.
I too used to worry about there being too many people, I guess I believed all i heard in all these docu's and TV,
on tv! it must be true?

but then i heard you could fit the world population in Texas and there'd be 10m between every man, woman and child.
of course I didnt believe it, so as best i could i worked it out and it's spot on, try it out see for yourself.
it was a while ago now and can't rem exactly how i did it, but when I've got 10min to spare I'll try to rem.

then i heard that in places like china, who have a fair few people, are gonna have big prob's because
most chinese are now male due to the 1 child policy.

and firtility is also taking a dive, in both sexes.

anyway check it out and see what the other side says, then make ur mind up.

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

http://pop.org/projects/debunk-overpopulation-myth

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/26/population-crash-economy-good-planet

What Dr. Bartlett and MIT's report disucuss isn't land area, but scarce resources. Scarcity can be abolished, but energy companies don't want us to have free energy. According to the data, the current energy paradigm won't sustain us much longer.

[Marsila]

Thanks to the OP for this topic, and i must say i used to think what a lot of people here are saying before, but not anymore.

Firstly this is source's world not ours, and whatever that energy is, it isn't stupid for sure...over crowding?
Secondly that their are scarce resources is a myth,which they plant in our heads (middle class people) so that we always limit our thinking, and so cant reach our true potential....this goes on so many levels. I quote from this article here (http://www.wfp.org/stories/11-myths-about-global-hunger) on the world food program website:

Myth 1: There isn’t enough food to feed the world.
Reality: There is enough food in the world today for everyone to have the nourishment necessary for a healthy and productive life. There is, however, a need to be more efficient, sustainable, and fair in how we grow and distribute food. This means a) supporting small-scale farmers and b) making sure that food 'safety nets' are in place to protect the most vulnerable people from hunger.

moving on the psychos that be and us the sheep... are the one's that let things go so far (u can't always blame it on the other side...we to need to get the proper facts to stop the damage as soon as possible) a lot of fertile lands are no longer fertile because of this obsession with over producing some crops in the wrongest of ways. check this article (http://www.permacultureproject.com/midwest-drought-threatens-crops-livelihoods-and-food-prices/) about the Midwest drought in the US. Here again i quote part of it, but it is short anyway and a good read.

This picture is askew, tilted toward the industrial machine, the non-food monopoly variety. And what about the drought? How are we to define all of this? And where goes the water? What of the rain that dives headlong into the bottom of the watershed, without the least effort to collect and distribute it where it falls? What of the fructifying rain? A one inch rain event on one acre of land produces 28,000 gallons. One inch. Even in a drought stricken year we certainly get over one inch of rain here in the Midwest. Thousands of acres of tillage, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, diminishing seed stock, depleted soils, 800 horsepower machines tearing it up, squashing it down. Why in hell does it takes some big ass tractor to plant a bunch of itty bitty seeds? Bigger is better? More acreage, more acreage, more acreage! Out a sight, out a mind.

among other reasons is the nuclear waste buried in fertile land in Asia and Africa, and then one wonders how to plant in the desert. there is definitely a mismanagement of resources....and i don't think it is accidental.

I plant a few food plants, and i barely use water as it is out there the so many ways to save on water (and am not talking about window farming, as there are even better ways that don't use electricity at all and make sure no water is gone to waste)

However there is a problem with the lower classes having way too many children, more than the parents can support.
and this happens because the parents do it with the thought of 'this child will start working soon and get money to the household," so sadly in there minds more children more money.

laws against child labor mean nothing to them, and societies end up with a lot of uneducated people, without social tact, who probably view the middle classes without any goodwill, and are an easy instrument for tptb or tptw or whatever to destabilize any society as they are happy to create trouble for the more 'well off' people, even if they are from the same country...and they are "cheap and easy to buy"

Reaching those people is easier by giving them hope, so they understand they don't need a dozen children to survive, and that those children are a better asset when they are well educated, than to tell them they need to stop reproducing as there is too many of them.

The other problem is middle classes seem to be having less and less children, while teenagers from the lower classes or people without any concern for others or life itself, or how they are going to support it, seem to be having more and more children...again who planted that 'watch out what you are doing?' psyche in the middle classes, but not in anyone else.

I understand where people like Rmorgan are coming from to, as i have friends from the same state who were complaining that as kids, there was fish all over the rivers in that part of Brazil....now when they take their children, due to all the construction, there are no fish in the rivers anymore, and they have to import them from Chile, despite the rivers being right there. But construction companies do that on purpose as they get paid much more because of the cost of clearing trees and working along water structures, than they would if they simply went and built things where they don't need to knock things down, or cover seas or other water bodies. this happens all over the world, and is a bigger problem than the over population to be honest.

anyway this is a very complex subject, and there is no scarcity, the answers to it are already there, but it seems all the actions of those in control, are making scarcity a bigger reality than it had been in the past.

oh interesting fact, in the early twentieth century Japan, had a huge population, one of the hugest in their area of the world. Hence all the wars and trying to invade neighboring lands to create space for there people. Come the start of the twenty first century...and the same country has one of the most declining populations in the world. No one can predict anything, and life has a funny way of sorting itself out.

Again thanks for the OP for this subject and thanks everyone for there interesting words about it.
And i ask again if it isn't the middle classes that are targeted with such guilt tripping concepts as over population, rather than the lower classes doing all the 'production'?

[therealslimady]

here's another piece of this very complex puzzle, and another reason we are heading for a population crash.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=26130

[Maia Gabrial]

Sorry, not buying into it, folks. See, while we're all multiplying and being fruitful, we should also be growing more food, not letting what we do have be destroyed. Of course it makes sense that if our foods are being contaminated or destroyed there won't be enough to sustain life.
There's alot of land and oceans on this planet that is not being inhabited or utilized to grow food. All those geniuses can't find ways to support life, but they can find every unimaginable weapon to destroy it. TPTW have shown how unworthy they are to run this planet. Not only are they greedy, but they're malicious, too. I can't believe anyone would buy into this. Why are people with good sense and intelligence not pushing those geniuses into finding better solutions than depopulation? Third worlds are being intentionally starved to death. How long before it's the whole planet? What's sad is how readily people accept this deception and don't prove it wrong.
There are ALWAYS ways to solve problems. It's just that TPTW have an agenda to have it all for themselves and they'll kill everyone to do it....

[Rocky_Shorz]

right now is time for Congress to shut down Ethanol Production, kids are more important to feed than cars...

Over a year since I was told we need to build Vertical farms to feed everyone, and how many have the gazillionaires built?

2

[RMorgan]

The main problem is that overpopulation can´t be treated as an isolated problem.

Poor people from poor countries are the ones who have more children; this is a fact. These children are condemned to live in misery, which is a huge humanitarian problem.

However, middle class families from developed countries, despite having less children, consume around 50 times more than a poor family, which leads to a terrible resources/consumption problem. This is also a fact.

So, basically, one child from a middle class family in the USA, takes as much resources as 50 children from poor families in Africa.

Increasing consumerism of resources is the biggest problem that we must deal with first, than we must find a way to equally distribute all the resources for every person on this planet. Everyone has the right to live comfortably.

Overpopulation is not the real short/medium term issue. The real problem is finding a way to make people stop consuming so much. This is a priority.

If the world had a 20 billion indigenous population, who know how to live in balance with nature, it would be no problem.

Now, if the world had 20 billion people consuming like North-Americans, Japanese and Europeans, then in fact civilization would have come to an end much longer before achieving this 20 billion mark.

Right now, if the 7 billion people on Earth start consuming like people from most "first world" countries, we would need about 20 Earth like planets to supply us with the resources and another 10 Earth like planets just to dump the trash.

So, the solution to most problems of this planet is to dramatically diminish the consumption rate of first world countries and then sustainably distribute all resources to every person in the world, to finally achieve equality.

Tell me how easy it is to fix that? I´m sure that, with our current system, fixing the world is not possible. If the system doesn´t change, the human race is indeed faded to extinction. I have no doubt about that.

This is not a scam. In our current scenario and circumstances, an overcrowded world is fatal.

To summarize, here´s what we have to do now:

1- Change the system for a better one.
2- Dramatically reduce consumerism.
3- Equally distribute resources globally.

The world government wont change its own system, wont reduce consumerism, wont distribute resources equally...So we have a hell of a problem.

Raf.

[Marsila]

The main problem is that overpopulation can´t be treated as an isolated problem.


1- Change the system for a better one.
2- Dramatically reduce consumerism.
3- Equally distribute resources globally.

The world government wont change its own system, wont reduce consumerism, wont distribute resources equally...So we have a hell of a problem.

Raf.

Dramatically reducing consumerism is the real key, and so beautifully put! It is like Uruguay's president Mujica said in the Rio summit, to paraphrase this "need to need stuff, we don't really need....is the problem." and whose creating these 'needy' feelings?

I don't know my best time in the last few years when working abroad was when i was living in a studio with at first nothing but a bed and day bed and desk...and later nothing but the day bed, and the desk, along with the built in closest.
there was something very liberating at not hoarding stuff, and making an excuse to go out to be with nature everyday. Not to mention applying Feng Shui became super easy! now where i am with proper furniture i can't get rid of the 'crowded' feel of the place....

I posted a video yesterday on the books and video section about Ecuadorian indigenous people and wondered what happened that one of them could so easily still say "i'd rather die and get killed defending nature, than let those oil companies destroy it without a fight" while we just 'watch' these things.


Rocky Shorz, it is better those gazillionaires don't get into vertical farming as they'd only do that to destroy it from within to try and 'prove' the solution isn't a solution. Might as well just save our money and do it our selves the second we get a chance to, specially that many of us here already do it in our homes.

but yes again excessive consumerism, is the real thing we should be dealing with. Thanks for the reminder!

[Atlas]

Bump... Albert A. Bartlett: "Population, Arithmetic, and Energy" - Debunking sustainable development


5 million views for an old codger giving a lecture about arithmetic?? What's going on? When I saw this lecture at a conference in 1995, I came out blasted, thinking "This needs to be required listening for every person on the planet. Nothing else will matter if we don't understand this.


F-QA2rkpBSYPb3JI8F9LQQCFyOw9IgtjYyQd-VGYX3-Et-X6EpvWWu8-3y7UlHdhAURyseLQVpJEIVoiiVnQadwE

[Prodigal Son]

This is a load of bull. The globalist mafia has been fed a lie by the archons and they went for it hook line and sinker.

It isn't just free energy technology that is being suppressed. There is also water desalination and many others. How long will it take to run out of drinking water once we can drink the oceans?

There is also the technology to turn the deserts into lush forests and farmland.

On top of that, releasing suppressed technology would also release the Elixir of Life, we would have Light Bodies and we would no longer need food (maybe an occasional broth) and very little water.

There are 57.5 million square miles of land surface on the earth. That means that if we used all of it there would only be 130 people per square mile. I don't find that unsustainable.

The main reason they want to depopulate is that there are simply too many people for them to control.

[sdv]

This is a load of bull. The globalist mafia has been fed a lie by the archons and they went for it hook line and sinker.

It isn't just free energy technology that is being suppressed. There is also water desalination and many others. How long will it take to run out of drinking water once we can drink the oceans?

There is also the technology to turn the deserts into lush forests and farmland.

On top of that, releasing suppressed technology would also release the Elixir of Life, we would have Light Bodies and we would no longer need food (maybe an occasional broth) and very little water.

There are 57.5 million square miles of land surface on the earth. That means that if we used all of it there would only be 130 people per square mile. I don't find that unsustainable.

The main reason they want to depopulate is that there are simply too many people for them to control.

Desalination plants already exist. In Namibia there is a town that gets its water from the sea. Across the bay from me is a town that has a desalination plant. I think the problem is that it is expensive in terms of money, and technologically advanced countries are driven by profit.

Lots of desert that can be converted and there are idealistic young scientific geeks coming up with new ways to do this all the time.

However, in your calculation of amount of land space available and number of people, you seem to have forgotten the animals and plants and trees and rocks and mountains and streams and rivers and insects and birds. Do they not have as much right to be here as humans?

[Atlas]

There is also the technology to turn the deserts into lush forests and farmland.
Do you have more info about this technology?


we would have Light Bodies and we would no longer need food (maybe an occasional broth) and very little water.
are you sure about that?


There are 57.5 million square miles of land surface on the earth. That means that if we used all of it there would only be 130 people per square mile. I don't find that unsustainable.
For now, but what will it be in a few decades?


The main reason they want to depopulate is that there are simply too many people for them to control.
We're not talking about depopulation, it's about preventing over-population, there's a slight difference you need to acknowledge.

[Prodigal Son]

Desalination plants already exist. In Namibia there is a town that gets its water from the sea. Across the bay from me is a town that has a desalination plant. I think the problem is that it is expensive in terms of money, and technologically advanced countries are driven by profit.

Lots of desert that can be converted and there are idealistic young scientific geeks coming up with new ways to do this all the time.

However, in your calculation of amount of land space available and number of people, you seem to have forgotten the animals and plants and trees and rocks and mountains and streams and rivers and insects and birds. Do they not have as much right to be here as humans?

I know that current desalination technology is expensive and uses a lot of energy, but it is my understanding that there is an efficient and easy way to do it that is being suppressed.

AS for the animals and insects, yes you are right, but I was giving in illustration. SO we use half the land and have 260 people per square mile and leave the rest to nature. Still sustainable in my opinion.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

So who wants to be the first to volunteer to off themselves to help out the situation... or their children? I don't see Bill Gates putting his hand up....