How to reduce the human population ???

[Bright Garlick]

This is a question for those who really understand the human population problem - who see the widest possible perspectives. So please don't respond if you want to trump the "population problem is a myth argument" or say it's wrong to talk about the issue or create solutions. I understand that many people feel that way. People get so upset about this issue of population reduction, because they only interpret it through the lens of killing the masses but there are other ways. It's because so many people get so upset, that this stuff is decided in secret. It is almost impossible to have an open discussion about the subject in public but I have faith that it might be a little different here. Might ?

So, to all those thinkers and feelers who can imagine. How can we reduce the human population and how might these solutions unfold ? What methods are available and what methods might be considered most ethically sound ?

To those who are upset about the subject, please consider that this is an issue that countless alien races have had to deal with at some point in their evolution. If they found a way to live in a more harmonious way with their planet, with fewer numbers, so can we. If if we don't, we will create countless more problems for ourselves.

I shall primarily play the role of an observer in any discussion that takes place.
(As will those with a vested interest in the subject !!!)

May you all be happy and well and be a light unto yourselves !

Bright. :popcorn:

[mosquito]

You are a brave man Bright !

My own initial thoughts: This can only be achieved through consciousness, choosing not to have too many children, choosing not to plunder the Earth, choosing not to kill vast quantities of animals just to survive, choosing to live in harmony, choosing to build sustainable communities.

NOT by coercion. Or genocide.

[Milneman]

Or, would it perhaps be better to ask, how will the Earth reduce our population?

Wise friend who passed a long while ago, Joseph "Bearwalker" Wilson used to say the world will go on with or without us. It is not the earth that is dependant upon us, it is we who are dependant on it.

[Tesseract]

It has been known for some time that the more highly educated women are, the less children they tend to have. Investment in education (a good thing anyway) may also help solve the population problem. I added a link to a pdf to get people started who want to read about this. This is surely one of the most ethically sound options available.

http://www.prb.org/pdf/IsEducat-Contracept_Eng.pdf

[transiten]

It has been known for some time that the more highly educated women are, the less children they tend to have. Investment in education (a good thing anyway) may also help solve the population problem. I added a link to a pdf to get people started who want to read about this. This is surely one of the most ethically sound options available.

http://www.prb.org/pdf/IsEducat-Contracept_Eng.pdf

For sure the suppression of the feminine is the core problem and the restoration of the balance between feminine and masculine within each and everyone is the only solution. "Reclaiming the Feminine Christ" an interesting perspective by mystic scholar Mirabai Starr.

[Robin]

I'm actually really glad that you posed this debate, Mr. Garlick. I saw your other thread about the Georgia Guidestones, but I hesitated to comment. But this thread gives me more incentive.

I find that it is the natural habit of people to take a situation or a document, analyze it, and dwell on the negative aspects. I see it all of the time: film reviews; song reviews; book reviews; whistleblower testimonial; conspiracy theories.

Instead of us focusing on the negative aspects of things, why can't we just focus on all the good that is going on in the world? Most of the Avalon members bash folk like Fulford, Wilcock, and others (understandably!), but why can we not disregard useless information and glean what positive aspects we can from them? If something has a kernel of truth, or has a slight possibility of doing some good for humanity, then isn't it worth some consideration?

In Kerry Cassidy's interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCRzjXN9Fe8)of Bill, Bill says something that I agree with. Starting at about 10:15, when talking about Project Serpo, Bill states:


And the question you asked me was: am I an advocate of the story? And my answer to that, as best I recall, was that no I am not an advocate of the story. I never have been. I am an advocate of people willing to suspend their disbelief to consider whether or not the story may have merit. And, a lot of people have been crying foul saying that this story is disinformation. And, of course it's disinformation! I've said that months and months and months ago. Um, and what disinformation means is that it means that some of it is true and some of it is false. Just suppose there is some truth in this story. Isn't it worthwhile taking a look to see what might be true?

Alas! We do not know who made the Georgia Guidestones. Obviously, the etched goal that receives the most attention and criticism is the one on population reduction. Again, people automatically assume the worst that whoever wrote it is bent on setting off nukes to decimate the population. Even if this is the intention of its builder, I think that planet Earth is overpopulated and will be a serious problem in the future if not maintained.

The Guidestones are very realistic, sustainable goals that humanity would really benefit from. So now the question posed is: what is a sustainable solution to population control? Once the Illumi-parasites (Illuminasites? ;)) are removed and all is well in the world, how can we come together as one humanity and solve this issue?

First, we need to agree that this is an issue. I've seen it posted on here that we can fit everybody on the planet in Texas rather comfortably, which may be true to an extent. But I see many problems with that. Some people on the forum choose to believe Chris Thomas's assertion that population statistics have been manipulated and that the true Earth population is around 4 billion. This could also be true, but that is still too large of a number for planet Earth, in my opinion.

My solution: dismantle cities and recognize the realistic nature of them being unsustainable, corrupt, filthy concentration camps that harbor the worst qualities of humans that choose to dwell in them. I know this is offending, but it is the truth. Those who live out in the country are naturally more caring individuals to their neighbors both human and animal. I know many members on Avalon are upset at me saying this, but it is clear that you are all exceptions given your participation in truth seeking.

After recognizing that we seriously need to change our societal structure, we must find a way to acclimate those urbanites back to nature. I firmly believe that small, close-knit communities are the communities of the future (Michael St. Clair, whom was interviewed a couple times on Camelot, agrees). We need to have small communities that grow their own food while participating in healthy activities. Every community needs to have huge buffer zones as to allow wildlife to flourish. Money will be eliminated and communities will resort to barter and trade.

What I am saying sounds like a pipe-dream, but it is feasible and something we need to strive for. Factory farms are not sustainable and take up too much land and resources. What I propose (for a start!) is to move all the city-dwellers on all of the agricultural land, start forming small communities by growing their own food organically. As part of our new way of living, humanity will devote the rest of its time into restoration and conservation. We will replant the forests of the future while integrating ourselves into small, sustainable communities.

Think of how much space in the Midwestern United States is used only for agriculture production! There is more than enough space to move everybody in the Midwest who live in urban areas onto the land and grow their own food in small pockets of land. Think about it...

We also need to recognize that raising cows and other animals for meat consumption is not sustainable (even if just for milk). They take up too much land and cause too many health risks. Humanity needs to start thinking about going vegan...

With the help of free energy, the process of this re-integration onto the land will be made so much easier. The process of reducing the population will be a lengthy one, but it does not have to be through the use of nukes, as most people often think about when they hear the word "population-reduction."

My comment thus far has touched on my vision of "utopia" and seems to lack a viable solution. I honestly see no other real solution than to place a world-wide child-restriction law. I hate to say it, but I am open to more ideas! I only see the child-restriction law being in effect for a small time period...just enough to give people time to acknowledge that they need to take more responsibility for their actions for the betterment of humanity as a whole.

Perhaps going back to growing our own organic food in small communities would naturally cause a steady decline in the population? I think it is possible. We need to find a way to merge 18th century values and 21st century technology.

:peace:

[Carmody]

population, or child bearing, in mammals, generally increases under stressful conditions. Conditions of comfort and stability led to smaller families. As long as we are stressed, in those stressed areas, we will have population problems.

Education, as well.

To not have a ruling elite who wish to depopulate and to not have a ruling elite who wish to make use be worker animals, or ignorant breeders.

Every time I think that the median intellectual level is an iq of 100, it practically makes me weep. (it has to be 100, by definition, it cannot change, it is a median value)

To me, in order to understand the problem and the solutions, to have that as a complex situation..presented to an IQ of 100, well, I'm not sure that much of the message can get through.

[turiya]

Or, would it perhaps be better to ask, how will the Earth reduce our population?

Wise friend who passed a long while ago, Joseph "Bearwalker" Wilson used to say the world will go on with or without us. It is not the earth that is dependant upon us, it is we who are dependant on it.
Couldn't agree more with Milneman. And Mother Earth is already dealing with the so-called "problem".



About That Overpopulation Problem (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html)

Research suggests we may actually face a declining world population in the coming years.
By Jeff Wise

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/130108_FUT_BabiesNursery.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg


The world’s seemingly relentless march toward overpopulation achieved a notable milestone in 2012: Somewhere on the planet, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the 7 billionth living person came into existence (http://blogs.census.gov/2011/10/31/the-world-population-at-7-billion/).

Lucky No. 7,000,000,000 probably celebrated his or her birthday sometime in March and added to a population that’s already stressing the planet’s limited supplies of food, energy, and clean water (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/04/heat_resistant_seeds_ecological_agriculture_growing_food_after_climate_change_.html). Should this trend continue, as the Los Angeles Times noted in a five-part series (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/04/heat_resistant_seeds_ecological_agriculture_growing_food_after_climate_change_.html) marking the occasion, by midcentury, “living conditions are likely to be bleak for much of humanity.”

A somewhat more arcane milestone, meanwhile, generated no media coverage at all: It took humankind 13 years to add its 7 billionth. That’s longer than the 12 years it took to add the 6 billionth—the first time in human history that interval had grown. (The 2 billionth, 3 billionth, 4 billionth, and 5 billionth took 123, 33, 14, and 13 years, respectively.) In other words, the rate of global population growth has slowed. And it’s expected to keep slowing. Indeed, according to experts’ best estimates, the total population of Earth will stop growing within the lifespan of people alive today.
Advertisement

And then it will fall.

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

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

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

Moreover, the poor, highly fertile countries that once churned out immigrants by the boatload are now experiencing birthrate declines of their own. From 1960 to 2009, Mexico’s fertility rate tumbled (http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/26/opinion/passel-cohn-mexican-immigration/index.html) from 7.3 live births per woman to 2.4, India’s dropped (http://www.un.org/Depts/escap/pop/journal/v10n4dn.htm) from six to 2.5, and Brazil’s fell (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-12-29/world/35286762_1_fertility-rate-demographic-shift-silva) from 6.15 to 1.9. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, where the average birthrate remains a relatively blistering 4.66, fertility is projected to fall below replacement level (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html) by the 2070s. This change in developing countries will affect not only the U.S. population, of course, but eventually the world’s.

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

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

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

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

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

It’s far from certain that any of this will come to pass. IIASA’s numbers are based on probabilistic projections, meaning that demographers try to identify the key factors affecting population growth and then try to assess the likelihood that each will occur. The several layers of guesswork magnify potential errors. “We simply don’t know for sure what will be the population size at a certain time in the future,” demographer Wolfgang Lutz told IIASA conference-goers earlier this year. “There are huge uncertainties involved.” Still, it’s worth discussing, because focusing too single-mindedly on the problem of overpopulation could have disastrous consequences—see China’s one-child policy.

One of the most contentious issues is the question of whether birthrates in developed countries will remain low. The United Nation’s most recent forecast (http://esa.un.org/wpp/Other-Information/faq.htm#q6), released in 2010, assumes that low-fertility countries will eventually revert to a birthrate of around 2.0. In that scenario, the world population tops out at about 10 billion (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jun/14/global-population-10-billion-worry) and stays there. But there’s no reason to believe that that birthrates will behave in that way—no one has every observed an inherent human tendency to have a nice, arithmetically stable 2.1 children per couple. On the contrary, people either tend to have an enormous number of kids (as they did throughout most of human history and still do in the most impoverished, war-torn parts of Africa) or far too few. We know how to dampen excessive population growth—just educate girls. The other problem has proved much more intractable: No one’s figured out how to boost fertility in countries where it has imploded. Singapore has been encouraging parenthood (http://www.forbes.com/sites/currentevents/2012/10/16/warning-bell-for-developed-countries-declining-birth-rates/) for nearly 30 years, with cash incentives of up to $18,000 per child. Its birthrate? A gasping-for-air 1.2. When Sweden started offering parents generous support (http://www.nkmr.org/sv/), the birthrate soared but then fell back again, and after years of fluctuating, it now stands at 1.9 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rawdata_2127.txt)—very high for Europe but still below replacement level.

The reason for the implacability of demographic transition can be expressed in one word: education. One of the first things that countries do when they start to develop is educate their young people, including girls. That dramatically improves the size and quality of the workforce. But it also introduces an opportunity cost for having babies. “Women with more schooling tend to have fewer children,” says William Butz, a senior research scholar at IIASA.

In developed countries, childrearing has become a lifestyle option tailored to each couple’s preferences. Maximizing fertility is rarely a priority. My wife and I are a case in point. I’m 46, she’s 39, and we have two toddlers. We waited about as long to have kids as we feasibly could because we were invested in building our careers and, frankly, enjoying all the experiences that those careers let us have. If wanted to pop out another ankle-biter right now, our ageing bodies might just allow us to do so. But we have no intention of trying. As much as we adore our little guys, they’re a lot of work and frighteningly expensive. Most of our friends have just one or two kids, too, and like us they regard the prospect of having three or four kids the way most people look at ultramarathoning or transoceanic sailing—admirable pursuits, but only for the very committed.

That attitude could do for Homo sapiens what that giant asteroid did for the dinosaurs. If humanity is going to sustain itself, then the number of couples deciding to have three or four kids will consistently have to exceed the number opting to raise one or zero. The 2.0 that my wife and I have settled for is a decent effort, but we’re not quite pulling our weight. Are we being selfish? Or merely rational? Our decision is one that I’m sure future generations will judge us on. Assuming there are any.

posted by turiya :cool:

[Milneman]

SamwiseTheBrave said some really neat things, and then I jumped up and down and said:

FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT! BROADACRE CITY!

[ROMANWKT]

23869 We don't have to worry about that any more, its being taken care off and accelerating every day since 1945.

roman

[Hawkwind]

This is a question for those who really understand the human population problem - who see the widest possible perspectives.

Well, for starts, if I limit the definition of what is by labeling it a problem, I’m not adopting the widest possible perspective. If- as David Icke has said- the true nature of each of us is infinite consciousness, in which exits everything that is, ever was and ever will be- then (from the widest possible perspective) there are no problems. There are only different perspectives from which consciousness experiences itself.

From the perspective of my current incarnation within the physical/temporal reality of planet Earth, however, yes- there are definitely too many kids playing in the sandbox (and quite a few of them seem to be neither potty trained nor wearing diapers). Solutions? Continue to cultivate my own spiritual growth and help others do the same. That alone will almost certainly not be enough to bring human population numbers to sustainable levels prior to a catastrophic collapse of the global eco-system, but it’s as far as I’m currently willing to go.

I’ve also stopped pushing quite so hard to “get the truth out”. I try as best I can to discern what the truth is and I pass along my current understanding of what’s happening on the planet to anyone who’s open to such info. It seems, however, that the majority of people on the planet flat out want to be led blindly to the slaughter house. Perhaps that will change, perhaps it won’t. In either case, it seems to me, my part is to live each moment as impeccably as I can from my current state of awareness.

[norman]

Has anyone else here noticed that global economic growth and global population growth seem to be linked in some way?

[araucaria]

If you want to increase growth on a tree, you prune it hard. If you want to reduce growth on just one side, you prune the other side hard. Similarly, if you want to decrease the human population, you avoid wars. Wars kill a lot of people, but like heavily pruned trees, regeneration happens faster than the background level of growth.

If there has been a Depopulation program in place since 1945, then it has accompanied a rise from around 2 billion to 7 billion. Sounds pretty ineffective to me. Incompetent topiary.

I don’t know what the equivalent to ‘pruning the other side’ might entail. However, it seems clear that simply doing nothing – apart from looking after and educating people better – is going to produce better results than either wars or depopulation programs.

The underlying problem here though, is our attitude to growth. Growth is the healthy state of living organisms. I personally have stopped growing in height, and even in width :), but I hope I am still growing in stature or wisdom. We need to channel this natural potential for growth: if not in numbers, then where do we take this?

I fear that many of those in favour of depopulation are simply in favour of less humanity, where a reduction in quantity entails a corresponding reduction in quality. I feel on the contrary that our present large numbers may be taking us to a tipping point where a truly democratic decision (one man one vote) can be reached to take humanity in a positive direction – positive, because most humans are basically positive but individually very weak, and the negative ones are a tiny minority of powerful beings whose overthrow calls for quantity to make up for any lack in quality.

[naste.de.lumina]

The problems of planet Earth are not caused by overpopulation.
It's the same as wanting to remove all the oil on the planet to stop the pollution emitted by machinery pollutants.
The problem is not oil, but how it is utilized.
The problem is not overpopulation but as it is satisfied in their basic needs, production and distribution of wealth.
For every human incarnate there are 9 disembodied spirits.
How can these spirits will evolve if they can not incarnate?
But the power can not (or will ) want see this basic.
The fact that we are evolving spirits.
Technology to ensure a balanced planet exists.
Detachment from the material power is what we need.
If not expand consciousness and look at the big picture, it ends up with these materialistic ideas that always end in genocide.
It's so clear to see.
I'm sorry, but in my opinion this issue is based on mind control.

[RMorgan]

It has been known for some time that the more highly educated women are, the less children they tend to have. Investment in education (a good thing anyway) may also help solve the population problem. I added a link to a pdf to get people started who want to read about this. This is surely one of the most ethically sound options available.

http://www.prb.org/pdf/IsEducat-Contracept_Eng.pdf

Yes. You're absolutely right.

Even for those who don't believe overpopulation is a problem now, there's no way to deny that eventually, if the population continues to grow in the same rhythm, it will become a problem.

Actually, right now, in the current circumstances, there's no way we could supply every person on Earth with enough resources to give them a good life, according to our current average standards of what it means to have a good life aka "developed countries's middle-class".

Anyway, back to the education topic. Yes, educated people have much less children. Here in Brazil, is extremely rare to see poor or miserable couples with one or two children; Poor and miserable families usually have five of more children, for several reasons, education being just one of them. Socially and economically speaking, children help to complement the income of poor families as well, both by labor and social benefits. Specifically here in Brazil, the government gives poor family's benefits for each children, so the more children they have, the more they receive from the government.

Anyway, the only feasible way to reduce population growth, long term, without using violence and infringing freewill, is to educate people indeed.

However, how easy it is to educate people globally? Education isn't an isolated process. It's part of a huge set of variables involved in the management of countries and societies.

So, within this system, it isn't possible, because many poor countries are supposed to continue in poverty, so a few rich countries can continue to prosper.

It all comes down to our current system...There's no point to argue about possible solutions, because none of them will be possible if we don't change our system radically.

The way I see it, save from a global catastrophe, I can't actually envision the system changing by its own, or by the will of the people...So, I don't hold any realistic hope that this problem will be solved pacifically.

Taking only probabilities in account, most probably the current ruling system will continue as it is or even become worse, so, eventually, somewhere in the future, we will see the implementation of involuntary population control mechanisms.

Raf.

[observer]

I've used this one in the past but I can't think of a more appropriate dissertation for this thread:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

It's time the members stopped thinking of more ways to control things and start thinking of ways to end the control mechanisms.

Please don't take this as a smart-a$$ed comment, but the wisdom in Mr. Carlin's humor can "trump" any argument for population control. I personally don't see the problem being an issue individuals need to debate and attempt to control. The problem will take care of itself....

[Hervé]

[...] What methods are available and what methods might be considered most ethically sound ?

[...]

Is that GMO in that bucket?

Anyway... reposting from another thread that discussed the same topic way, way back... must be at least over 6 months old...


Below, you will find Sue Arrigo's workable, and proven so, solution to the intended and created problem of "world overpopulation."

Sue Arrigo is a strange character who developed an incredible strength in spite of her MKultra/Monarch programming which landed her to be D. Rockefeller's personal sex slave; the later loaning her at $ 1 million a night... most people who forked out such an amount did it not for the one night stand but for Sue's highest gift and skill as the CIA's unchallenged highest accuracy score remote viewer and expected manifold returns on their "investment" in her investigation of various timelines for various business ventures.... Most probably the reason she might still be alive (last heard of her was 2009).

***************************************

Dirty Methods are Not Needed for Population Control

emanzipationhumanum.de/ english/human/all.html


Because the Cabal’s rationale for war. famine, and destruction has been population control, I had the CIA study my clean methods for population control. Those studies proved that the Cabal’s methods were ineffective by comparison; wars and even famines did not result in long term decreases in population. They were short term measures that worsened population growth rates right afterwards. It was like cutting up starfish to get rid of them, the process of cutting them stimulated their re-growth. Fear, anxiety, insecurity, and poverty, cause people to want more children and produce them. Wars and trauma, and food scarcities, are like pruning rose brushes--one gets more flowers and more seeds. The CIA’s own internal studies make that quite clear. In the 1900’s there were two world wars and many lesser wars. The result of all that war, famine, and suffering was that there were more people in 2000 on the planet than in 1900. That is a failed strategy, even if we believed the goal to be a valid one.

The so-called clean development methods discussed in the above article about the Kissinger-Haig plan, were neither clean, nor intended to cause the Third World to become developed into First World nations. The leaders like Kissinger did not want Third World producers of raw materials to be First World like consumers of resources. They believed in a world of limitation and want, in which in order to have as much as they wanted, others would have to go without. They have a zero-sum idea of the world in which they believe that causing the people in the Third World to go without will result in their happiness. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their analysis was wrong, completely wrong. The easiest way to understand that is to look at a marriage, because that is something that we have an understanding of from our personal observations over time. Beating up the wife, withholding love and refusing to share with her equitably, causes the relationship to deteriorate. It still produces many children. On the other hand, treating her as an equal and assisting her out of love to achieve the goals that she freely sets, leads to a happier home in which their are naturally fewer children. In many cases, well-satisfied women busy doing what they love, produce no children at all. People with high education and career productivity have low birthrates. One doesn’t have to force women to work, doing so doesn’t lead to a decrease in population. It is love, care, and opportunities that give women the satisfaction needed to produce well without over-multiplying. The so-called development programs that the US tried to foist upon the Third World were like a husband holding his hand over a wife’s head about to beat her, but not doing so at the moment. The underlying goal of those development programs was to force Third World countries to give up their resources at slave labor prices. There was no respect, care, or love involved, and the result was like a tyrannical marriage with an overproliferation of children, bickering, and problems.

During the course of several decades from about 1985 to 2004, the CIA did three major studies on my clean methods to control population, and about a dozen minor ones. They did so many studies because they could not figure out how I managed to get such good results. Also, they hoped to prove me wrong in the end, as they had an addiction to using dirty methods and wanted justification to continue using them. They had a commitment to violence, hoarding, and selfishness that they were not willing to allow reason, truth, and data to bring it into question. As a result they kept on banning my research results within the CIA and forcing me to reproduce them in further studies. Thus I ended up doing such studies long after analysts in the CIA’s Intelligence Dept. conceded that I was right and that my methods did work well. Of course, you should not take my word for it but obtain copies of those studies and the full complement of their reviews.

Although the studies are complex and I don’t have the data in front of me, I want to mention them because it is relevant to whether it was right for Bush, Sr. to sell the bio-warfare agents to Hussein. I had finished the first major study prior to that sale and it angered me that the old view that depopulation by killing still appeared to be standard operating proceeds at the White House. It is not that Bush, Sr. was ignorant of that study of mine. When I spoke to him on the phone about wanting to come over to inform him and others of the dangers of the Bio-warfare agents, he said something like “Is this about your wanting to do depopulation your way?” When I said, in effect, “Yes.” He specifically forbid me from speaking about that study when I came to the White House the next day. He appeared, in my opinion, to want to keep the results of that study secret from his cabinet ministers and advisors. My methods would not have made kickbacks for anyone, nor ranked up any body count. The first major study done on my methods was a retrospective one. It was noticed by a CIA analyst that a village I had helped survive in Vietnam during that war, had a very low birth rate. It was an anomaly noticed on a study of Agent Orange birth defects. There were almost none to no birth defects in that village, and it was then asked, “Was that because there were not births at all in the next 10 years or so?” The answer was that there were births per the Vietnamese authorities that CIA analyst was working with, but not many. The Vietnamese authorities had tried to determine why and attributed it to the strange actions that I had taken in that village during the war. I had been sent in to do reconnaissance with a small team of men because the US Army hoped that my skills as a remote viewer would help us locate Stinger type missiles. The VC had been shooting down US choppers. We did find and destroy missiles to the extent that the chopper problem in that area was greatly alleviated for awhile.

I had spent about half a day in that village as I tried to locate the missiles. I did not conduct a search and destroy mission of that village. Instead of destruction and intimidation, I did careful listening and tried to solve some of the village’s many problems. One of the problems that they complained to me about was that the US military was frequently coming through their village and terrifying them. As I listened to their many complaints on that score, it occurred to me that there might be a way to help them. Their strategy up to that point had been to wait for it to happen and then scatter and hide in the surrounding mountains for weeks at a time until the US moved on. That strategy was not very successful. Their crops did not get the care they needed. Their livestock were unable to be moved quickly and got killed by the US troops and left to rot. Their rice and food stores were scattered all over the village trampled underfoot and moldy by the time they returned. Life was Hell for them, as a result of the American soldiers, not unlike Iraq these days. It seemed to them that nothing could ever change that. But it did not appear to me to be a hopeless problem because I had faith that the Lord could solve any problem fairly quickly and well. Thus, it did not surprise me when an answer occurred to me about an hour later. That answer was for them to post a watch on all the trails that lead into the village (something they had already done.) But to do so with a different intention. They were doing so then to alert the village to “run”. I suggested that they alert the village to host a party for whoever came. That is, they should not favor nor run from any group, but entertain and feed whoever came through. At first, they objected saying that they were poor people and could not afford to. I pointed out that they were losing all their food and livestock each time, and it would be better to serve even half of it, and keep the other half. They discussed it and decided to give it a try. I made some suggestions as to how to entertain soldiers without giving their young girls to them. They brainstormed came up with many creative ideas. That village became known for its great hospitality and talent. Neither side demolished it after that because they wanted to be able to have some rest there. It was a “fire free” zone in the midst of a war zone. I think the God blessed them with peace because of their generous hearts and actions. If they had worried about having enough, it never would have worked. Since they gave so freely, both sides left behind much food that was uncooked to reciprocate. It was a miracle that God kept going for years during the war. I had been there in about 1969. The CIA analysts confirmed by satellite images that the village had not been destroyed after that, even though the war raged all around them. The war did not end until 1975.

By the time the CIA studied it as anomaly in population growth, almost 15 years had passed. The population of the village had modestly decreased, while the villages nearby had very large numbers of children, were requiring cutting down of more jungle, and were very poor. It was not just that the village had had peace. That is not actually enough to reverse the overgrowth of population. It has to have spiritual contentment. Later studies elucidated that more clearly.

That first major study went beyond that one village to look at other places in the world that I had been on assignment. I got sent to war zones periodically, and CIA analysts had noticed that difficult to account for results followed. I was not responsible for those effects; I was just desperate enough to call on God with faith. The CIA analysts thus went back over the record of which villages I had been on assignment to and looked at birth rates before and after and in comparison to neighboring villages. I had not gone to those places with any intention to control population; I had in the course of my other duties for the CIA, tried to help them in whatever way seemed appropriate at the time. So, it was kind of a double blind study in that neither I nor the villages had any idea that the CIA would later study the result of going to sincerely and selflessly help. I was not leaving behind bags of Aide money, financial grants, or contracts with the CIA to help them later. I was enquiring after their needs as a concerned visitor and dispensing some practical advise grounded on good spiritual principles. The CIA analyst in question found a decrease in population and crowding where I had given such advice, and not when I was in too much of a hurry to give it. It was not that I was contaminated with poison or spreading poisons. The children were fewer but healthy overall. Frankly, the CIA was unable to account for the results, even after they carefully substantiated them. It especially troubled them, given how short I was in any village, that the effect seemed to be long lasting, That was not surprising to me, I had intended to give advice that would benefit them long term by changing their culture for the better. Careful application of almost any kind spiritual principle will do that. I looked to see the spiritual basis of their most pressing difficulty and tried to correct it with the simple advice I gave.

Perhaps more examples will make that clearer. This example came from a village in Europe where people were poor and oppressed by their government at the time. I was there to rescue some dissents and bring them back to the CIA. In the normal course of doing that I learned that their village had a problem with its water supply. The simple way to address it would have been to replace the pump. That was not the solution that I thought was most beneficial in the long run because it would be temporary and not correct a problem in social justice. One family, the one who had the pump house was using almost all the water to irrigate their fields, while other families got none for their fields. I suggested a different way for them to use the land so that a short trough from a local stream would irrigate all of their fields. It meant two things; the land would have to be swapped around and people would have to cooperate in building and maintaining the trough. Everyone would benefit each time anyone irrigated one field, all would get irrigated. That project created an enormous amount of good-will in the village because it was designed properly. The result was an increase yield per acre and a more forest was allowed to grow over unneeded farmland. The population shrank about 10%, not due to migration to cities, but due to contentment and fewer children.

Here is another example. In this village the primary problem was bickering and power struggles. The mayor had alienated many people by insisting that he alone made the rules. He was a mini dictator and thought that served his interests. But almost no one liked him as a result. People kow-towed to him and flattered him but he was lonely and unloved. My presence in his village had nothing to do with him from the CIA’s point of view. I was there to make contact with a man from another area and I had to wait for him to show up. So, I had listened to people’s stories intending to solve their most pressing problem. What I recommended was that the villagers shower the mayor with many small kindnesses, not false words, but treating him like a true friend. I made it into a game called, “If I was the lonely mayor, I would want_____”, and I asked the villagers to fill in the blank. They had a lot of fun with the game. They had never thought of him as a lonely man needing help. They had thought of him as a terrifying petty tyrant who had to be obeyed or else. They were unable to vote him out of office, they were in a one-party system and he had been appointed. As a result of this simple intervention, people started inviting him home to family dinners. He started to thaw and become a real person. As that happened the policies he created were more humane and fair and the village prospered. Surprisingly, this village, by the sheer grace of God, went from being one of the worst in the region to one of the best to live it. I do not mean materially, I mean spiritually. What I mean by that is that people were willing to listen to each other’s problems and help each other out. This was in a communist country. People were sharing material possessions, but frankly that did not help them so very much. Sharing of their hearts and helping from their hearts was what made the difference in terms to their contentment. The population of the village also went down, about 5% judged by births, not migration. Nearby villages had an increase in births consistent with their national average.

The long term effect of even short term love has been noticed before in sociology. In one of the Chicken Soup for the Soul books, there is a true story about disadvantaged minority students in Washington, DC schools. A sociology professors sent his graduate students in to assess elementary student’s chances of succeeding in life. The graduate students said things like “The kids haven’t got a chance, their parents are drug addicted, unemployed, illiterate, etc.”. Twenty or more years later another sociologist sent his grad students out to find out what actually happened to those kids. Much to their surprise, the kids turned out to be overachievers with many physicians, engineers, etc. among them. They were baffled. They studied the issue until they figured it out. The kids that succeeded so well had all gone through one particular teacher’s class. They tracked that teacher down in a nursing home where she was still alert. They asked her what she had done that made the difference. She said, “That’s easy. I loved those boys!”.

Studies of foster children have shown the same thing. If there was one person that believed in them, believed that they could grow up to be a good person contributing to the society, that was enough. Just one person, out of all the people that abused them and put them down. Just one person that loved, cared, and respected them—that was all that it took.

Now, that I have told you that, I can tell you another hard to believe story about those studies on population control. This was part of a population control study that was prospective in which the task was to decrease population growth. In this study, my methods were pitted against the usual CIA methods of war, famine, and destruction of the culture. I was told to “do my magic” on a village on the outskirts of the CIA’s war zone. I never traveled to that village. I merely called them up and asked for a toll-free number to be passed out along with a couple hours a week that I could be reached by phone. I said that I was a problem-solving consultant and would try to help them realize whatever dreams they had. For the next two months or so, I manned the phone during those hours. That was all the time I had for that project. I listened and helped people find the dream in their heart that could move them to take the risks to succeed. I wasn’t passing out money, or grants. All I was doing was listening, and giving simple heartfelt advice. By the end of the two months, the villagers decided to “host a university”. They did not even have a high school graduate among them, but they wanted to get an education. I asked them to figure out what a university should teach that would really help them. They designed the curriculum. It was not like any university that I had ever heard of, and that was a big plus for them. They hosted the university that they needed not the one that others wanted them to have. They invited “speakers” and kept control of the curriculum and its relevance to their lives. Neighboring villagers flocked to their village to take one and two day courses. They had many teachers that then went out to teach from village to village. There were courses on how to be a mid-wife, on how to raise livestock, on how to write down their life stories, on how to raise children, and on how to set up small businesses. That village became prosperous. It also had a decrease in population naturally. That moderation of population, like in First World educated cultures was long lasting.

My intervention cost next to nothing—not even a single plane ticket. The war dragged on for years, cost the US taxpayers a lot, and did not decrease the population growth rate, only decreased the numbers in the population. It just trimmed the rose brush and made it grow. Actually, it left an ugly landscape, despair, and suffering. When one trims a rose bush you get lovely roses. After a war, you get a bumper crop of children, but not happy healthy ones usually. One get children missing limbs due to landmines, and birth defects from defoliants and depleted uranium. War is not good for growing children. It is not like pruning is to rose bushes, I was wrong.

In one of the last population growth studies I did at the CIA, the question being studied was “Could others get results like mine?” That study used intelligence officers, trained murderers and assassins. We all have that “soldier” inside of us waiting to come out if we get put in bootcamp. I gave them a different kind of bootcamp. It was only a week long and it was mainly changing their hearts and minds; I don’t like physical exercise much. After that week was over, they manned a phone line to a village a couple hours a week like I had years before. The birth rates were studied for several years after that. Their listening and helping people problem solve also made a difference, depending on how they did it. If they were authoritarian, the villagers felt threatened even at a distance and the population growth rate went up. If they were loving and helped by supporting the goals of the villager, the birth rates went down. One man got better results than I had. Overall, about 25% of those trained killers managed to change enough to get an excellent result, the population decreased by contentment flourishing. About 40% got the result of the population staying the same. And about 20% got no change in population growth, and about 15% made the population growth rate worse. It was still not as bad as after a war or a famine.

The Cabal causes the very problem that they say is so serious that it requires the drastic measure of killing—their harsh authoritarian stance is a major cause of population overgrowth. Note, I did not help people solve their problems by making them lazy. Passing out money in welfare programs is not love. That is not to say that passing out money it never appropriate. When one loves someone one can see, by the grace of God how to help them. A social program without love it not much different than being given a number at Auschwitz, it dehumanizes the person. It is no wonder that government social programs often fail to give real and lasting benefits. Yet when the people running them do have love in their hearts and are allowed to give it in that setting, much good can come of it. All too often programs are rule based prisons of the mind that destroy love and prevent creative thinking. It doesn’t have to be that way.

One of the reasons that I think we didn’t get as good a result on that population control study of my students, is that the framework was static. It did not allow my students to figure out creatively how they could best help a village. I am sure that some of them would have been best going out to a village and listening to the people while playing sports or hiking with them. They could have listened while doing outdoor work with them that helped the village. Frankly, I think that in many cases the villagers never told them their most pressing problems, and that was one of the biggest difficulty in the study. Gaining the trust of others can be a big problem, if the CIA officer has spent decades lying, conning and killing. A week of empathy training may not be enough to change a hardened criminal into the saint that they were meant to be. Since the CIA would not let me solve the biggest problem that they have at the CIA, it is not surprising that the CIA officers had trouble solving the biggest problem of those villages.

Sue Arrigo 18 June 2008 19:05



*****************************************

Speaks for itself... I think.

[Joe Akulis]

How about we clone the planet? Make one a light earth, and one a dark earth. All the jerks get put on the dark one and they can trash the place if they want. All the non-jerks who long for something better get put on the light one, and they can turn it into something amazing, in harmony with their fellow humans.

[Jean-Marie]

I have five sons. We stopped trying for the daughter after the fifth son. I guess I didn't help the population problem,But I came from a middle class family of eight children and thought I was downsizing....

[Hervé]

[...]

... this is an issue that countless alien races have had to deal with at some point in their evolution. If they found a way to live in a more harmonious way with their planet, with fewer numbers, so can we.

[...]


Well, we are still far from the numbers they had back then... but their solution for this sector of the galaxy was still the same...


[...]

People were ferried in here [Earth] by the billions and the billions and the billions and they were ferried in here with boxes and they were put in boxes and stacked around and the people who were on this planet already, just caught it in the teeth, nobody bothered to pick them up. They just shot their administrators from guns and shot their control points out and they took these people in boxes and so forth and they dump them and then they set off hydrogen bombs on the top of each primary volcano there is on this particular planet and when they blew up , it blew the thetans into the air and after the bomb, an electronic ribbon which also was a type of standing wave was erected over the area. The tremendous winds on the planet blew every thetan there was straight in to those particular vacuum zones which had been created. These were brought down, packed up and put in front of projection machines [?] with sound and colored pictures. First gave them the implant which you know as “Clearing Course.” Then, a whole track [was] implanted which you know as OT II.

[...]

These planets averaged 178 billion human beings per planet. One hundred and seventy eight billion. There were 250 billion on this planet, the name of this planet was Teegeeak and this is known as the “bomb-place” and this is the “evil place.” This is the place [?pretty much all of it?] got smashed.

[...]

What this is really designed to do is to make the individual cease and desist from creation and to knock off over-population. This is one of the big ideas they had that if they just did all this then they’ll get rid of all the overpopulation. The target of this is the Second Dynamic. So it is truly Second Dynamic suppressions. For instance, you find people who are totally obsessed with sex with children, well, that is taught in R6. Nice guys.

[...]

Now, the net result of all of this, was to make a 75 million year vacuum. That’s as far as this part of the universe is concerned. You wonder why: “Why don’t… if there are saucers around, why don’t they land on this planet?”

This planet, traditionally, over the various zones and area has an evil reputation. Mutineers and deserters and that sort of thing were often dumped on this planet. They’ll often come here and refuge because they know nobody’s gonna come after them.

This planet is the planet of the evil repute and this sector of the universe has a very evil repute.

Now, all the data which you have that was set out seventy four fluff-fluff-fluff million years ago – almost seventy five – this catastrophe overcame this confederation and has just made it an unsavory part of this universe, to say the least.

[...]

Glossary:

Second Dynamic:
The drive to survive through progeny and family as well as ensuring their survival.


R6:
1. a clearing process through which the R6 bank is disabled and rendered ineffective

2. short for “R6 bank” which is held together mostly by the implant Incident I, II and III.


R6 BANK:
1. a slang term designating the Reactive Mind.

IMPLANT (verb)
An implant is an enforced command or series of commands installed in the reactive mind below the awareness level of the individual to cause him to react or behave in a prearranged way without his “knowing it.” LRH

1. to plant firmly or deeply; embed.

2. to fix firmly in the mind; instill; inculcate.

[Bright Garlick]

So naste - regarding the first line - how about the issue of deforestation, soil destruction and soil loss, phosphorous depletion, extensive mining of the planets sources and subsequent destruction of ecosystems and sacred sites, waste disposal, biodiversity loss, acidification of the oceans, rise in ethnic clashes, the rise in emotional problems especially among those living in densely populated regions, the fragmentation of families, growth of monocultures in food, animals and trees, water supplies particuarly for urban populations, pollution of land, sea and air, displacement of refugees among many other issues related to overpopulation ? Yes these all have a relation to "utilization" but they all exacerbated by rising population.

You should not be so quick to sweep the population crisis under the carpet, with a single interpretation of the problem - utilitilization. Just like the folks who argue we could all fit into Texas. It isn't always about how things are done, it is often about the dynamics of how things relate and the relationships that they cause and exacerbate by changing a single variable - in this case, the number of humans relative to every other living thing on planet Earth.

This problem stands above every other man made problem on Earth and must be seen honestly.

I agree that a materialistic focus is the root of our problems. What does man need for a fulfilled life ? But mind control is only a small part of the problem. Who controls the individual mind but the individual himself ?

Coming back to your first line. Yes, I agree with that from one perspective. Man's ignorance is the real cause of Earth's problems.



The problems of planet Earth are not caused by overpopulation.
It's the same as wanting to remove all the oil on the planet to stop the pollution emitted by machinery pollutants.
The problem is not oil, but how it is utilized.
The problem is not overpopulation but as it is satisfied in their basic needs, production and distribution of wealth.
For every human incarnate there are 9 disembodied spirits.
How can these spirits will evolve if they can not incarnate?
But the power can not (or will ) want see this basic.
The fact that we are evolving spirits.
Technology to ensure a balanced planet exists.
Detachment from the material power is what we need.
If not expand consciousness and look at the big picture, it ends up with these materialistic ideas that always end in genocide.
It's so clear to see.
I'm sorry, but in my opinion this issue is based on mind control.

[naste.de.lumina]

So naste - regarding the first line - how about the issue of deforestation, soil destruction and soil loss, phosphorous depletion, extensive mining of the planets sources and subsequent destruction of ecosystems and sacred sites, waste disposal, biodiversity loss, acidification of the oceans, rise in ethnic clashes, the rise in emotional problems especially among those living in densely populated regions, the fragmentation of families, growth of monocultures in food, animals and trees, water supplies particuarly for urban populations, pollution of land, sea and air, displacement of refugees among many other issues related to overpopulation ? Yes these all have a relation to "utilization" but they all exacerbated by rising population.

You should not be so quick to sweep the population crisis under the carpet, with a single interpretation of the problem - utilitilization. Just like the folks who argue we could all fit into Texas. It isn't always about how things are done, it is often about the dynamics of how things relate and the relationships that they cause and exacerbate by changing a single variable - in this case, the number of humans relative to every other living thing on planet Earth.

This problem stands above every other man made problem on Earth and must be seen honestly.

I agree that a materialistic focus is the root of our problems. What does man need for a fulfilled life ? But mind control is only a small part of the problem. Who controls the individual mind but the individual himself ?

Coming back to your first line. Yes, I agree with that from one perspective. Man's ignorance is the real cause of Earth's problems.



The problems of planet Earth are not caused by overpopulation.
It's the same as wanting to remove all the oil on the planet to stop the pollution emitted by machinery pollutants.
The problem is not oil, but how it is utilized.
The problem is not overpopulation but as it is satisfied in their basic needs, production and distribution of wealth.
For every human incarnate there are 9 disembodied spirits.
How can these spirits will evolve if they can not incarnate?
But the power can not (or will ) want see this basic.
The fact that we are evolving spirits.
Technology to ensure a balanced planet exists.
Detachment from the material power is what we need.
If not expand consciousness and look at the big picture, it ends up with these materialistic ideas that always end in genocide.
It's so clear to see.
I'm sorry, but in my opinion this issue is based on mind control.

Dear Bright Garlick.
When we have a large population intentionally kept below the poverty line and therefore in ignorance, what can we expect in terms of planetary consciousness?
Who are the most responsible for the destruction in quantitative, pollution, contamination, etc., the terms planet.
Example:
The poor fishing all day to eat or an oil like BP, who by greed and profit contaminates the whole Gulf of Mexico?

Honestly you really believe that the best efforts are put to a healthy planet service by creating and sustaining this paradigm elites?

This conversation is the same old story.
Problem, reaction, solution.
Of course in this case the solution is to eliminate much of the population. Whichever method.

Let's talk about eliminating the creation of the problem of mass destruction of the planet by capitalists self-destructive and vicious ever-growing methods of unlimited consumption?

Find out about the conference held in 1995 at the Fairmont Hotel.
A global labor market projected at 80/20.

This is all carefully designed. There are no coincidences and unwanted side effects. That's what I'm trying to make.

Thus, the argument of overpopulation is only a weapon of maneuver to achieve goals beyond.

We can never solve today's problems using the same thinking that created them.

If I'm wrong I'm sorry. My intention is the best.

Hug.
Naste

[Kindred]

There is NO 'population problem'... the Earth could support Everyone, and then some. It's all about Who is growing and controlling the food, and How 'they' maintain the idea of Scarcity, particularly in terms of energy - both the conventional idea of energy, and that of the Human Potential - which IS The Energy that Creates our World.

Some reading is in order:
http://rune.galactic.to/iarga.html

In Unity, Peace and Love

[GreenGuy]

An interesting thread. I'm a new (provisional) member. While it's true that earth is capable of physically sustaining the present population and that overpopulation is a button-pusher, we have a major problem with allocation of resources. Nature is basically self-regulating, and it seems to me that people cull themselves in many ways. Fukushima will have long-term effects on population, but in the larger picture, exploitation of resources for profit comes back to bite us in the end. Deforestation results in a reduction of life-quality for people who live far from forests. Loss of habitat disrupts the ecological balance, and we're foolish if we think that will not affect us. I tend to think that after a fairly horrendous transition from our current paradigms, there will be fewer people living in very different ways, with the potential for a kind of golden age.

[Bill Ryan]

-------

I read Paul Ehrlich's important red-flag-raising book The Population Bomb (http://www.amazon.com/The-Population-Bomb-Paul-Ehrlich/dp/B000EI3XOS) way back in the 1970s.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZQ306HVGL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

[ROMANWKT]

Hi bill, your link is not working

Regards

roman http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html







Edit by Bill:

Link fixed, with apologies: it was the kind of URL that needed the www. in the address.

[RunningDeer]

I no longer have the book (does anyone have an electronic copy?) --

The Population Bomb.pdf (http://faculty.washington.edu/jhannah/geog270aut07/readings/population/Ehrlich%20-%20Population%20Bomb%20Ch1.pdf) (revised)
The Population Bomb google resource links (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=The+Population+Bomb&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=The+Population+Bomb+pdf&revid=401680596&rls=en)

:wave:

[RunningDeer]

Hi bill, your link is not working

Regards

roman http://actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

The Sixth Extinction (http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html)

“The Sixth Extinction Lessons.pdf” (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lessons/eldredge2lessons.pdf)
:wave:

[norman]

Commercial tomato growers pump Carbon Dioxide into huge green houses to boost plant and fruit growth. It works very well. I wonder why that doesn't seem to be replicated globally?

[sheme]

I think it is reasonable to ask all humans to limit reproduction to 1 child per couple. But not like China did it- appeal to peoples Earthcentric commonsense. Value female children far more than China did. Every decision taken should be made with Earth health in mind. Every occupation should be valued according to Earthcentric values, no matter what it is. Without the S*!t shovel we all stand in it , that means the plummer/engineer is king..

I suspect unnatural selection is at work in our sky, Nazi engineering is with us again, did it ever go away?

Are 'they' trying to create a natural catastrophe or many, to convince the world they should comply with population control- are we looking towards the sudden Earth shock that will convince humanity to stop breeding?

[marlowe]

Are 'they' trying to create a natural catastrophe or many, to convince the world they should comply with population control- ?

They already have ...It's called Fukushima ...It is killing the oceans in slow motion...

[Robin]

There is NO 'population problem'... the Earth could support Everyone, and then some. It's all about Who is growing and controlling the food, and How 'they' maintain the idea of Scarcity, particularly in terms of energy - both the conventional idea of energy, and that of the Human Potential - which IS The Energy that Creates our World.


I do not agree with this. Yes, there is plenty of space to fit more humans, but when will we stop? I see new housing being developed every day being set up over pristine habitat. The prairie dog population in the U.S. is down to 1% of what it was before Europeans settled America...and I continue to see housing being developed over what little prairie dog habitat is left!

There is a huge difference between simply having enough space and having enough resources. We are intimately tied to nature and depend on the life cycles of all other organisms just as much as every other organism. If we continue to decimate populations of wildlife, we will also die.

It is truly an irresponsible atrocity. When will we stop?

If we continue to create more humans and housing, there will be less and less space for other life. If we continue to develop, the bees will continue to die off. Without bees, our crops cannot be pollinated, and therefore, we will not have food. It simply is not possible for us to sustain ourselves if we continue to grow in numbers. There is no way to argue this notion.

I sincerely believe that now more than ever we will need 7 billion people, because it is going to be a HELL of a job to clean up our mess and to restore Earth to a pristine state. Every single individual out of our 7 billion will be crucially important in lending their energy into restoration.

I also do think that improvement in education and an overall awareness of our true universal existence will keep human population under control. I also think that organized religion may play a large part in our overall ignorance of our Earth footprint. I don't want to offend anybody with this claim, but I think that people of certain religions have customs of bearing many children...and sometimes many wives.

http://www.overpopulation.org/religion.html

[Bill Ryan]

------

I agree 100% with Samwise's post above. It's not about space. There's plenty of room to put people!

it's about non-renewable, finite resources, and the huge toxic, poisonous, life-trashing mess we're all making of the planet. And the more people there are, the greater the poisonous mess that's accumulating, with absolutely no end in sight.

Solutions seem as elusive as ever if we are to:


Expand the world's population to 10-15 billion or more.
Maintain a beautiful, supportive environment that's a wonderful, stable, nourishing home for all the other creatures who have as much right to be here as we do.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Disclosure could solve all this.

[Robin]

Disclosure could solve all this.

As much as I hate to say it, disclosure is going to cause some level of mass chaos. It has to. It just depends on how humanity responds to future, inevitable situations.

It really depends on how disclosure arrives. It could be that the Illumasites (Illuminati parasites) continue to do mass bombings, virus engineering, and other atrocities that will ultimately reduce the population.

Even if this doesn't happen, and the Illumasites are removed as well as their control, tens of thousands put into jail, and there are no more evil-doers, we still have to contend with other inevitable events.

At some point or another the existence of ETs is going to be known. This is going to shatter the lives of hundreds of millions of devout religious people, of all religions, all across the world. They are going to realize that they have been duped their whole lives and have been wasting their time believing in something that is not true. Undoubtedly there is going to be mass panic as all of those who put their trusting beliefs in being saved by God will not know what to believe and will not know who to lean on. Many may unfortunately turn to suicide and murder.

Concerning the disclosure of government, Vatican, music, and banking corruption, people will most likely also panic and become very angry. Again, there may be more suicides and murders as people become angry over the level of corruption going on.

Even if all is well and humanity handles everything relatively well, we still must contend with natural disasters. Hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc. will continue and will most likely increase in number as well as strength. Again, many people who are unprepared or happen to live in the wrong place at the wrong time, will die.

I reckon that we have much to observe and experience in the next few years as a humanity. I hope for the best and the smoothest transition possible, but some things are inevitable.

But I think that it is safe to say with certainty that by 2020, Earth will be inhabited by fewer than 7 billion.

[Limor Wolf]

Important subject Bright Garlick, thank you for raising it.


Originally asked by Bright Garlick:"So, to all those thinkers and feelers who can imagine. How can we reduce the human population and how might these solutions unfold ?"

The nature of this discussion is such that it will be raised again and again until we (humanity) will deplete ourselves. In the time frame that we are in - education is simply not enough and even not possible because of suppression and counter react intentions and actions. Bargining with the earth via 'sustainable' energy' is by far a weak solution that is as good as a caress to a dying person.

The root of this problem surprisingly originates not in the physical realm as in the spiritual realm. We do not seem to understand the role of Energy in our life at all, or ourselves as energy and conscious beings, therefore solutions are not at hand. We were stirred to come to this place by the 'helping hands' that use this planet as a mining location, either for mineral commodities, biological ones or for soul domination reasons.

If there is one variable that can take us out of here it will have to be rooted in a change of our perspective and fast on-going understanding of the subject of energy. What is Free Energy, and how it can transform our lives so that no such viable dilemmas will even exist.

We must change gear in our consciousness if we want seven billions and more to live on this planet. As many on this thread have already mentioned, it is about learning to live with the earth and with nature in a mutual respect tandem, where earth is the leader and the people are the followers. But at the same time it is primarily about understanding energy and knowing how to sustain ourselves as an energy beings, nourishing and complementing ourselves and our surroundings with the cosmic force of the universe. A spiritual quantum jump might sound as a too grand request and may not appear achievable, but, maybe these days we will receive a chance for that to happen (since it did not happen' naturally' up till now) - the earth will rattle and shake and people will have to acknowledge it as a living being which is hosting us on it's precious body. There will come the time of dire stress, where we will have our backs to the wall and scarcity will be not on our doorstep but inside our house. Then we can not anymore look away. Then we will have to fight not only for our physical life, but also for our spiritual life. This is the only chance we have at this time to exist, no depopulation plans will help us, no mundane educational plans will assist us to survive, there are many lessons waiting on our doorstep and when the authentic cry of the soul will be heard then a new expension of consciousness may result and looking for answers to such dillemas (as in the title) will be unnecessary, we will be regained with new perspectives to take care to these old problems.

[Carmody]

The hard choice:

enlightenment/awareness...or physically die. The gun is against your head.

Choose.

And if you don't awaken and choose, someone will do it for you.

Example: If you were on my boat and would not stop freaking out, and stop being unaware that your blindness is going to sink the boat, I'd push you off. No matter how compassionate I might be, I'd look at the logic of the situation....and... push you off.

http://www.flame.org/~cdoswell/Earth_Abides/population_curve.gif

I'm working as hard as I can to increase awareness, but some are well past that, and in their own logic on the subject...have moved directly to the culling.

People want the over unity of free energy devices to end this thing. Well, it's important to understand that monkeys with no awareness are not going to be getting that technology, unless they become aware and enlightened, as it is too potent a system to play with unless the beings involved are fully cognizant of the ramifications... and can/will live in the area of that mindset... as enactment of life..from cradle to grave.

That awareness will have to grow to meet the challenges of such technology which can break atomic structure, shift and blend dimensions, gravity, the whole she-bang.

The carrot and the stick are both fully evident and in the real world..right in the middle of the maelstrom of the hurricane and the burning house. The burning house that you sit in, as you tied yourself to it, inside of it.. and refuse to let go.

Everything is right there.

Grow or die. Break the shell and emerge, or die stillborn.

[skippy]

The hard choice:

enlightenment/awareness...or physically die. The gun is against your head.

Choose.


Too late.. but I like your perseverance and optimism :)

In 1966, the German philosopher Martin Heidegger said the following: "Only a God can still save us", and I think he's right.

umFnrvcS6AQ

[Agape]

It's really all about providing/enabling access to good level of education to people , access to information . Even then , without structured education, information alone does not have long lasting effect .

The answers exist , they are available, pity that even the 'mercenaries' like say, Bill Gates and others of such calibre do not see a full scale of the situation and what needs to be done . I'm not saying that the 'rich and powerful' are the only ones to feel responsible but if they don't , are they the same unconscious as a tribe shaman whose people lived in isolation for thousands of years and it's all he thinks they need ?

At the same time, there should still remain vast jungle , mountains, oceans , deserts and space for people who don't want to be part of ultra-categorised , technocratic , bureaucratic society, call them free people .

And it's not the 'people' taking so much space after all, it's the structures, the transport, production lines and with more sophisticated systems the building and productions , quite naturally, won't decrease .

It's about 'both ends of the spectrum' needing to be curtailed , in my opinion. Those who claim too much space and resources for their own will have to share if they want to inhabit this planet with other people ,
and those who have nothing ..but their children ..which always meant ensuring continuity of life and the most precious commodity that can't be well 'payed' in money, they will have to be helped to rise their awareness ,

to get informed there are others living here and what is available, achievable and what are the options generally .

It's not 'too late' . But it's time to take the situation seriously .



:pray:

[Jean-Luc]

I find it hard to reconcile the fact that a net surplus of 250.000 new souls arrive on this planet every single day (http://www.worldometers.info/) and the theory that states that each and every soul arriving here actually did decide to incarnate on planet Earth at this particular period of Time, i.e. some conscious choice.

If we agree with this theory and with the idea often conveyed by NDE people that we gain total knowledge once in the ether, we come to some sort of paradox.

Why would so many "all knowing" souls decide to incarnate on Earth and not on some other beautiful exoplanet in the Universe unless (1) the theory is non-sense or (2) there is some good reason for it such as e.g. the need for more awaked people who pull up their sleeves and go for a real change or (3) there is still plenty of room if we manage resources with intelligence (freedom energy comes to mind) (4) or some other reason ?

:)

[Milneman]

How about we clone the planet? Make one a light earth, and one a dark earth. All the jerks get put on the dark one and they can trash the place if they want. All the non-jerks who long for something better get put on the light one, and they can turn it into something amazing, in harmony with their fellow humans.

Because there'd end up being 15 people on the one planet, and 7-12 billion on the other one who would see what a great deal we had going on, and they'd come and ruin it.

I know. Sucks to be us. But there are benefits to awareness, as I'm sure you can attest to. ;)

[AutumnW]

Offer a year's supply of hard liquor, porn, hookers and cash to men who will have a vasectomy. Same for women, just exchange the porn for gift certificates to their favorite boutiques. Any woman who would trade her breeding rights for cash, shouldn't be having kids anyway.

[Milneman]

....Autumn, I'm Gay. VOILA! I'm doing my part *bows*

Carmody said:

Example: If you were on my boat and would not stop freaking out, and stop being unaware that your blindness is going to sink the boat, I'd push you off. No matter how compassionate I might be, I'd look at the logic of the situation....and... push you off.

I agree with you. But there's one problem. You're going to have a fight on your hands. And it's not one person, it's...how many billion?

On that, I had a recent experience where I had a clear, bright, real view of the truth that I wanted to share with someone. So I tried. And it was apparent they didn't want to hear it. What can I do? I can't make them hear it. I'm going to write some stuff everyone knows already. You still have to try though right?

So, I'm going to try and calm the person down. I know, futile probably. Integrity demands it though. I'm in a place where this stuff hasn't happened until recently. Saskatchewan has this way of being the last place on earth where this stuff happens. In the last 15-20 years, the Qu'Appelle valley near where I live, a place that used to be...well you could walk in the hills for hours without hitting a fence even. Now, monster houses taking care of the view because people want to get away from the city, the bustle, the noise, the spiritual pollution. So they build big to get away, have all the creature comforts, and ruin the valley. Immigration is up here. Huge. And the people who come here are very hard working, very family oriented, and are chasing the same dream we all have been born into: the big house in the valley. There are still places where there is little to no light pollution. There are still places where there are no people for miles. But they're disappearing fast.

I'm not going to push the guy out of the boat. I'm going to jump out and swim. The problem is the boat. Not the people in it. Learn woodcraft. Silly question, how many people know how to tell west from east in the mountains if you can't see the sun? Can you tell what to eat if you're away from human population in the bush? Find out what you can eat off the land where you live, and get used to eating stuff that doesn't taste good. Seriously. Practice. Make friends with your neighbours. In the event stuff does go down badly and you're in the city, you're going to need allies. You're going to need people who can work collectively.

Plant a tomato. Get heirloom seeds and just put them away, it's cheap and it can't hurt. Carbon...carbon will purify water. Find out where your water sources are. Here's one. The back of your toilet has a few litres of clean drinking water. Carbon and sugar when ground together create a source *BANG* of fire. You're going to need to know some of these things. You can get carbon at any pet store, it's a key component in aquarium filters.

People are going to loose their heads no matter what. Strengthen yours.

And don't stop doing what we do in the mean time. Yeah, the planet may go pop. There's a prophesy up here that my then teacher taught me about the end times (end not necessarily meaning complete total end, but an end of one way of life forcing a new way of life) that those who are Anishnabe, the keepers of the earth, will be able to survive because they know how to live in balance with the earth.

I'm saying it's not enough to read about how. Go out and DO. You don't teach your kids how to tie their laces by reading about it, you make them do it. You ride a bike and fall off. Dig up some cat tail roots, cook them, try it so you know what to expect. And do it with your friends, the people who will help.

I will keep recycling, I will keep gardening, doing my thing to consume less and use what I have more, and telling people to do this as well. David Suzuki in a recent MacLeans article has said that in his opinion, Environmentalism has failed. All we have left is hope.

Have faith in God, as the saying goes, and tie up your camel.

(was that ot?)

[AutumnW]

....Autumn, I'm Gay. VOILA! I'm doing my part *bows*

Honestly Milneman, I think that gayness is just one of God's answers to over-population. I don't have any kids and am past breeding age now, so great! You're gay and I'm blissfully barren! High five!

[AutumnW]

People make everything so complicated. I know so many people who have put their kids through a battery of tests to see if they are hyper active. The test to see if they truly can't, not won't but can't stay still is to get them a big bag of candy and tell them if they can stay perfectly still for 2 minutes, they can have the candy. If they can't stand perfectly still, they're hyper active. End of story. My solutions would save the world a lot of aggravation. Off topic, I know, but somewhat related.

[ROMANWKT]

Please watch this eugenics on air RT TV

http://rt.com/shows/the-truthseeker/bill-gates-soros-bloomberg-693/

[AutumnW]

Romanski, I watched that piece a while back, and while I am a huge fan of RT, I think it's a terrible piece of yellow journalism. Bill Gates' drawing attention to the fact that the world is over-populated while seeking solutions, hardly seems like a moral crime to me. That he is a shareholder of Monsanto, too, is of no consequence. It's apples and oranges.

[ROMANWKT]

Romanski, I watched that piece a while back, and while I am a huge fan of RT, I think it's a terrible piece of yellow journalism. Bill Gates' drawing attention to the fact that the world is over-populated while seeking solutions, hardly seems like a moral crime to me. That he is a shareholder of Monsanto, too, is of no consequence. It's apples and oranges.

I know it shows bill gates, but did you watch this one, its more than bill gates.

Regards

roman

[AutumnW]

Has anyone else here noticed that global economic growth and global population growth seem to be linked in some way?
Pyramid Ponzi schemes, or what we call 'capitalism', requires a limitless numbers of new bodies to fill the bottom tiers of the pyramid.

¤=[Post Update]=¤



Romanski, I watched that piece a while back, and while I am a huge fan of RT, I think it's a terrible piece of yellow journalism. Bill Gates' drawing attention to the fact that the world is over-populated while seeking solutions, hardly seems like a moral crime to me. That he is a shareholder of Monsanto, too, is of no consequence. It's apples and oranges.

I know it shows bill gates, but did you watch this one, its more than bill gates.



Regards

roman

Norman, I did watch that segment some time ago, and it made me cringe. Russia controlled it's population by limiting living space for it's citizens. If a couple is shoehorned into 400 square feet, they aren't going to be having many children. RT, much as I love them, will throw everything including the kitchen sink at anything outside of their sphere.

[OnyxKnight]

This is a question for those who really understand the human population problem - who see the widest possible perspectives. So please don't respond if you want to trump the "population problem is a myth argument" or say it's wrong to talk about the issue or create solutions. I understand that many people feel that way. People get so upset about this issue of population reduction, because they only interpret it through the lens of killing the masses but there are other ways. It's because so many people get so upset, that this stuff is decided in secret. It is almost impossible to have an open discussion about the subject in public but I have faith that it might be a little different here. Might ?

So, to all those thinkers and feelers who can imagine. How can we reduce the human population and how might these solutions unfold ? What methods are available and what methods might be considered most ethically sound ?

To those who are upset about the subject, please consider that this is an issue that countless alien races have had to deal with at some point in their evolution. If they found a way to live in a more harmonious way with their planet, with fewer numbers, so can we. If if we don't, we will create countless more problems for ourselves.

I shall primarily play the role of an observer in any discussion that takes place.
(As will those with a vested interest in the subject !!!)

May you all be happy and well and be a light unto yourselves !

Bright. :popcorn:


I'm sorry, but it IS a myth.

Just like the myth that most or all alien races have had such problems in the past. They haven't. They discovered space travel and there was nobody to lock the door of their backyard.

They might say their population is 5 million total. Ask them in return "Right, but how many planets have you colonized in total?" and there will be an awkward silence.

Some of them wont have a problem saying they number in 16 billion for example. A very good example, of actual overpopulation is right next door, a planet in Barnard's star, with 25 billion.

You people need to tell the difference between myth and fact. Fact is, we have this thing called population knots. And selective allocation of resources. Together, they paint the picture as if there isn't food, water, and material resources for everybody, which is a notorious lie.

[AutumnW]

If you want to increase growth on a tree, you prune it hard. If you want to reduce growth on just one side, you prune the other side hard. Similarly, if you want to decrease the human population, you avoid wars. Wars kill a lot of people, but like heavily pruned trees, regeneration happens faster than the background level of growth.

If there has been a Depopulation program in place since 1945, then it has accompanied a rise from around 2 billion to 7 billion. Sounds pretty ineffective to me. Incompetent topiary.

I don’t know what the equivalent to ‘pruning the other side’ might entail. However, it seems clear that simply doing nothing – apart from looking after and educating people better – is going to produce better results than either wars or depopulation programs.

The underlying problem here though, is our attitude to growth. Growth is the healthy state of living organisms. I personally have stopped growing in height, and even in width :), but I hope I am still growing in stature or wisdom. We need to channel this natural potential for growth: if not in numbers, then where do we take this?

I fear that many of those in favour of depopulation are simply in favour of less humanity, where a reduction in quantity entails a corresponding reduction in quality. I feel on the contrary that our present large numbers may be taking us to a tipping point where a truly democratic decision (one man one vote) can be reached to take humanity in a positive direction – positive, because most humans are basically positive but individually very weak, and the negative ones are a tiny minority of powerful beings whose overthrow calls for quantity to make up for any lack in quality.

We need a bonsai approach to everything. Humanity has to look at it's basic nature and flow with what works and is beautiful and constrain itself where possible. This may sound silly, but it isn't meant to. I don't know why we have to leave such a big footprint. I mean that literally. If people were only three feet tall, think how much that would help.

I have often pondered the interest in elfin imagery, in popular culture, and also elfin imagery when under the influence of hallucinogens, mushrooms, etc...Is this imagery, this archetype, part of a general pre-cognition, a sense that we are heading towards reduced size as well as circumstance. Will our descendants be tiny in stature and playful in nature. Play is what you get when you take the aggressive impulse and 'prune' it a certain way, too. A dog will put it's mouth over your hand, but not bite down. The impulse is founded in aggression, but constrained and redirected. Will we become elfin? is this what it's all about?

[norman]

....Autumn, I'm Gay. VOILA! I'm doing my part *bows*

Honestly Milneman, I think that gayness is just one of God's answers to over-population. I don't have any kids and am past breeding age now, so great! You're gay and I'm blissfully barren! High five!

Oh !, I was thinking it was more like Henry Kissinger's and Zbigniew Brzezinski's answer to over population.

I recall a past president of the World Bank saying " My number one priority is third world poverty ". He didn't elaborate on what he meant by that.

[OnyxKnight]

....Autumn, I'm Gay. VOILA! I'm doing my part *bows*

Honestly Milneman, I think that gayness is just one of God's answers to over-population. I don't have any kids and am past breeding age now, so great! You're gay and I'm blissfully barren! High five!

I don't think God has anything to do with it. More underpopulated worlds have much of the same.

[778 neighbour of some guy]

The hard choice:

enlightenment/awareness...or physically die. The gun is against your head.

Choose.


Too late.. but I like your perseverance and optimism :)

In 1966, the German philosopher Martin Heidegger said the following: "Only a God can still save us", and I think he's right.

umFnrvcS6AQ

VOMWzjrRiBg

[Tantauri]

Hi Bill,
"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."
Although, I certainly believe that we have been very poor custodians of our planet in so many ways, I have always been bothered by the above quote which has appeared in several locations. With all do respect, it seems quite an exaggeration. my usual response is to name even ten of those hundreds of species per day.
Besides, if even a portion of the dire predictions restated in the "why are elites so afraid" thread come true, environmental issues, however valid, will seem trivial in comparison.
All best wishes as always

[Robin]

You people need to tell the difference between myth and fact. Fact is, we have this thing called population knots. And selective allocation of resources. Together, they paint the picture as if there isn't food, water, and material resources for everybody, which is a notorious lie.

Even if there are enough nonrenewable resources for more humans on this planet--which I do not believe is the case--you must also take into consideration all other species. More humans means more housing, which in turn means less wildlife habitat. Less wildlife habitat means that there will be no room for bees to prosper. Without bees, our crops will not be pollinated and we will not have enough food.

Bees are just one example. We are intimately tied to the life cycles of all organisms. There is no way to argue this. It is not a notorious lie.

[GreenGuy]

The root of this problem surprisingly originates not in the physical realm as in the spiritual realm.

True dat!! When will we ever learn? Answer: we are, and none too soon.

I've had a nice little nightmare vision for a number of years...that the so-called "greys" are not aliens from another planet but our own descendants - they live in an environment so blasted and mutated that little survives. They have technology but little else. They are so mutated they can only reproduce in the laboratory. Having mastered time-travel, they are coming back seeking to repair their DNA and perhaps do something about the processes set in motion so long before their time, that resulted in the nearly-dead planet they inhabit.

I hope I'm wrong. Scientists are just beginning to examine the real possibility of time-travel. This would explain the abductions, the cattle mutilations, etc. Plus I think there is real evidence that UFOs come not from other worlds but through some kind of portal. This portal could be a wormhole that connects to distant parts of the universe, but it could also be a gateway through what we think of as time. This would mean that we're fundamentally mistaken about time being a strictly linear phenomenon.

There is also evidence that ancient people were aware of these portals and may have used them. I spent a number of years investigating standing stones that exist in a fairly compact area in southern California. Certain people talked to me about a portal or energy vortex in the area. These stones were certainly not erected by the indigenous tribes who run today's casinos. These tribes insist that no one ever inhabited the region before them, and they wield a great deal of political power. Ergo, there is no will to seriously investigate who erected these monuments.

While taking photographs during hikes in the area, I captured numerous daylight UFOs. My theory of why we don't see them more often is that they move too fast. Even though I was shooting at 1/1000 sec they are blurred in the photos. I think they are here constantly. I think the government may be well aware of their presence. If any of this is correct, it would make sense that the so-called ETs highly disapprove of the oligarchs' obsession with using everything for military purposes. If and when disclosure occurs, I think it will have some real surprises for us, and they won't all be pleasant.

[RMorgan]

Hey folks,

Most people talk about populating the planet with tens of billions of people as if it was our right...

It's not all about space and resources...The planet is not ours to use as we see fit.

There are countless other species which have the same right to live their lives unbothered...What about them?

The planet is not a huge bald sterile snooker ball where we can build whatever we want and live wherever we want...We can't build houses and cities all over the planet. We just can't. It's not our right.

Right now, we've already made a huge mess...Huge natural forests like the Amazon are disappearing alarmingly fast. If we continue in this rhythm, our grandchildren will only know about forests and all the beautiful species which currently live there by videos, photographs and books...The Amazon is effectively turning into a desert, right now.

With "only" 7 billion people, we've been causing much suffering and destruction...Let alone with 11, 15, 20 billion people.

So, how much space could we really occupy and use without fatally harming natural environments and other species? If you ask me, we've already crossed this line long ago.

Overpopulation is definitely not a myth. It's completely ignorant to think about it just in terms of if there's enough space and resources for everyone...It's about how much space we can occupy and how much resources we can take while living in harmony with all other living beings which share this planet with us.

Raf.

[AutumnW]

Okay, seriously? Sperm counts are currently plummeting. I believe the countries most affected are the developed nations and due to estrogenic compounds, a byproduct of plastics, leaching everywhere and into everything in the planet. We have NO RIGHT to continue to consume vast quantities of plastic crap and if human fertility chaos is the result, in a Children of Men planetary self-correcting scenario, we freaking well deserve it.

I am tired of reading about secret eugenics programs to depopulate the earth. We are doing it all by ourselves, to ourselves--because we so dearly love buying throw away toaster, flashlights, appliances, thingamajigs from China. Forget climate change, forget greenhouse gases. They are playing their role. Think about the Everests of plastics displacing by purely mechanical means and that's just what we throw away. Think of the space we take up, building homes and highways all over this planet.

As a few posters have commented. It's not OUR planet. If we don't start living as if it's shared, we are going to suffer our own demise, sooner rather than later.

[norman]

This video puts the subject of this thread into perspective quite well:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKP9ru_G5vk

[Rocky_Shorz]

....Autumn, I'm Gay. VOILA! I'm doing my part *bows*

Honestly Milneman, I think that gayness is just one of God's answers to over-population. I don't have any kids and am past breeding age now, so great! You're gay and I'm blissfully barren! High five!

I don't think God has anything to do with it. More underpopulated worlds have much of the same.

they have 100 year old virgins on underpopulated worlds too?

poor dudes... :pound:

[Rocky_Shorz]

This is a question for those who really understand the human population problem - who see the widest possible perspectives. So please don't respond if you want to trump the "population problem is a myth argument" or say it's wrong to talk about the issue or create solutions. I understand that many people feel that way. People get so upset about this issue of population reduction, because they only interpret it through the lens of killing the masses but there are other ways. It's because so many people get so upset, that this stuff is decided in secret. It is almost impossible to have an open discussion about the subject in public but I have faith that it might be a little different here. Might ?

So, to all those thinkers and feelers who can imagine. How can we reduce the human population and how might these solutions unfold ? What methods are available and what methods might be considered most ethically sound ?

To those who are upset about the subject, please consider that this is an issue that countless alien races have had to deal with at some point in their evolution. If they found a way to live in a more harmonious way with their planet, with fewer numbers, so can we. If if we don't, we will create countless more problems for ourselves.

I shall primarily play the role of an observer in any discussion that takes place.
(As will those with a vested interest in the subject !!!)

May you all be happy and well and be a light unto yourselves !

Bright. :popcorn:


I'm sorry, but it IS a myth.

Just like the myth that most or all alien races have had such problems in the past. They haven't. They discovered space travel and there was nobody to lock the door of their backyard.

They might say their population is 5 million total. Ask them in return "Right, but how many planets have you colonized in total?" and there will be an awkward silence.

Some of them wont have a problem saying they number in 16 billion for example. A very good example, of actual overpopulation is right next door, a planet in Barnard's star, with 25 billion.

You people need to tell the difference between myth and fact. Fact is, we have this thing called population knots. And selective allocation of resources. Together, they paint the picture as if there isn't food, water, and material resources for everybody, which is a notorious lie.

so what is your feel of the situation with two nuclear powers about to clash, if a nuke is released will they step in and stop it at this point?

first a Squatch, next the Blue dude, and now these brown skin red eyed beings are in contact with me, all of which live on this planet...

the brown dudes want me to stop them...

dang I'm just a dude with a computer that causes quakes when I get mad and stomp my foot...

they want me to get mad and start dancing...

they have a sense of humor... ;)

[Carmody]

speaking of all that, back in 2005, anyone talking about the specifics of this particular thing I'm to speak of, was shut down.

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/3664ec51205c

Europeans are living longer. But since 2003, they've suddenly enjoyed fewer years of healthy life. For example, in Italy between 1995 and 2003, life expectancy increased from 75 to 80.1 for men and from 81.8 to 85.3 for women. At the same time, the number of years of healthy life increased from 66.7 to 70.9 for men and from 70 to 74.4 for women. But since 2003, while life expectancy has increased further, the number of years of healthy living has plummeted to about 62 for both sexes. More worrying still is that demographers say the same trend has been repeated right across Europe. Only the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands appear to have escaped. That raises an obvious question: what happened in 2003? One idea is that the weather is to blame. In 2003, Europe experienced an extreme heat wave that led to some 80,000 extra deaths across the region. And the higher temperatures could also have triggered ill health, particularly in older people suffering from chronic diseases such as diabetes. That has important implications for governments who have to pay for health costs in Europe. And it raises the possibility that climate change is already having a bigger impact on human health than anyone imagined."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It was not climate change.

It was micro particle dust, depleted uranium. In the UK alone, apparently...diabetes shot up by 600%.

The way the atmosphere flow works, is that the dust from Iraq lifts up and travels across Europe.

The Iraq war and ultra fine dust particles of depleted uranium, is the deal. That is probably the source of the lifespan reduction. Depleted uranium use, environmentally...has a record of producing results exactly like that of this lifespan reduction study. Imagine the mess that Fukushima is about to initiate..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

Prevailing winds put the depleted uranium dust over and on Europe.

The ground war in Iraq, with depleted uranium figuring prominently, started in 2003.

[GreenGuy]

Sperm counts are currently plummeting. I believe the countries most affected are the developed nations and due to estrogenic compounds, a byproduct of plastics...
I am tired of reading about secret eugenics programs to depopulate the earth. We are doing it all by ourselves

Definitely true! I'm reminded of the ongoing discussion I have with certain of my friends who take the Bible very literally. I argue that when the "wrath of God" brought down nations, history shows that he simply allowed them to self-destruct. They became weak through bad policies, and were conquered. Very few empires were destroyed by earthquakes or other natural disasters that could be seriously attributed to an angry deity. As always, we do it to ourselves. Hubris lives!

[Kindred]

Unfortunately, it appears that a number of you have chosen not to read the suggested item.
http://rune.galactic.to/iarga.html

If you had done so, you would have learned about a rather local Civilization (a little over 10 ly away), that does Not ‘limit’ the number of it’s inhabitants, and yet had NO ‘poverty’, has all the food they need, with Everyone accommodated and thriving in a Spiritually and Materially supportive manner. They have NO ‘money’ and everyone recognizes the importance of being a productive member of society, physically as well as Spiritually, helping and Loving one another as their brother or sister.

They view us here on planet Earth as not even achieving the first syllable of the word “Civilization’, and are saddened by this fact.

They recognize the reason for corporal existence as the means by which to develop Spiritually, and that each person Creates one’s reality, and thus everyone strives to encourage this development in others, particularly their young.

The task I have undertaken with this embodiment is to promote these basic concepts in what has proved to be a very challenging environment.

Seth, of the ‘Seth Series’ by Jane Roberts repeatedly makes the point that We Create Our Reality with our beliefs, thoughts and actions. The people of Earth, could change their world for the Better… in a Heartbeat, If They So Choose.

If everyone would recognize their responsibility in the Creation of their Reality, then this could happen.

As Jesus admonished… Love One Another.
As Gandhi suggested, “Be the change you wish to see in your world”

It saddens me to see those in ‘authority’ here on PA (as elsewhere) promote doom & gloom, as well as trauma-drama. The people that work in the MIC, or at Monsanto, or any other number of destructive entities of this world, aren’t necessarily ‘evil’… they only do these things out of ignorance and for a Paycheck. I’m beginning to suspect the same of many in the Alternative Media. And with these two statements, I feel we arrive at the crux of the problem.

I suggest ‘just do it’, not for ‘money’, but because you Want To, because it Helps another person, because it Helps Mother Earth, because It’s The Right Thing To Do.

I don’t have a magic wand to make everything ‘better’… but WE Do. YOU Can Envision a Better World, and ignore the negative aspects that you become aware of.

Work for a Positive Change in yourself, and in those around you.

We CAN Create the Utopia of our Dreams.

Each Of Us, Together, Can Do This.

In Unity, Peace and Love

[Rocky_Shorz]

3 vertical farms in New York City can feed the whole population better than they are all eating now...

starvation is not possible, clear a bank building and turn it to food production, finally something worthwhile coming out of those monster buildings...

what I would like is a world petition...

enough is enough, you are playing war games, with the same amount of costs, you could be concentrating on the radiation killing our ocean, are you all friggen nuts? we have something worse than a world war happening right now but they are trying to distract us from what needs to be done...

the war will never happen, we will all die from a silent radiation attack on our planet...

the ET's aren't stopping it, it is up to us...

[Rocky_Shorz]

Petition:

to all those in charge of the current world insanity, We the People are saying ENOUGH is ENOUGH!!!

we are joining together arm in arm, to stand again against you, you don't have enough bullets, but we will take back our planet, we will feed the starving children you care so little about.

We will not go down without a fight, we have been watching your every breath, and now we are going to rise up as one world nation, it's a small world after all...

no more banker games, no more oil cartels controlling the worlds wealth...

we are going our own way, the right one...

shut down the nukes and replace them with cold fusion reactors, destroy the nuclear weapons, HHO gas will burn the nuclear rods and material cleanly no toxic waste to store. End all fracking, stop the earthquakes and ground water spoilage in all of our lands. Oil isn't worth it when the options are smarter and cleaner to the environment. Whether you prefer calling them cloud seeding or chemtrails, stop the weather modifications, black sky's aren't normal at sundown, it is getting into our food...

we are tired of your games.

surrender or be removed.

my bloodline goes back to Washington, I am not red or blue, I am the white that holds us together standing in faith with We the People, in this country and the world.


We pledge to take back our world...

[Rocky_Shorz]

and for those who are wondering, HHO is just what bubbles up when you put charged plates down in the water, captured in what's scientifically called a bubbler, it makes a gas that burns cool to your hand, but creates a reaction with nuclear material that makes it just dissolve without the radioactivity or need for storage.

come on Japan, you have plenty of water and people needing jobs...

if the world isn't going to help, show us how it is done...

[Kindred]

enough is enough, you are playing war games, with the same amount of costs, you could be concentrating on the radiation killing our ocean, are you all friggen nuts? we have something worse than a world war happening right now but they are trying to distract us from what needs to be done...


I've stated before in another thread... you don't need a nuclear war to create a nuclear holocaust. We Were Warned against developing nuclear weapons/power.

In Thiaoouba Prophesy, by page 14, the Thiaooubans show Michel the results of such development on another world. The very world who's inhabitants came here and developed Lemuria/Mu which was one of the most advanced Civilization to occur here on Earth. Yet, the ones who remained on their home world destroyed themselves. I'm beginning to think that their prophesy is coming to fruition here on Earth - but I hope not.

The greatest threat to sentient beings is not of a material nature. The greatest threats to sentient beings are Purely of a Spiritual nature. The Reason for manifestation is for the development of the Spirit within a particular Reality... of which there are an Infinite number of Realities.

Each of us, in this manifestation, are here to Learn HOW to work with our innate Energy, and to Develop our Abilities to manage and control the Reality we create.

Generally speaking... We have Much to learn.

In Unity, Peace and Love



Rocky Shorz... BTW... why don't you just edit your previous post to enlarge upon what you've already started, instead of creating a new post? Could it be that you wish to create more space and posts such that other posts that offer alternative knowledge become buried via distance???

Please reflect upon this.

[OnyxKnight]

Even if there are enough nonrenewable resources for more humans on this planet--which I do not believe is the case--you must also take into consideration all other species. More humans means more housing, which in turn means less wildlife habitat. Less wildlife habitat means that there will be no room for bees to prosper. Without bees, our crops will not be pollinated and we will not have enough food.

Bees are just one example. We are intimately tied to the life cycles of all organisms. There is no way to argue this. It is not a notorious lie.


Then we have a habitat problem (tied with spacing, architecture, infrastructure), not an overpopulation problem. There are, enough nonrenewable resources. Quite enough to last us a few centuries, by which time we will certainly lose dependence on them entirely in favor for renewable sources.


The habitat problem can be solved in a number of ways, and multiple ways at the same time too, which would be more beneficial to all:


* Non-Intrusive Co-Habitation; (Eco-friendly technology and habitation models, without negative consequences on ecosystems, animal habitation and life cycles)

* Ecosystem Construction; (constructing artificial ecosystems where they have disappeared, and construction of the same in areas of the planet that have now become arid, desert, barren, etc.)

* Underground Habitation and City Infrastructure; (it already exists, but its not something officially recognized as existing; This allows the least impact on ecosystems and natural environments of animals easy access to mining, refinement, and energy)

* Concentrated Concentric Circle type Urban Habitation and City Infrastructure; (If technologically eco-friendly, the areas in between the concentric circles may also represent wild habitats, generally well separated from urbanized human habitation. And the rate of expansion with this model is almost 10 times slower than the urban expansion at present)

* Vertical Concentrated Concentric Circle type Urban Habitation and City Infrastructure; (An advanced version of the previous model, cities expand extremely slowly in radius on the planet, but expand the focus of the expansion in 90% rate is up, vertically, towards the sky. This will come in handy for us, not just because of the total area of habitation such a model produces, but also as we are entering a more mature space age phase of development, launching space missions will cost less fuel, or other resources for that matter, and any space elevator designs will be more efficient and cost-worthy to be built)

* Underwater Habitation and City Infrastructure; (Underwater cities, away from coastlines and coral reefs, any major animal habitats. Access to water, food, and resources is in literally every corner here. another thing is, underwater mining. If used carefully, such cities can stay active for 5-6000 years. By which time we would find a suitable planet to colonize without worrying about overpopulation)

* Seabound Habitation and City Infrastructure; (Floating cities like urbanized islands on the surface of the seas. They can have a fixed position, or they can be mobile, like stupendously large "ships". Or a hybrid of both. There's a lot of water around, and, if packed with eco-friendly technology, I don't see why lilypad-like urban, mobile, artificial islands, can dot the seas, assuming the rate of human population expansion you are projecting here)

* Airbound Habitation and City Infrastructure; (Tricky technology, but if its true about the things owned in the private sector, we are close to developing this technology soon. Platform, airbound, floating cities. Again, like the seafloating ones, these can be fixed, mobile, or both. If eco-friendly, we don't even have to be at sea, underwater, on the the ground or underground, at all. Minimum effect over ecosystems at large, perhaps providing avian animals some spare habitats aboard the flying platform cities.

* Spacebound Habitation and City Infrastructure; (Space Stations, Orbital ring Habitats, Standford Torus or O'Neill Cylinder etc. - built, maintained and locked in space. Here we have asteroid mining and interplanetary mining and resource management. Once we get to this point, in a half a millennium, we won't depend on the resources of Earth)


The great thing about all of these models is that a network can be created among all of them. Undersea with the seafloater cities, the underground with the vertical ones on surface, those on the surface with those up in the air, those in turn with a ringed habitat etc. Another type of trade system can be developed that would benefit all, in terms of specific things found, produced or accessed from each type of city (the marines ones have access to water, seafood, certain minerals or material resources other cities aren't, the airborn cities have access to any land city, and perhaps even a certain degree of control over weather and climate, etc.)


I keep mentioning eco-friendly, as you have noticed. The problem is not humans in general, but the technology and intent with which we spread on the planet. Careless, irresponsible invasion of ecosystems is what's detrimental here, not the numbers. The parasitic spread is also not triggered because of lack of resources, but because of lack of access to resources, and lack of understanding, which could produce solutions to not just this "global problem", but many other ones, who are perhaps more realistic. The technologies exist today, or are close to being developed. The thing is, all of these are in the private sector. Nobody wants that to hit mainstream. This is the core problem in many ways. Those technologies they hid can easily not only solve this "overpopulation" thing, but hunger, droughts, floods, diseases, and energy cost, and the lack renewability of it. There is a way to argue it, if you know the causes. The big fat one in the middle is still, a notorious lie, that's propagated as fact.

[OnyxKnight]

so what is your feel of the situation with two nuclear powers about to clash, if a nuke is released will they step in and stop it at this point?

first a Squatch, next the Blue dude, and now these brown skin red eyed beings are in contact with me, all of which live on this planet...

the brown dudes want me to stop them...

dang I'm just a dude with a computer that causes quakes when I get mad and stomp my foot...

they want me to get mad and start dancing...

they have a sense of humor... ;)

They probably would terminate the operation. They've done it before. Unless the game has changed and they want to see how it all plays out. But I think that would be at a too great cost for them to do nothing. We're not the only life here on the planet.

About the rest, I'll need more information.


they have 100 year old virgins on underpopulated worlds too?

poor dudes... :pound:


I meant individuals we would define as "gay", "bisexual", "transexual", "hermaphrodite/androgynous", or a gender-bender (they change sexes). Many people think of the aforementioned as "crazy", but they haven't spent enough time out there. There's a hole other can of worms there. A whole different kind of "crazy" :crazy:. The sooner we get used to this the better.

But yeah, there are "virgins" too. Some transcending their 100 years away still. They are called asexual reproducers :gossip:.

Some bud off like plants and fungi. Go figure :cantina:.

[OnyxKnight]

double post - sry

[Rocky_Shorz]

BP's "mistake" released the Tide on the east coast affecting respiratory problems...

Seafood anyone?


Swimmers and surfers are being met with dead fish along some of our Southwest Florida beaches. It is happening on one of the busiest weekends for some fun in the water. Red tide is the culprit of what is behind the fish after fish along the beach. It causes the fish to drown and the waves bring the on shore. On this busy beach weekend, red tide isn't the only thing affecting marine life. Claus Gruner has his helmet on for protection and his wet suit on. "Safety first," said Gruner. Now, it's time to take on the water for a little bit of wind surfing. Gruner is used to sharing the open water this time of year with fish - dead or alive. "They'll be washed away in the next high tide, which is tonight sometime. They'll be gone," said Gruner. But they are not gone yet. Red tide is killing off marine life in Southwest Florida. A few days ago, it was also to blame for leaving a usually busy beach empty. "Everybody's here. There must've been 50 people here on the beach. They walked off hacking. Their eyes were teary," said Gruner. On Friday, wind surfers were not coughing and they aren't bothered by the extra sight on the sand. Many are used to it. "Nah, it really doesn't concern us that much. I mean, the red tide comes in and comes out. It doesn't keep me away," said kite boarder Taylor Nelson. "It's very sad to see, but it's a part of it. If you love the water, it's part of the deal," said wind surfer Kenneth Davis. As for Gruner, he has a bit of advice for beach goers this time of the year. "A little teary in the eyes, but other than that it, it doesn't affect you. Unless you eat one of those dead fish, which you probably don't want to do anyway," said Gruner. Health experts are reminding swimmer to keep in mind, if you have respiratory issues you may want to avoid these conditions... link (http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/site/index.php?pageid=event_desc&edis_id=BH-20131130-41806-USA)

[GreenGuy]

Unfortunately, it appears that a number of you have chosen not to read the suggested item.
http://rune.galactic.to/iarga.html

Thanks for the suggestion...I did so, and it was very interesting to say the least.


Seth, of the ‘Seth Series’ by Jane Roberts repeatedly makes the point that We Create Our Reality with our beliefs, thoughts and actions. The people of Earth, could change their world for the Better… in a Heartbeat, If They So Choose.

This is something I've learned on my own. I have no opinion regarding the Seth material although I have read some of it.


It saddens me to see those in ‘authority’ here on PA (as elsewhere) promote doom & gloom, as well as trauma-drama. The people that work in the MIC, or at Monsanto, or any other number of destructive entities of this world, aren’t necessarily ‘evil’… they only do these things out of ignorance and for a Paycheck. I’m beginning to suspect the same of many in the Alternative Media. And with these two statements, I feel we arrive at the crux of the problem.

We all have a great length to go, merely to overcome our conditioning. Even when some number of us realize the truths you allude to, it is nearly impossible to pass the realization on to others simply by talking to them. This of course is the crux of being the change we wish to see, yet even those of us who strive often feel that our efforts don't amount to much.


I suggest ‘just do it’, not for ‘money’, but because you Want To, because it Helps another person, because it Helps Mother Earth, because It’s The Right Thing To Do.

This is nearly verbatim what I have said countless times to people; it's discouraging to note how seldom it takes hold, even with people we think of as "good." I want to believe we are making some progress.


Work for a Positive Change in yourself, and in those around you.

We CAN Create the Utopia of our Dreams.

I thoroughly agree, but from what I observe, it will take a long time. Speaking only for myself, I'm still working on myself. People want certainty and dogma, and that isn't what we offer, is it?

[Airwooz]

Education and Income level...most developed countries's population are dropping...

[observer]

I've used this one in the past but I can't think of a more appropriate dissertation for this thread:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

It's time the members stopped thinking of more ways to control things and start thinking of ways to end the control mechanisms.

Please don't take this as a smart-a$$ed comment, but the wisdom in Mr. Carlin's humor can "trump" any argument for population control. I personally don't see the problem being an issue individuals need to debate and attempt to control. The problem will take care of itself....

The above comment #16 really wasn't intended as any sort of smart-a$$ed reply to this problem. George Carlin had a wisdom and an intellect far beyond the average individual: ...."so pack your bags folks, we're all going away".

For those members who have the patience to sit and watch a video of great relevance to this issue, I think we will all find a greater understanding to what George was saying in his above quote.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRG8nUDbVXU

When the fine contaminated particulate from the seasonal dust storms in the Middle East reach the Eastward prevailing winds of the Jetstream in the lower levels of the stratosphere, and this all combines with the Easterly flow of the contamination from Fukushima the Northern hemisphere will no longer be habitable.

Soft-Kill.

The pin on the preverbal hand grenade has already been pulled, and the device has already been thrown into the crowed room....

[Robin]

Overpopulation is definitely not a myth. It's completely ignorant to think about it just in terms of if there's enough space and resources for everyone...It's about how much space we can occupy and how much resources we can take while living in harmony with all other living beings which share this planet with us.


I'm going to follow up Raf's comment with some quotes by Aldo Leopold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldo_Leopold):


“There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace.”
― Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac


“Conservation is getting nowhere because it is incompatible with our Abrahamic concept of land. We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”
― Aldo Leopold


“One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise.”
― Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac


“Ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching- even when doing the wrong thing is legal.”
― Aldo Leopold


“The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant, "What good is it?" If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.”
― Aldo Leopold, Round River: From the Journals of Aldo Leopold


“Our ability to perceive quality in nature begins, as in art, with the pretty. It expands through successive stages of the beautiful to values as yet uncaptured by language.”
― Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac: With Other Essays on Conservation from Round River


“We shall never achieve harmony with the land, anymore than we shall achieve absolute justice or liberty for people. In these higher aspirations the important thing is not to achieve but to strive.”
― Aldo Leopold, Round River: From the Journals of Aldo Leopold


“We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes – something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.”
― Aldo Leopold


“Cease being intimidated by the argument that a right action is impossible because it does not yield maximum profits, or that a wrong action is to be condoned because it pays.”
― Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac


“Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and aesthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends to perserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”
― Aldo Leopold


“To those devoid of imagination a blank place on the map is a useless waste; to others, the most valuable part.”
― Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac: With Other Essays on Conservation from Round River


“Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of the wolf.”
― Aldo Leopold


“Civilization has so cluttered this elemental man-earth relationship with gadgets and middlemen that awareness of it is growing dim. We fancy that industry supports us, forgetting what supports industry.”
― Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac: With Other Essays on Conservation from Round River


“Like winds and sunsets, wild things were taken for granted until progress began to do away with them. Now we face the question whether a still higher 'standard of living' is worth its cost in things natural, wild and free. For us of the minority, the opportunity to see geese is more important than television.”
― Aldo Leopold


“My favorite quote: The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land... In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such.”
― Aldo Leopold


“All conservation of wildness is self-defeating, for to cherish we must see and fondle, and when enough have seen and fondled, there is no wilderness left to cherish.”
― Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac: With Other Essays on Conservation from Round River


“A conservationist is one who is humbly aware that with each stroke [of the axe] he is writing his signature on the face of the land.”
― Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac


“But wherever the truth may lie, this much is crystal-clear: our bigger-and-better society is now like a hypochondriac, so obsessed with its own economic health as to have lost the capacity to remain healthy. . . . Nothing could be more salutary at this stage than a little healthy contempt for a plethora of material blessings.”
― Aldo Leopold

If we continue expanding the human population, the world well continue to be less and less aesthetically pleasing to each individual, thereby reducing the intrinsic value of Earth and lowering the happiness of each.

:llama:

[GNC Harteveld]

How about we clone the planet? Make one a light earth, and one a dark earth. All the jerks get put on the dark one and they can trash the place if they want. All the non-jerks who long for something better get put on the light one, and they can turn it into something amazing, in harmony with their fellow humans.
Didn't they try this in Great Brittain by sending the criminals to Australia?
Nowadays everyone would rather live in Australia. :D

[AutumnW]

To be cautious about our numbers a d work to implement change isn't the same as being panicked or fear based. On the other hand, ignoring the reality of what we are doing isn't positive. It's being fantasy prone. Seeing the world in terms of abundance while species disappearance ramps up is irrational and human centric. Abundance for who, for what... The 2 or 3 species that bit it in the last 24 hours? Perhaps you can choose to live a cloistered existence, sheltered from the dire effects of 7 billion humans eating you out of house and home and destroying your habitat. The animals and bio diverse Eco systems cannot!

[Kindred]

An excerpt from Iarga:
http://rune.galactic.to/iarga.html

Initially, I saw only clouds: above me, the pink layer of mist that I had seen earlier; then a second, broken cloud layer which was primarily responsible for the strange, diffused light on the planet. We passed through this layer at a height of about twenty miles, and viewed from the underside it was a mixture of yellow-gray, brown and greenish clouds that gave a very somber and threatening impression. Lastly came a cloud layer that in height, form and color, closely resembled ours, and after passing through this, I had an unobstructed view of the surface. We flew over a bright-green ocean with white wave crests.

Above the water ran an orange strip as straight as an arrow, which, separated by a white-beached horse-shoe-shaped island, split and continued in different directions. It was only when the spaceship came steadily lower that I realized what this strip was. A railway bridge! On long, slim towers, high above the water, ran a bridge as far as the eye could see. Along this bridge slim shining torpedoes moved in both directions. Their speed was only slightly less than that of the spaceship and there were far too many of them for me to count. The distance between the torpedoes was about ten times their own length, all spaced exactly alike along an eight-track system which was divided into two layers, one above the other. I had little time to study the trains further, for we moved on.

Land came into view - a low-lying coast, split by a broad river with large adjoining lakes-and before my astonished eyes a strange, unearthly panorama unfolded. For as far as the eye could see, the land was divided by the orange railway into regular rectangles. The long torpedoes moved between huge, glass, oiltank like constructions with shiny dome-shaped roofs. Areas of green on either side of the railway looked something like prehistoric forests. The longer I studied this landscape, the more I became aware that this was ribbon development in its extreme form. The area between the buildings seemed to be used namely for agriculture, only now and then making way for an industrial complex. The camera sped on. The landscape changed and became undulating, split by walls into huge terraces which compared with the wine fields of Italy. Behind this lay mountains, and in a great bowl between the peaks a red-brown lake came into view. The machine tilted its nose steadily lower until I was able to see vertically below. Around the shores of the lake, numerous buildings were to be seen, among which were several gigantic combs.

In three places, powerful blue-white lights, flanked by orange lights, flashed. Everything pointed to the fact that the spaceship was going to land here, and just at the last second, before the picture vanished, I saw something that made me catch my breath. On the right side of the screen, low above the lake, three shiny discs hung like sentries in the air. They had the form of perfect, streamlined discuses. "I saw flying saucers!"

"You saw three of our aircraft."

"In the form of a saucer?"

"Exactly. And if you are interested, we will let you see them."

"I certainly am. Did you come here in something like that?"

"No. These aircraft have about as much in common with our spacecraft as an Indian arrow has with your Mars probe. We hope that you have more important questions to ask than about aircraft."

"Of course. Am I to understand that the glass tanks are your houses?"

"Yes, We call them house rings because they are in fact built in the form of a ring with a covered central recreation area."

"Is the whole planet built in this way?"

"Yes, all areas that are suitable for living are built in this manner." The screen showed a view of a living area from a great height."

"So you all live in the same type of house?"

"From the outside they are all the same, but inside there is great variation."

"The uniformity appalls me. Do your top men also live in the cylinders?" I had an idea, judging from the length of the trains, which I guessed were about one hundred and fifty feet, that these buildings were enormous, at least nine hundred feet in diameter and more than three hundred feet high.

"The words 'top men' suggest something of the Earth's ideas of status; you surely do not imagine that in a higher civilization, standards of justice can exist that allow status to play a part?"

"I don't see what status has to do with more variation in house building. Why not simpler, smaller houses with more privacy?"

"Small houses with separate pieces of land form a system that you call 'towns,' and such inefficiency is unthinkable to Us.

"Why inefficient? When you have our problem of overpopulation, you must build large cities to house all the people. We cannot afford the luxury of large areas of woodland as you can."

"What do you call overpopulation?"

"Our small country has more than three hundred people to the square kilometer, which in my opinion is quite dense."

"Compared to Earth's average of twenty-five to the square kilometer, that is indeed dense. Estimate the number of people living in the area that you see here. Every ring houses about ten thousand. Work it out per rectangle."

"Ten thousand per ring?"

"Yes, and we have more square meters per person than you have."

I did a quick calculation. Each rectangle contained thirty-six rings, so thirty-six times ten thousand is . . . heavens! Three hundred and sixty thousand! I hadn't expected that. It made each rectangle a complete city! But, then, it was also a lot of land. "How long is the rectangle?"

"Roughly ten kilometers." I judged that the width must then be in the region of six kilometers, so that an area was then sixty square kilometers and therefore my solution must be 600 people per square kilometer. "I was certainly mistaken about your population - 600 per square kilometer. That's double ours. I was under the impression that it was much less. When I see the space that you have left, I must admit that it is a very clever solution."

"Your answer amuses Us because you have made a small mistake. You have the decimal point in the wrong place."

I calculated again and came to the ridiculous total of six thousand. "It can't be six thousand."
"It is, Stef. What you see here houses a population of six thousand people to the square kilometer."

"But that's ridiculous. How can you do it? That's twenty times as many as our overpopulated land."

"Your word 'overpopulation' is pure nonsense. Our planet has a population density at least one hundred times greater than yours and we do not speak of overpopulation."

I began to feel uneasy, that was madness. I knew it. I should never have started this conversation. It was leading nowhere. I stared with new interest at the picture in front of me and tried to calculate the living space of these people. Strange as it may seem, there were no signs of overpopulation. On the contrary, there was room enough, round the cylinders, and the roads that ran through the woodland areas were in no way obstructed with people or traffic. "This is so incomparable with anything that we know that I am at a loss for words."

"That is the right attitude. With this confrontation with a totally different world, with totally different standards and a totally different philosophy, we are trying to make it clear that you must not draw comparisons. Doing so prevents you from understanding this world and its level of civilization. Forget your own world and try to understand what is happening here. Try, without prejudice, to follow our explanation, as this alone will be difficult enough. "The reason for our dense population is the small area of dry-land on our planet. Iarga is almost completely covered with water forming deep oceans, which leaves Us with a surface area of dry-land which can be compared to the area of Australia, and this is distributed over numerous islands. We were faced with the problem of feeding and housing the billions of beings which we needed in order to achieve our creation goal, on the smallest possible area of land. This imposed the greatest demands on our planning and social systems; these demands do not occur on Earth, you have room to spare.
"What we needed to create a high level of culture were three things: freedom, justice and efficiency. We will explain these concepts one at a time, beginning with the last, efficiency. "You are shocked by the size of our population, but the space surprises you. Strange, eh? It is not so strange when you realize that you are not shocked by the number of people but by the space that is left over in what to you is a ridiculously overpopulated world. You are shocked by our efficiency. To Us, it is the most normal thing in the world, because without this concept, we simply could not exist. Without efficiency, our world would immediately collapse. You will continually come up against this concept in our explanations because we must make it clear to you how carefully each of the three concepts-freedom, justice and efficiency - we had to employ to reach the level of civilization that can be called stable. "Also, justice is a condition for efficiency.

[OnyxKnight]

Example of efficient high population maintenance model - Iarga

Example of inefficient high population model maintenance - Akart.

>>>>> We should learn something from these worlds. They are all within a dozen ly away from us. If not going there anytime soon with mainstream, public technology, direct imaging will sufficiently advance in about a decade, decade-and-a-half, to where we could image nearby planets in nearby star systems. Other than biosignatures, their population spread will be one of the first things we would notice. We could compare than the three planets and extrapolate data.

[Bright Garlick]

I haven't seen many recommendations on how to reduce the population folks.

To remind you - one of the key reasons it's been done in secret is because it's a highly EMOTIVE issue and those at the top of The Architecture know that consensus is impossible among the masses.
What methods would YOU recommend ???

Also, all the issues around population numbers declining and how to use resources are null and void to me. Eventually there is a point at which the human population is unsustainable and undesirable. Try it on a small scale with another species and you'll see the problem honestly. The real issue to me is the exploitation of resources as if they are never ending, at the expense of ecosystems and species diversity. Add to the mix the issue of what happens to peoples physical and emotional health when you cram lots of people together.

We already have a huge mess and talking about how many folks can fit into Texas and how easily we can redistribute resources will not fix the problem, it will only dissuade the masses from believing there is a problem. Take any town of more than 50,000 people and watch it grow over 20-30 years and that will teach you what rapid uncapped human population growth does to ecosystems. I've watched that with half a dozen towns and it's utterly shocking. Let alone a large town or city.

Of course, there is also the water problem. Start diverting water for larger human populations and we **** up weather and ecosystems.

This is a problem WE WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH soon !!! And it won't be enough to point fingers at the bad guys. We co-created this problem together.
We will have to come up with acceptable solutions and find some level of agreement (you can see how hard that's been on the climate change issue - no I support the solar model). Imagine how hard that will be and the conspiracies it will inspire !

Think Tanks are being created to deal with this issue because it's unsavoury to the masses and to politicians. But if we don't stand up in large numbers and create workable solutions, OTHERS WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE THE DECISION FOR US. This is an issue I would like to be dedicating much of my later life to.

Every solution creates it's own problem. We need to think beyond ourselves for at least 7 generations. The issue of reducing the human population, seems to me is a good use for Remote Viewing - so that we can evaluate what worked and what failed.

Shortly I'll post a video about what I was shown will be one solution to the expanding ageing population.

As Onyx has suggested - we should learn something from other worlds. This is a threshold that ALL HIGHLY EVOLVED RACES MUST CROSS, if they are to survive and embrace their place in the cosmic family.
I believe that we need to see this problem through the eye of the heart and yet avoid become highly EMOTIVE about it. We must be logical and caring.

I wonder how many of you live in cities and see the view of this problem from the safe distance of being separated from the natural world and travel little outside of the comfort zone ?

[Kindred]

I haven't seen many recommendations on how to reduce the population folks.

To remind you - one of the key reasons it's been done in secret is because it's a highly EMOTIVE issue and those at the top of The Architecture know that consensus is impossible among the masses.
What methods would YOU recommend ???

If you are looking for 'material' changes to make the needed transition, then you are looking in the Wrong direction. The Greatest challenges of ANY sentient species is Not of a material nature... it is of a Spiritual nature. We don't need a 'depopulation' of Earth... We Need Enlightenment, and THEN, we can work on the material issues... which I can assure you... These have ALL been addressed with high technology development... it's just we are not allowed to Use it, due to it's sequestering within the higher 'echelons' of our 'collective'.

UNLESS and UNTIL humanity can raise it's Spiritual Consciousness, then NO 'material' changes will greatly affect the outcome of what has transpired to date, and will transpire in the future.

EACH OF US is Responsible for our Own Awakening, and Then, to Awaken others within our own 'spheres of influence', As Best We Can.

While 'chatting' about this issue on an online forum is all well and good, (particularly since it is 'open' to the 'outside') what Truly needs to happen is for each of US to take the initiative and bring this conversation into our daily discourse... Make people see the need for opening their Own eyes to the challenges before humanity.

YES... this is a Great Challenge, one that can lead to one's ostracizing or being ignored altogether.

Are YOU up to the Challenge???

In Unity, Peace and LOVE

Remember... Jesus made a simple admonishment...

Love One-Another

Everything else will follow in due course.

[OnyxKnight]

I haven't seen many recommendations on how to reduce the population folks.

To remind you - one of the key reasons it's been done in secret is because it's a highly EMOTIVE issue.

Correction: Its an unethical and immoral issue. That's why its done behind the scenes. The very notion that they were too careless in the first place, to let us reach 7 billion in a relatively short time proves that they are unfit to take care of this planet. They don't have the necessary control over it as we may think they do.


What methods would YOU recommend ???

I did make recommendations for solutions in a previous post. I think the proposed solutions would be effective before we manage to colonize Mars. Then apply the same there until we colonize another planet. I guess that post went invisible for you, or that it is not an efficient solution. So, I ask, what do you propose?


Also, all the issues around population numbers declining and how to use resources are null and void to me.

Its part of the contra-argument. Turning a blind eye to it is not productive for a discussion. Better management of resources is one of the key components to a temporary measure taken until the other suggested measures reach due time to be introduced.


But if we don't stand up in large numbers and create workable solutions, OTHERS WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE THE DECISION FOR US. This is an issue I would like to be dedicating much of my later life to.

I don't plan to dedicate my life to that matter, yet I proposed more than a dozen solutions for this, and you say you plan to dedicate your later life on this issue, yet we are yet to see what you think should be done that's more ethical and moral than what the elite are doing right now.


Every solution creates it's own problem. We need to think beyond ourselves for at least 7 generations.

The proposed solutions could save a minimum of 20 generations ahead.


The issue of reducing the human population, seems to me is a good use for Remote Viewing - so that we can evaluate what worked and what failed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't RVing applied only to the present? Seeing things the way they are now in a different place etc.? Not a different time?


Shortly I'll post a video about what I was shown will be one solution to the expanding ageing population.

Looking forward to it.


As Onyx has suggested - we should learn something from other worlds. This is a threshold that ALL HIGHLY EVOLVED RACES MUST CROSS, if they are to survive and embrace their place in the cosmic family.

Akart has a population of 26 billion. Almost 20 times the Earth has currently. But they are managing for now. We are not yet in such a crisis to predict gloom and doom for our civilization. I do agree that we should think up and present solutions now, before things get thicker like on Akart. We are far from where we need to "reduce" the population by any means. We need more effective resource management, and access to the technology of the private sector that is hidden from the public. We need to drastically slow down the process of populating the planet and one way of doing it is colonizing Mars.

[Robin]

I haven't seen many recommendations on how to reduce the population folks.

I really don't think that there is any perfect solution, nor do I think that we need to focus on any recommendations.

Before I continue, let me say that I fully acknowledge an overpopulation problem, that I take the time to study both the humanities and sciences on a regular basis, and that I think humans should be responsible for their actions. But I think that the issue of human overpopulation is far more complex than we've given thought to yet on this thread.

I think that we are very intimately tied to this planet...much more so than conventional science suggests. For those who have seen the film Avatar, you may understand what I am alluding to. I do think that planets are individual entities that express themselves much more profoundly than our brains can begin to acknowledge. We are her children in a sense. She is allowing us to occupy her being so we can learn lessons and progress through different dimensions...leading to oneness.

If this sounds hippie-dippy, I assure you that science can back up this well enough. Time and time again, looking back through history, great civilizations and great populations of dominant animals have been wiped out by natural events. It simply was their time to go. Whether looking at dinosaurs or Pompeii, there have been some major extinction events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event) due to natural causes. One can say that these events are totally random due to chaos theory or enthalpy, but could it be more?

What if these extinction events are due to Earth deciding that she wants to clean herself up and try something new? Perhaps she felt that the current situation was getting out of control--or even learned what she wanted to learn by experimentation--and decided she wanted something new. I think that, as crazy as this sounds, the Earth decides when things come and when things go.

Going off of this theory, why the heck has Earth decided to keep modern humanity going for so long without intervening? I don't know, nor do I think I have the right to know. Earth's decisions are her own and I trust that she is empathetic to our cause and is giving us an extended chance to progress peacefully.

But I think that there will be a time in the relatively near future where she will not be so kind. I think that the Earth has a way to naturally cleanse and renew herself in such a way where she will continue to prosoper as she orbits around the sun. Religous fanatics think that God caused a Great Flood to cleanse humanity...why can't this actually be Earth's decision? I am sure that if humanity does not clean up its act in the next 50-or-so years, Earth will intervene and do it for us. I envision more earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. occuring until the human population is reduced down to its carrying capacity.

This would be Earth's choice, and I respect that. I think that it is inevitable. So I think that if humans do not form a solution for our population problem, it will be taken care of for us. I do not see any easy solution to reduce our population in the next while, so I think Earth changes will be inevitable and will kill off large numbers of humans.

[blufire]

I would like to share an experience I had when I lived In Kansas that is very relatable to what we are seeing now globally and how the growing overpopulation is being controlled for us.

I had a close friend that lived just down from my farm. She was the same age as me but struggled with many health issues and needed my (and other neighbors) help almost daily. Caren (my friend) loved horses and she had two stallions and several mares that she bred yearly. She also collected abused and unwanted horses.

Very quickly she overloaded her 40 acres with all these horses and completely and utterly destroyed any eco balance and natural resources her farm had to offer. She began having to spend great deal of money buying grain and hay for the horses because she no longer had pastures or hay fields to harvest from. She also had to use rural water because her ponds were destroyed from the horses defecating and were filled with dirt from the erosion of the pastures that were devoid of any vegetation. She could not afford even basic veterinary care.

Even with this disaster she continued to breed her mares and collect other horses.

Her horses became ill and constantly injured from the overpopulation and too many horses forced to live too closely. Many of the horses became unmanageable and dangerous to be around because she had no time to handle and train them properly. Every one them was malnourished and starving to death.

Animal control had been called many times over the years and she finally received the ultimatum that if she didn’t take care of the horses they would all be removed from her farm and she would go to jail for abuse and neglect.

Caren came to me and asked for my help and that this time she would listen to my advice on how to solve this horrendous problem if I would help her. I told her I would but only if she and I worked closely together and the first hint that she was refusing I would step away and never help her again and her horse would be removed from her and her farm taken from her.

We sat down and devised a strategy and game plan with goals and timeline and presented it to her next court hearing and they detailed what we were to achieve so that she wouldn’t be fined and/or sent to jail.

We had to make some very tough, heart breaking decisions (I tear up even now with what we had to do) There were times I didn’t think Caren could continue because she literally had to change so many ways in how she lived her life and shepherded her horses. There were times I didn’t think I could continue with the level of pain and suffering and with the seemingly hoplessness of it all

The plan we formalized mirrors greatly in how I now see the growing overpopulation being managed today and for us.

We started with 67 horses with ages from 4 months to 28 (which is old for a horse). Immediately 4 had to be euthanized, they were too far gone and in extreme pain and no hope for recovery.

We brought 29 of them to my farm where I could medically treat those with injuries, disease and serious parasites. All of them needed constant handling and training. Some were the younger horses or older highly desirable horses that I knew we could find homes easily. All male horses were castrated to prevent any new babies.

I set up strict pasture rotation and put up temporary fencing in my hay pastures (away from my personal animals) so each of the horses (as the health allowed) could be outside and feed in the pastures. I was very watchful that my farm was not depleted of natural resources or the eco balance damaged. They flourished and in around 18 months we had all these horses placed in new homes.

The other 30+ horses we kept on Caren’s farm. These were the older horses or so crippled that I knew we would not find homes and just needed to be cared for until they passed. There were 7 horses that were unmanageable and extremely dangerous to handle . . . 4 of these eventually were euthanized and the other 3 were kept confined away from the others with only me or a male friend handling them.

The horses on Caren’s farm did not have pasture access. It takes a minimum of 5 acres of pasture per horse in order for the pastures to remain viable and healthy; obviously with 25+ horses she needed at least 125 acres (she had 40).

These horses were fed hay and the cheapest grain we could find. She had received quite a bit of donations both monetarily and actual feed, but even with this my heart always went out to these horses. They were healthy but it was a constant fight to keep them healthy because the nutrition in this type of food was low and supplementation was constant and mandatory.

When I moved from Kansas (about 12 years later) she still had 8 horses left. Some had passed and some we did manage to find homes . . . several went to a new facility that needed horses for disabled and mentally challenged children and adults. 2 of the 8 left were of the 3 that were dangerous . . . . they had mellowed in time and with knowing that they now would always have food and space and unconditional love.

Caren’s farm had gradually over the years and with proper maintenance and care came back and was flourishing and beautiful. The horses remaining in her care had green pastures and clear clean pond water. The horses were healthy and happy. Caren’s health and happiness had returned too.

So out of utter devastation and with heart rending decisions and actions and years of incredible hard work came beauty, abundance and success.

I see the plight of Caren and her horses and how we solved it mirroring today’s growing global overpopulation and the current management in the following ways:

Caren’s farm before intervention (for me) is as it was in the late 60’s and into the early 80’s. During this time is when we realized we had a global overpopulation nightmare and that it was most dire. I remember the 10’s of 1,000’s of people that literally starved to death or were grossly malnourished . . . not only in 3rd world countries but in 1st world countries as well. There was a massive wake up call that our global natural resources were on the brink of utter devastation if we didn’t make pragmatic and drastic changes.

I can look back now and pragmatically see how this problem was acknowledged and a solution was planned and a strategy formed to solve it over time and we can see this plan in action today and how it is constantly being tweaked and adapted as we move forward. Just like Caren and I had to do. We had to make a lot of heart rending decisions to save and care for ALL the horses and it was difficult knowing that some of those decisions were the only ones we could make with what we had and without destroying the eco balance of my farm too.

I have watched over the years as our cities and urban areas across the planet have grown exponentially and have eaten away at environmentally healthy areas. I have watched over the years as the people who are living in these areas have no other choice than to eat GMO and mass produced and over processed food. This food has to be supplemented with vitamins and other enhancements for even fair to moderate health.

Just like the horses that had to remain on Caren’s farm. The only resource we had for their food was unnatural (hay and grain) or not optimally healthy for the horses. The grain was gmo grains and the hay had been grown conventionally with herbicides and artificial fertilizers.

I watch with sadness as people who live in these over crowded cities and urban areas struggle to remain healthy and happy. Just like with the horses left on Caren’s farm, we struggled with their health daily for many years and had to go to great lengths to maintain any happiness and quality of life for them.

There are areas everywhere on our planet that are balanced and well cared for and these areas will grow over time. The people that live in these areas thrive and are very happy and healthy. Just like the horses brought to my farm.

We are precariously still on a razors edge with our management of the global overpopulation and crowding. There are times I think we have made it and other times where I feel we have lost the battle.

I still have much hope that many years down the road and many generations (7 at least) our planet will be like Caren’s farm when I moved from Kansas. Beautiful and healthy and productive and most of all in balance with the natural resources, with the humans and animals alike that live there finally happy and thriving.


A difference between Caren’s horses and each of us as humans is we have the capacity to decide and make the CHOICE for our own destiny . . . not only each of us personally but for each other and the rest of humanity. Unlike Caren’s horses, in which we had to make the decision for them, each of us can make our own personal decision how to live our life and what effect that decision will have on our fellow human and the planet

Until each of us personally and responsibly become exponentially more educated and accountable for own destruction upon the planet and toward each other . . . . . . that decision and choice will continue to be made for us.

Each of us (unlike Caren’s horses) can choose how we will live and at what level that choices will be made for each of us.



So to answer your question Bright Garlick as to how I personally would reduce the very real problem of global overpopulation and devastation of our natural resources . . . . . . let’s just say I understand from a very personal experience (Caren’s horses) that I logically understand and agree with the current solution that is already implemented. Because I see more than ever before what our future holds.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?63899-The-New-World-and-Civilization--the-messages-from-my-Contact-as-a-child-

.

[Eram]

Hi BrightGarlic,

This must the 3th or 4th thread that you started on this subject in a short time.
In every one of them you are dictating what people can and cannot come up with to add to the discussion.
It seems to me that you have a few blindfold on in regards to this subject.

The human population and the problems that it creates in the environment are a symptom of the low level of consciousness and is not a disease on its self.
Several people have tried to point this out to you, yet you (sideways) accuse them of being emotional about the subject and not able to face up to reality.

To me it seems that you are the one that is not facing reality.

You have made up your mind that the problems of the human population in regards to the environment can only be addressed in one way and that is to reduce the population.

In this mindset, you act as a doctor that provides only symptom oppressing medicine and who refuses to look for medicine that is addressing the disease and not only the symptoms.

If you want a healthy debate about this problem, you have to be willing to discuss all options and not only the option that you brought to the table (population reduction).

As far as I can observe, you are totally unfit to lead a healthy discussion on this matter until you remove your blindfolds.


How about this alternative to your attempt to hook up with tptb?
The hundreds of billions that are now spent annually to run the current population reduction programs could be used for education and other means to raise the consciousness of mankind.
Proper education, in which people learn how to use discernment and the ability to think for themselves instead of cramming their minds with useless data that now occurs in schools.
A raising of the consciousness of humanity would allow us to come up with solutions that would be in harmony with nature and would take away any necessity to take the singleminded options that you want us to come up with.
In this way,we address the real problem and not only a symptom.

[blufire]

Hi Eram,

I respect you a great deal and I hope you can help me understand.

There are many others on the forum that I respect highly too and when I read posts like your last to BG I admit I struggle with adapting it into a full working understanding. Generally I simply set posts like yours (and others) to the side and chalk it up to my own shortcomings but other times (like your post above) I think wait a minute . . . . this is not logical or true and I sometimes (like now) feel a impulse to respond.

You said:


The hundreds of billions that are now spent annually to run the current population reduction programs could be used for education and other means to raise the consciousness of mankind.

Proper education, in which people learn how to use discernment and the ability to think for themselves instead of cramming their minds with useless data that now occurs in schools.

A raising of the consciousness of humanity would allow us to come up with solutions that would be in harmony with nature and would take away any necessity to take the singleminded options that you want us to come up with.
In this way,we address the real problem and not only a symptom.

What you have said here makes good sense up to a point, but I would like to use my post above where I shared my experience with my friend Caren and her horses to explain why I can’t accept what you have said as a current workable solution.

If I had not stepped in and join forces with Caren and take immediate, physical, calculated, drastic action Caren would have ended up in jail and would have lost her entire farm. She would have been demoralized, depressed and even more sick and I don’t think she would have ever recovered from such a devastating life event.

All 67 horses (all other animals too) would have been removed from her farm and some would have found homes but the majority would have ended up at the sale barn and sold for dog food and glue or worse, overseas for human consumption. I would also estimate that 30% would have been immediately euthanized because of the horrible shape they were in.

If I had the mindset that you seem to think BG (and me) should have then I would have not become involved thinking she needed more ‘proper’ education, she would need years of therapy and most of all raise her level of consciousness before she (and me) would have known what to do or capable of doing.

By forcing her to face her own reality and by my own huge commitment to stay by her side and do the absolute best we could, making those heartrending choices and decisions every day . . . . she grew Eram, she was healed physically and spiritually . . . . by facing reality and physically making day by day changes she literally became a new thriving person and I learned much about myself as well!

Those horses that stayed on her farm over time became thriving new horses. Her farmland too!

It was the actual act of implementing a strategic thoughtful plan that reduced the population of horses on her farm over time that made this event successful.

The by product or symptom or result of these actual physical decisions and actions was immense spiritual and physical growth and healing . . . for everyone and everything involved!

You made the comment that BG has posted several threads on this topic. I don’t want to speak in any way for BG but I have a feeling that very much like myself he is being ‘pushed hard’ to step forward and speak of what he knows or feels he may know. I see in him my own reluctance to speak of ‘things’ but at the same time I (maybe him too) feel no rest or peace unless I am actively involved and trying to share.

I support Bright Garlick, I feel an connection with much of what he is saying. Some is different from my own current understanding of our future but I can also tweak his information and plug it into my own ‘template of understanding’ and it melds.

We as a global humanity are on the brink of a huge leap of understanding and advancement and people like you Eram and like Bright Garlick are essential to this.

[Eram]

deleated a semi double post :)

[Eram]

Hi Blufire,




You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created.

Albert Einstein


You stepped in with Carens problem and offered a solution from a different level of consciousness that she was able to live by at that time.
This is how problems should be handled indeed imo.

Face the reality even if it may hurt and deal with it from the very best level of understanding that you can come up with.

I don't argue you and BG in any way there.

Al I'm saying is that BG is singleminded and biased in his approach while there are other options available as well.

Immediately jump to the option of population reduction is a poor way to enter a debate about this very real problem we are facing.

btw: Have you read the books from Steve Galalae..... "Killing Us Softly" & "Water,Salt Milk;Killing our unborn children 2012" (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65689-The-secret-is-out-the-whole-world-is-being-poisoned-by-the-United-Nations-NWO&p=762644&viewfull=1#post762644)?

He paints an interesting picture about our ability to procreate which is declining in an alarming rate.
He draws the conclusion that there is a worldwide conspiracy, lead by the U.N. where they sterilize us by means of fluoride (in order to prevent a collapse of society due to overpopulation) , PBA (in plastic bottles and cans) and GMO food to name a few of their agents of choice.
I think he provided far to little evidence to come to such a conclusion, but all the statistics and graphics that he uses are objective facts as far as I can tell and these show that humanity might have a whole new problem in the near future and that is, that we might be facing extinction because we are rapidly becoming sterile.

This is something else that we need to look into when dealing with this complicated issue of population versus impact on Nature.

I am all for bringing the subject to the discussion tables all over the world, but to start it from a decision that we are going to find ways to reduce the human population is premature and leaves out a whole lot other options that might help us address this issue properly.

Raising the consciousness of human kind offers resolutions on much more issues than just the population issue and should be made the chore of addressing these kind of problems.
Sure, we might have to face up to the fact that there are some hard decisions to be made and a way to reduce the population might be part of it, but it should not be the starting point of this discussion, because then we are trying to solve the problem on the same level that it was created.

:yo:

[Hervé]

... cough... cough... cough... errr... for a different perspective:


Here is what buggs me about the whole thing, starting with what's supposed to be an "insider" view as depicted in "Body Snatchers," it doesn't jive due to a major reality disconnect.

If it were true that "they" have all these advance technologies, psychic capabilities, etc, then there is no need for all that fuss about taking over and controlling this planet; should have been a done deal from long, long ago.

So, that's not it!

James Bratley heavily points towards deciphering the situation from the "intelligence/counter-intelligence" point of views and I would agree that, indeed, there is where lies the crux of the matter.

Then there is this other thing about population reduction, etc.

Well, why wait all these millenia in order to implement it since they know how to do it?

To the contrary, constant wars and widespread poverty has kept Earth's population increasing dramatically, keeping in mind that these wars and overall poverty have been intentional.

Therefore, then, why keep increasing this planet population in order to justify a drastic reduction?

What is that drastic reduction really for?

"Sacrifice" and "Soul Harvesting" comes to mind... because, really, what are they actually interested in?

SLAVES!

Mind-controlled slaves.

This is where, again James Bratley hits the nail square through:


I found this fascinating insight in the classic book "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu which was interpreted and translated by General Samuel B. Griffith USMC Retired.

"All warfare is based on deception. A skilled general must be master of the complimentary arts of simulation and dissimulation; while creating shapes to confuse and delude the enemy, he conceals his true dispositions and ultimate intent. When capable he feigns incapacity; when near he makes it appear that he is far away; when far away, that he is near. Moving as intangibly as a ghost in the starlight, he is obscure, inaudible. His primary target is the mind of the opposing commander; the victorious situation, a product of his creative imagination." Sun Tzu realized that an indispensable preliminary to battle was to attack the mind of the enemy."

General Griffith might as well have been writing about Astral Dreamscape Manipulation by the Reptilians. All of the methods I've mentioned above have been used again and again by the reptilians and their alien vassals. Those abductees who haven't developed nausea or suffered a migraine and have actually finished this treatise now have the information they need to protect themselves from this form of manipulation and behavior conditioning.

Intelligence, especially operational intelligence, is worthless if it doesn't get to the people who have the most need for it. History has proven this time and again. The reptilians come out at night to assault us and manipulate us in the astral dreamscape. To paraphrase Mao:

"When humans sleep, the reptilians attack. When we are awake, the reptilians retreat"
So... the actual battle and cosmic war is a spiritual war for human's minds/souls.

[...]

If I recall correctly, that's how the "Greys" have been had according to Alex collier in one of his lecture where he recounted how the lizzies targeted the females of their species so they couldn't reproduce anymore and therefore at the mercy of the cloning and soul transfer technologies of those fork-tongued snakes.

[blufire]

Why does there have to be some insidious conspiracy at all Amzer zo?

And I mean that.

Our DNA dual (2) genetic strands are mammalian and reptilian in design and nature. We are both. One is no greater or lesser than the other. Our task and mission is to balance and meld the two to become One.

To deny you are one or the other is to deny and reject who you truly are.

We are both and both are beautiful.

[Hervé]

There does not need to be conspiracy, it's just that it's as matter of fact as your encounter...

See this post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65793-How-to-reduce-the-human-population&p=763005&viewfull=1#post763005) (<---) in this thread.

[OnyxKnight]

Agenda 21 is not a conspiracy lacking facts Blufire.

And I agree with Eram, why multiple threads? Because each previous one didn't went the desired way he wanted? Why condone that? Imagine all of us starting a new thread about the same topic everytime it didn't go well. Bright Garlick might be sincere, might be believing what he says, might be trying to make a positive change ... I (and I believe most), don't doubt that side of him. I personally doubt his approach to the issue, and his palette of choices that he presents and even the taste in professional company he would consider to work with on this issue (TPTB?) and also his lack of compassion for the other side of the issue. The actual, affected side. We all know the impact on the world, ecosystems, habitats. Population reduction though, is not just numbers. And its easy to say that we need to cut down the population in order for us to solve the problem, like its just so easy, simple, and obvious, like cutting down excess paper or fabric of something. People are not numbers, people are living conscious beings, and we are also part of nature. We need to devise and execute a better plan than the scissor-cut model. Last time people were reduced to numbers was during the last World War. We need to cut that crap out from our minds. There is always a better way.

[blufire]

Agenda 21 is not a conspiracy lacking facts Blufire.

And I agree with Eram, why multiple threads? Because each previous one didn't went the desired way he wanted? Why condone that? Imagine all of us starting a new thread about the same topic everytime it didn't go well. Bright Garlick might be sincere, might be believing what he says, might be trying to make a positive change ... I (and I believe most), don't doubt that side of him. I personally doubt his approach to the issue, and his palette of choices that he presents and even the taste in professional company he would consider to work with on this issue (TPTB?) and also his lack of compassion for the other side of the issue. The actual, affected side. We all know the impact on the world, ecosystems, habitats. Population reduction though, is not just numbers. And its easy to say that we need to cut down the population in order for us to solve the problem, like its just so easy, simple, and obvious, like cutting down excess paper or fabric of something. People are not numbers, people are living conscious beings, and we are also part of nature. We need to devise and execute a better plan than the scissor-cut model. Last time people were reduced to numbers was during the last World War. We need to cut that crap out from our minds. There is always a better way.

I hear you, I truly do.

But please show even an inkling of a better or different way that will work that doesn't require the majority of the global population to ascend to a higher consciousness. . . . Because we all will perish before that occurs.

You speak of these alien worlds that you feel we should immolate and I just go blank. How can we ever remotely hope to understand an alien world when we can't even understand or formulate a plan even on this forum that is made up of supposedly higher thinking individuals?

I can hear and feel the palpable frustration in all of us.

There is a good handful of us that see clearly where we are headed as a global humanity and we are nearly out of time to implement or influence the one that was implemented centuries ago.

Do we stand by and let ourselves and those around us be euthanized or slaughtered as my friends horses would have been or do we take action before this happens?

Up until recently I felt Bill knew of a group that could at least organize us to a degree and direct us in the general direction. . . . But I gave that up.

If there is . ... . Point me in the direction and I will be there with bootstraps sewn firmly on.

[Bright Garlick]

Onyx -

I have created multiple threads to present multiple points of view, not to avoid consideration of other points of view. I do not have to agree with everything said or react to any of it. I wanted to hear other points of view and mostly to hear solutions. To see people really push the edge of the envelope ! I wasn't looking for a debate. I am almost twice your age and have no time or energy for that. Try to realize that I was a young man TOO once and I too had a different point of view. I had points of view very much like others on this thread. My points of view changed over time. I read extensively about both sides of the population argument and I experienced seeing the impact of population problems. I worked at the coal face of many of these problems. I traveled, I witnessed, I explored, I learned. And I had discussions about it with multiple ET races.

Please reread my post - I do not advocate cutting people down like a hololcaust. I advocate an ethically sound approach to dealing with all the worlds problems. Starting with the Self and ideas of Self. managing our population addresses the issue of perpetual population expansion. It does not address ALL the issues, only those associated with having an excessive population without limits.

Your limited view of who TPTB actually are, seems to prevent you from considering the possibility that working with those in power might actually be a good thing. I would put my life on the line to work with those in power on this issue because I love this planet dearly. Would you ?

The Cree iIdians in Alberta describe the human life cycle in an interesting way. You are of an age that corresponds to the Yellow Eagle - you see 8 times further than any one else. Myage correspond to the Little Green Mouse - I value the well being of community of living beings and no longer think I see 8 times further than anyone else.

Just because I am spiky, doesn't mean I am not good to eat !

You are right - there is always a better way. Let us consider for one moment that there are too many people and at some point we need to manage our population. How can we do that ethically, without creating more problems (like the 53:47 % ratio of males to females in China) ?

I am asking the hard question because no one is willing to ask it ! If there was a discussion to be had, that was easy, I would never have asked the question.

Best wishes to you,

Bright.

PS. I value all life and so do the ET races who have been part of my life. It is because I value ALL LIFE, that I ask this hard question. Humans are but one life on this precious blue sphere.


Agenda 21 is not a conspiracy lacking facts Blufire.

And I agree with Eram, why multiple threads? Because each previous one didn't went the desired way he wanted? Why condone that? Imagine all of us starting a new thread about the same topic everytime it didn't go well. Bright Garlick might be sincere, might be believing what he says, might be trying to make a positive change ... I (and I believe most), don't doubt that side of him. I personally doubt his approach to the issue, and his palette of choices that he presents and even the taste in professional company he would consider to work with on this issue (TPTB?) and also his lack of compassion for the other side of the issue. The actual, affected side. We all know the impact on the world, ecosystems, habitats. Population reduction though, is not just numbers. And its easy to say that we need to cut down the population in order for us to solve the problem, like its just so easy, simple, and obvious, like cutting down excess paper or fabric of something. People are not numbers, people are living conscious beings, and we are also part of nature. We need to devise and execute a better plan than the scissor-cut model. Last time people were reduced to numbers was during the last World War. We need to cut that crap out from our minds. There is always a better way.

[Bright Garlick]

Blufire - yes, yes and yes.

Thank you for getting it.

[Bright Garlick]

Blufire - Yes, yes, yes with tears in my eyes !

"I have a feeling that very much like myself he is being ‘pushed hard’ to step forward and speak of what he knows or feels he may know."

And if I didn't, would it be worth the criticism and persecution and hate mail I received for my videos on the subject ? No.
I would put my life on the line to create solutions to this problem.
Earth and ALL HER SPECIES matters more than humanity does.

Thank you for picking up the torch !

[Eram]

Agenda 21 is not a conspiracy lacking facts Blufire.

And I agree with Eram, why multiple threads? Because each previous one didn't went the desired way he wanted? Why condone that? Imagine all of us starting a new thread about the same topic everytime it didn't go well. Bright Garlick might be sincere, might be believing what he says, might be trying to make a positive change ... I (and I believe most), don't doubt that side of him. I personally doubt his approach to the issue, and his palette of choices that he presents and even the taste in professional company he would consider to work with on this issue (TPTB?) and also his lack of compassion for the other side of the issue. The actual, affected side. We all know the impact on the world, ecosystems, habitats. Population reduction though, is not just numbers. And its easy to say that we need to cut down the population in order for us to solve the problem, like its just so easy, simple, and obvious, like cutting down excess paper or fabric of something. People are not numbers, people are living conscious beings, and we are also part of nature. We need to devise and execute a better plan than the scissor-cut model. Last time people were reduced to numbers was during the last World War. We need to cut that crap out from our minds. There is always a better way.

I hear you, I truly do.

But please show even an inkling of a better or different way that will work that doesn't require the majority of the global population to ascend to a higher consciousness. . . . Because we all will perish before that occurs.


Blufire,

Who said anything about ascension?
You make it sound like we try to aim for prayer and hope for the best :P

Raising the consciousness would involve "getting real" (as dr. Phil would say) and look at what's really there and available to us.

I you want humanity (people like you and me who are not part of the power structure that operates behind the curtain) to make decisions as to how we are going to decline the human population , there is some level of waking up required any way, so either way, a raise in consciousness is necessary if you want solutions to come from the people and not only the elite.

There are many other options available to us that would also contribute in addressing things like the impact that we have on the eco system.


We could switch to the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) as a main source of energy.
There is enough thorium on earth to supply us for tens of thousands of years to create an abundance of energy for all people and not just in the first world.
The LFTR is clean, little to nu risk and we could burn up all nuclear waste there that we now have due to the regular uranium reactors that now exist.
Avalon member Bobd (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?5140-Thorium-would-sensibly-be-the-way-to-go&p=733154&viewfull=1#post733154) is even convinced that we could use thorium to build very small reactors that we could use house to house, or to power cars, trains, boats and what have you.
Clean energy that comes at a cost price that is way way below what we now pay for energy. You could almost call it free energy.
China is developing it's first LFTR as we speak by the way, very interesting to see where this goes.
N2vzotsvvkw
P9M__yYbsZ4

We could switch to hemp as a source to produce clothing and paper instead of the cotton (which uses insanely amounts of water) and wood.

We could set rules for the amount of meat that we consume so a lot of problems that arise from this line of industry would decline.
My next door neighbor is a farmer and as all other farmers here in Wallonie, he holds cattle (mostly cows and some pigs). He has about 350 cows and uses 85 hectares of land to provide those cows with food (insane if you consider what amount of food those 85 acres would provide humanity if most of it was used for vegetables, corn, wheat for human consumption. (but you know about this much better then I do of course).

We could encourage people to grow our own crops again, like we did in the past.

We could develop certain deserts with sustainable ways to provide for extra land to grow crops etc.


These are only a few things we could do to improve our situation and there are many more.

We can only come to decisions about how we are going to reduce the human population if we raise the consciousness any way, otherwise most people will keep sticking their heads in the sand, so while we are at it, lets open our eyes to all the options that are available to us and not only cut back on numbers.

I am all for practical, down to earth solutions to our problems, but there is no need to give in to a scarcity mindset or to only consider certain solutions (because tptb would never consider other options, since they would lose power over us. Thinking like this is to enslave ourselves instead of them enslaving us).
With a mentality like that, Ghandi would have never accomplished what he did.

Pragmatism can help us only as long as it aims at the highest, not at the lowest.

[gripreaper]

This thread is moving pretty fast, and has become the “de-facto” thread of the many threads which touch on the core issue, even though it is couched in the notion of over population and how to reduce it. But first, may I wax poetic and try to create a context for the answer while looking at the core issues before I offer the solution?

First off, humans, or more appropriately, homo sapien sapiens, are a manipulated and hybridized species whose inherent abilities have been altered. We have 13 strands of DNA, not just the two which blufire has postulated, the mammalian and reptilian. That is an oversimplification of the true nature of the species and does not take into consideration that the other 11 strands which are dormant are not “junk” as our sciences would have us believe. Neither is the calcified pineal gland, which is the master gland providing the necessary elixirs for the rest of the glands to function properly. Also, we have a complete energy body, with cone shaped chakras and at least seven etheric energy layers emanating from the torus body, which govern the cerebrum and cerebellum, the higher brain centers. These indigenous abilities are dormant in most of the population as well.

It is not within the scope of this essay to go over the historical, archeological and esoteric records to explain how we got this way, since this thread is about solutions which I will get to in a minute if you will bear with me. Yet, there is conditioning which is very prevalent within the universities and schools of this planet which adhere to a religious doctrine which espouses the exploitation of the earth and massive procreation and expansion of the species. We are conditioned to do this without nary a whisper of debate on population or the destruction of the planet even being a consideration. So, other threads have discussed the benevolent or nefarious intent of those who promulgate such beliefs and structures and why these “guardians” do so, and why they consider themselves the owners and controllers of this planet.

So, as long as we are F’kin ourselves into extinction and destroying the host we call earth, and we will exponentially die like a cancer which feasts on its host without any consideration for itself or the host, let me now offer solutions:

1. The very first thing we need to do is fire the elite, globalist, psychopathic, heartless, soulless bankster cabal bastards who are running the planet. They have had thousands of years to run things and they have done nothing but screw everything up. I don’t care if Fulford’s ninjas take all of them out in a “night of a thousand swords” or Drake puts them on trial and adjudicates them or David Wilcock teaches them how to ascend or COBRA initiates an “event” with his alien resistance forces. They have got to go NOW.

2. Tell the truth about our origins, how we got here, how we have been manipulated by these elite, how they have destroyed everything, and how we allowed it, embraced it and acquiesced to it.

3. Release free energy and get rid of the oil and electric control cartels. This will immediately begin to restore the ecosystems of this planet and help change the paradigm of scarcity and competition to a paradigm of abundance and cooperation.

4. Get rid of all technology which goes against nature, such as fluoride in the water, vaccines, genetically modified organisms, plants and animals, and poisonous herbicides, pesticides, chemtrails, corexit, roundup, etc.

5. Eliminate fiat currency debt instruments at interest which vampires the energy of all sentient beings and cannibalizes it to flow into the hands of the elite. Default on all existing debt and reset to zero, through a global jubilee. all debt.

6. Initiate NAWAPA all over the world to provide adequate clean water for everyone. If you don’t know about NAWAPA, why not?

7. Destroy all the infrastructure of war, all machines which perpetuate war, and all peripheral reference to it forever.

8. Return to the initiates path of righteousness (the right use of energy) and teach humans about the hidden Gnostic esoteric truths, how to become more conscious and how to foster energy, husband it, focus it, emanate it into the matrix of the grand Sophia of abundance, the ethers of creation, and all coalescence of manifestation which is inherent in all sentient empathic beings as a birthright.

9. Teach and encourage alternative medicines, such as acupuncture, vibrational medicine, oxygen therapies, urine therapies, subtle energy medicine, magnetic therapies, reiki and a host of others.

10. Plant food that is grown with traditional, non-bioengineered seed, in organic soil, using natural light, and irrigated with clean water and natural fertilizers, restoring the health of those empathic souls on this loving planet.

11. Give everyone a free I-pad and access to the internet. If they cannot read, teach them. Make all knowledge available to all at no cost. Take back the media from the controllers and allow truth in journalism to expand and proliferate.

12. Teach people that F’king and destroying the planet was a nefarious plot by the controllers to set up the highest ritualistic human sacrifice of all time and that they do not need to be a victim of divisiveness and religious dogma anymore and that sovereignty and self responsibility, and self determination go hand in hand with responsible husbandry of the planet, balanced ecosystems with nature, and renewable resources and abundance.

And last but not least, shoot Miley Cyrus for sticking her tongue out and twerking our children with her soulless illuminati satanic ritualistic mind control hyperbole.

This is my solution to the population problem.

[RMorgan]

This is my solution to the population problem.

Hey Grip,

I agree with what you say, except that these are not solutions at all.

If it was that easy...

We have to be realistic here, mate.

What are the real chances of changing the current order for the best?

Honestly, the chances of implementing these measures are very very low, pretty much nonexistent in practical terms.

It all depends on your first step, which is eliminating the greedy elite, and honestly, I don't see it happening anytime soon...And even if it happened, it probably would not be a smooth process and a lot of people would die anyway.

So, as long as there's no feasible and practical way to implement these things you say, they are not solutions at all.

I could easily say that the solution for overpopulation is to colonize other planets or invent a shrinking machine to make us smaller, but it would be the same thing; a solution that can't be implemented isn't a solution.

Or I could say that the solution to my financial problems is to win the lottery but...well....it would be the same thing. It's a non-solution.

If we analyze the trends, there's a huge probability that overpopulation will become an extreme serious problem soon and that radical measures will be applied to solve it.

The truth is, brother, that we're all in this mess and we don't have a clue about how to fix it...At least I don't. I've been spending the biggest part of my adulthood trying to figure out these issues but every time I think I've found a solution, just seconds later, I realize I've just found ten more problems instead.

Raf.

[Kindred]

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.

I thought humans have had enough of That.

For all those that feel that depopulation is the only answer... well... not to be too flippant, BUT

You First! You're welcome to go at Any Time... then you will Never need to worry about 'overpopulation' on Earth, Ever Again (if you so Choose)

You have Free Will, after all.

[Eram]

This is my solution to the population problem.

Hey Grip,

I agree with what you say, except that these are not solutions at all.

If it was that easy...

We have to be realistic here, mate.

What are the real chances of changing the current order for the best?

Honestly, the chances of implementing these measures are very very low, pretty much nonexistent in practical terms.



Hi Raf,

The biggest grip that tbtp has over us exist in our minds.
We feel unable to change the current because of what it would take to change it and the forces that will oppose it.

Kirk Sorensen (http://energyfromthorium.com/) (the guy who is now pushing the "liquid fluoride thorium reactor") had a promising career by NASA until he found out about this technique that had already developed in the sixties.
He gave up his job in order to get this technique out of the moth balls and start pushing it's agenda again.

It is from people like these that change has to come...... and it will.... if we only open up to it.

Not all that changes is in favor of the agenda of tbtp and they do not have the power over us that we give them credit for.

The biggest obstacle is to win the minds of the masses and sometimes, all it takes it one figure to step up to the plate and give an inspirational impulse to get the ball rolling.

Don't give up before we even tried my friend :)

[OnyxKnight]

1. The very first thing we need to do is fire the elite, globalist, psychopathic, heartless, soulless bankster cabal bastards who are running the planet. They have had thousands of years to run things and they have done nothing but screw everything up. I don’t care if Fulford’s ninjas take all of them out in a “night of a thousand swords” or Drake puts them on trial and adjudicates them or David Wilcock teaches them how to ascend or COBRA initiates an “event” with his alien resistance forces. They have got to go NOW.

All of them are BSers. Used to have more faith in David W. But I don't think he is being genuine with whatever statements he makes nowadays.

I also wish to comment that genetically modified doesn't by default mean something bad. Its how you do that, and for what purpose. So far, they haven't done a great moral and ethical job with genetic engineering. Most obvious with food.

The rest, I pretty much agree with all. Except for the Miley comment :). She's a human being, albeit very much used, to further some kind of minor agenda, but nonetheless, like us.

[OnyxKnight]

I could easily say that the solution for overpopulation is to colonize other planets or invent a shrinking machine to make us smaller, but it would be the same thing; a solution that can't be implemented isn't a solution.

If people are educated (that by default should mean educated on planned parenting, and the consequences of having more than one or two children), are aware of the problems we faced here, know potential technologies and types of energy that can be used more effectively there, and better allocation of resources ... that should spell a better situation than the one we had here on Earth. I don't see colonizing Mars or another planet under these factors in place would not be a solution. Mars has a lot of territory, no ecosystems (that are at least widespread), that we may be a posing danger to, raw materials and metals, frozen water, wind-powered energy etc.

[RMorgan]

Not all that changes is in favor of the agenda of tbtp and they do not have the power over us that we give them credit for.


The problem is, brother, that they do.

They control all essential resources that make up society as we know it.

All industries, all sectors of the economy. Everything is controlled by them.

If some day they decide to stop the gears of the world, they could. Half the population would die from starvation, sickness and from the chaos itself in just a few months.

Lets not be naive, brother...These people control us by controlling everything we consider essential to live.

I see people here dreaming all the time about a day when someone will somehow manage to remove these guys from control...Dreaming wont change a thing, brother.

While people dream, the clock is ticking and they're winning; no one is doing anything about it besides complaining.

Who's going to remove them from power and how?

The masses are our only hope, but they love to be slaves. They love this system and, in fact, most of them would do anything to protect it. They love shopping malls, credit cards, iphones, ipads, McDonald's, Coca-Cola and everything else...They go to wars and kill people for it.

Raf.

[Eram]

The elite own all the resources yes, but the million dollar question is..... are they that organized and unified?

In spite all of the conspiracy theories that seem to point this way, I have never seen any proof of this. Have you?

On the contrary.

Changes, for better of worse have often come through people that just "did it".
They never looked at their chances and the opposition forces.
They just felt like becoming the change and went for it.

[Shezbeth]

If I might shift gears for a moment, I'd like to address an aspect of the population that is of particular concern to,... well at least me. I will call it the Idiocracy phenomenon.

Simply (and I am sure most are familiar) it is the propensity of the population at large to most significantly procreate amongst individuals who are more in tune with the preconceived social constructs that are at large.


They love shopping malls, credit cards, iphones, ipads, McDonald's, Coca-Cola and everything else

Yeah, those ones. Have you ever tried talking with an NFL (American Football) fanatic about how the professional sports system was designed as a gladiatorial distraction from which (thanks to fantasy football) an individual can infinitely submit to? That it was engendered to appeal to a preexisting tribe mentality and thereby serve to cause intersocial divides?

Or how about chemtrails? I have been going on about chemtrails every day for 5 moths now, because I work outside and they're always there. There are 3 (of about 20) who are actually starting to think twice about what I'm talking about, but the rest start spouting things like "Careful or he'll start talking ahout the lizards again".

And that's another one, the ET potential. Ever talk to a socialized individual about that? EVEN with individuals like that Canadian Defense Minister ON RECORD talking about the presence/existence of ETs.

I am all for the collective awakening of society, but there are a variety of facets of society who are entirely too seduced by the presented illusions to give consideration to any other 'way'.

[Eram]

If I might shift gears for a moment, I'd like to address an aspect of the population that is of particular concern to,... well at least me. I will call it the Idiocracy phenomenon.

Simply (and I am sure most are familiar) it is the propensity of the population at large to most significantly procreate amongst individuals who are more in tune with the preconceived social constructs that are at large.


They love shopping malls, credit cards, iphones, ipads, McDonald's, Coca-Cola and everything else

Yeah, those ones. Have you ever tried talking with an NFL (American Football) fanatic about how the professional sports system was designed as a gladiatorial distraction from which (thanks to fantasy football) an individual can infinitely submit to? That it was engendered to appeal to a preexisting tribe mentality and thereby serve to cause intersocial divides?

Or how about chemtrails? I have been going on about chemtrails every day for 5 moths now, because I work outside and they're always there. There are 3 (of about 20) who are actually starting to think twice about what I'm talking about, but the rest start spouting things like "Careful or he'll start talking ahout the lizards again".

And that's another one, the ET potential. Ever talk to a socialized individual about that? EVEN with individuals like that Canadian Defense Minister ON RECORD talking about the presence/existence of ETs.

I am all for the collective awakening of society, but there are a variety of facets of society who are entirely too seduced by the presented illusions to give consideration to any other 'way'.

Yup,

We all start our evolutionary cycle as human beings as an ignorant barbarian :)

Then we climb ... and climb... slowly (If the forces of darkness don't turn us into idiots again) and after tens of thousands of incarnations, we start talking to each other on a forum, lead by a British Cow Boy, wondering why all the newbies are as ignorant as we once were ;)

[gripreaper]

We have to be realistic here, mate.

Well, do we? If I’m being realistic and practical doing my part for the population problem, then I would not worry about the food I eat or what I drink, or if I smoke or if I am overexposed to microwave technology, but would party on and die as soon as possible. While accelerating towards my own death, I would encourage and teach my children not to procreate and to do the same.

But instead, in my selfishness, I’m eating organic foods, drinking clean and clear pure water, detoxing regularly, and meditating for solutions which might come from a higher vantage point of consciousness and extending the probability of my own lifespan, while looking for solutions which do not have any practicality within the existing paradigm of scarcity, competition, and religious fervor for supporting an elite class without any regard for the planet or her inhabitants.


They control all essential resources that make up society as we know it. All industries, all sectors of the economy. Everything is controlled by them. I see people here dreaming all the time about a day when someone will somehow manage to remove these guys from control...Dreaming wont change a thing, brother. While people dream, the clock is ticking and they're winning; no one is doing anything about it besides complaining. Who's going to remove them from power and how?

I don’t know the practical answer or the realistic answer, but taking them out is still the solution. They are doing genetic modification, terraforming the planet for the next human upgrade, and are performing covert genocidal population reduction of the existing genome through GMO foods, chemtrails, fluoride, mercury and microwave technology. They are already in full implementation of population reduction right under our noses and most people, even here at Avalon, do not see it.

So, if there is a population problem due to the elite manipulation of the genome and messing with our DNA thousands of years ago making it possible for us to go against nature and procreate like rabbits, and this IS WHAT THEY did, then they are now implementing solutions to fix their own f’up and genetically engineering the type of slave human they want to personally aggrandize their own hedonistic psychopathic inhuman natures, and getting rid of us.

There is NOTHING benevolent about what they are doing no matter how nice they package it into “global sustainable initiatives” or “global villages” or whatever other crap they shove down our throats to make it sound benevolent, to the point of even using the etheric planes of consciousness to microwave entrainment into our minds through mind control so even the few very intelligent souls left will buy into it!


The masses are our only hope, but they love to be slaves. They love this system and, in fact, most of them would do anything to protect it. They love shopping malls, credit cards, iphones, ipads, McDonald's, Coca-Cola and everything else...They go to wars and kill people for it.

So, let’s quit being practical then. Educating people not to f’k like rabbits and cannibalizing their host planet is not going to cut it, as the religious indoctrination is imbedded in their very DNA due to centuries of elite indoctrination into such dogma.

We have to radically shift the whole paradigm, and the only way to do that is to go back to my solutions and implement the first solution, get rid of the problem first. The rest of the solutions are more likely to occur once these elite are gone. If huge numbers of people die implementing these solutions, then so be it. If we don’t do it, the elite will get their new slave race, homo sapien sapiens will be extinct, and the chance of being able to ascend into full regalia super consciousness will have passed.

Otherwise, nature will purge us like a dog purges flees and it won’t matter anyway. She will either continue to host billions of people, or she will purge. We either have time to wake up and embrace full balanced consciousness and responsible husbandry of this planet, or we don’t.

If we totally trash this planet and the human genome collapses and disappears, then the 16 billion years of evolution just went down the drain and the grand experiment of attempting to hold the fullness of spirit in a body just failed. In any event, we as souls will go onto another game and find something else to do.

“Ke sera sera”

[RMorgan]

We have to radically shift the whole paradigm, and the only way to do that is to go back to my solutions and implement the first solution, get rid of the problem first.

Hey brother,

Again, talking is easy.

How would you eliminate them in the first place?

Do you have a feasible plan to implement this first solution?

Honestly, do you even know who they are for sure?

Even if you knew who they are, do you think you could get even close to them on your own?

The only way to do this is with the support of the masses, brother, and the masses...they don't want to remove them, they want to be them.

As I said, this is a non-solution if you can't find a way to implement it.

Cheers,

Raf.

[gripreaper]

Do you have a feasible plan to implement this first solution?

Nope


Honestly, do you even know who they are for sure?

Pretty sure, but not totally.


Even if you knew who they are, do you think you could get even close to them on your own?

Nope


As I said, this is a non-solution if you can't find a way to implement it.

So, this discussion is over? We should abandon the possibility of taking out these psychopathic elite controllers because it is not practical and the masses are not on board? So, its hopeless and I should just go grab myself an energy drink, a sugary glazed donut and go turn on the TV?

Or should I hang in on this thread for awhile and see if anyone else comes up with a solution that is better? I'm open to suggestions, as long as it does not involve embracing and supporting the psychopathic elite. You got any suggestions Raf?

[RMorgan]

You got any suggestions Raf?

Honestly?

No, I don't.

I don't have a clue, brother.

I think we, the people, share about half of the blame for this mess, in the first place.

As long as we're unable to make people take self-responsibility and fix their side of the problem first, I don't think we'll ever make the "elite" fix theirs.

Ultimately, I just hope that some sort of natural catastrophe will eventually do the job for us, giving us the opportunity to start from scratch.

Anyway, if someone comes up with a perfect plan and manages to fix it, it would be great...However, I think this is very unlikely to happen.

The magnitude of the problem is overwhelming, at least for my intellect.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Bright Garlick]

This will be my last post here period. A sincere thank you to all those who took my initial proposition that we have a population problem, seriously.

Many people think you can just take out the elite/TPTB. You have no idea who they are and how much they pervade every aspect of life. You are the real powers that be but you give away your power.

For every person of power you take down or replace, another WILL ALWAYS take their place. Greed and ignorance pervade the human species. Buddha talked of the same behaviour 2500 years ago and the same behaviour will be here in another 2500 years. You cannot change the world without bringing complete awareness to the SELF.

We created the problem of overpopulation, not some amorphous mass of elite controllers. And to those who say there is no problem - how much does it take to sustain one human being for an 83 years of life ? How many cows, sheep, pigs, fish, crops, trees, tonnes of coal, minerals, sunshine, fellow human beings, tonnes of petrol and oil, electricity, plastic, synthetic substances, tonnes of disposable and recyclable materials, kilograms of cotton and synthetic textiles, kilograms of rubber, synthetic drugs, kilograms of paper, cardboard and wood, and so on ??? And at what expense ? Bill hit the issue on the head. If you want to have a planet that provides for healthy human beings and widespread biodiversity (they do have a right to exist don't they ?), our current numbers and beyond are not going to cut the mustard !

See the full impact of sustaining 1 person and you will see the real problems associated with the expanding human population (shrinking my ass !).

If you want o understand the behaviour of some of those in power (some, not all), see the reality of how a human being lives on planet Earth and then you will KNOW why decisions are made for us.

I have previously talked a little about The Architecture - the real power structure that directs humanity. You might say there are 3 arms or tiers to that structure. At the top the ET's (a group of 9 representing many different races), in the middle a group of 90 (2 representatives from 45 countries) and then underneath the messy parts - the corporations and the covert military groups. The 90 talk about the issues that will go beyond the life of those below. They are chosen by the ET's for their uniqueness, their compassion, their unique perspectives and their honesty. Of them the ET's choose a smaller group, a group of 16 who make critical decisions with the alien at the top. And do you know what kind of people these nasty elites are ??? Many of them ordinary people. Like the single mother with 3 children who lives a very ordinary, poor life. some have money and power but others do not. The ET's choose the 16 because these people have great moral integrity.

Your ideas of who has the power are all wrong. You are fixed on SOME of those on the bottom wrung. The ET's a working patiently to guide humanity to a healthier place in our evolution. It will take millenia. But they have always been here and are here now for the long run. The point we are at somehere near the bottom of the J curve, will pass in some form or another and we will continue to have problems but the population problem will be the GREATEST unless the PEOPLE or those in power do something about it. And while many people are stuck arguing that it's a myth or a lie, there are others in and out of power who are doing something about it.

Much of what has been suggested has been considered by the 90 and the 16. The idea of transplanting humans elsewhere was thrown out long ago. It was recognized by humans that we need to sort out our population problem and grow up before we will be allowed out there. And bear in mind, the Creator Races and many of the other ETs have been working with these issues since before our planet came into existence. These are ancient issues to them and new issues to us. But it is imperitive that we put aside our emotional volatility and start dealing with the problem.

I posted this thread to see if people here could use their hearts and minds to confront this issue honestly (please read my original post) but it seems that many people have become distracted and emotive. I stated that I was primarily going to play the role of observer and that I would not be the only one. And I haven't been.

If this small selection of humanity struggles to acknowledge the issue and to come up with a host of workable solutions, what hope is there that the masses would do any better. Little wonder then that those in power are doing it for us.

You may not like what I have to say and you might even hate me, but I am pushing this issue because I care about all of us.

In January I was given 3-6 months to live. I am ready to die at any time. But I plan on outliving all predictions of my mortality. And while I am here, I no longer have any desire to pussy foot around, to be a follower or to avoid looking at the ugly reality of the mess WE have created.

I urge you all to use your hearts and minds to explore the solutions and to take real world action.

Peace and goodwill to all,

Bright.

[Rocky_Shorz]

actually, this planet going completely green will allow it to grow to 50 billion people...

but if we keep trashing the place, dumping nukes, oils and chemical in the ocean, it isn't the same story...

3 vertical farms can feed all of New York City, healthier than they eat today, from our chemtrail ridden food sources...

We breath it, we eat it...

we can at least stop eating it by moving our food sources indoors with purifiers, a 50 story building with water flowing from top to bottom can produce as much shell fish as the world now harvests... Fish both fresh and saltwater can be raised indoors cleaner than our oceans and lakes...

Fruits, Grains, Vegitable... all can be grown indoors...

we don't need 100 banks on every corner, time to get something good coming from those buildings...

cars need to go green, we can't stop gasses from the arctic melting from the pollution China is pumping out which blows to the arctic...

Japan killed our sea, but China is attacking the world by carelessness...

[gripreaper]

This will be my last post here period.

Why? This is your thread and I have yet to hear what your solutions are.


Many people think you can just take out the elite/TPTB. You have no idea who they are and how much they pervade every aspect of life.

I have an idea how they pervade every aspect of my life and all sentient beings on this planet. I have an idea, supported by all the early historical references, the archeological records, and the stone structures, hieroglyphs, and ancient texts, exactly who they are and what they did and what they are up to.


For every person of power you take down or replace, another WILL ALWAYS take their place.

So, these nefarious elite are like a dragon, cut one head off and two grow back in it's place? So why are we debating solutions if it is hopeless?


Greed and ignorance pervade the human species. Buddha talked of the same behavior 2500 years ago and the same behavior will be here in another 2500 years. You cannot change the world without bringing complete awareness to the SELF.

I agree that each individual needs to bring complete awareness to the SELF. As far as greed and ignorance pervading the human species, how did they get that way? Its unnatural, goes against nature, and is NOT the inherent indigenous nature of the human species to BE ignorant and greedy. This is a DIRECT result of the machinations of the alien interloper elites who F'd our women, messed with our DNA, altered the remaining strands into dormancy, programmed in the procreative genes which are against nature, and created the problem we are now faced with.


We created the problem of overpopulation, not some amorphous mass of elite controllers.

No WE did not. I DID NOT create an overpopulation problem and I don't see the elite controllers as amorphous. They are heartless, soulless, psychopathic, murderous, self aggrandizing, hedonistic, energy vampiring, alien interlopers who have done absolutely NOTHING to further the genomes evolution to full consciousness OR to foster complete awareness of the SELF.

On the contrary, what they have done, is covertly and overtly raped, pillaged, murdered, starved, tortured, stolen, coveted, vampired, seduced, altered, manipulated, and trashed this planet and the indigenous souls who live here.


You are the real powers that be but you give away your power.

NO I do not give away my power. On the contrary, I am an extreme advocate of NOT giving power away and I practice generating energy, husbanding it, focusing it and emanating it in ways which are edifying to the entire human species.

I encourage self responsibility, self determination, sovereignty, awakening and humans developing into their full potential as empathic sentient beings with full spectrum consciousness and spirit indwelling in the human body as the ancient gnostics taught us and the alien interlopers have hidden and destroyed.


I have previously talked a little about The Architecture - the real power structure that directs humanity. You might say there are 3 arms or tiers to that structure. At the top the ET's (a group of 9 representing many different races), in the middle a group of 90 (2 representatives from 45 countries) and then underneath the messy parts - the corporations and the covert military groups. The 90 talk about the issues that will go beyond the life of those below. They are chosen by the ET's for their uniqueness, their compassion, their unique perspectives and their honesty. Of them the ET's choose a smaller group, a group of 16 who make critical decisions with the alien at the top. And do you know what kind of people these nasty elites are ??? Many of them ordinary people. Like the single mother with 3 children who lives a very ordinary, poor life. some have money and power but others do not. The ET's choose the 16 because these people have great moral integrity.

You're describing a pyramidal hierarchy power structure as existing outside the 3rd dimensional world and that this alleged "architecture" controls this planet and makes the critical decisions as representatives of who? I don't recall ever asking for a hierarchical pyramid structure to run things. If I wanted that I would just join the Amway business. What about free will? Does this thread want to go down the road of divine destiny or free will?


Your ideas of who has the power are all wrong. You are fixed on SOME of those on the bottom wrung. The ET's are working patiently to guide humanity to a healthier place in our evolution.

You and some others refer to aliens working patiently to guide humanity. What I find interesting is that those who make such claims have had visitations and are adamant that what they have seen is true and benevolent, that there is an extinction level event that the "guardians" architecture is helping us to survive and that the elite controllers are "in on" the preservation of the genome.

This controlling elite infrastructure, in concert with benevolent aliens, is doing good for humanity while it is us humans who are screwed up and need modification, saving, fixing, guiding and control.


Much of what has been suggested has been considered by the 90 and the 16.

Oh well that's great. Would you be so kind as to let us in on the "plan" so we can democratically vote on the plan and see if it is something we actually want and is in alignment with the collective dream of all sentient beings, to hold the fulness of spirit in a body and experience all of the polarized aspects of the full electromagnetic light spectrum of consciousness which makes up all manifestation?

What if I were to suggest that everything occurs in perfect balance and is a conscious co-creation and that creative evolution is moving along quite nicely and that we don't need any psychopathic interlopers to alter the timelines? What if the Yuga cycles are correct and we are coming out of a dark age and moving into higher resonance and frequency, and that the dharma of our collective dream is assured and we will not perish or totally destroy the earth or fully deplete her? What if the ancient gnostic sages were correct and the immortal spirit, having a human experience, created this whole hologram and everything is going along swimmingly fine?

What if consciousness is moving away from victimhood and towards full responsibility and the elite controllers are desperately trying to maintain their pyramidal control system and are failing, and their use of entrainment through mind control is creating the images in the minds of some who then create archetypes and symbols to justify projected lower astral fears and griefs out into the matrix?

What if there is a mass awakening occurring and it is those who align themselves with ET's guardian architecture are delusional, and those who are embracing their own sentience, taking responsibility for themselves, seeking knowledge and wisdom of the ancient gnostics, and emanating this energy into the matrix, are actually the ones who are transforming the earth towards a more benevolent outcome?


If this small selection of humanity struggles to acknowledge the issue and to come up with a host of workable solutions, what hope is there that the masses would do any better. Little wonder then that those in power are doing it for us.

Its no wonder that those in power, who absconded with the genome, would now feel compelled to further their nefarious agenda and try to dumb us down further as they failed to engineer the SOUL out of us in the last manipulation, and we are awakening and embracing our sentience and are not being good little slaves like they selfishly want us to.


In January I was given 3-6 months to live. I am ready to die at any time. But I plan on outliving all predictions of my mortality. And while I am here, I no longer have any desire to pussy foot around, to be a follower or to avoid looking at the ugly reality of the mess WE have created.

I admire your resolve. Just come out with it then and don't pussy foot around.


I urge you all to use your hearts and minds to explore the solutions and to take real world action.

I am using my mind and heart to create, evolve and emanate energy into the collective. I dislike the Hegelian dialectic of "problem, reaction, solution" or pyramidal power structures or guardians, controllers, architecture, and outside influences making decisions, directives, and guidance without my permission, awareness, or agreement in a universe of sovereign free will.

[OnyxKnight]

I don't think BG has any solutions. He spoke of them in 4 threads and abandoned discussion in every single one of them. Funny that he says this is something he devoted/plans to devote a major portion of his life to. I don't see any devotion or dedication to the subject matter. Just empty talk. I'd rather discuss this with somebody who is serious BG, and I don't think you are one of those people.

[Michelle Marie]

actually, this planet going completely green will allow it to grow to 50 billion people...

but if we keep trashing the place, dumping nukes, oils and chemical in the ocean, it isn't the same story...

3 vertical farms can feed all of New York City, healthier than they eat today, from our chemtrail ridden food sources...

We breath it, we eat it...

we can at least stop eating it by moving our food sources indoors with purifiers, a 50 story building with water flowing from top to bottom can produce as much shell fish as the world now harvests... Fish both fresh and saltwater can be raised indoors cleaner than our oceans and lakes...

Fruits, Grains, Vegitable... all can be grown indoors...

we don't need 100 banks on every corner, time to get something good coming from those buildings...

cars need to go green, we can't stop gasses from the arctic melting from the pollution China is pumping out which blows to the arctic...

Japan killed our sea, but China is attacking the world by carelessness...

Reading this post was is like a breath of fresh air.

What is this perspective where one Being that is "in the forest" living in the trenches, so to speak, on planet Earth that looks around and says "There's too many people here. There are not enough resources." Is that not limited?

Meditation does provide a higher more inclusive perspective. Then you KNOW. True Whole Self Awareness is critical to the awareness of holistic solutions. KNOW that consciousness creates. KNOW the Self within as a creator. Learn the bio-machine and its environment with its elemental constituents and relate to LIFE consciously.

It's a process. It seems accelerated now, but its sill a process. We are realizing that we DO have power. Not just the power of the mind, but the power of the heart and soul -- all unified. Unity comes from Truth and Love, by being real and authentic.

Here's a solution: Let's use our soul power, our power of will through the use of conscious intentions. Group intentions are VERY powerful.

"We intend to restore the Earth to a healthy balance while living in peace and freedom while pursuing our individual path to creativity and happiness. Goodwill toward ALL prevails on our clean, pristine, harmonious life system."

This is NOT "dreaming" and if it was labeled as such, it should be more highly regarded. This is the physics of consciousness. This is our power. When we understand the science behind it rather that dismissing it, we can take our power back and stop pussyfooting around.

I'm not just talking. I'm doing something with my life and living these values. NOBODY can bully us, intimidate us, or stop us. WE ARE the POWER.

If anyone is interested, we could start a solution-oriented group intention thread and we can prove out the efficacy of the group visioning process. I've proven it before and I'd be happy to demonstrate it again.

Let's grow food and feed each other. Let's stand for the Truth when we come up against the bullies in our lives. I am.

Lots of love, compassion, and peace to ALL,
Michelle Marie

[Michelle Marie]

I am using my mind and heart to create, evolve and emanate energy into the collective. I dislike the Hegelian dialectic of "problem, reaction, solution" or pyramidal power structures or guardians, controllers, architecture, and outside influences making decisions, directives, and guidance without my permission, awareness, or agreement in a universe of sovereign free will.

Thank you, gripreaper. That is the supreme Truth that this a universe of sovereign free will.

Our WILL is our power. We are FREE. We need to just realize our sovereignty and claim it. It was usurped by deception and social programming that limited our Self-Realization and our inherent power.

I'm in that process mySelf. It is challenging. (understatement)

Gosh, in my present circumstances, I feel ripped apart on the inside. I sense very deep transformation. I sometimes oscillate between feeling like a frightened child to feeling so powerful that I'd be afraid for anyone that got in my way. It's being born and coming through. I do yoga and mediation and various regulating techniques, but I'm not as good as I could be yet. I'm trying to get better.

Lots of love,
Michelle Marie

[gripreaper]

Those who view manifestation from the quantum level see that the universe is abundant, that all manifestation is a hologram created by its inhabitants, and that anything can be created if we choose to do so.

In a paradigm of scarcity, governed by the lower astral of the body, where fear, hunger, grief, and suffering reside, one sees a limited earth, scarce resources being forever depleted, cancerous cannibalism of the host planet, death, destruction and hopelessness.

In the quantum, there is no linear time. All manifestation exists and all form continues to form and transform based on the observer who holds the hologram in place. The energetic matrix which holds the body hologram in place is astounding when it is not severed from unity consciousness by structures and beliefs. It is the actual beliefs which sequester this energy and make it not available for creation, which cause a slower rate of oscillation or density we call 3 dimensional. Lose the beliefs and energy expands and coalesces with the universe and changes the form.

Oh, but this is not practical while there are millions starving all around the planet. Well then, if that is your belief, then I'd sell everything and gather up all my resources and fly over to those starving and give my life to feed them. Your beliefs determine your path from a soul level. That would be the most honest thing to do when looking in the mirror and facing who you are.

And this is what embracing the true SELF really means, to fully feel what is occurring in your body and in your energy field, admit the beliefs and structures holding the hologram of your reality in place, experience them to the fullest until they are fully imbedded in your DNA, and return to wholeness and the ability to create the hologram which you dream about and the entire collective agreed to.

From this vantage point the universe is abundant.

[skippy]

actually, this planet going completely green will allow it to grow to 50 billion people...

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.

:yo:

[Robin]

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.



actually, this planet going completely green will allow it to grow to 50 billion people...




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.

:yo:

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.

[RMorgan]

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


Oh, finally! Welcome to Project Avalon, Sam!

You just discovered one of the most detrimental mechanisms of this forum.

Really, someone should give you a trophy or something like that! :)

Jokes apart, this is it mate. A lot of people come here just to reinforce their beliefs; They couldn't care less to examine whatever information that may invalidate their already established perspectives...

You can give them piles of solid data that would literally destroy their arguments, but they don't care...It's a waste of time. They just skip through it like it was nothing, go straight to the last page, press the reply button, type a single sentenced nonsense text and walk away feeling victorious.

Cheers,

Raf.

[gripreaper]

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

http://www.susps.org/images/worldpopgr.gif

Even if we could all agree, if just for the sake of this discussion, that the population went exponentially parabolic with the advent of the industrial revolution, as indicated in the chart, and is not sustainable, very few respondents to this thread have offered solutions.

The elite are implementing their own solutions, with or without our consent, with or without ET help, and with or without benevolent intent. Barry Trowers research on microwave technology, the proliferation of such technology on this planet, and the long term effects on our own extinction, go relatively ignored. The effects of bleach and fluoride in our water, chemicals in our food and air, and all the toxic things we ingest into our bodies goes relatively unnoticed by the general population. We are being eliminated folks, plain and simple.

Most of the pollution comes from burning oil. Why do we still use oil when we have the Tesla energy which comes directly from the earth, is unlimited and wireless? Why do we have a wired electric grid, when the technology exists to energize the planet with free energy? Because godzilla, as Wade Frazier calls them, wants it that way. The psychopathic elite want it that way.

Why was NAWAPA stopped, which would provide clean water to the entire planet, and a 14 trillion dollar lien placed against the original organic Treasury of 1786? Because the psychopathic elite want it that way.

Why are toxins being introduced into our food supply and our air supply? Because the elite want it that way.

Why are all inventions which would increase consciousness, increase the husbandry of this planet, never implemented? Because the psychopathic elite want it this way.

To me, there is nothing benevolent about what they are doing, and any solutions we would attempt to implement just get circumvented and destroyed by these elite. Many who have tried have paid with their lives.

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.

[AutumnW]

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.

I thought humans have had enough of That.

For all those that feel that depopulation is the only answer... well... not to be too flippant, BUT

You First! You're welcome to go at Any Time... then you will Never need to worry about 'overpopulation' on Earth, Ever Again (if you so Choose)

You have Free Will, after all.


Who said anything about mass murder? The greatest mass murders occur by default, through systems under stress. Attrition is the best, most humane de-population program. And the elite conspiracy to depopulate?? Where is the evidence. Corporations are voracious, feeding off percentages of human transactions--the more the merrier.

[AutumnW]

Grip, The greatest energy vamp is accumulation of wealth accrued off the most workers, consumers. If anything the moral midgets running this side show want more people-more more and more. The expansion of markets. I think they are going to be stopped in their tracks by black swan events. But is it part of their plan? Kind of doubt it.

[RMorgan]

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.

I've asked myself the same question countless times, Grip.

I mean, if they want to kill us all and reduce the population to 500.000.000, why they've been financing so many advances in medicine and this kind of stuff?

In my opinion, they do this because they still need us. They need a lot of us to accomplish their goals...They need their slaves.

They need us to do the hard work for them and to keep generating wealth for them.

When eventually automation takes over most productive lines, they wont need us anymore, so they'll proceed with their massive genocidal plan.

[Kindred]

This little picture and it's inferences, when expanded into all realms of our current support systems, describes almost exactly what is going on... the 1% having total access and control over almost everything needed for human survival, and the remaining 99% making do with the left-overs, and being blamed for humanity's 'dilemma'.

[Eram]

http://www.susps.org/images/worldpopgr.gif



This graphic goes for a lot of developments these days.


The rate of development in technology.
The rate at which we accumulate knowledge (This used to be a doubling of knowledge every thousand year. At the moment we double our knowledge about every 4 year)
The rate at which animals are becoming extinct.
The rate wt which C02 is pumped in the atmosphere
...


It's a pretty big list, though I can't remember it all at the moment.

Drunvalo Melchizedek brought it up in one of his interviews that I watched way back at 2000 or so. (I consider him delusional now, or acting as a disinfo agent, but these graphics were pretty accurate and impressive)

Anyway, it goes to show that we live in extreme times.

[Agape]

actually, this planet going completely green will allow it to grow to 50 billion people...

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.

:yo:

The threshold is somewhere at 80 billion - 10 times more than now , from what is socio-economically possible , by which time ( even if all 'go green' which is highly improbable and much more complex than 'eat veggies only' ) people would beg for free oxygen , recycle water , survive on artificial food ..right the opposite than what is on most 'healthy peoples' 'to do list' still now.

We would be living like sardines, personal space would have to be sacrificed to the 'greater good' more than now , social stress would increase considerably ..
this has nothing to do with 'how much free space there is on Earth' ,

it's lot to do with how much freedom and quality of life you want to see for you and your children .

I really do NOT understand people being so excited about how much they're able to flood this Earth with numbers ( even crickets can do that ) ,

stressing the quantity against quality .

This is NOT about killing people, this is about caring for those who are alive , acknowledging your individual lives, choices, talents, finding what's so precious in each of you ..God .. you are not cockroaches people, you are not army of drones ,

you don't want to copy life on other, more densely inhabited planets either because you are not them .

Even with current 7 billions people , you are not able to care for everyone basic needs, not to speak of advanced needs.

Yes by growing the population real big you will cultivate huge 'worker class' , copies of copies of people who will remain tight to organised systems and live from carefully limited supplies and won't believe how in past this planet , its nature was so resourceful and allowed you to roam free .


I really don't wish to live in any such times.


:angel:

[OnyxKnight]

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.

[RMorgan]

Honestly,

I think you guys are insane, saying that it would be fine to grow our population up to 40 billion people.

Have you lost your minds?

Do you think we have the right to transform Earth into a big sterile metropolis?

We're just ONE among many other species who have the right to live here. We don't have the right to turn all of Earth's surface into human habitat.

We've already crossed the line long ago. We've already taken more than we should. Lots of species have gone extinct because of human interference, and many precious natural environments have been and are in the process of being completely devastated.

We may even manage to barely sustain 40 billion people here, but then it would be just us, cockroaches and maybe rats. Forget about all the rest.

Come on folks...What do you have inside your skulls? Pudding?

Why is it so hard for you to get it?

We don't own this planet. We share it!

Do you really believe that our goal here in this planet is to reproduce like rabbits? Do you think we have the right?

You guys talk about overpopulation prevention as it were the ultimate sin...Come on! How dare you! Really!

We do this to other animals all the time through control mechanisms like hunting, pest control and things like that...So it's ok to do it with other animals but it's not ok to do this to us?

Next time you have "pests" in your house, try not calling pest control...Let their population grow out of control...Try living with a million rats; I'm sure they could fit just fine in your lovely home...It will be a very pleasant experience, you can be sure about that.

Remember: Don't do to OTHERS what you don't want done to you.

The word "others" doesn't mean other humans. It means everybody else!

Wake up folks! We, the smartest animal in this planet, are behaving like PESTS...And you're defending this behavior? Really? Why are you so resistant about changing such despicable behavior? What's wrong with you?

You come with all this "humans are spiritually evolved beings" talk and then behave exactly like monkeys or worse...

If you want to sacrifice all the riches, diversity and beauty of this planet so we could all have nonstop sex until we consume all the planet into ashes, don't expect me to agree with it.

Grow up! Is it really worth it? Do you have any idea of what you're defending here? You look like a virus defending itself...

Raf.

[Agape]

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.


I would totally agree with Sam's post here .

2jf9xrnUjpI


Adding this little video because I like the idea so much . Idea adopted as 'national policy' of the little kingdom of Bhutan , namely its young king Jigme Wangchug ,
stressing it's not 'the gross national product' but 'gross national happiness' that is important
and reflects true advancement of society ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness

[dianna]

Really Bad Ideas: Population control


Frank Furedi

Sociologist, commentator and author of Culture of Fear, Where Have All The Intellectuals Gone?, Paranoid Parenting, Therapy Culture, and On Tolerance: In Defence of Moral Independence.

http://diversityrules.typepad.com/.a/6a01053625d752970c0133f646cf30970b-pi


Really Bad Ideas: Population control
Alongside today’s respect for human life there is the increasingly popular idea that there is too much human life around, and that it is killing the planet.

.....

Since the beginning of time, one of the clearest markers of an enlightened society has been the moral status it attaches to human life.



The humanist impulse that once drove the development of the modern world has been replaced by a tendency to view humanity with suspicion, or even outright hostility. The vocabulary of our times – ‘human impact on the environment’; ‘ecological footprint’; ‘human consumption’ – invokes a sense of dread over the active exercise of human life. Apparently, there are too many of us doing too much living and breathing. In a world where humanity is portrayed as a threat to the environment and to the very survival of the planet, human activity – from birth to consumption to procreation – is regarded as a mixed blessing. Consequently, our concern with preserving and improving the quality of life of some people sits uneasily with an increasingly shrill demand to prevent people from being born in the first place.

Today, many green-leaning writers and activists argue that population control is the best solution to the problems we face. This belief that there are ‘too many people’ inhabiting the globe has reared its ugly head numerous times over the past 200 years. Since the times of Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), a catastrophic vision of population growth causing the collapse of society has formed an important part of the culturally pessimistic outlook. Back in the eighteenth century it was predicted that population growth would lead to famine, starvation and death. Today’s pessimists have raised the stakes further: they denounce population growth as a threat to biodiversity and to the very existence of the planet. Twenty-first-century Malthusians are not so much worried about an impending famine: they’re more concerned that people are producing and consuming too much food and other commodities.

Where in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Malthusians warned that population growth threatened people with starvation, today’s Malthusians denounce people for threatening the planet by consuming too much. As a result, contemporary Malthusianism has an unusually strident and misanthrophic streak. In the West, the population-control lobby castigates those who have large families for being environmentally irresponsible. Having children, especially lots of children, is now discussed as an ‘eco-crime’ on a par with pollution. From this perspective, a new human life is seen as little more than another producer of carbon; new life is seen as a form of pollution. So it would be better, the Malthusians argue, if these new human lives did not exist at all. As one Malthusian crusader notes: ‘A non-existent person has no environmental footprint; the emission “saving” is instant and total.’ (1) This preference for the non-existent over the existent speaks to a powerful anti-humanist sensibility. And it is not only eccentric and isolated misanthropes who value ‘non-existence’ as being somehow morally superior to existence – rather, this outlook is symptomatic of a wider trend for devaluing the status of human life today.

For contemporary Malthusians, every new child is another pollutant: she may just be a baby now, but by the time she is 80 she will be responsible for the emission of 9.3 tonnes of CO2! So why worry about how much pollution your car causes? Apparently you should be far more concerned with limiting the size of the population. ‘Population limitation should…be seen as the most cost-effective carbon offsetting strategy available to individuals and nations’, argues the dreary British-based population-control outfit, the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) (2). Once the emission of greenhouse gases is taken to be the defining feature of human activity, then it follows that controlling fertility is the ideal ‘carbon offsetting strategy’. ‘If we had half as many people, we wouldn’t have much of a climatic warming problem’, says Ric Oberlink of the US-based group Californians for Population Stabilization (3). And no doubt if the human species disappeared off the face of the Earth altogether, then the crisis of global warming would resolve itself and the planet would be very happy.

For Oberlink and his associates, global warming is a symptom of the far greater menace of population growth. ‘Global warming is a very serious problem, but it is a subset of the overpopulation problem’, claims Oberlink. John Seager, president of Population Connection, the American campaign group that was formerly known as Zero Population Growth, also believes that the ‘underlying cause of global warming’ is ‘human population growth’ (4). The idea that population growth is the principal threat to the planet is widely disseminated through the mainstream media. While giving the prestigious BBC Reith Lectures earlier this year, the economist Jeffrey Sachs argued that ‘our planet is crowded to an unprecedented degree’, and such overcrowding is ‘creating….unprecedented pressures on human society and on the physical environment’ (5). This pessimistic view of population growth is so taken for granted that it is very rarely challenged in mainstream intellectual and cultural circles.

The catastrophic imagination in contemporary Western culture has encouraged the Malthusian lobby to target the very aspiration for procreation. Controlling fertility is now described as a duty rather than a matter of choice. ‘Couples making decisions about family size do so in the belief that it is a matter for them and their personal preferences alone’, says the OPT, with incredulity (6). The idea that people should have the right to make choices about their family size is dismissed as an indefensible outrage against common sense.

This assault on the right to procreate is often intrusive, even coercive. Take the example of Rwanda. The world was horrified by the mass slaughter in Rwanda in 1994, during which an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed. Yet it appears that, so far as the population-control lobby is concerned, there are still too many people living in Rwanda. As one headline earlier this year put it: ‘After so many deaths, too many births.’ Apparently, ‘After the 1994 genocide, in which more than 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered, it seemed difficult to believe that overpopulation would ever be a problem. Yet Rwanda has long had more people than its meagre resources and small area can support.’ Now, with the guidance of Western non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the Rwandan government is planning a sweeping population-control programme. From now on, everyone who visits a medical centre will be ‘counselled’ about family planning (7). Experience shows that such ‘counselling’ in reality means putting pressure on women to use contraception.

It is in poverty-stricken, insecure countries like Rwanda, where people lack the resources to assume even a modicum of control over their lives, that the truly inhumane nature of population-control policies becomes clear.


A cause in search of an argument

The distinctive feature of Malthusianism is its profound consciousness of limits. The fatalistic Malthusian outlook looks upon people as parasitic consumers whose appetites are limited only by the obstacles thrown up by nature. Malthus’ Essay, which was written in 1798, was a reaction against the optimistic visions of humanity put forward by Enlightenment thinkers. For Enlightenment thinkers such as Condorcet and Godwin, people were not simply consumers – they were are also creative actors, innovators, producers. Thankfully, in the centuries since he wrote Essay and other works, Malthus’ alarmist warnings have proven to be unfounded: food production has generally increased in line with population growth and there has not been a global famine. However, the fact that Malthus’ predictions did not come true has not discouraged anti-humanists from pursuing the population-control project. They simply invent new reasons for why we must control population growth.

Over the past two centuries, a bewildering array of problems has been blamed on population growth. At various times, famine, poverty, the failure of Third World economies, instability, revolution, the spread of communism and the subordinate position of women have been linked to population growth (8). The approach of the population growth lobby is devastatingly simple: they take a problem and argue that it would diminish in intensity if there were fewer people. Such simplistic methodology is even used to account for the emergence of new forms of terrorism today.


.....

Losing faith in the human

You don’t have to be a sophisticated student of global politics to see through the simplistic and opportunistic arguments on security put forward by the new Malthusians. But then, the success of Malthusianism has never been down to the rigour or eloquence of its ideas. Rather, the success of Malthusian ideas depends on the strength of cultural pessimism at any given time. And today it is the loss of faith in the human potential, a fatalistic view of the future, which has rejuvenated the population-control crusade.

So powerful is cultural pessimism today that even the special quality of human life is now called into question. Today, pollution is seen as the principal feature and consequence of human existence. Indeed, today’s neo-Malthusian thinking is far more dismal and misanthropic than the original version. For all his intellectual pessimism and lack of imagination, Thomas Malthus possessed a far more robust belief in humanity than do his contemporary followers. Although he shared today’s cultural obsession with the limits of nature, he nonetheless expressed a conviction that humanity had a positive role to play. He argued that although ‘our future prospects respecting the mitigation of the evils arising from the principle of population may not be so bright as we could wish…they are far from being entirely disheartening, and by no means preclude that gradual and progressive improvement in human society, which before the late wild speculations on this subject, was the object of rational expectation’ (9).

Malthus’ reservations about the human potential were a product of his deep-seated hostility to the optimistic humanism of his intellectual opponents: Condorcet, Godwin and others. And yet, he made it clear that despite his pessimistic view of population growth ‘it is hoped that the general result of [my] inquiry is not such as to make us give up the improvement of human society in despair’ (10).

In contrast to today’s singularly pessimistic neo-Malthusians, Malthus’ On The Principle of Population managed to convey a belief in humanity. Over the past two centuries, his followers have often tried to discourage people from the ‘wrong’ classes and the ‘wrong races’ from procreating – yet despite their prejudices they continued to affirm the special status of the human species (or at least certain sections of it). In some instances – for example, during the rise of the eugenic movement – rabid prejudice against so-called racial inferiors was combined with a belief in human progress.

By contrast, today’s Malthusians share all the old prejudices and in addition they harbour a powerful sense of loathing against the human species itself. Is it any surprise, then, that some of them actually celebrate non-existence? The obsession with natural limits distracts society from the far more creative search for solutions to hunger or poverty or lack of resources. Worse still, by calling into question the special quality of the human, the population-control lobby seeks to corrode people’s confidence in their ability to tackle the problems of the future. Human life should always be treated as precious and special. How can there possibly be too many of us?

Frank Furedi is author of Population And Development; A Critical Introduction.

[OnyxKnight]

Honestly,

I think you guys are insane, saying that it would be fine to grow our population up to 40 billion people.

Have you lost your minds?


Have you studied architecture? Industrial design maybe? Maybe a bit of economy?


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.

Territorial expansion should be reduced by as little as 0.1% per decade in horizontal, x/y sense.


I don't think we are any more insane than those who think wiping out portions of the present population somehow equates a better future. I just haven't seen you make such an outburst before, in regards to them. But you did with us, and that surprises me. In an unpleasant way.


If you don't have your own ideas on how to handle this (like you said you don't), I suggest you keep labels about other people's state of mind to yourself. If you have something better in mind, please do share. If not, than its just a pointless arguing over numbers and no potential solutions are discussed, and you are treading the way Bright Garlick did with ... well, all his few threads about the same subject matter.

[Shezbeth]

My solution overpopulation is simple.

I am not want to suffer a child of my loins to this world of perdition.

Those who wantonly, irresponsibly, and ignorantly reproduce are welcome to this world, and once I'm finished with it they can have my 'share' too. Those who are not wanton, irresponsible, or ignorant about their reproduction and dealings - and their children - have my blessings and pity.

[dianna]

Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth
Where did this myth come from? When was humanity supposed to end?





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM


Did Malthus really say to kill off the poor?

Yep. In his Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus calls for increased mortality among the poor:

‘All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons… To act consistently therefore, we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations.’ (Book IV, Chap. V) — Read it online.


.....

Did Paul Ehrlich really say that famines would devastate humanity in the 1970s?


Yep. In his 1968 work The Population Bomb, Ehrlich stated:

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

What's the UNFPA? How do they profit from fear?

The United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) was founded in 1969, the year after Ehrlich published The Population Bomb. They have been involved in programs with governments around the world who deny their women the right to choose the number and spacing of their children. Their complicit work with the infamous “one-child policy" mandated by the government of the People's Republic of China, uncovered by an investigation of the U.S. State Department in 2001, led the United States to pull its funding.

The wealthy of the West, in their terror of poverty, have given copiously to the UNFPA and its population control programs. Visit Population Research Institute for more info.



No way everyone could fit in Texas …

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/images/stories/texas1.jpg

According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/images/stories/texas2.jpg

Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/images/stories/texas3.jpg

Such an arrangement would leave the entire rest of the world vacant. There's plenty of space for humanity.

Where are you getting these numbers?

U.N. Population Database. While they provide Low, Medium, and High Variants, the Low Variant is the one that keeps coming true, so the Low variant numbers are the ones used in this video. Check their online database.

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/images/stories/faq7.jpg


The world's population will peak in 30 years? Prove it.

According to the U.N. Population Database, using the historically accurate low variant projection, the Earth's population will only add another billion people or so over the next thirty years, peaking around 8.02 billion people in the year 2040, and then it will begin to decline. Check their online database.

7 Billion People: Will Everyone Please Relax?
It's a huge number. But it's not what you think.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iodJ0OOdgRg



You are very confident about the earth’s population leveling off and then falling. How can you prove this? After all, population is still growing.

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/images/stories/ep5/faq_1.jpg

Population is still technically growing, but according to the United Nation Population Division’s numbers, that growth is slowing dramatically.

The United Nations Population Division (UNPD) is the most reliable source of population statistics in the world, which is why we use their numbers for our videos. And, according to the UNPD, population growth will continue to slow down over the next few decades. In fact, if current trends persist, our growth will halt right around 8 billion by 2045. After that, our numbers will start to fall off, slowly at first, and then faster.

If you find this whole idea counterintuitive, don't worry! You're not alone. At first glance, it really does seem like population is skyrocketing. That’s because we're still adding a billion people every few decades . . . and a billion people is a lot of people. But the way we can tell that population is not ballooning out of control is precisely the fact that we’re only adding a billion people each time. And soon, we won’t even be adding that many.

You claim that the UN’s predictions are reliable. How reliable have they historically been?

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/images/stories/ep5/faq_2.jpg

Again, it depends on which variant you use. In our research, we’ve looked at the UN’s predictions and how they have compared with real life--and in every case the “low variant” has been the most accurate. You can run the numbers yourself here

Even if population growth is slowing down, a billion people every 15 years is still a lot of people. Isn’t this still a problem?



It is a lot of people. And of course, greater numbers bring their own challenges and issues. But there isn't any convincing evidence to show that the size of our population is the cause of the world's most pressing issues, like war, famine, disease, and poverty.

Let's put it another way. Since we have more people, our wars are bigger. Our famines may affect more people, and more people will have diseases and be poor. But population growth didn't create these problems--they have have existed since people have existed.

In other words, we can't blame population for problems that have been around forever. The only difference is, since there are more of us now, these problems affect more people.

Why has the global total fertility rate dropped so much?

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/images/stories/ep5/faq_4.jpg

Scientists are still debating exactly why, but there's no doubt that it is happening. All over the world, birthrates have been dropping quickly, and for nearly 50 years now.

Many demographers think that it is because more and more people are urbanizing (moving into large cities). When families live out in the country on farms, it makes more economic sense to raise larger families, so that they have people to help them and care for them in their old age. It’s also true that cities tend to have better healthcare facilities, which reduce infant mortality. This in turn means that parents end up having fewer children, since more of their existing children are surviving to adulthood.

Demographic expert Philip Longman observes, in his book The Empty Cradle, “As more and more of the human race find itself living under urban conditions in which children no longer provide any economic benefit to their parents, but are rather costly impediments to material success, people who are well adapted to this new environment will tend not to reproduce themselves. And many others who are not so successful will imitate them.” (p.31, available here)

Overpopulation is a myth. This myth has caused human rights abuses around the world, forced population control, denied medicines to the poor, and targeted attacks on ethnic minorities and women.

[RMorgan]

Honestly,

I think you guys are insane, saying that it would be fine to grow our population up to 40 billion people.

Have you lost your minds?



Have you studied architecture? Industrial design maybe? Maybe a bit of economy?

Yes. Officially, both Architecture and Industrial Design; Economy as a hobby.



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.

Territorial expansion should be reduced by as little as 0.1% per decade in horizontal, x/y sense.


I don't think we are any more insane than those who think wiping out portions of the present population somehow equates a better future. I just haven't seen you make such an outburst before, in regards to them. But you did with us, and that surprises me. In an unpleasant way.


If you don't have your own ideas on how to handle this (Like you said you don't, I suggest you keep labels about other people's state of mind to yourself. If you have something better in mind, please do share. If not, than its just a pointless arguing over numbers and no potential solutions are discussed, and you are treading the way Bright Garlick did with ... well, all his few threads about the same subject matter.

So, you'd rather transform Earth into a vertical human farm instead of taking preventive measures like having just one or two children per family?

Is that it?

You'd rather stick the Earth with a billion massive vertical habitations, instead of taking simply preventive measures such as birth control?

Do you think it's worth it? For what? Just to keep the luxury of reproducing as much as we want?

And please, don't distort what I'm saying, man. I'm not defending "them", whoever they are. I don't like these people, but I don't ignore the fact that we also carry a big slice of responsibility for this mess.

I'm talking about prevention. Nothing more, nothing less.

Governments should study educational and economic measures to prevent people from having more than just a couple of children per family. This is the most simple, practical, cost effective, harmless and logical measure we could take right now.

I'm talking about the NOW, not somewhere in a hypothetical future scenario.


Anyway, man, don't we have enough misery in this planet with just 7 billion people?

Honestly, what do you think is most probable? The misery and social contrast would increase with the population number, or magically decrease?

You're talking about an Utopia here. We have to work with trends and probabilities; Dreaming is just good until a certain point.

There's no indicative that this system is going away anytime soon. Probably, if we ever achieve a 40 billion people population, only 1% or less would live in these places you're talking about, these technological oases, and the rest would live drowned in their own excrement.

We have to be wise now, preventing this scenario from becoming a reality.

Raf.

[dianna]

The Myth of Overpopulation

by Drutakarma Dasa




http://img0.etsystatic.com/000/0/6198438/il_570xN.244708056.jpg

“According to the Vedas, population experts are wrong in their crucial assumption that earth cannot supply the needs of a large population. If people are God conscious, there is virtually no limit to the population the earth can comfortably support.”

One of the myths most strongly entrenched in the modern mind is that birth control is necessary because of the threat of overpopulation. But His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada has stated: “There is no scarcity for maintenance in the material world.” According to Srila Prabhupada, human society’s leadership “is disturbed about the food situation and, to cover up the real fact of administrative mismanagement, takes shelter in the plea that the population is excessively increasing” (Bhag. 3.5.5, purport).

The world is far from being overpopulated. A simple calculation shows that all five billion men, women, and children on earth could be placed within the 267,339 square miles of the state of Texas, with each person occupying about fifteen hundred square feet of space.

But what about food? A study by the University of California’s Division of Agricultural Science shows that by practicing the best agricultural methods now in use, the world’s farmers could raise enough food to provide an American style diet for ten times the present population. And if people would be satisfied with an equally nourishing but mostly vegetarian diet, we could feed thirty times the present population.

Studies of an African famine in the early 1970’srevealed that every country affected had within its borders the agricultural resources to feed its people. As Frances Moore Lappe points out in her well-researched book Food First, much of the best land was being misused for production of exportable cash crops.

Srila Prabhupada also noted this fact. During a visit to Mauritius in 1975, in a lecture attended by some of the nation’s leading citizens, he stated, “So I see in your Mauritius island you have got enough land to produce food grains.” He then challenged, “I understand that instead of growing food grains you are growing sugarcane for exporting. Why? You first of all grow your own eatables, and if there is time and if your population has sufficient food grains, then you can try to grow other fruits and vegetables for exporting.”

Srila Prabhupada went on to say, “I have traveled to Africa, Australia, and America, and everywhere there is so much land vacant. If we use it to produce food grains, then we can feed ten times as much population as at the present moment. There is no question of scarcity. The whole creation is so made by Krishna that everything is purnam, complete.”

Food resources are also wasted by improper diets. During his lecture in Mauritius, Srila Prabhupada said, “I have seen in the Western countries that they are growing food grains for the animals, and the food grains are eaten by the animals, and the animal is eaten by the man.... What are the statistics? The animals are eating food grains, but the same amount of food grains can be eaten by so many men.”

Such statistics do exist. Government figures show that about ninety percent of the edible grains harvested in the United States are fed to animals that are later killed for meat. But for every sixteen pounds of grain fed to beef cattle, only one pound of meat is produced.

Srila Prabhupada concluded, “If there were one government on the surface of the earth to handle the distribution of grain, there would be no question of scarcity, no necessity to open slaughterhouses, and no need to present false theories about overpopulation” (Bhag. 4.17.25, purport).

The first person to sound the overpopulation alarm was the English economist Malthus (1766-1834), who calculated that population tends to increase much faster than the earth’s limited food supply. New farmland, of which there is only so much, said Malthus, can be brought into production only slowly and with great labor and careful planning, whereas—because of the constant pressure of sex desire—people will have as many children as they are able, unless they are checked. Therefore the population is almost always pushing the limit of available food, and suffering results. Malthus summarized this with his maxim that food production increases arithmetically, while population increases geometrically.

“That population has this constant tendency to increase beyond the means of subsistence,” states Malthus “… will sufficiently appear from a review of the different states of society in which man has existed.” But according to the Vedic viewpoint, the earth can produce an almost unlimited amount of life’s necessities. Restriction occurs not from overpopulation but from some other cause, namely the self-destructive attitudes and actions of the planet’s population.

The science of ecology has awakened us to a greater appreciation of how different organisms and natural resources are linked in complex interdependency, and how easily this interdependency can be disturbed—as in the case of acid rain, for example. While doing research for NASA, scientist Jim Lovelock concluded that the “earth’s living matter, air, oceans, and land surface form a complex system which can be seen as a single organism and which has the capacity to keep our planet a fit place for life.” He calls his hypothesis the “Gaia principle,” after the Greek goddess of the earth.

Lovelock himself, adhering to the principles of materialistic science, does not believe in a personified earth deity. But he does point out, “The concept of Mother Earth, or, as the Greeks called her long ago, Gaia, has been widely held throughout history and has been the basis of a belief which still coexists with the great religions.” The Vedic scriptures clearly state that the earth is the visible form of the goddess Bhumi, who restricts or increases her production according to the population’s level of spiritual consciousness.

“Therefore,” states Srila Prabhupada, “although there may be a great increase in population on the surface of the earth, if the people are exactly in line with God consciousness and are not miscreants, such a burden on the earth is a source of pleasure for her” (Bhag. 3.3.14, purport).

So according to the Vedas, Malthus and later population experts are wrong in n their crucial assumption that earth cannot supply the needs of a large population. If people are God conscious, there is virtually no limit to the population the earth can comfortably support.


.....



Is reincarnation just a belief? According to the Vedas, it is a fact each of us must face. Even Western science has turned up evidence (in research into out- of-body experiences and memories of past lives) that strongly suggests there is a conscious part of us that survives the death experience. We return, the Vedas explain, to suffer the reactions to the activities we performed in our previous life.


.....


Srila Prabhupada further states, “This material world is created to give the conditioned souls a chance ... for going back home, back to Godhead, and therefore generation of the living being is necessary, … and as such one can even serve the Lord in the act of such sexual pleasure. The service is counted when the children born of such sexual pleasure are properly trained in God consciousness” (Bhag. 2.10.26, purport).

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. Selfish sex, aided by abortion, pills, condoms, and so on, is not going to make this world a happier place for anyone. People will continue in the cycle of birth and death, and the world will be a chaos of greed, anger, envy, and violence.

[dianna]

Overpopulation Is Not the Problem
By ERLE C. ELLIS
Published: September 13, 2013


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lo9-0IF3w6E/TTgh0HaDm0I/AAAAAAAABzI/R6qMsyiK884/s1600/overpop1.jpg


BALTIMORE — MANY scientists believe that by transforming the earth’s natural landscapes, we are undermining the very life support systems that sustain us. Like bacteria in a petri dish, our exploding numbers are reaching the limits of a finite planet, with dire consequences. Disaster looms as humans exceed the earth’s natural carrying capacity. Clearly, this could not be sustainable.
Enlarge This Image


This is nonsense. Even today, I hear some of my scientific colleagues repeat these and similar claims — often unchallenged. And once, I too believed them. Yet these claims demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of the ecology of human systems. The conditions that sustain humanity are not natural and never have been. Since prehistory, human populations have used technologies and engineered ecosystems to sustain populations well beyond the capabilities of unaltered “natural” ecosystems.

The evidence from archaeology is clear. Our predecessors in the genus Homo used social hunting strategies and tools of stone and fire to extract more sustenance from landscapes than would otherwise be possible. And, of course, Homo sapiens went much further, learning over generations, once their preferred big game became rare or extinct, to make use of a far broader spectrum of species. They did this by extracting more nutrients from these species by cooking and grinding them, by propagating the most useful species and by burning woodlands to enhance hunting and foraging success.

Even before the last ice age had ended, thousands of years before agriculture, hunter-gatherer societies were well established across the earth and depended increasingly on sophisticated technological strategies to sustain growing populations in landscapes long ago transformed by their ancestors.

The planet’s carrying capacity for prehistoric human hunter-gatherers was probably no more than 100 million. But without their Paleolithic technologies and ways of life, the number would be far less — perhaps a few tens of millions. The rise of agriculture enabled even greater population growth requiring ever more intensive land-use practices to gain more sustenance from the same old land. At their peak, those agricultural systems might have sustained as many as three billion people in poverty on near-vegetarian diets.

The world population is now estimated at 7.2 billion. But with current industrial technologies, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has estimated that the more than nine billion people expected by 2050 as the population nears its peak could be supported as long as necessary investments in infrastructure and conducive trade, anti-poverty and food security policies are in place. Who knows what will be possible with the technologies of the future? The important message from these rough numbers should be clear. There really is no such thing as a human carrying capacity. We are nothing at all like bacteria in a petri dish.

Why is it that highly trained natural scientists don’t understand this? My experience is likely to be illustrative. Trained as a biologist, I learned the classic mathematics of population growth — that populations must have their limits and must ultimately reach a balance with their environments. Not to think so would be to misunderstand physics: there is only one earth, of course!

It was only after years of research into the ecology of agriculture in China that I reached the point where my observations forced me to see beyond my biologists’s blinders. Unable to explain how populations grew for millenniums while increasing the productivity of the same land, I discovered the agricultural economist Ester Boserup, the antidote to the demographer and economist Thomas Malthus and his theory that population growth tends to outrun the food supply. Her theories of population growth as a driver of land productivity explained the data I was gathering in ways that Malthus could never do. While remaining an ecologist, I became a fellow traveler with those who directly study long-term human-environment relationships — archaeologists, geographers, environmental historians and agricultural economists.

The science of human sustenance is inherently a social science. Neither physics nor chemistry nor even biology is adequate to understand how it has been possible for one species to reshape both its own future and the destiny of an entire planet. This is the science of the Anthropocene. The idea that humans must live within the natural environmental limits of our planet denies the realities of our entire history, and most likely the future. Humans are niche creators. We transform ecosystems to sustain ourselves. This is what we do and have always done. Our planet’s human-carrying capacity emerges from the capabilities of our social systems and our technologies more than from any environmental limits.

Two hundred thousand years ago we started down this path. The planet will never be the same. It is time for all of us to wake up to the limits we really face: the social and technological systems that sustain us need improvement.

There is no environmental reason for people to go hungry now or in the future. There is no need to use any more land to sustain humanity — increasing land productivity using existing technologies can boost global supplies and even leave more land for nature — a goal that is both more popular and more possible than ever.

The only limits to creating a planet that future generations will be proud of are our imaginations and our social systems. In moving toward a better Anthropocene, the environment will be what we make it.

Erle C. Ellis is an associate professor of geography and environmental systems at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and a visiting associate professor at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design.

[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]

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.


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?


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 (http://www.ted.com/talks?lang=en&event=&duration=&sort=newest&tag=26) 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:
http://www.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 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65793-How-to-reduce-the-human-population&p=771656&viewfull=1#post771656), 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]

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]

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.



actually, this planet going completely green will allow it to grow to 50 billion people...




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.

:yo:

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]

..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!


..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]

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 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65793-How-to-reduce-the-human-population&p=762757&viewfull=1#post762757): My suggestion on how to rebuild a new paradigm looking at the Big Picture.
Post#32 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65793-How-to-reduce-the-human-population&p=764461&viewfull=1#post764461): My argument that this issue is due to limited resources more so than limited space.
Post#35 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65793-How-to-reduce-the-human-population&p=764514&viewfull=1#post764514): My argument that Earth-changes and disclosure will directly and indirectly reduce the population whether we like it or not.
Post #56 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65793-How-to-reduce-the-human-population&p=764987&viewfull=1#post764987): My argument that we need more pristine space for organisms to assist humanity in food production and other mutualistic associations.
Post#77 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65793-How-to-reduce-the-human-population&p=768465&viewfull=1#post768465): 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 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65793-How-to-reduce-the-human-population&p=771656&viewfull=1#post771656): 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 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65793-How-to-reduce-the-human-population&p=772577&viewfull=1#post772577): 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 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65793-How-to-reduce-the-human-population&p=772742&viewfull=1#post772742): 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]

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.


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.


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.


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.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?48933-SAMSARA--the-documentary-


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0223nwxCSA

[gripreaper]

Freshwater is a limited resource. Period..

Ah, not so sure about this one. Have you looked at NAWAPA? There are many video's on NAWAPA, but this one is pretty comprehensive with only a half hour of your time. It triples the amount of water, doubles the amount of agricultural land, generates massive gigawatts of excess electrical power, not to mention the 4 million jobs it would directly create to implement it, not to mention the increase in local jobs and commerce. Also, a complete rail system would be an additional benefit of NAWAPA, increasing commerce exponentially.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpX8SG03shU

Here's the UCC-1 filing on it. That's 14 TRILLION, 300 BILLION, with a T. Please take note of who the debtor is and who the Secured Party is.

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/1923/irslienonamericafull.pdf

NAWAPA has the potential to completely restore the entire North American continent to full employment and eliminate all debt to the banksters. Gee, I wonder why it is blocked even though the 14 trillion is already allocated?

There are complete water development plans for the other continents too.

[Kindred]

Well... Here You Go BG / OP... You've got what you wanted... Are You Happy NOW???

Leuren Moret: USA, UK Monarchy behind Fukushima radiation [world-wide] genocide


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkZ7v_6nsl0#t=1731

[blufire]

Freshwater is a limited resource. Period..

Ah, not so sure about this one. Have you looked at NAWAPA? There are many video's on NAWAPA, but this one is pretty comprehensive with only a half hour of your time. It triples the amount of water, doubles the amount of agricultural land, generates massive gigawatts of excess electrical power, not to mention the 4 million jobs it would directly create to implement it, not to mention the increase in local jobs and commerce. Also, a complete rail system would be an additional benefit of NAWAPA, increasing commerce exponentially.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpX8SG03shU

Here's the UCC-1 filing on it. That's 14 TRILLION, 300 BILLION, with a T. Please take note of who the debtor is and who the Secured Party is.

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/1923/irslienonamericafull.pdf

NAWAPA has the potential to completely restore the entire North American continent to full employment and eliminate all debt to the banksters. Gee, I wonder why it is blocked even though the 14 trillion is already allocated?

There are complete water development plans for the other continents too.


It took me about 15 minutes to pull this info about NAWAPA from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance


The engineering of the project and the creation of a large number of new reservoirs — many of them in designated wilderness areas — would have destroyed vast areas of wildlife habitat in Canada and the American West and would have required the relocation of hundreds of thousands of people — including the entire city of Prince George, British Columbia.[1] A number of federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in Idaho and Montana would be submerged under reservoirs, including the Salmon, Lochsa, Clearwater, Yellowstone and Big Hole.[1] The amount of electricity required to pump the water over the Rockies would require the construction of as many as six nuclear power plants.[1] Significant negative consequences were also predicted for Pacific salmon runs in the many Alaskan and Canadian rivers that would be dammed and diverted, reducing their flows. Luna Leopold, a conservationist and professor of hydrology at the University of California, Berkeley said of NAWAPA, "The environmental damage that would be caused by that damned thing can't even be described. It would cause as much harm as all of the dam-building we have done in a hundred years."[1]

In the 1970s, the plan began to encounter fierce opposition by a number of different groups on both sides of the border, based on concerns with its financial and environmental costs and the international implications of exporting Canadian water. The environmental movement, which viewed the plan as the "hydrologic anti-Christ,"[13] gained momentum in the early 1970s, and is credited with playing a major role in halting the project.[2][14] After initially expressing support for NAWAPA as Interior Secretary in the 1960s, Stewart Udall publicly ridiculed the plan after leaving office.[1][15] The project was opposed by public sentiment in Canada,[1] though Canadian financier Simon Reisman, who negotiated the Free Trade Agreement, the precursor to the North American Free Trade Agreement, was one of its backers and main promoters. Nonetheless, the Canadian position on free trade exempted water exports, in part specifically to pre-empt any attempted completion of Reisman's long-time pet project.[citation needed] The NAWAPA Foundation, which Parsons had founded to promote the scheme, closed its doors in 1990.[16]


It seems there are some very good reasons why this plan has not been implemented. But, I wouldn’t be surprised in anyway when our population reaches even further critical mass that it will be implemented.

And then after it IS implemented than people in the alternative world or like you grip will be yelling OMG look what they have done.

Damned (so to speak) if it is not done and damned when it will be done. Right?

[gripreaper]

It took me about 15 minutes to pull this info about NAWAPA from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance

It seems there are some very good reasons why this plan has not been implemented. But, I wouldn’t be surprised in anyway when our population reaches even further critical mass that it will be implemented. And then after it IS implemented than people in the alternative world or like you grip will be yelling OMG look what they have done. Damned (so to speak) if it is not done and damned when it will be done. Right?

That's all it takes for you to jump on the NAWAPA opposition side, fifteen minutes at Wikipedia? Oh my lord, we are screwed as a species. Now you're supporting the environmentalists that scream bloody murder every time a field mouse is killed with the big agri tractors? You can't have it both ways. Either you care about the environment or you don't.

Would you rather the rain forests of South America get cut down to make way for more farmland, or would you rather put water reservoirs up in the mountains? Would you rather support those who are good stewards of the land, or would you rather support corporatocracies which have no heart and soul, whose only goal is more corporate profits and control?

Why are you so hell bent on global imperialism and consolidation of corporate power?

[blufire]

It took me about 15 minutes to pull this info about NAWAPA from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance

It seems there are some very good reasons why this plan has not been implemented. But, I wouldn’t be surprised in anyway when our population reaches even further critical mass that it will be implemented. And then after it IS implemented than people in the alternative world or like you grip will be yelling OMG look what they have done. Damned (so to speak) if it is not done and damned when it will be done. Right?

That's all it takes for you to jump on the NAWAPA opposition side, fifteen minutes at Wikipedia? Oh my lord, we are screwed as a species. Now you're supporting the environmentalists that scream bloody murder every time a field mouse is killed with the big agri tractors? You can't have it both ways. Either you care about the environment or you don't.

Would you rather the rain forests of South America get cut down to make way for more farmland, or would you rather put water reservoirs up in the mountains? Would you rather support those who are good stewards of the land, or would you rather support corporatocracies which have no heart and soul, whose only goal is more corporate profits and control?

Why are you so hell bent on global imperialism and consolidation of corporate power?

I’m not Grip . . . I just want people to be very clear on what truly is happening.

I could ask why do you and so many others insist on remaining such a hopeless helpless victims?

All of this is surface chaos and it is so pervasive for a reason . . .

I posted more of my response on this thread
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?66374-OK-Conspiracy-Theorists-Try-and-explain--WHY--Soros-Rockefeller-Uruguay-Govt.-teamed-up-to-legalise-Marijuana/page3

[blufire]

Gripreaper, Dennis, Paul, Raf, TargeT (let alone Bill and mods) . . . to name I few I seem to irritate the hell out of.

If I were to drop out of the forum today, who would be the voice of a ‘different color’? I know there are a few of us left . . . . but it seems I am the one of the only ones that refuses to back down and keep fighting (what I feel) is the absolute best fight I need to be fighting right now. I know I am not always right and get things mired up in my mind. But I, just like you, are sorting through all the crap and finding my footing and it is a daily task because of the constant onslaught and for me it is not only the onslaught of ‘them’ but I receive constant onslaught from PA too . . . . .and from the members who are the foundation of this forum.

I REFUSE to go down the easy road.

I REFUSE to become complacent and just accept what ‘they’ need us to accept.

I REFUSE to let them define the way I will live my life.

I REFUSE to let them beat me into the ground to force me to conform

I am staring them right between the eyes and daring them to deliver their BEST shot because I don’t give a damn

I SEE their outcome and I also SEE that I will thrive and survive no matter what

No matter the next year

No matter the next 25 years

No matter the next century.

But I also REFUSE to be converted by those in this forum that also ‘appear’ to want me to conform. I know I make people of the forum uneasy and angry and I say GOOD! Because if anything else it makes you THINK and I just may knock some out of the easy way of thinking and believing.

So would you rather I just leave the forum or would you rather I hang around and continue to be a pain in your behind?

I’m asking this sincerely.

The legacy I hope to leave will be that hope, strength, choice, wisdom and most of all peace

. . . . . and I can do this whether I remain on PA or not.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

This thread makes me think of how some people report feeling more suicidal after talking to a bad psychiatrist.

There is only a slight difference between ignorance and the wise refusal to waste energy on a dead subject.

The happy little animals in the Garden of Eden didn't worry about Carbon Footprints and Sustainable Misery.

[gripreaper]

I could ask why do you and so many others insist on remaining such a hopeless helpless victims?

I don't know who you are talking to with this statement, as I see a concerted effort here at Avalon to move away from victimhood and go towards sovereignty, self determination and self responsibility.

I, for one, post nothing BUT how to be more sovereign, how to take responsibility for ones thoughts and actions, and how to extricate oneself from the coroporatocracy and debt slavery. I spend thousands of hours researching and learning and following others who have done just that. this is me being pragmatic and walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

In this regard blufire, you are unique and I respect you immensely, for you not only talk the talk, but walk the walk. This gives you quite a bit of lateral leeway in my book.

I still think it is important to point out that the controllers, who own everything and want to consolidate all peoples on the planet into a single totalitarian fascist control system, need to be pointed out and circumvented as much as possible, in order to bring forth sovereignty and move away from victimhood. This is a process.

No one is refuting the existence of a New World Order agenda. Where we seem to differ, is I DO NOT see these elite controllers as benevolent, with any care for the genome or this planet. You seem to believe that they are genetically modifying all species, toxifying the life support systems of this planet, in order to save the genome, when in my mind, nothing could be further from the truth.

You site your subjective experience as validation and your 30 years of farming, viewed through a paradigm of limited resources, juxtaposed against an ever expanding population which is cannibalizing the planet like a cancer eating its host. This paradigm is based on victimhood and scarcity.

I think and believe that the universe is abundant and view it more from the quantum level, as a hologram which we can choose to change any time we want to. Once we decide we are sick and tired of being victims and want to change the game, we are free to do so. How we create, once we learn how powerful we truly are, how we can tap into the matrix of all and create abundance from there, the 100th monkey will show up and a shift can occur. If this is too esoteric and not pragmatic enough, then so be it.

Suffice it to say, the bankster aliens indebted the farmers, caused the famines and starvation to manipulate the market, bankrupted and stole the land from the farmers, consolidated all resources into the corporatocracy, and then proceeded to introduce toxins into every natural process we humans use to survive.

They killed Kennedy, stopped the issue of currency without interest, imperialized all nations into debt slavery, blocked NAWAPA, stole all the resources, consolidated all power, foreclosed and bankrupted everyone, and vampired all the energy. How in hell is any of this benevolent, and how is exposing it victimhood?

Please tell me.

[mosquito]

Does it ALWAYS have to come down to this ? Why can't you both be "right" ? Is it at all possible that (like the famous fable of the 5 blind men looking at an elephant) you, we, are looking at the same projection screen but from different sides ?

I'm imprisoned in cage 'A' whose bars I'm unable to see; I can however see that you're imprisoned in cage 'B', whose bars you can't see, despite being able to see the bars of my cage. Furthermore we are both imprisoned in a larger cage, whose existence we are both aware of. Why do we have to argue about the colour of the bars ? Or whether we should call it cage 'C' or 'Z' ? Or which hypothetical bad guys built the damn thing ? Maybe WE built it ourselves .....

Back to topic perhaps ??? :focus:

[Kindred]

I could ask why do you and so many others insist on remaining such a hopeless helpless victims?

I don't know who you are talking to with this statement, as I see a concerted effort here at Avalon to move away from victimhood and go towards sovereignty, self determination and self responsibility.

I, for one, post nothing BUT how to be more sovereign, how to take responsibility for ones thoughts and actions, and how to extricate oneself from the coroporatocracy and debt slavery. I spend thousands of hours researching and learning and following others who have done just that. this is me being pragmatic and walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

In this regard blufire, you are unique and I respect you immensely, for you not only talk the talk, but walk the walk. This gives you quite a bit of lateral leeway in my book.

I still think it is important to point out that the controllers, who own everything and want to consolidate all peoples on the planet into a single totalitarian fascist control system, need to be pointed out and circumvented as much as possible, in order to bring forth sovereignty and move away from victimhood. This is a process.

No one is refuting the existence of a New World Order agenda. Where we seem to differ, is I DO NOT see these elite controllers as benevolent, with any care for the genome or this planet. You seem to believe that they are genetically modifying all species, toxifying the life support systems of this planet, in order to save the genome, when in my mind, nothing could be further from the truth.

You site your subjective experience as validation and your 30 years of farming, viewed through a paradigm of limited resources, juxtaposed against an ever expanding population which is cannibalizing the planet like a cancer eating its host. This paradigm is based on victimhood and scarcity.

I think and believe that the universe is abundant and view it more from the quantum level, as a hologram which we can choose to change any time we want to. Once we decide we are sick and tired of being victims and want to change the game, we are free to do so. How we create, once we learn how powerful we truly are, how we can tap into the matrix of all and create abundance from there, the 100th monkey will show up and a shift can occur. If this is too esoteric and not pragmatic enough, then so be it.

Suffice it to say, the bankster aliens indebted the farmers, caused the famines and starvation to manipulate the market, bankrupted and stole the land from the farmers, consolidated all resources into the corporatocracy, and then proceeded to introduce toxins into every natural process we humans use to survive.

They killed Kennedy, stopped the issue of currency without interest, imperialized all nations into debt slavery, blocked NAWAPA, stole all the resources, consolidated all power, foreclosed and bankrupted everyone, and vampired all the energy. How in hell is any of this benevolent, and how is exposing it victimhood?

Please tell me.

gripreaper; YES, YES, and YES. (and perhaps many more)

NONE of us are 'victims', in the strictest sense. WE CREATED THIS REALITY... EACH OF US - Individually, and Collectively.

Unfortunately, much of what We Believe has been scripted by Others. We accepted the Challenge and came here to Learn, and Experience. WE are ALL INFINITE CREATOR BEINGS, having a brief excursion in Physicality, Specifically FOR the EXPERIENCE.

As Gripreaper pointed out, We Can Change The Experience AT ANY TIME - If We So Choose (and Understand Our Creative Abilities).

I, for one, have come to understand this quite well, although the 'action' part is a bit harder to implement... FAR too many False Beliefs that hinder my Actions.

I repeat: We do NOT need 'population reduction'... what All humanity needs is UNDERSTANDING and ENLIGHTENMENT. (see dianna's posts on page 7!!!)

To recognize that We Are One, and that ALL Humanity GAINS from each individual that is manifested into this Reality.

Once We realize our collective Unity and LOVE ONE ANOTHER, then All this nonsense of 'population control' will be seen as the ugly side of manipulation that it IS.

In Unity, Peace and LOVE

P.S. - It came to me just a bit ago that, perhaps, the OP / Bright Garlick, with his personal challenge of being faced with his own untimely death, has now had the childish notion that, since He was going to die, then Everyone Else needs to die. This might be a reason for his multiple threads on the need for 'population reduction'. This points to an unfounded and destructive Belief in one's own Lack of Creative Capacity, and thus one becomes a Victim of said Beliefs. As such, I STRONGLY suggest that Bright Garlick purchase some books on Enlightenment, and having had a personal experience with my own challenges, I'll suggest the 'Seth' series by Jane Roberts. In particular, 'The Nature of Personal Reality'. This book alone provides great insight as to the nature of our individual Beliefs, as well as How to deal with them in creating a more Joyful and Beneficial Reality in our own Individual Experience.

P.P.S - Bright Garlick - Each of Us CREATES OUR BODY, and we each Choose When and How we are to be born, as well as When We Are To Die. YOU make this decision - No one Else. I envision you in your Peace and abundant Health for Many Years to come. Know that You Are LOVED.

[Robin]

Ah, not so sure about this one. Have you looked at NAWAPA? There are many video's on NAWAPA, but this one is pretty comprehensive with only a half hour of your time. It triples the amount of water, doubles the amount of agricultural land, generates massive gigawatts of excess electrical power, not to mention the 4 million jobs it would directly create to implement it, not to mention the increase in local jobs and commerce. Also, a complete rail system would be an additional benefit of NAWAPA, increasing commerce exponentially.


It took me about 15 minutes to pull this info about NAWAPA from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance


The engineering of the project and the creation of a large number of new reservoirs — many of them in designated wilderness areas — would have destroyed vast areas of wildlife habitat in Canada and the American West and would have required the relocation of hundreds of thousands of people — including the entire city of Prince George, British Columbia.[1] A number of federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in Idaho and Montana would be submerged under reservoirs, including the Salmon, Lochsa, Clearwater, Yellowstone and Big Hole.[1] The amount of electricity required to pump the water over the Rockies would require the construction of as many as six nuclear power plants.[1] Significant negative consequences were also predicted for Pacific salmon runs in the many Alaskan and Canadian rivers that would be dammed and diverted, reducing their flows. Luna Leopold, a conservationist and professor of hydrology at the University of California, Berkeley said of NAWAPA, "The environmental damage that would be caused by that damned thing can't even be described. It would cause as much harm as all of the dam-building we have done in a hundred years."[1]

In the 1970s, the plan began to encounter fierce opposition by a number of different groups on both sides of the border, based on concerns with its financial and environmental costs and the international implications of exporting Canadian water. The environmental movement, which viewed the plan as the "hydrologic anti-Christ,"[13] gained momentum in the early 1970s, and is credited with playing a major role in halting the project.[2][14] After initially expressing support for NAWAPA as Interior Secretary in the 1960s, Stewart Udall publicly ridiculed the plan after leaving office.[1][15] The project was opposed by public sentiment in Canada,[1] though Canadian financier Simon Reisman, who negotiated the Free Trade Agreement, the precursor to the North American Free Trade Agreement, was one of its backers and main promoters. Nonetheless, the Canadian position on free trade exempted water exports, in part specifically to pre-empt any attempted completion of Reisman's long-time pet project.[citation needed] The NAWAPA Foundation, which Parsons had founded to promote the scheme, closed its doors in 1990.[16]


It seems there are some very good reasons why this plan has not been implemented. But, I wouldn’t be surprised in anyway when our population reaches even further critical mass that it will be implemented.

And then after it IS implemented than people in the alternative world or like you grip will be yelling OMG look what they have done.

Damned (so to speak) if it is not done and damned when it will be done. Right?

I just finished watching the video, grip. Thanks for posting. I've given thought to more efficient harvestibility of rainwater runoff, but we must be extremely careful when even considering constructing such a project. I agree with blufire, but I'm not necessarily saying that the NEWAPA project is unfeasible. Anything that gives less space and resources to other organisms while giving it all to humans is just the wrong way to go...

In theory, I am not necessarily against carrying out such projects, because if implemented, they can surely bring a better way of life to people. It is natural too, as beavers are responsible for making reservoirs and changing ecosystems with the dams that they construct on rivers.

I guess I should rescind my labeling of freshwater as a limited resource...when counting alteration of freshwater circulation systems. I still think that tampering with the weather of the world and redirecting routes of water for the comfort of humanity is something that cannot be taken lightly.

The difference between the beaver and the human is that the beaver is not at war with the planet. The beaver understands its integral place in the ecological system, and does not try to kill off other species or drive them from their territories for the sake of global domination. The beaver keeps itself in the system of checks and balances to change waterways just enough to to keep the beaver species alive and balanced.

But humans...humans tend not to look at the Big Picture of what it means to be a part of an ecological system. We are just as a part of ecological laws (keeping diversity and abundance in perpetual balance) as any other animal...yet we think that we can conquer them.

If we were to implement this project, creating more reservoirs thereby creating more agricultural land and allowing more humans to populate the planet, then we are back to square one. When will we say enough is enough? When will we say that no more pristine wilderness will be cut down for more agricultural space or human territory? If we implement such a project, in the future we will have even more people...which will require us to find yet another way to create more agricultural land and human housing.

It has to stop somewhere and some time. When creating such vast reservoirs, we are changing ecosystems that are home to very specific niches with specialized organisms that are not very adaptable. Even if we find more space to fit more humans, we are providing less and less for other organisms...for the detriment to ourselves and our other Earth denizens.

Contrary to what mainstream science tells us, the beaver subconsciously knows that if it takes up more land and resources than it needs, thereby killing off other species, it will not be able to survive. When will humans also understand this?

[gripreaper]

When will we say enough is enough? When will we say that no more pristine wilderness will be cut down for more agricultural space or human territory? If we implement such a project, in the future we will have even more people...which will require us to find yet another way to create more agricultural land and human housing.

And NAWAPA would take land which is now unplantable, mostly in the southwest, and turn it into agricultural land, NOT cutting down forests. This is what we need to quit doing, like what is occurring in South America to the pristine rain forests.

Populations respond positively to better living conditions, not the other way around. Maintaining starvation, scarcity and environmental degradation is what increases population, not education, husbandry and projects which are in sync with nature.

I'm certainly not saying we humans can continue to keep F'kin like rabbits and proliferate unchecked, but I am saying that the earth can sustain, in harmony, sentient and empathic souls who live in harmony with her and do not live in a paradigm of scarcity, competition, imperialism, energy vampirism, self aggrandizement and survival of the fittest, wars and manipulation.

[Frederick Jackson]

The Center for Biological Diversity is very concerned about rampant human population growth and its role in the ongoing species extinction crisis It has a great newsletter on the population problem. See:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/7_billion_and_counting/index.html

[Chester]

Get a vasectomy (like I did) or have your tubes tied. Then enjoy your sexuality.

[Shezbeth]

Each of Us CREATES OUR BODY, and we each Choose When and How we are to be born, as well as When We Are To Die. YOU make this decision - No one Else.

"Oooooookaaaaaayyyy,... where is the evidence?" - Nassim Haramein

[davyj0nes]

Here's a good one, 7 billion and Counting fact sheet. Talking points about the impact on human population growth.

Hmmm... i wonder what they mean by "background" rate...



http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/7_billion_and_counting/pdfs/7BACfactsheet.pdf

[Kindred]

Each of Us CREATES OUR BODY, and we each Choose When and How we are to be born, as well as When We Are To Die. YOU make this decision - No one Else.

"Oooooookaaaaaayyyy,... where is the evidence?" - Nassim Haramein

Yes.. I too appreciate and concur with Nassim's approach and his insights. But, his understandings are only the Beginning of a greater knowledge regarding Our Reality.

The Seth Material – page 113, 68th session, July 6, 1964
“Because I say to you that you create physical matter by use of the inner vitality of the universe, in the same way that you form a pattern with your breath on a glass pane, I do not mean that you are the creators of the universe. I am saying that you are the creators of the physical world as you know it.”

“Chemicals themselves will not give rise to consciousness or life. Your scientists will have to face the fact that consciousness comes first and evolves its own form… All cells in the body have a separate consciousness. There is a conscious cooperation between the cells in all the organs, and between the organs themselves… Molecules and atoms and even smaller particles have condensed consciousness. They form into cells and form an individual cellular consciousness. This combination results in a consciousness that is capable of much more experience and fulfillment than would be possible for the isolated atom or molecule alone. This goes on ad infinitum… to form the physical body mechanism. Even the lowest particle retains its individuality and its abilities [through this cooperation] are multiplied a millionfold.”

“Matter is a medium for the manipulation and transformation of psychic energy into aspects that can then be used as building blocks…. Matter is only cohesive enough to give the appearance of relative permanence to the senses that perceive it. … Matter is continually created, but no particular object is in itself continuous. There is not, for example, one physical object that deteriorates with age. There are instead continuous creations of psychic energy into a physical pattern that appears to hold a more of less rigid appearance.”

“No particular object ‘exists long enough’ as an indivisible, rigid, or identical thing to change with age. The energy behind it weakens. The physical pattern therefore blurs. After a certain point, each re-creation becomes less perfect from your standpoint. After many such re-creations that have been unperceived by you, then you notice a difference and assume that a change… has occurred. The actual material that seems to make up the object has completely disappeared many times, and the pattern has been completely filled again with new matter…”

Physical matter makes consciousness effective within the three-dimensional reality. As individualized energy approaches your particular field, it expresses itself to the best of its ability within it. As energy approaches, it creates matter, first of all in an almost plastic fashion. But the creation is continuous like a beam or endless series of beams, at first weak as they are far off, then stronger, then weak again as they pass away.”

Matter of itself, however, is no more continuous, no more given to growth or age than is, say, the color yellow.”

---------- AND-----------
An excerpt from Chapter 3 of “Seth Speaks” by Jane Roberts

Your scientists are finally learning what philosophers have known for centuries – that mind can influence matter. They still have to discover the fact that the mind creates and forms matter.

Now your closest environment, physically speaking, is your body. It is not like some manikin-shape in which you are imprisoned, that exists apart from you like a casing. Your body is not beautiful or ugly, healthy or deformed, swift or slow simply because this is the kind of body that was thrust upon you indiscriminately at birth. Instead your physical form, your corporeal personal environment, is the physical materialization of you own thoughts, emotions, and interpretations.

Quite literally, the “inner self” forms the body by magically transforming thoughts and emotions into physical counterparts. You grow the body. Its condition perfectly mirrors your subjective state at any given time. Using atoms and molecules, you build your body, forming basic elements into a form that you call your own.

You are intuitively aware that you form your image, and that you are independent of it. You do not realize that you create your larger environment and the physical world as you know it by propelling your thoughts and emotions into matter – a breakthrough into three-dimensional life. The inner self, therefore, individually and en masse, sends its psychic energy out, forming tentacles that coalesce into form.

Each emotion and thought has its own electromagnetic reality, completely unique. It is highly equipped to combine with certain others, according to the various ranges of intensity that you include. In a manner of speaking, three-dimensional objects are formed in somewhat the same way that images you see on your television screen are formed, but with a larger difference. And if you are not tuned into that particular frequency, you will not perceive the physical objects at all.

Each of you act as transformers, consciously, automatically transforming highly sophisticated electromagnetic units into physical objects. You are in the middle of a “matter-concentrated system”, surrounded, so to speak, by weaker areas in which what you would call “pseudo-matter” persists. Each thought and emotion spontaneously exists as a simple or complex electromagnetic unit – unperceived, incidentally, as yet by your scientists.

The intensity determines both the strength and the permanency of the physical image into which the thought or emotion will be materialized. In my own material I am explaining this in depth. Here, I merely want you to understand that the world that you know is the reflection of an inner reality.

Seth Speaks - Chapter 7, pg 86
To begin with, your physical form is the result of great emotional focus. The fantastic energy of your psyche not only creates your physical body, but maintains it. It is not one continuous thing, although to you it seems permanent enough while it lasts. It is nevertheless in a constant state of pulsation, and because of the nature of energy and its construction, the body is actually blinking off and on.

Now, this is difficult to explain, and for our present purposes it is not entirely necessary that you understand the reasons for this pulsing; but even physically, you are “not here” as often as you are. Your emotional intensity and focus create forms beside your physical body, however their duration and degree are dependent upon the intensity of any given emotional origin.

Your space is therefore filled with incipient forms, quite vivid, but beneath the regular structure of matter that you perceive. These projections, then, actually are sent out constantly. Some more sophisticated scientific instruments than you now have would clearly show not only the existence of these forms, but also the vibrations in varying waves of intensity surrounding those physical objects that you do perceive.

To make this clearer, look at any table in the room before you. It is physical, solid, and you perceive it easily. Now, for an analogy, imagine if you can that behind the table is another just like it, but not quite as physical, and behind that one another, and another behind that – each one more difficult to perceive, fading into invisibility. And, in front of the table is a table just like it, only a bit less physical appearing that the ‘real’ table – it also having a succession of even less physical tables extending outward. And the same for each side of the table.


Now anything that appears in physical terms also exists in other terms that you do not perceive. You only perceive realities when they achieve a certain ‘pitch’, when they seem to coalesce into matter. But they actually exist, and quite validly at other levels.

There are also realities, that are “relatively more valid” than your own; in comparison, strictly for an analogy, for example, your physical table would appear as shadowy in contrast, as like those very shadowy tables we imagine. You would have a sort of “supertable” in those terms. Yours is not a system of reality formed by the most intense concentration of energy, therefore. It is simply the one you are turned (tuned) into, part and parcel of. You perceive it simply for this reason.

Other portions of yourself, therefore, of which you are not consciously aware, do inhabit what you could call a supersystem of reality in which consciousness learns to handle and perceive much stronger concentrations of energy, and to construct “forms” of a different nature indeed.

Your idea of space is then highly distorted, since space to you is simply where nothing is perceived. It is obviously filled with all kinds of phenomena that make no impression at all upon our perceptive mechanisms. Now in various ways and on occasion, you can tune into these other realities to some degree – and you do so spasmodically, though in many cases the experience is lost because it does not register physically.

Not only are you part of other independent selves, each one focused in its own reality, but there is a sympathetic relationship that exists. For example, because of this relationship, your experience need not be limited by the physical perceptive mechanisms. You can draw upon knowledge that belongs to these other independent selves. You can learn to focus your attention to these other independent selves. You can learn to focus your attention away from physical reality,, to learn new methods of perception that will enable you to enlarge you concept of reality and greatly expand your own experience.

It is only because you believe that physical existence is the only valid one, that it does not occur to you to look for other realities. Such things as telepathy and clairvoyance can give you hints of other kinds of perception, but you are also involved in quite definite experiences both whole you are normally waking and while you are asleep.

The so-called stream of consciousness is simply that – one small stream of thoughts, images, and impressions – that is part of a much deeper river of consciousness that represents your own far greater existence and experience. You spend all your time examining this one small stream, so that you become hypnotized by its flow, and entranced by its motion. Simultaneously these other streams of perception and consciousness go by without your notice, yet they are very much a part of you, and represent quite valid aspects, events, actions, emotions with which you are also involved in other layers of reality.
-----------------
A more 'complete' and focused book on individual Reality by Seth/Jane Roberts, is "The Nature Of Personal Reality", which gives some very specific knowledge on how to "solve everyday problems and enrich the life you know" (paraphrased). I strongly recommend any of these tomes for that Greater Knowledge which is central to Humankind's Enlightenment.

However, the Most succinct statement was that issued by Jesus;

"Love One Another"

In Unity, Peace and LOVE

[Shezbeth]

Make no mistake. I think very highly of the Seth material, and my introduction to it was supremely synchronistic.

Having said, I disagree with many of 'his' points. Clairvoyance, telepathy, precognition, etc. are all phenomenon I have experienced at more than a cursory level, but the inclusion or reference to such phenomena do not lend authority to his other words any more than say, the latest show on the History channel that makes similar reference. Moreover, his words are directed at individuals who are complete neophytes to anything metaphysical/esoteric.

Opinions are non-evidentiary when communicated in such a way. It is assumed that one grant that Seth is authoritative because of the comprehensive nature of his expression. Moreover, due to the otherworldy nature of his introduction/interaction one is expected to give more credibility if for no reason than to continue the exchange. What if/when his expressions fail to pan out? What if one's discernment/experience contests and contradicts what is expressed?

Simply, I like much of what Seth says, but is by no means evidence/uncontestable.

Edit: More simply, receptivity does not excuse naivete.

[Davidallany]

How often do we forget our insignificance as Earthlings within the bio-suits called bodies, compared to the vastness of the universe. Our limited intellectual prowess, our imaginary self importance, our human-centric conceits, and our efficiency-lacking languages all demonstrate that we are not ready to join the galactic family yet, where much wiser beings may exist. We need to be more prudent, more humble, and loving. Loving oneself means being completely honest with oneself, accepting whatever there is. It's all energy. Without acceptance one cannot genuinely be expected to move on. With love comes peace and tranquility, a sense of being completely at ease.
That is why i think that Avalon is one of the sanest places on Earth, where people come to learn from each other in spirit of co-operation and friendship and peace.
There are many members who have evolved and grew much faster after joining Avalon, I am delightful to include myself there.
I am pretty much aware of my ego and how easily it can take over if i let it, for that i take a deep breath and embrace the whole of humanity in my mind, sending my ego free and feeling at ease.
Keep in mind that no matter how far and wide we Humans expand within a species life time in the future, we will not be able to colonize a whole galaxy. Space is just too vast.

[Kindred]

Make no mistake. I think very highly of the Seth material, and my introduction to it was supremely synchronistic.

Having said, I disagree with many of 'his' points. Clairvoyance, telepathy, precognition, etc. are all phenomenon I have experienced at more than a cursory level, but the inclusion or reference to such phenomena do not lend authority to his other words any more than say, the latest show on the History channel that makes similar reference. Moreover, his words are directed at individuals who are complete neophytes to anything metaphysical/esoteric.

Opinions are non-evidentiary when communicated in such a way. It is assumed that one grant that Seth is authoritative because of the comprehensive nature of his expression. Moreover, due to the otherworldy nature of his introduction/interaction one is expected to give more credibility if for no reason than to continue the exchange. What if/when his expressions fail to pan out? What if one's discernment/experience contests and contradicts what is expressed?

Simply, I like much of what Seth says, but is by no means evidence/uncontestable.

Edit: More simply, receptivity does not excuse naivete.

Well, if you don't wish to take my admonishment or Seth's words for understanding, perhaps you'll take a quantum physicist's:
pt 1 OrcWntw9juM
pt 2 FSxluvq5HI0

or, perhaps Nassim's own words are enough? Start at about 1:19:00, to about 1:25:00, although the entire piece is quite informative.
4zc0ICPoqlM

In Unity, Peace and Love

[Shezbeth]

My point is not to say that what 'Seth' says is not true, my point is to say that "Just because he said it doesn't mean it should be taken as fact". In general he has a way of saying several things that seem quite apparent and agreeable, and then throw in a statement or two that the recipient - in having become receptive to previous statements - is more inclined to agree with even if it is overly unagreeable, unconfirmable, and lacking in evidence. The apparent truth of previous/later statements does not blanket everything said with truth.

Nassim's spiel does well to argue that point for me (the analogy of the moving hand).

I'll reiterate - I think very highly of the Seth material, however 'he' makes numerous statements that are by no means as definite as is implied or expressed.

:focus:

[Kindred]

Sounds like a bit too much of 'left-brain thinking'... You're trying to 'logically' prove something that is Beyond Proof - at least at this level of 'density' and sense-awareness.

Using the INTUITIVE powers of Consciousness, in Consort with the Logical aspect of Consciousness, you Expand your ability to UNDERSTAND.

We, as a Race, need to move beyond this limitation of purely 'left-brained' thinking, and recognize both the benefit and the Necessity to incorporate BOTH hemispheres of Awareness.

And this is Particularly True when dealing with the subject of the OP.

No problem can be solved at the same level of Consciousness that created the problem.

I have attempted to expand our Understanding of the current population 'dilemma' by bringing the Iarga dialog into the discussion - to bypass our left-brain limitations by looking at this issue in a wholly different manner, and Recognize the 'problem' is NOT what it seems to be.

The 'population problem' is a Manufactured construct by tptw, which manipulate the resources and that is further manifested through the widely disseminated and promoted idea of Scarcity.

This is a FALSE Paradigm.

Our planet, Properly Managed, could EASILY Feed, Clothe, and House EVERYONE, with enough left over for Many, Many More. ALL this, and one could also provide even Greater Space for EVERYONE - particularly that of Wild Space.

The Universe is INFINITE.. and So Are Our Options - IF we would only open our eyes, and see these manipulations for what they Truly Are.

I encourage Everyone to expand your thinking 'outside of the box', and Know that Creation was meant to be a Wondrous, Joyful Experience.

And It Can BE. If We Make The Effort in body, mind and Spirit.

In Unity, Peace and Love

[Shezbeth]

One can operate both hemispheres of the brain, it doesn't have to be a left/right brain issue. I suggest that the most adequate responses to ANY stimuli come from BOTH hemispheres, neglecting neither.

The Seth material may have truth to it - it may even have an overwhelming majority - but is nonetheless channeled material. I trust I don't need to go on at length as to the possible conflicts involving such and those who wish to ignore them do so at their own peril.

A human population achieving equilibrium with their environment requires two things:
1. An environment with sufficient renewable resources to perpetuate the humans participating.
2. A human population willing to live exclusively in equilibrium with the environment, relying only on sustainable/renewable resources.

I see one being present,.....

[Kindred]

A human population achieving equilibrium with their environment requires two things:
1. An environment with sufficient renewable resources to perpetuate the humans participating.
2. A human population willing to live exclusively in equilibrium with the environment, relying only on sustainable/renewable resources.

I see one being present,.....

Unfortunately, I had written a lengthy analysis of our current challenge, as well as the solution relative to your postulate, which then vaporized into the ether due to having taken so long to compose.

Simply put, the high technology which is being withheld can offer innumerable multifaceted advantages that would free up humanity's potential for advancement both physically, as well as Spiritually. It won't be 'easy', but We may be surprised by how rapidly such a turn-around could be had, once we apply our Consciousness to the problem.

In Unity, Peace and Love

[Shezbeth]

There exists that potential - I agree - but I don't find it to be probable for numerous reasons.

Recognize that while the withholding of tech and info is artificial to the holistic growth/development of humanity, it is a natural expression of how humans react when engaging within a hierarchy. Systems of control would need to be addressed long before giving humanity the 'keys' to some of the technology, else those new technologies will be used as increased methods of control. IMO, humanity has not matured to the point that it can safely and effectively manage such technology, as is evidenced by it's 'effective' management of current technology.

[Kindred]

I just happened upon this EXCELLENT video that Specifically Addresses the 'Population Problem', as both a statistical methodology, as well as a focused narration with excellent graphics and some humor as well. Presented by a statistician, Hans Rosling.

Mz_kn45qIvI

Enjoy!

In Unity, Peace and Love

[thunder24]

wade frazier's thread has a perspective that is wide in scope, that imo needs to be considered

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?10672-WADE-FRAZIER-A-Healed-Planet&p=801376#post801376

peace