Originally Posted by cheeple
Well, since he had those children 45 years ago, it would hardly be practical to retroactively apply the policy.
Well, since he had those children 45 years ago, it would hardly be practical to retroactively apply the policy.
....takes the machette out of the cupboard... "Kids, would you mind coming over? Not you Ted Jr., you can go and survi...I mean play on the swing."
If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you …if you are open to the point of gullibility...you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones
What is the correct population of the earth?
How many people should there be?
What makes you think ther is a "correct" population??
Depending upon how we are prepared to exploit the planet and what level of wealth you are prepared to let people have...or withold from them.....there are various levels of supportable populations - I think anything up to 20 billion gets mentioned every now and then (if you are eitehr prepared to allow massive starvation, or fairly draconian land-use laws, GMO, nuclear power, etc), and even 100 billion here!!
If you want everyone to have the same level of wealth & energy use as Americans do now then I imagine it is probably somewhat less.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
I don't think there's an ideal number. But we can tell when there are too many. If forced to pick, I'd say 10 billion would be the upper end. I'd have no problem with it being lower, but it's not a pressing issue. The first step is to reduce the rate of growth. I'm not in favor of any coercive measures to do this.
Over-population is a myth.
Robert Kunzig of National Geographic is on Krys Boyd’s Think right now discussing his article, “Population Seven Billion.” He said he did the calculations, and the entire world could fit in Texas if each person were alloted the same average square feet of living space as in New York City.
SD that is a truly specious argument - there is a difference between the room required to live and the resources required to live
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Pack em and Stack em into small "sustainable" communities sounds like Agenda 21
I don't think a single community of all the world's population in Texas sounds anything like "small "sustainable" communities" at all.
Perhaps you could explain how that works in relation to the actual programme??
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
I took the argument at face value. Population, (cause) not resources used of said population (effect). If you want to argue resources, I would say that free clean energy is being suppressed and that there IS enough resources required for the entire population to live. Whether we are all in one spot, or spread out. The logistics are always less expensive when you are distributing to a smaller area so this would actually help the problem, if there indeed ever actually is one.
You really need to actually demonstrate that free clean energy is being suppressed before you started basing your arguments on that premise. I really don't see any evidence that it is being suppressed, and far less that it actually exists.
It exists.
The One Mainstream TV Show To Help You Get Off The Grid – Episode 009
Aug 13th, 2010 | By Off The Grid RadioOn today’s edition of Off the Grid Radio, Solutions From Science founder Bill Heid and Brian Brawdy broadcast from a mobile unit powered exclusively by wind and solar power. Also, an endorsement of a mainstream TV show that will actually help you prepare for the challenges of ‘off grid’ living.
Listen Now!
What exists? Wind and Solar energy? How is that going to help pack 20 billion people into Texas?
Well, if we packed all those people into Texas, then I think Texas would be over populated in the sense of my own personal comfort and space preferences. I am interpreting overpopulation as literal though. Too many people on the planet, not enough room. All the Texas example demonstrates is that there can't be too many people on the planet because there is still plenty of room for everyone. I am not saying to all group together... I am saying that we can fit the entire population of the world into Texas. Now if we colonized space and the population grew, and then everyone decided to move back to earth and there was no room, then perhaps there would be an overpopulation problem on the planet.
The problem IS grouping together. Cities are like ant colonies. Cities have more population than anywhere else. Do I think the city is overpopulated? Yes! The planet? No! Cities take up less than 1% of the entire mass of land on the planet. The reason cities are overpopulated is because society is forced to use money as an essential means to acquire basic goods to live, and the city is where the majority of commerce (and therefore money) is.
cheeple (October 2nd, 2012)
When does the mass agro meet the person-number ratio....to retain true sustainability ?
...and does that include water ?
"You've been Blaylocked !!"
Just Me (November 9th, 2012)
Water is a renewable resource. You can even take it out of the air.
Don't worry about mass solutions. Think about the problem with individual solutions, that can affect the masses if they CHOOSE to do them. Jay provided a good example of this.
Forgive me, but I would really like for you to find something that we agree with, because I have been itching to say "I'm with stupid". I just said it though didn't I. :P I just could not help it! I like your name though. That was a pretty smart reply coming from someone named "stupid" and that makes it funny.
...because not only does agro need water, so does human consumption, and meat farms....ergo, meat needs water and agro needs water. and "so does humans".
It's easy to see that all forms of sustainability need water.
"You've been Blaylocked !!"
Water is not as easily available as clicking two fingers.
In rural ancient times, water and firewood (cold areas) were on top of the list for survival.
"You've been Blaylocked !!"
It is not strange that each of those two (heat, water), are still on top of the list for modern sustainability.
"You've been Blaylocked !!"
This is not ancient times. Try clicking two hundred dollar bills together instead and see who will sell you irrigation equipment or sell you some firewood.
Which brings us back to the problem. The need for money. If people did not NEED money then EVERYONE would be able to afford necessities!
Are you talking about some sort of Zeitgeist resource based economy?
No. I like money. I am just saying that since people are forced to use it to survive, that prices get raised artificially. The "cost of living" is not getting any cheaper, Cheeple. It all boils down to property tax in my opinion. Once you have purchased something, then you should not be required to continue to pay for it. How long can you run on a treadmill before you fall off? You can only hope that someone set the speed nice and low for you when you are born.
Last edited by SeriouslyDebatable; October 2nd, 2012 at 10:59 PM.
Money is a situation anywhere you go today. Too bad.
Are you saying that enough clams or bits of silver become irreverent in the exchange of goods ?
Trade
Value
Need
Want
"You've been Blaylocked !!"
I couldnt agree more, there is no such thing as true home ownership in America, anyone who thinks they own their house outright should try not paying their property taxes and see how much they own their home. Plus theirs no such thing as "Cost of living increase" thats the dollar losing value but your on the level so you know that already, and it's only gonna get worse......
No I never said that. I just wrote a lengthy explanation and it all got erased by hitting a key accidentally, and undo wont work.
Basically, if I have an apple tree, I won't need to buy apples. If I pay property tax, I'm still buying apples. As soon as I don't pay for the property tax, then the apples are gone.
By the way, the only "SERVICE" that the property tax pays for is education. Look it up. Do you think you are getting your money's worth?
There is no creature known to man, besides man itself... that requires money to survive.
Overpopulation could be a myth that needs debunking.
Anytime we see a meme being promoted as a priori, we should pause and skeptically evaluate the premise.
Such investigation is especially important when the meme is being employed to support coersion.
I disagree. I see the Cost of Living getting cheaper. Due to advances in technology and commerce, each human requres far less hours of work per day to acquire life essentials than in years past. The is one reason why the Overpopulation meme is suspect.
Charlie, the cost of living is getting cheaper? so cheap in fact people can work less? Dude where do you live? that's preposterous, Food and Energy is through the roof atleast here in California, i was gonna buy cheese whiz at Safeway yesterday $5.25! I spent $9.00 on bologne and salami, $6.99 for Almond Milk, $4.00 for a loaf of Bread, Gas is $4.25 per gallon.
We are talking about two different "costs". What you describe is not an increase in cost. It is an increase in currency devaluation.
A loaf of bread is not four times more difficult to produce than when the price was $1.00. It merely takes four times more currency units to acquire the same loaf of bread because the currency units are each worth less. That's called Price Inflation, a tax the wealthy impose on the poor.
The cost I am referring to is the amount of human time and labor required to gather the resources necessary for a human to exist. Advances in technology and commerce have driven those way down. Fair market innovations have always tended to do that, and always will. Fear-mongers pushing the Overpopulation meme ignore that.
OooOOhhh, ok, I'm not used to talking to people who understand price rising on goods and services is actually the dollar losing value...... I dig it.
SD, Thought you'd like this video regarding Property Taxes and the Karl Marx Communist Manifesto;
I can't comment on that without being a bit unkind!!
Taking that argument at face falue is a serious error.
According to it the world would not be overpopulated until you couldn't fit another person onto any land area of the planet. New York has a population density of 26,403 people per square mile (10,194/km²) according to Wiki. the Earth's land surface area is somewhere between about 149-150 million square miles according to this site, so overpopulation will only be reached when there are something like 4 TRILLION people on the planet.
I guess they would all be eating seafood........
I agree that there is POTENTIALLY enough energy, and certainly enough food at he moment - that is why I do not think 7 billion is an unsustainable population. Even Agenda 21 does nto say 7 billion is unsustainable.Population, (cause) not resources used of said population (effect). If you want to argue resources, I would say that free clean energy is being suppressed and that there IS enough resources required for the entire population to live.
Logistics are not always less expensive if distributing to a smaller area - logistics are cheaper when less of them is required, which usually means having the consumer close to the supplier, and hence a distributed population closer to its required resources.Whether we are all in one spot, or spread out. The logistics are always less expensive when you are distributing to a smaller area so this would actually help the problem, if there indeed ever actually is one.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
I did look it up.
http://www.deland.org/Pages/DeLandFL...forwebsite.pdf
People pay for things in currency, not in labor. The fact is that minimum wage has barely gone up compared to the devaluation of the currency. Rent has gone up too.
Whether people pay for things in currency or labour depends upon the society - and even today there are "labour exchange" and barter systems that can let you "pay" for goods and services with labour.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Does the environmental resources needed "per person" come into play here at all ?
"You've been Blaylocked !!"
Here's Robert Christian's book (along with some other stuff)
http://metabunk.org/files/Common%20Sense%20Renewed.pdf
Sample:
He talks about "a few generations of single child families", so I guess he does want some significant reduction. I think it would still take well over 100 years to get down to 0.5 billion though. As China demonstrates, having a single child policy does not actually reverse population growth, as the existing population tends to both have children and then not die for 50 years.
I think the Guidestones precepts are profoundly benign, it saddens me how conspiracy theorists misinterpret them... or don't read all of them
The cost I am referring to is the amount of human time and labor required to gather the resources necessary for a human to exist. Advances in technology and commerce have driven those way down. Fair market innovations have always tended to do that, and always will.
Fear-mongers pushing the Overpopulation meme ignore that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks