Overpopulation: Myth or Reality?

Metaverseguy: There was a very popular book written about overpopulation in the 60's. Basically resources are finite yet people grow exponentially. As population grows the food does not necessarily keep up with this pace, along with other resources like oil, gas, etc. We have improved farming and use GMO's and John Deere equipment has improved along with ideas like crop rotation, etc. Of course many people say the Earth cannot sustain a population of over 10 billion for example, which we are slowly reaching. China has limited childbirth to 1 person per family.

The other argument is that overpopulation is a myth. That it's class warfare and corrupt economics which doesn't provide enough food for the poorest, while the richest are overabundant. There is even a web site that says overpopulationisamyth.com with many arguments supporting this viewpoint.

Which side do you support and why?

Kaiya_: it is a myth because if you take all the people of the world and put them togather and spaced them with a qt acre for each person they would not even fill the country of Austrailia. we tend to think that our cities are all linked togather and continue on forever but if you travel by plane at night youl only sometimes see a few little lights from a city the rest area is all mountains and unpopulated land.

population never goes over a certain level by nature like how when fish get crouded they grow smaller and stop having babies.

the central planners of this planet want us to think we are a cancer on this planet as an excuse to control us but humans are not a virus like they say...THEY are the cancer and they dont want us to realize it.

they are luciferians and use overpopulation as an excuse to commit genocide.

Captain Canada: Kaiya you said '''they are luciferians and use overpopulation as an excuse to commit genocide.''
Maybe i can say that the Man has made virus like Aids, Cancer, Sars and others like it
Its cheaper to kill millions slowly than a few hundred in a battle field and very expensive also not politically correct.Eh

dave3974: the uk now imports 45% of its food , roads are crowded , the price of housing is rocketing , many of our cities have a higher population density than china-------over population is a reality and one of the biggest problems facing humanity.

duncan124:
Well, I think the problem has gone away.

dave3974: then we are ok then

DEEP_acheleg: overpopulation only exists, according to biology, when a species exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment to feed that species. overpopulation is localized in high urban areas, and in the 3rd world, like africa, where people choose to accept imported agricultures, as opposed to relocating to a less populated-more fertile area.

dave3974: deep then the case is proved we are over populated , your intellect is legendary eaggy

Eagster: Thanks.

DEEP_acheleg: no, onlthe parts of the world where the human populastion has exceeded the eivoronments ability to sustain the human population, is there human population. if the opver-populatiion were to move to the rural south us, or midwest, there would be no aggregate overpopulation problem. overpopulation is localized according to the carrying capacity of its envioprnment- this is bio 101.

duncan124:
" no, onlthe parts of the world where the human populastion has exceeded the eivoronments ability to sustain the human population, is there human population(?)" Indeed.

DEEP_acheleg: only cause the us donates corn to enable their irresponsible ways- while they use the free condoms as water baloons

duncan124:
'Free corn donations' watch out for them!

DEEP_acheleg: without them, they might get up and move, or revolt, or something. with less corn(not no corn, just less corn)the women would naturally stop menstrating, then, no more overpopulation

duncan124:
Naturally. Halloween soon too.

DEEP_acheleg: there are a limited amount of resources; however, when you look at the vast majority of them being in the hands of the rich, then why not congratulate a celebrity like bono, who makes africa his #1 charity? stereotyping a person by economic class is no worse than stereotyping by ethnicity.

Metaverseguy: I'd say the resources are in the hands of the farmers who own the land. Sure, the banks give them loans and subsidies, but it is the farmers responsibility to take care of the crops and food. So many of them are using pesticides and stuff and then it is shipped out to different grocery stores. Most people don't have enough food to live off by theirselves, but farmers do.

duncan124:
Humans should now be multiplying as fast as they can with all the help they need!

dave3974:
Climate change and global pollution cannot be adequately tackled without addressing the neglected issue of the world's booming population, according to two leading scientists.


Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, and Professor John Guillebaud, vented their frustration yesterday at the fact that overpopulation had fallen off the agenda of the many organisations dedicated to saving the planet.

The scientists said dealing with the burgeoning human population of the planet was vital if real progress was to be made on the other enormous problems facing the world.

"It is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about" Professor Guillebaud said. "Unless we reduce the human population humanely through family planning, nature will do it for us through violence, epidemics or starvation."

Professor Guillebaud said he decided to study the field of human reproduction more than 40 years ago specifically because of the problems he envisaged through overpopulation.

His concerns were echoed by Professor Rapley, an expert on the effects of climate change on the Antarctic, who pointed out that this year an extra 76 million people would be added to the 6.5 billion already living on Earth, which is twice as many as in 1960.

By the middle of the century, the United Nations estimates that the world population is likely to increase to more than nine billion, which is equivalent to an extra 200,000 people each day. Professor Rapley said the extra resources needed to sustain this growth in population would put immense strains on the planet's life-support system even if pollution emissions per head could be dramatically reduced.

"Although reducing human emissions to the atmosphere is undoubtedly of critical importance, as are any and all measures to reduce the human environmental 'footprint', the truth is that the contribution of each individual cannot be reduced to zero. Only the lack of the individual can bring it down to nothing," Professor Rapley says in an article for the BBC website.

"So if we believe that the size of the human 'footprint' is a serious problem - and there is much evidence for this - then a rational view would be that along with a raft of measures to reduce the footprint per person, the issue of population management must be addressed."

Professor Rapley says the explosive growth in the human population and the concomitant effects on the environment have been largely ignored by many of those concerned with climate change. "It is a bombshell of a topic, with profound and emotive issues of ethics, morality, equity and practicability," he says.

DEEP_acheleg: as nations become more industrialized, the birthrate goes down. people just need to learn to live with less manufactured goods, physical belongings do not necessitate happiness, only distraction

Kaiya_: i agree with you about everything deep dissonance. Depopulation is a policy with the globalists and UN organizations are out sterilizing people and poison our food, water. its part of the grand design. when people try to wake up they tell us were over populated and need to accept abortion and death panels along with forced sterilization. all that other stuff they do is because they want to thin the masses before we get to big for them to handle for when we revolt against them.

ghostgeek: Ever heard of a chap called Malthus? He was banging on about overpopulation a couple of centuries ago. We're still waiting for the catastrophe he predicted.

dave3974: science and resources have kept just ahead so far , it will not last

ghostgeek: It's not easy predicting the future. Fracking has transformed the energy scene in America. Who would have predicted that ten years ago? So far, something has always turned up to keep everything going. For all we know, the next big thing may be only five years down the road.

DawnGurl: According to LifeSciences.net:
World population growth is rapidly declining. United Nations figures show that the 79 countries that comprise 40 percent of the world's population now have fertility rates too low to prevent population decline. The rate in Asia fell from 2.4 in 1965–70 to 1.5 in 1990–95. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the rate fell from 2.75 in 1960–65 to 1.70 in 1990–95. In Europe, the rate fell to 0.16 that is, effectively zero in 1990–95. And the annual rate of change in world population fell from 2 percent in 1965-70 to lessÊ than 1.5 percent in 1990–95.

Worldwide, the number of children the typical woman had during her lifetime (total fertility) fell from 5 in 1950–55 to less than 3 in 1990–95. (The number necessary just to "replace" the current generation is 2.1.) In the more developed regions, total fertility fell from 2.77 to 1.68 over the same period. In the less developed regions it fell from more than 6Ê to 3.3. Total fertility in Mexico was 3.1 in 1990–95. In Spain it stood at 1.3, and in Italy, it was 1.2.

Official forecasts of eventual world population size have been steadily falling. In 1992–93, the World Bank predicted world population would exceed 10 billion by the year 2050. In 1996, the U.N. predicted 9 billion for 2050.