If you don't like to live and want to do the earth a favor, stop breathing. This old geezard should effectively do the earth a favor. Its that simple people.
World population growth ain't reality near in future. Almost half of people are already living in countries where fertility rate is under 2.1. World population won't grow after 2050.
The big question is: What will life quality be in a world with 10 billion people? World economy is already not growing any more, because the prices for raw material of all sorts have gone up. One of the most powerful tools to reduce population growth are TV-sets. Without them, readily available for the masses, these figures might go back up again.
Most of the people on Earth WILL die of if the problem is ignored but not before WE destroy the environment irrecoverably so no new generations will stand a chance at a life of survival.
That's what I call the Rapa Nui effect. Only a handful of people know, that the Easter island once was a tropical paradise covered with forest. When the europeans discovered the island, there was not a single tree on the island. I don't care, if the natives killed the trees for religious reasons or if they needed land to grow food. Fact is, that an island of that size can carry a population of 3,000 and at one point this number was much higher.
i read today the UN has unanimously decided on a one child per female policy, and end of capitalism to be put in effect immediately, worldwide. all corporations are now under state control, to be dismantled as quickly as possible. in an uncharacteristic moment of scientific honesty, a spokswoman stated they are sick and tired of greedy, uneducated psychopathic right wing c*nts irreparably destroying the earths delicate life support system and have decided to actually do something for once!
@flamifer1 holy cr@p. i thought my sarcasm about the UN NOT taking action on population was pretty obvious.
i think its a bit late now to talk about population. the only things in the news these days are reports on riots, starving people in africa, crumbling economies everywhere and predictions from economists on when the great god of infinite growth will return to earth and bestow his oily blessings of free cargo from far away places and money for doing nothing
Wow! You got me really there! True enough. When oil prices are high, production and transport of everything becomes more expensive. Admittedly it is late to talk about overpopulation. But if we don't, who would know after a possible collapse of our civilisation, what has caused it.
Religious leaders will blame us to have sinned, economists will blame the energy sector not having delivered cheap enough energy and politicians will blame each other. What a mess!
@flamifer1 true, everyone will blame everyone else, not realizing it was a process set in motion with the 19th century when they started using fossil fuels to boost the economy and stimulating population growth. with no corresponding homeostatic control mechanism to keep things in check, things were always going to get nasty. malthus explained population dynamics, backed entirely by ecologists, so we have no excuses for not knowing. its nice (and rare) to actually agree with someone on here.
@andy765gtr Yes. we humans are not perfectly predictable beings we also read the books that "predict" something affecting our behavior, hence making predictions invalid. Even Malthus softened his "principle" years later ("ecologists" did not exist at that time). Industrialisation (and Malthus) produced a social movement that was active roughly between 1850-1930 in Europe, the US and latin america - different from top down eugenics. It contributed to the low fertility rates we have now in Europe.
@Alexopolux but we have closely follow growth predictions. our doubling occurs in the exact mathematical progression as described by bartlet here, and is nothing different from other blooms. but as population blooms (on finite resources) are always followed by crashes well below carrying capacity (1 billion), there is no reason to expect humans not to follow that rule either. we do everything in our power not to create a steady state economy, making an eventual major crash a certainty.
@andy765gtr I just saw the latest population data sheet, but it goes just until 2024. Recall that fertility rates are (slowly) declining, we cannot have a sudden decrease in populations that are growing since the bubonic pest! Check out my former exchange with flamifer1, I believe the most urgent problem is overconsumption (also recognized by Paul Ehrlich). Please give me the source of carrying capacity = 1 billion. And yes! the steady state economy. I am writing now something about it!
@Alexopolux because that is all it achieved up to 1800 (after 1000s of yrs of insignificant rise). population spiked immediately after this point, suggesting if those artificial conditions disappeared (of abundant, high eroi energy) that is what it would return to.
but its even worse. what you must also consider damage wrought by industry and overshoot pressure, and lost skill sets, (and forthcoming wars for resources), will have REDUCED natural capacity for man far below that of 1800
@andy765gtr I agree. In fact "we" never stopped wars for resources – there are right now three of them going on for the same reason and causing the financial meltdown we have, reinforcing social conflict. These are long causal chains that most of people don’t see. Yes, it is going to get nastier. But that is my point, things are a little more complicated than just the overpopulation problem as your posts also correctly indicated. Many thanks.
gsus7125: nowhere does he say he wants to wipe out any population.. he states people as individuals need to stop consuming more than the earth can produce... and yeah not have 5 kids per household... companies have been pumping food full of hormones to grow them more consistently and rapidly for the population to consume, and these foods contain harmful, unnatural ingredients for our bodies... sure there is enough LAND to hold all the world's population, but there is not enough NATURAL food.
gsus7125: nowhere does he say he wants to wipe out any population.. he states people as individuals need to stop consuming more than the earth can produce... and yeah not have 5 kids per household... companies have been pumping food full of hormones to grow them more consistently and rapidly for the population to consume, and these foods contain harmful, unnatural ingredients for our bodies... sure there is enough LAND to hold all the world's population, but there is not enough NATURAL food.
There is some truth in it. Companies want as many customers as possible and to feed them as cheap as possible. That's called "economic". As long, as the food industry does not have to pay for the damage it causes with the crap they produce, the price for this food is unfairly subsidised. Overpopulation does not only endanger the survival of the human species. It is also destroying real life quality.
@flamifer1 agreed. it's unfortunate but the people with the power are the people with money, and the people with money want more. more power and money. and people as an uneducated population are very easy to control, brainwash, and manipulate, and this makes the rich richer. throughout history it has always been like this. at least now there are different forms of media and accessible information so the individual can choose what to believe. this may be the first time in history.
@flamifer1 on the other hand, not everything is black and white. there are good people in the food industry trying to make a difference, trying to make healthier options. but i believe these people will only have jobs until the 'general population' decides they want something different. then on to the next 'big idea'.
True. Austria has the strictest food production rules in the world and food quality is controlled even stricter. The import of meat from the United States was prohibited for health risks. It is one of the few countries which never had a single case of mad cow desease. Huge chicken or pig farms like in the US are not allowed. Animal transportation is severely restricted to short distances. Medicaments are not allowed in food for animals. And food prices are low. (Well, hamburgers are expensive)
Why would anyone wish to "wipe out" 95% of humanity? The industry certainly does not want to loose all their customers and cheap labour force. The government, whichever it is, does not want to loose all their taxes and all the power. Nobody, but animals would profit from growing rain-forests and less environmental pollution. Yes, and maybe some people, who want to own a piece of prime class land and can't afford it now. And the ones, who like organic food, maybe. But who else?
@flamifer1 1) It's not about money. 2) Their goal is to automate the work force with robotics and they are doing that more every day. 3) Losing taxes and/or money will not cause them to lose any power. 4) "Going green" is not really about what it says it is, they could not care less about growing rain forests and decreasing pollution. 5) Nobody will be able to own land.
Here's a thought. Only 47% of the US population are taxpayers. I say that if you're not a tax payer, you shouldn't be allowed to breed. Thus keeping higher quality of citizenry while helping control population. Is it a form Eugenics? Yes. But it also provides incentive for deadbeats to better themselves if they wish to have children.
Your idea would have the effect, that poor families had only one child. If only rich people had the privilege to have many kids, they would have a lot of them, to demonstrate their status. That is socially unfair! It had the effect, that big fortunes would be split up to a big number of heirs, making wealthy families less rich, whereas the one child of a poor family might even be able study, because they have more money left. That's so anti-american! It's communism!
What I dislike of all of this is the over-emphasis of over-population (I guess because it is a nice feeling to blame poor folks), while just a couple of comments on the other side of the coin are made: the horrible wasteful so-called "way of life" of rich countries' populations. Letting aside that the US do both (the third most populated country and the most wasteful of all) I believe, both things must be clear stated, even a binding deal would emerge at the UN level.
I agree. It is not only the number of people, that causes the immense consumption of land and raw materials and environmental pollution. We also have to take the pollution/consumption factor per capita into consideration. E.g.: A city with a population of 100,000 people can have the same impact on the environment, than a city with 1 million inhabitants consuming only 10% of the city mentioned first. In which city would you prefer to live?
@flamifer1 I’m happy you agree. Yet I’m confused with your (rhetorical) question. It is irrelevant what you or I prefer. It is pure hypocrisy to condemn miserable overpopulated countries (mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa) whose consumption is globally barely noticeable. They need help, not hatred. And help not only in preaching to them how to get fewer children but also in e.g., stopping stealing their resources and consuming less of the global commons. We and “emerging” countries are the problem.
With my rhetorical question I wanted to point out, that WE ALL want to have cars and houses with garden and swimming pool. And that at one point we will have to decide, as to how much of life quality and consumption we are ready to give up in order to share our planet with ever more fellow human beings.
@flamifer1 Certainly we all want quality of life. If it means house(S), car(S), in general, extravagant gadgetry, and progressive obsolescence in a finite planet subjected to the laws of thermodynamics then I’d disagree. Fertility rates are slowly declining, while conspicuous consumption is rapidly growing. I doubt “we” are going to “decide” anything; we are going to be compelled – actually, we already being compelled. I just hope we are intelligent, honest and fair enough with our verdicts.
If you look at this issue from an evolutionary perspective it becomes clearer. Man is like any other species. When confronted with a radical change to/by/from its environment, the species must make a chioice. Adapt, or go extinct. It is surprising how many species will choose extinction. In fact 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. So there's no reason to assume that man will be any different.
Oh yeah. One other thing...Nature trumps religion. All of them.
I agree. Reality will always triumph over any religion. (Unless, maybe a religion that worships reality. But I suppose, that is a contradiction.) I also agree, that there is not much hope, that mankind will change before something drastic happens. (Like a world wide economic crisis perhaps). In such a situation it will be hard to listen to the voices of reason. If only people will remember the real reason for what happened, when they will have recovered from the collapse.
population is not the problem when it comes to resources, food, etc. there were problems with people living in slums, not having enough food, and not having enough resources in general 300 years ago when the population was a fraction of what it is today. even 2000 years ago, there was famine. a lower percentage of people today are in that same situation. The earth has plenty of resources, we just need to find better ways to harvest them. More people means more production.
We are drilling for crude oil in the deep sea and dig it out from tar pits in canada now. I don't see why. It's expensive. Why don't they just pump the oil out of the ground as they always used to? It's the same with the rain forests. Why do they cut them down to make more fields if they could just buy some tractors, trucks and harvesters and enough fertilisers to get more out of the soil? More people also means more consumption, which is good for the economy.
if you people think the planet is operpopulated, then maybe you should help out and kill yourselves you selfless lovely specimens of humankind (thats kind of a euphamism for what i really think of you)
You are right, everyone who thinks that the planet is overpopulated should be killed on the spot. This would surely solve the problem. Actually, we should kill everyone who thinks too much. Then we had no problems at all.
If people claim the right to give birth to children, they should on the other hand refuse medical care. Either we're living with natural processes or we must take care of it ourselves. In other words: Either accept children to die within the first two month at a rate of 40% (natural way) or let people only reproduce, when someone dies. Nothing unpleasant in birth control. Its much more unpleasant to live in a world in which nobody has enough ressources to live a good life.
I think, your proposal is only fair. Compared to my idea, of sending people who refuse to accept birth control to islands and show on television what happens to them when it gets crowded, your proposal is much more natural and human. Either way, I suggest, to show their crowded slums, the deprivation and daily fight for survival every evening in the news and send groups of school children there to get the idea.
Imagine, you have a bus, packed full with people. Just stop the bus, pick up more poeple. Stack them on the roof if necessary. And all of this, when you know the bus is about to run off a cliff a few miles further. Well... that's what I call mass murder. And that's what all politicians, presidents and religious leaders are responsible for!
I believe that the population will control itself. The population never grows beyond what it is capable of providing for and when it does it corrects itself either through violence, disease or famine. Government control will only create gender imbalances that will lead to a dying off period due to lack of reproductive materials.
How can there be a gender imbalance, if neither girls nor boys are prefered? If you think, it is a good idea to let "mother nature" take care of the problem please read about "population overshooting" in biology books. The only thing, that distinguishes us from other animals is our ability to control our own numbers.
@flamifer Look at China. Because of the one birth policy the males drastically outnumber the females, because boys are preferred to carry on the family name, that is human nature. In an Ideal world neither is preferred, but in in reality as well as most cultures the males are dominant and more desirable to carry on the family name not the female. Continued...
The imbalance in the relation boys to girls in China has nothing to do with the number of children a couple can afford to bring up. It is caused by the option to determine a child's sex before birth combined with a traditional social system that makes people prefer boys over girls.
My hope would be, that the value of girls in society would increase according to the rules of supply and demand. But as this is not an ideal world, I suppose the "solution" will be war again.
@flamifer continued... As for nature taking care of it, no that wont happen. When resources become scarce we kill each other off en mass until needs are met thus the system corrects itself through violence. What if violence didn't occur? I guess you could say plagues are mother nature, because eventually a virus will evolve that we won't be able to cope with, either technically or naturally, and will again die en masse, thus the system has corrected itself.
According to the biodynamic law of overshooting, "mother nature" would eventually "correct" the current unnatural human population numbers down to 10% and leave the world in a deserted state. Our ablity to avoid death caused by natural causes comes with the price of responsibility. I believe, that we can avoid this desaster simply by stabilising our own numbers. It is not a fate.
@flamifer I think 99% of the population dying off would be a good thing for us in the long run. Meaning our population gets reduced to about 70-100 million. Despite humanity's menacing presence to other organisms, I hope humanity doesn't become extinct too soon because we are the only species with such a high level of self-awareness on this planet.
@flamifer probably. Humanity is just a parasite and humans never learn from over exploitation of natural resources. I still think animals like mice, rodents, cockrotches, and other small animals will survive but every animal bigger than 100 lbs (including us) will die out because of us.
You have to see it that way: Humans are the only life form on earth able to willingly limit its reproduction rate. All we have to do is to take advantage of this incredible freedom. It is the key to real progress and the survival of our race.
@flamifer that's true. We are self-aware enough to actually control our rate of reproduction. Obviously during prehistoric times this would be counter productive since death rates were very high (even death was prevalent from the act of birth) but nowadays with modern medicine we have little to no natural enemies so we over populate. Too bad religion is one of the main factors behind people NOT engaging in this new survival mechanism.
You just mentioned the biodynamic law of "overshooting": A species without enemies will reproduce until it runs out of one or more important resources. The overshooting happens without the species becoming aware of it, as at that point there will still be enough food. The population peaks and finally collapses down to almost near extinction. The higher the species' adaptability and intelligence is, the worse the impact on the environment and the species itself will be.
@flamifer the problem is we are the only species capable of over coming ecological and environmental collapse due to our highly advanced agriculture and society. Meaning we can avoid the overshooting effect. I mean we can completely strip an area of its natural resources and then move somewhere else. The problem is once all of the resources on this Earth are stripped dry where can we go? I don't think space colonization is that viable so we might as well protect what we have here.
You are right again. The problem starts geting big fast, when we run out of the first major resource, because other resources will get scarce fast in our attempt to replace it. When the people of the Easter island had cut down all the trees on their island, they could build no more fishing boats, while their soil became infertile at the same time. Consequently the islanders nearly died out in a period of war and cannibalism.
While space colonisation (Mars, Moon) might be possible in 100 years at the earliest, world population would triple in half the time at current growth rates. If we started to colonise Mars now with just our anual surplus of people, we had 3 billion people on the small desert planet in 25 years. We should grow in quality, meaning to become better, instead of multiplying.
@flamifer continued... As for nature taking care of it, no that wont happen. When resources become scarce we kill each other off en mass until needs are met thus the system corrects itself through violence. What if violence didn't occur? I guess you could say plagues are mother nature, because eventually a virus will evolve that we won't be able to cope with, either technically or naturally, and will again die en masse, thus the system has corrected itself.
You are right. Why should we consider to have less children, if mother nature is going to solve the problem for us, by violence, disease or famine? Well, the planet could turn into an ininhabitable desert in the process. But that is not important. What is important, is the freedom for everybody to have as many kids as he or she likes. There is only one thing, I do not understand: Why should the government want to have more boys than girls?
Nazi NWO plans kill everyone LOL this old guy will die of old age and the sooner the better. here is the truth science was so shure when the global population reach 5 billion we would have to turn to cannabilism, the truth is half the planet is obese
adult onset diabetes is global . they were off on there prediction so badly its laughable
Is this really what you want for our children's future:
Do some research on the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. This is just one example. We have been through our wars for the freedom they are still fighting for and you want our government to take that all away. Spitting in the faces of history.
Also research: Patagonia: one company's fight to do right for the planet
This company, in all they do, is amazing. Not just recycleing, but in the way they handle all aspects of their business.
There are other ways to help our planet resources. One example: What did you recycle today? This is in your control today, right now. Get on companies that make products that waste our resources and analyze what you are doing or buying that encourages this waste.
cont...controling births and euthanasia go hand in hand in population control. In advocating population control you are inadvertently opening a door from one to the other. There are already groups that loby for euthanasia very strongly. You fuel their fire. Lookiing through several videos on this topic it becomes clear that many have tried to predict the fall of man and have failed over and over. Ancient civilizations did die off but by many unknowns and asumptions not just lack of resources.
no matter what its still a problem and needs to be solved. nitice how ver the past fifty years how mre and re messed our mrals and lives have becme.china is at least trying. if we did that and taught them properly maybe we can fix this. ersonally i dont have the balls to "off myself" so if you didnt have that sixth fucking kid maybe that would be one less mouth to feed , house, and reroduse six more fucking kid. that one mre kid is screwing it for the other five. please excuse the language
@esphyx Thank you for volunteering not to reproduce. If you would do a little more research yourself on China, you would find that many of their own do not want the control the goverment places on them. When they come across a woman who is pregnant with her 2nd child they force her, against her will, into surgery and kill the child, no matter what stage of pregnancy she is in.
One child per family is a rule amoung many other right depriving rules.
@esphyx China's people are trying to move forward and regain those rights the government's population control system took from them. You want to move backward and let the government have those rights.
What would you do to avoid the threat of overpopulation? Do you think it goes away by itself it you just pray hard enough? China is going the wrong way and we will all pay the price for it. Do you believe in endless economic growth?
@flamifer 1. I do not believe there is a threat. Looking through history, many have predicted when we would be overpopulated and "oops" that date comes and goes and they have to recalculate. In this video they say "green" organizations ignore the growth when this video egnores deaths. Population growth is unpredictable because of events that take lives are unpredictable. Scientists are looking into new resources everyday and we don't know what is next, good or bad.
Population growth is number of births minus number of deaths. Currently we have 78 million people more on earth each year. Of course, this might change dramatically, should we ever run out of just one of our major resources.
Would you say, that a coffee cup will never be full, because it has never been since you have started filling it? It's the scientists who warn us from the danger of overpopulation and religious fanatics who want us to take it as god's will.
@flamifer yes, and that resorse is the number of women childbearing age. as the global population ages at some point in the future in just one generation we all die off of old age.
Increasing the world's population forever can not be the solution. Economists always want an increasing population, because it is like taking a credit from our children. Increase the population is good for the economy, until we run out of the first major resource. Then the prices will just soar.
@ManicEightBall Disagree with me if you want. I give my opinion same as you. Controling births=people wanting to dictate the "appropriate" amount of children we may have. I think I made several good realistically based points. Mainly there are already people dieing while others are born. This seems to be left out of alot of these "alarming" videos. Come on, little black kettle. I read rather well and can't penpoint where I say you are evil.
@ManicEightBall Secondly: When you start demanding population control, consider what you are really asking for and how far you are are willing to let it be controlled. Then Realize that once you give that power to the Government, you really won't have control of how far it goes. Like a rolling snowball, it will take on more control of you and the rights we have established will begin to diminish.
Birth control and euthanasia are not the same thing. That is a big fat propaganda lie spread by ultraconservative fanatics. Each day the problems caused by overpopulation become worse. Something has to be done. People who are not effected by it, should at least have the decency to shut up.
@Manic EightBall the air and water were far more polluted 40 years ago science proves that, so your statement is political but not truthful. the truth doesnt fit your agenda. if some one spoke to me like this i would be furious and attack spelling grammar punctuation and call them ignorant.
@datzfast "the air and water were far more polluted 40 years ago..."
I don't know what comment I made that got you so upset, but I agree the air and water is the US are cleaner nowadays. Over population is still a real problem, and we need to work on it just like we did with pollution.
...and feel free to insult my spelling any time you like.
I guess I am on a soap box...Cont. as to the last sentence of my last comment. I realize that some of you would look at my children and wish they weren't born. Think though, my 6th child may be the one who saves your life one day, but wait, did you want your life saved?? You know, for mankind's sake. Maybe we should just do what most do with their dogs: if the damage costs more than $100 to fix we should "put you down". That might fix the cost of health care. Someone's got to say it, right?
Good points and a little wishful thinking. Hope and faith is a good think as you state with that 6th child, but it is not proof or substance. We have to deal with the current problems, and cannot wait on some hopeful solution.. It simply is not sustainable with the way population is going. They should consider birth rate regulation hands down. I hate to admit it, but it is a solution that works.
@JBlakeFloyd Could you provide me with PROOF of that solution working. I see that solution in the works and it doesn't work. Hopeful solution: isn't that what you have also. Hoping that they will institute a law to outlaw more than 1 birth per female? To me I would rather hope that everyone would do what they can to conserve our resources through recycleing and such. No rights are taken away and the world is better for it.
continued...Pity for those who screech "The end is near!" I know too many who are without love and criticise those who give it freely. If the end comes let it come, but I will live a fully loved life surrounded by my many children and grand children. I wouldn't look at any of them and wish they were never born so I could have another tank of gas.
Just a thought here: Did any of you note the oil discovery recently in North Dakota? Also: Which of you are volunteering to be "put down" for the sake of the Earth and its people? Are you going to slay my children or your own? Who goes first, my grandmother or yours? Do you people pay attention to the news...There have been countless lives lost in How Many Earthquakes within the last few months?? People are born and they die. A circle of life.
Yeah, I think so !! So many systems have been tried all along human history. I think system was avaible just for a period of time. Maybe we've come to the end of this one... But the problem is different today. Man kind is young and we've lived in the illusion that we're the most adapted and powerfull specy on earth. We are'nt. We did'nt make the proof of that. Easter islands faced the same problem. They died... Today easter island is the whole planet. We must act now !!
Any civilisation that consumes resources faster than it replaces them collapses. We have no alternatives in place to replace oil. When oil goes, we collapse...UNLESS we choose to use contraception right now and stop at two kids or less until we reach a level where oil is no longer needed.
Oil burning has been obsolete for 250 years now. Ever heard of wind and solar? Humans have adapted for hundreds of millenniums and we will adapt when the oil runs low.
We do need to control our population, but humanity did just fine before oil, and we will do just fine after we stop using it.
You cannot produce artificial fertiliser (vital for intensive agriculture which supports most of the world population) without oil. I'm not concenred about the nergy side of it, i'm concerned about the food side. There will be intense resource competition when oil runs low leading to famine wars maybe even cannibalism. It happened on Easter island/pitcairn when their primary resource ran low.
Yes it is. If it wasn't a requirement for high yields then why do farmers buy it?
You need to do some research on yields with and without oil based fertiliser. I haven't even factored in pesticides and herbicides, many of which are also made with oil. Nor have I included transport although this may be replaced with electric vehicles from renewable sources
They fed the entire roman empire for hundreds of years, all without synthetic fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides.
There are a wide variety of methods to increase yields, such as crop rotation, hydroponics and naturally occurring fertilizers. As I've said many times, humanity was fine before oil, and we would be just fine without it today. The "only way" mentality has never been true of anything in history, and is not true in the case of oil. I'd rather eat organic anyway.
The roman empire covered most of europe and had 60 million at its peak. Europe now has 830 MILLION primarily because of higher yields from oil based intensive agriculture. Organic uses oil based artificial fertilsers too in some cases, just no pesticides/herbicides.
Hydroponics requires artificial fertilisers to gain high yields i.e. from oil.
We cannot feed 6 billion properly let alone the predicted 9 billion by 2050 without oil. We reach peak oil in 2020, from then on oil prices rise.
the problem is that we only hear about when civilisations survive rather than the civilisations that perish from overconsumption of resources. We have forgotten the mistakes made by the easter islanders, the mayans, pitcairn islanders and every failed civilisation that thought technology would save the day and we could carry on regardless. It didn't and we can't.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The main point of artificial fertilizer is it's nitrogen content.
The present composition of the atmosphere is 79% nitrogen.
So, what's the problem again?
You don't need oil to access something that abundant!
The real issue here isn't technical obstacles. It's political/greed obstacles, and the fact that people keep believing what the oil companies want them to believe.
I get the feeling you're one of those guys trying to convince us on behalf of your employer.
Ok, we use all the nitrogen to fuel population growth for a few more generations until we hit the trillion mark, by this point all biodiversiy has been wiped out apart from a fw species, then what? Growth is never sustainable on a finite planet.
I'm not advocating more growth. I'm just saying that there are better ways to run our country than to base our economy on oil, especially when that policy forces us to go to war again and again. My comment about atmospheric nitrogen was to debunk your claim that oil is necessary for high yield farming.
The country of Dubai just began construction of a city that will be completely self sustained and have 0 emissions.
Why was this not done first in America? The answer: Greed!
If you aren't advocating growth why are you suggesting we increase yields? How do you propose to turn nitrogen gas in the atmosphere into nitrate based fertilser? I agree that oil is not something to base our economy on so we should start moving away from it right now.
Storage and application of some nitrogen fertilizers in some weather or soil conditions can cause emissions of the potent greenhouse gas—nitrous oxide. Hope this has helped!
If that catastrophy should ever happen due to overpopulation, there will not be much left. Only ultraconservative fanatics believe, that God will reach out with his hands and let manny rain from the sky to save all the "true believers".
@kernjesus Exactly. I have troubles to understand, why there is still people being scared of the idea that the population should shrink. I don't know where this fear comes from I'd guess its just because of delusions (religions, cultural hypnosis, etc.). It can't be a result of common sense. The overpopulation is the only problem we've got. Less people = less consumption but still more for each one. Easy to understand.
@kernjesus Do you wish to be one of those 90% if not shut up.
Rename your video to overconsumption, and do your math. We could fit everyone in the world on the land size about the size of ont. canada. Over consumption is the use of to many resouces.
@kernjesus Well i want to grow old and not die young ^^ if you want to kill yourself go ahead I am all for it to reduce "Over population." Infact sense you are avocating genocide let me know when you are going to kill yourself :D. It's a day i will smile.
@Zamriasra You can obviously use a computer, and read, try waching this, or finding other web sites liked to the Science journals like New scientist and such, its easy as that. If you are religious, then puedoscience is the useless tool you use to interpret the world and base decisions. Oil man and post oil man will stuggle on in some shape or from regardless, just that finding a balance usually prevent a great deal of unnecessary suffering.
@amemy1 Overpopulation is when a species is reached beyond capacity of it's environment. We can feed everyone in the world we just don't. There is enough space for everyone in the world people are just greedy. We could support a couple more billion people, but we wont allow it. Disease stops from over population, genocide and war helps as well. Even if we were over populated which were not we wouldn't be for long. Another thing. You wrote and insult which means you have nothing better to say.
@Zamriasra Fact: people are greedy. Greed and consumption is and has been promoted as a keystone of western economies. In the US it is a human right and a religion. Fact: China and India are planning to get 'greedy' soon also. Disease and war is a very very very nasty/dangerous way of checking a population and alocating deminishing resources.. The best bet is to tackle the problem from all sides, and encouraging a lower but healthier population to replace the old one is one way forward.
@amemy1 How is having a lower population healthier how do you expect to take care of the older generations? With less people supporting the elderly the society would collapse. Already we are having elderly issues every where in the world. Having less people support them isn't going to fix the growing problem. China especially is having problems with this due to the one child policy. They just can't support the elderly basically leaving them for dead. So you support that ?
@Zamriasra do you really thing consumption and industrialization would be possible if we had not so many people? where do you think corporations get all their cheap manpower from? answer:overpopulation.
@LordHaidrir Many companies don't use man power they use machines to mass produce their items. Nothing is made without the help of a machine. A factory can pump out 10000 cars a day and only need one person to control the machines and press buttons. These arguments that were put forth were not about consumption which crop dusting doesn't happen on all farms. Organic farms for an example.
Society would not 'collapse', society adapts to changes as it always has.
'Having less....', !!WTF.
China had too many people they would discard the Girls. Infact my sister adopted one of the very many Chinese orphans. Do you really want childeren murdered, or put on rubbish dumps? 'Genocide and war' as population control? Many of the comments originating from the US are dangerously ludicrous, and it is frightening, it is a cultural thing you have there. Try reading some books.
@amemy1 You must learn to read, look at what I wrote please. You are a person that was advocating for restricted population growth or a 1 child policy. I don't see why you just changed your argument to my side of a countries sovereignty to choose . Whatever the case, that is insult number two. When insults are made in debate it means the other person has nothing better to say. Rules of debating never insult unless backed up with factual information which none was provided have a good day
@Zamriasra '..Disease stops from over population, genocide and war helps as well'. !!??? Do you have any idea what genocide is?? The stuff about China you must have more or less made up!
There is no debate to be had, you must come to the table with a least a little knowledge and some common sense. Good day to you too, how bizarre.
@amemy1 Europe black plague. Usa and social security trouble. Google: China's ageing population. WW2 = decrease in population. Genocide kill-pot = decrease in population great leap forward famine = decrease in population. It stated if we did reach a peak a disaster would occur like it does in the animal kingdom to decrease the population. Most likely biological. I know you feel that you are "More educated," but if you don't understand something basic like china's ageing population you are only
@Zamriasra There are no 'facts' which are black and white, to give a reason for overpopulation being problem. Try and get a balanced view of Human consumption and expectations, and history.
@amemy1 only seeing half the argument and you must do much much more research you only know what people tell you. You are not opening your mind, and researching a topic to it's fullest. If you only look at one side of an argument you shouldn't even bother with the rest of the topic.
@Zamriasra You've just writtwen anothe pile of clown fodder. I worked in the sciences for years in various capacities, and was very sucessful. I am not from the US, so I dont get exposed to your extreme weird paranoid bullshit puesdoscience culture, and I have not had my ability to reason disabled by religious clap trap.
Go and get yourself an education, start by reading some decent science journals.
@amemy1 You ignore china's aging population ? Typical of foreigners. You hate our country so when we make a statement it's completely ignored. How many noble prizes does you country have. We have 400. That is number one in the world x 3 of anyone. We also educate all of our people and not only a few. I posted facts and you ignored them. You have nothing supporting your argument other then "You are American and have to be wrong," I am also atheist and as forth religion has nothing to do with this
@Zamriasra Chinas ageing population, like running out of cheap oil, like stong possibilty of climate change,like the rise of Islam in Europe like a nuclear Iran, like curing/controlling the next aids type illness, like the next recession, avoiding nuclear conflict, like securing deminishing rescources..etc, is like many any other problems, yet not so serious.
Not religious? Even less excuse for being so dumb then. Try watching the video, it is easy to understand even by people like you. lol
@Zamriasra Dude go and find out what genocide means thats like really really dumb. Would you wanna be in a war? or dyin with a desease? Those thing are what we gota stop, and more people means more wars.And like who wont allow another couple more of billions of people? There gonna happen anyway. the worlds problems are bigger because of too is too many of us and greed like you say is like stupidity and stupidity is like havin more children in a family who want more...
@mrduffy1100 There will always be a war a genocide and a disease. It doesn't mean more wars at all. In before the industrial revolution there were many wars and even more in the manor age. Wars are brought on by a difference in ideals not by population. I am educated on this topic quite well.
@Zamriasra the difference is now dude is the the bombs arnt like they used to be, the way to kill now is much more effective now well have nuclear weapons, lots of them. the cheap oil is coming to an END, and thats means the cheap food, flying, transports.... religion and ideals caused wars for sure, people are dumb, but we got billions of people wantin what the wests got. I know there is always goin to be wars, desease, and genocide, but resouce wars are goin to become a NEW reason,
@mrduffy1100 That is not true there has never been a war started over population. Anyways even if we were to have a war over population it wouldn't work with all the countries that have nuclear weapons. This is why the united nations were formed and we have no had a war that's really bad. Current wars are just over terrorism/oil. Even though the usa has a surplus of it we just want more of it so it can be cheaper. Oil might be coming to an end like you say but there are other fuels.
@Zamriasra Dude, are fought to gain land and recources. A population will fight the population of another country for the gain for the agressors population. Been doin it for thousands of years, that what peple do, just give em the smallest reason. kind of agree, US culture IS cheap oil. plenty of oil which is goin to use more and more energy to get at, and so be less viable. Other sources, well oil ISNt that easy to replace, its amazin stuff,and billion more people wantin it.
@Zamriasra ... the united nations can help prvent wars, it cant stop em. Thats not to say what will happen. I think that you missin the notion that more mouths to feed and wantin TVs cars , flying, food, is not going to make this tiny planet more dangerous. more poeple isnt a as such problem, it just adds to and compounding the existing problems we got, You think science will sort it out, maybe, maybe not, but more greedy dumb fucks on earth wont help.
@mrduffy1100 Persian war was stopped by united nations. I find that hard to believe it couldn't stop many more seeming it has stopped many more. Not everyone is greedy stick it to yourself mate.
this video doesn't suggest any solutions.
nino17azteca 1 month ago
If you don't like to live and want to do the earth a favor, stop breathing. This old geezard should effectively do the earth a favor. Its that simple people.
nino17azteca 1 month ago
World population growth ain't reality near in future. Almost half of people are already living in countries where fertility rate is under 2.1. World population won't grow after 2050.
tranmere789 6 months ago
@tranmere789
The big question is: What will life quality be in a world with 10 billion people? World economy is already not growing any more, because the prices for raw material of all sorts have gone up. One of the most powerful tools to reduce population growth are TV-sets. Without them, readily available for the masses, these figures might go back up again.
flamifer1 5 months ago
@tranmere789 damn right. death control will go right down fella when oil prices make our present 'normality' a thing of the past.
those limits to growth predictions are right on course.
andy765gtr 5 months ago
Albert Bartlett you are a genius and we miss you at CU
skanky87 6 months ago
Most of the people on Earth WILL die of if the problem is ignored but not before WE destroy the environment irrecoverably so no new generations will stand a chance at a life of survival.
mrttwo 7 months ago
@mrttwo
That's what I call the Rapa Nui effect. Only a handful of people know, that the Easter island once was a tropical paradise covered with forest. When the europeans discovered the island, there was not a single tree on the island. I don't care, if the natives killed the trees for religious reasons or if they needed land to grow food. Fact is, that an island of that size can carry a population of 3,000 and at one point this number was much higher.
flamifer1 5 months ago
@flamifer1 A vary interesting and informative example, thank you.
mrttwo 5 months ago
58 national science acadmeies agree that overpopulation is a major issue. See "One Planet One Child" for more info or "overconsumpulation".
phillips78 8 months ago
i read today the UN has unanimously decided on a one child per female policy, and end of capitalism to be put in effect immediately, worldwide. all corporations are now under state control, to be dismantled as quickly as possible. in an uncharacteristic moment of scientific honesty, a spokswoman stated they are sick and tired of greedy, uneducated psychopathic right wing c*nts irreparably destroying the earths delicate life support system and have decided to actually do something for once!
andy765gtr 8 months ago
@andy765gtr
Where did you read that? Don't you think, such a policy would be all over the news?
flamifer1 5 months ago
@flamifer1 holy cr@p. i thought my sarcasm about the UN NOT taking action on population was pretty obvious.
i think its a bit late now to talk about population. the only things in the news these days are reports on riots, starving people in africa, crumbling economies everywhere and predictions from economists on when the great god of infinite growth will return to earth and bestow his oily blessings of free cargo from far away places and money for doing nothing
andy765gtr 5 months ago
@andy765gtr
Wow! You got me really there! True enough. When oil prices are high, production and transport of everything becomes more expensive. Admittedly it is late to talk about overpopulation. But if we don't, who would know after a possible collapse of our civilisation, what has caused it.
Religious leaders will blame us to have sinned, economists will blame the energy sector not having delivered cheap enough energy and politicians will blame each other. What a mess!
flamifer1 5 months ago
@flamifer1 true, everyone will blame everyone else, not realizing it was a process set in motion with the 19th century when they started using fossil fuels to boost the economy and stimulating population growth. with no corresponding homeostatic control mechanism to keep things in check, things were always going to get nasty. malthus explained population dynamics, backed entirely by ecologists, so we have no excuses for not knowing. its nice (and rare) to actually agree with someone on here.
andy765gtr 5 months ago
@andy765gtr
Likewise. Thank you.
flamifer1 5 months ago
@andy765gtr Yes. we humans are not perfectly predictable beings we also read the books that "predict" something affecting our behavior, hence making predictions invalid. Even Malthus softened his "principle" years later ("ecologists" did not exist at that time). Industrialisation (and Malthus) produced a social movement that was active roughly between 1850-1930 in Europe, the US and latin america - different from top down eugenics. It contributed to the low fertility rates we have now in Europe.
Alexopolux 5 months ago
@Alexopolux but we have closely follow growth predictions. our doubling occurs in the exact mathematical progression as described by bartlet here, and is nothing different from other blooms. but as population blooms (on finite resources) are always followed by crashes well below carrying capacity (1 billion), there is no reason to expect humans not to follow that rule either. we do everything in our power not to create a steady state economy, making an eventual major crash a certainty.
andy765gtr 5 months ago
@andy765gtr I just saw the latest population data sheet, but it goes just until 2024. Recall that fertility rates are (slowly) declining, we cannot have a sudden decrease in populations that are growing since the bubonic pest! Check out my former exchange with flamifer1, I believe the most urgent problem is overconsumption (also recognized by Paul Ehrlich). Please give me the source of carrying capacity = 1 billion. And yes! the steady state economy. I am writing now something about it!
Alexopolux 5 months ago
@Alexopolux because that is all it achieved up to 1800 (after 1000s of yrs of insignificant rise). population spiked immediately after this point, suggesting if those artificial conditions disappeared (of abundant, high eroi energy) that is what it would return to.
but its even worse. what you must also consider damage wrought by industry and overshoot pressure, and lost skill sets, (and forthcoming wars for resources), will have REDUCED natural capacity for man far below that of 1800
andy765gtr 5 months ago
@andy765gtr I agree. In fact "we" never stopped wars for resources – there are right now three of them going on for the same reason and causing the financial meltdown we have, reinforcing social conflict. These are long causal chains that most of people don’t see. Yes, it is going to get nastier. But that is my point, things are a little more complicated than just the overpopulation problem as your posts also correctly indicated. Many thanks.
Alexopolux 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
gsus7125: nowhere does he say he wants to wipe out any population.. he states people as individuals need to stop consuming more than the earth can produce... and yeah not have 5 kids per household... companies have been pumping food full of hormones to grow them more consistently and rapidly for the population to consume, and these foods contain harmful, unnatural ingredients for our bodies... sure there is enough LAND to hold all the world's population, but there is not enough NATURAL food.
AmandaEdwards604 9 months ago
gsus7125: nowhere does he say he wants to wipe out any population.. he states people as individuals need to stop consuming more than the earth can produce... and yeah not have 5 kids per household... companies have been pumping food full of hormones to grow them more consistently and rapidly for the population to consume, and these foods contain harmful, unnatural ingredients for our bodies... sure there is enough LAND to hold all the world's population, but there is not enough NATURAL food.
AmandaEdwards604 9 months ago
@AmandaEdwards604
There is some truth in it. Companies want as many customers as possible and to feed them as cheap as possible. That's called "economic". As long, as the food industry does not have to pay for the damage it causes with the crap they produce, the price for this food is unfairly subsidised. Overpopulation does not only endanger the survival of the human species. It is also destroying real life quality.
flamifer1 5 months ago
@flamifer1 agreed. it's unfortunate but the people with the power are the people with money, and the people with money want more. more power and money. and people as an uneducated population are very easy to control, brainwash, and manipulate, and this makes the rich richer. throughout history it has always been like this. at least now there are different forms of media and accessible information so the individual can choose what to believe. this may be the first time in history.
AmandaEdwards604 5 months ago
@AmandaEdwards604
The hope dies last.
flamifer1 5 months ago
@flamifer1 on the other hand, not everything is black and white. there are good people in the food industry trying to make a difference, trying to make healthier options. but i believe these people will only have jobs until the 'general population' decides they want something different. then on to the next 'big idea'.
AmandaEdwards604 5 months ago
True. Austria has the strictest food production rules in the world and food quality is controlled even stricter. The import of meat from the United States was prohibited for health risks. It is one of the few countries which never had a single case of mad cow desease. Huge chicken or pig farms like in the US are not allowed. Animal transportation is severely restricted to short distances. Medicaments are not allowed in food for animals. And food prices are low. (Well, hamburgers are expensive)
flamifer1 5 months ago
Dr Bartlett's presentation also explains why the government wants to wipe out 95% of humanity.
gsus7125 10 months ago
@gsus7125
Why would anyone wish to "wipe out" 95% of humanity? The industry certainly does not want to loose all their customers and cheap labour force. The government, whichever it is, does not want to loose all their taxes and all the power. Nobody, but animals would profit from growing rain-forests and less environmental pollution. Yes, and maybe some people, who want to own a piece of prime class land and can't afford it now. And the ones, who like organic food, maybe. But who else?
flamifer1 5 months ago
@flamifer1 1) It's not about money. 2) Their goal is to automate the work force with robotics and they are doing that more every day. 3) Losing taxes and/or money will not cause them to lose any power. 4) "Going green" is not really about what it says it is, they could not care less about growing rain forests and decreasing pollution. 5) Nobody will be able to own land.
gsus7125 5 months ago
@gsus7125
1.) Tell that the boss of a big pharmaceutical company or exxon shell
2.) The goal of automatisation is to reduce costs and make more money.
3.) To a politician it does not matter, if he rules over a thousand or ten million people?
4.) Well, you can not deny the fact, that the rain forests would grow and we did have less pollution.
5.) If the world had only 300 million people, why should nobody be able to own land - too much land?
flamifer1 5 months ago
Democracy: The God that Failed.
Democracy: The worst form of government to have existed.
Democracy: The Government of Man
Monarchy: The Kingdom of God and of Nature.
lordofthemanor25 10 months ago
Google "FAO report reveals GM crops not needed to feed the world" This U.N. organization is reporting some different facts than the mainstream.
jartherp 10 months ago
Save the planet, kill yourself
blinkme478 10 months ago
more on this topic at "overconsumpulation".
TheDisproof 10 months ago
that thing around his neck? was that decoration or someting else
datzfast 11 months ago
@datzfast It's a lariat.
khattamshud 11 months ago
The source of the avarice is spirit channel secret society Silvio Berlusconi etc
curesriches 1 year ago
more on this issue at "overconsumpulation".
phillips78 1 year ago
Here's a thought. Only 47% of the US population are taxpayers. I say that if you're not a tax payer, you shouldn't be allowed to breed. Thus keeping higher quality of citizenry while helping control population. Is it a form Eugenics? Yes. But it also provides incentive for deadbeats to better themselves if they wish to have children.
FloridaRaider 1 year ago
@FloridaRaider
" you shouldn't be allowed to breed"
Doesn't that goes both ways? Americans are responsible for resources consumption which is higher than most 3th and some 1th world countries.
SgtThom 1 year ago
@SgtThom you live in a fantasy world. Go back to your video games.
FloridaRaider 1 year ago
@FloridaRaider I like the idea... too bad we can't implement it. Especially in 3rd world countries of useless eaters.
recyclecongress 11 months ago
@FloridaRaider
Your idea would have the effect, that poor families had only one child. If only rich people had the privilege to have many kids, they would have a lot of them, to demonstrate their status. That is socially unfair! It had the effect, that big fortunes would be split up to a big number of heirs, making wealthy families less rich, whereas the one child of a poor family might even be able study, because they have more money left. That's so anti-american! It's communism!
flamifer1 5 months ago
@flamifer1 newsflash, life isn't always fair. Evolution doesn't play political correctness.
FloridaRaider 5 months ago
@FloridaRaider
I agree.
flamifer1 5 months ago
What I dislike of all of this is the over-emphasis of over-population (I guess because it is a nice feeling to blame poor folks), while just a couple of comments on the other side of the coin are made: the horrible wasteful so-called "way of life" of rich countries' populations. Letting aside that the US do both (the third most populated country and the most wasteful of all) I believe, both things must be clear stated, even a binding deal would emerge at the UN level.
Alexopolux 1 year ago
@Alexopolux
I agree. It is not only the number of people, that causes the immense consumption of land and raw materials and environmental pollution. We also have to take the pollution/consumption factor per capita into consideration. E.g.: A city with a population of 100,000 people can have the same impact on the environment, than a city with 1 million inhabitants consuming only 10% of the city mentioned first. In which city would you prefer to live?
flamifer1 5 months ago
@flamifer1 I’m happy you agree. Yet I’m confused with your (rhetorical) question. It is irrelevant what you or I prefer. It is pure hypocrisy to condemn miserable overpopulated countries (mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa) whose consumption is globally barely noticeable. They need help, not hatred. And help not only in preaching to them how to get fewer children but also in e.g., stopping stealing their resources and consuming less of the global commons. We and “emerging” countries are the problem.
Alexopolux 5 months ago
@Alexopolux
With my rhetorical question I wanted to point out, that WE ALL want to have cars and houses with garden and swimming pool. And that at one point we will have to decide, as to how much of life quality and consumption we are ready to give up in order to share our planet with ever more fellow human beings.
flamifer1 5 months ago
@flamifer1 Certainly we all want quality of life. If it means house(S), car(S), in general, extravagant gadgetry, and progressive obsolescence in a finite planet subjected to the laws of thermodynamics then I’d disagree. Fertility rates are slowly declining, while conspicuous consumption is rapidly growing. I doubt “we” are going to “decide” anything; we are going to be compelled – actually, we already being compelled. I just hope we are intelligent, honest and fair enough with our verdicts.
Alexopolux 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Признать: дефлорацию насилием.
Осуществлять: искусственное осеменение.
Решение о осеменении: система.
Воспитание новых людей: система.
-
Recognize: defloration violence.
Realize: artificial insemination.
Decision of insemination: by system.
Education of new people: by system.
TheElectricalsynapse 1 year ago
If you look at this issue from an evolutionary perspective it becomes clearer. Man is like any other species. When confronted with a radical change to/by/from its environment, the species must make a chioice. Adapt, or go extinct. It is surprising how many species will choose extinction. In fact 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. So there's no reason to assume that man will be any different.
Oh yeah. One other thing...Nature trumps religion. All of them.
petrocalypsenow 1 year ago
@petrocalypsenow
I agree. Reality will always triumph over any religion. (Unless, maybe a religion that worships reality. But I suppose, that is a contradiction.) I also agree, that there is not much hope, that mankind will change before something drastic happens. (Like a world wide economic crisis perhaps). In such a situation it will be hard to listen to the voices of reason. If only people will remember the real reason for what happened, when they will have recovered from the collapse.
flamifer1 5 months ago
population is not the problem when it comes to resources, food, etc. there were problems with people living in slums, not having enough food, and not having enough resources in general 300 years ago when the population was a fraction of what it is today. even 2000 years ago, there was famine. a lower percentage of people today are in that same situation. The earth has plenty of resources, we just need to find better ways to harvest them. More people means more production.
phil8888 1 year ago
@phil8888
We are drilling for crude oil in the deep sea and dig it out from tar pits in canada now. I don't see why. It's expensive. Why don't they just pump the oil out of the ground as they always used to? It's the same with the rain forests. Why do they cut them down to make more fields if they could just buy some tractors, trucks and harvesters and enough fertilisers to get more out of the soil? More people also means more consumption, which is good for the economy.
flamifer1 5 months ago
if you people think the planet is operpopulated, then maybe you should help out and kill yourselves you selfless lovely specimens of humankind (thats kind of a euphamism for what i really think of you)
the25thman 1 year ago
@the25thman
You are right, everyone who thinks that the planet is overpopulated should be killed on the spot. This would surely solve the problem. Actually, we should kill everyone who thinks too much. Then we had no problems at all.
flamifer1 5 months ago
And hmm how do you lower the population again? I missed that part.
polidic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have you seen "Overpopulation is NOT a MYTH - OVERCONSUMPULATION"?
phillips78 1 year ago
If people claim the right to give birth to children, they should on the other hand refuse medical care. Either we're living with natural processes or we must take care of it ourselves. In other words: Either accept children to die within the first two month at a rate of 40% (natural way) or let people only reproduce, when someone dies. Nothing unpleasant in birth control. Its much more unpleasant to live in a world in which nobody has enough ressources to live a good life.
MillyVanillification 1 year ago
@MillyVanillification
I think, your proposal is only fair. Compared to my idea, of sending people who refuse to accept birth control to islands and show on television what happens to them when it gets crowded, your proposal is much more natural and human. Either way, I suggest, to show their crowded slums, the deprivation and daily fight for survival every evening in the news and send groups of school children there to get the idea.
flamifer1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If global warming is real, overpopulation is not a problem.
Emil246 1 year ago
Imagine, you have a bus, packed full with people. Just stop the bus, pick up more poeple. Stack them on the roof if necessary. And all of this, when you know the bus is about to run off a cliff a few miles further. Well... that's what I call mass murder. And that's what all politicians, presidents and religious leaders are responsible for!
oz457 1 year ago
@oz457 "the bus is about to run off a cliff"
Is it?
ejsd. org/public/journal_article/11
hitssquad 1 year ago
I believe that the population will control itself. The population never grows beyond what it is capable of providing for and when it does it corrects itself either through violence, disease or famine. Government control will only create gender imbalances that will lead to a dying off period due to lack of reproductive materials.
ThePulkrabek 1 year ago
@ThePulkrabek
How can there be a gender imbalance, if neither girls nor boys are prefered? If you think, it is a good idea to let "mother nature" take care of the problem please read about "population overshooting" in biology books. The only thing, that distinguishes us from other animals is our ability to control our own numbers.
flamifer 1 year ago
@flamifer Look at China. Because of the one birth policy the males drastically outnumber the females, because boys are preferred to carry on the family name, that is human nature. In an Ideal world neither is preferred, but in in reality as well as most cultures the males are dominant and more desirable to carry on the family name not the female. Continued...
ThePulkrabek 1 year ago
@ThePulkrabek
The imbalance in the relation boys to girls in China has nothing to do with the number of children a couple can afford to bring up. It is caused by the option to determine a child's sex before birth combined with a traditional social system that makes people prefer boys over girls.
My hope would be, that the value of girls in society would increase according to the rules of supply and demand. But as this is not an ideal world, I suppose the "solution" will be war again.
flamifer 1 year ago
@flamifer continued... As for nature taking care of it, no that wont happen. When resources become scarce we kill each other off en mass until needs are met thus the system corrects itself through violence. What if violence didn't occur? I guess you could say plagues are mother nature, because eventually a virus will evolve that we won't be able to cope with, either technically or naturally, and will again die en masse, thus the system has corrected itself.
ThePulkrabek 1 year ago
@ThePulkrabek
According to the biodynamic law of overshooting, "mother nature" would eventually "correct" the current unnatural human population numbers down to 10% and leave the world in a deserted state. Our ablity to avoid death caused by natural causes comes with the price of responsibility. I believe, that we can avoid this desaster simply by stabilising our own numbers. It is not a fate.
flamifer 1 year ago
@flamifer I think 99% of the population dying off would be a good thing for us in the long run. Meaning our population gets reduced to about 70-100 million. Despite humanity's menacing presence to other organisms, I hope humanity doesn't become extinct too soon because we are the only species with such a high level of self-awareness on this planet.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@supersmash43
The Problem is, that we would take almost every other life form down with us in the process and convert this paradise planet into a barren desert.
flamifer 1 year ago
@flamifer probably. Humanity is just a parasite and humans never learn from over exploitation of natural resources. I still think animals like mice, rodents, cockrotches, and other small animals will survive but every animal bigger than 100 lbs (including us) will die out because of us.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@supersmash43
You have to see it that way: Humans are the only life form on earth able to willingly limit its reproduction rate. All we have to do is to take advantage of this incredible freedom. It is the key to real progress and the survival of our race.
flamifer 1 year ago
@flamifer that's true. We are self-aware enough to actually control our rate of reproduction. Obviously during prehistoric times this would be counter productive since death rates were very high (even death was prevalent from the act of birth) but nowadays with modern medicine we have little to no natural enemies so we over populate. Too bad religion is one of the main factors behind people NOT engaging in this new survival mechanism.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@supersmash43
You just mentioned the biodynamic law of "overshooting": A species without enemies will reproduce until it runs out of one or more important resources. The overshooting happens without the species becoming aware of it, as at that point there will still be enough food. The population peaks and finally collapses down to almost near extinction. The higher the species' adaptability and intelligence is, the worse the impact on the environment and the species itself will be.
flamifer 1 year ago
@flamifer the problem is we are the only species capable of over coming ecological and environmental collapse due to our highly advanced agriculture and society. Meaning we can avoid the overshooting effect. I mean we can completely strip an area of its natural resources and then move somewhere else. The problem is once all of the resources on this Earth are stripped dry where can we go? I don't think space colonization is that viable so we might as well protect what we have here.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@supersmash43
You are right again. The problem starts geting big fast, when we run out of the first major resource, because other resources will get scarce fast in our attempt to replace it. When the people of the Easter island had cut down all the trees on their island, they could build no more fishing boats, while their soil became infertile at the same time. Consequently the islanders nearly died out in a period of war and cannibalism.
flamifer 1 year ago
@supersmash43
While space colonisation (Mars, Moon) might be possible in 100 years at the earliest, world population would triple in half the time at current growth rates. If we started to colonise Mars now with just our anual surplus of people, we had 3 billion people on the small desert planet in 25 years. We should grow in quality, meaning to become better, instead of multiplying.
flamifer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flamifer continued... As for nature taking care of it, no that wont happen. When resources become scarce we kill each other off en mass until needs are met thus the system corrects itself through violence. What if violence didn't occur? I guess you could say plagues are mother nature, because eventually a virus will evolve that we won't be able to cope with, either technically or naturally, and will again die en masse, thus the system has corrected itself.
ThePulkrabek 1 year ago
@ThePulkrabek
You are right. Why should we consider to have less children, if mother nature is going to solve the problem for us, by violence, disease or famine? Well, the planet could turn into an ininhabitable desert in the process. But that is not important. What is important, is the freedom for everybody to have as many kids as he or she likes. There is only one thing, I do not understand: Why should the government want to have more boys than girls?
flamifer1 5 months ago
Todays article in the New York Times: nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?no_interstitial
Myleanto 1 year ago
Nazi NWO plans kill everyone LOL this old guy will die of old age and the sooner the better. here is the truth science was so shure when the global population reach 5 billion we would have to turn to cannabilism, the truth is half the planet is obese
adult onset diabetes is global . they were off on there prediction so badly its laughable
datzfast 1 year ago
dude the picture of this video looks like the white car thats goes down the hill and a guy/monster pops out
lifes40123 1 year ago
Is this really what you want for our children's future:
Do some research on the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. This is just one example. We have been through our wars for the freedom they are still fighting for and you want our government to take that all away. Spitting in the faces of history.
Also research: Patagonia: one company's fight to do right for the planet
This company, in all they do, is amazing. Not just recycleing, but in the way they handle all aspects of their business.
Myleanto 1 year ago
We should kill the chinese. That would be great.
Oh and you can't just tell 6.5B overpopulation is bad. It just doesn't work that way.
Oxstayne 1 year ago
There are other ways to help our planet resources. One example: What did you recycle today? This is in your control today, right now. Get on companies that make products that waste our resources and analyze what you are doing or buying that encourages this waste.
Myleanto 1 year ago
I dont want not to be born! :(
Creamtea100 1 year ago
cont...controling births and euthanasia go hand in hand in population control. In advocating population control you are inadvertently opening a door from one to the other. There are already groups that loby for euthanasia very strongly. You fuel their fire. Lookiing through several videos on this topic it becomes clear that many have tried to predict the fall of man and have failed over and over. Ancient civilizations did die off but by many unknowns and asumptions not just lack of resources.
Myleanto 1 year ago
no matter what its still a problem and needs to be solved. nitice how ver the past fifty years how mre and re messed our mrals and lives have becme.china is at least trying. if we did that and taught them properly maybe we can fix this. ersonally i dont have the balls to "off myself" so if you didnt have that sixth fucking kid maybe that would be one less mouth to feed , house, and reroduse six more fucking kid. that one mre kid is screwing it for the other five. please excuse the language
esphyx 1 year ago
@esphyx Thank you for volunteering not to reproduce. If you would do a little more research yourself on China, you would find that many of their own do not want the control the goverment places on them. When they come across a woman who is pregnant with her 2nd child they force her, against her will, into surgery and kill the child, no matter what stage of pregnancy she is in.
One child per family is a rule amoung many other right depriving rules.
Myleanto 1 year ago
@Myleanto
Sure, it is barbaric. But that is, what overpopulation does to people. The individual life in an overpopulated country is worth nothing.
flamifer 1 year ago
@esphyx China's people are trying to move forward and regain those rights the government's population control system took from them. You want to move backward and let the government have those rights.
Myleanto 1 year ago
@Myleanto
What would you do to avoid the threat of overpopulation? Do you think it goes away by itself it you just pray hard enough? China is going the wrong way and we will all pay the price for it. Do you believe in endless economic growth?
flamifer 1 year ago
@flamifer 1. I do not believe there is a threat. Looking through history, many have predicted when we would be overpopulated and "oops" that date comes and goes and they have to recalculate. In this video they say "green" organizations ignore the growth when this video egnores deaths. Population growth is unpredictable because of events that take lives are unpredictable. Scientists are looking into new resources everyday and we don't know what is next, good or bad.
Myleanto 1 year ago
@Myleanto
Population growth is number of births minus number of deaths. Currently we have 78 million people more on earth each year. Of course, this might change dramatically, should we ever run out of just one of our major resources.
Would you say, that a coffee cup will never be full, because it has never been since you have started filling it? It's the scientists who warn us from the danger of overpopulation and religious fanatics who want us to take it as god's will.
flamifer 1 year ago 6
@flamifer yes, and that resorse is the number of women childbearing age. as the global population ages at some point in the future in just one generation we all die off of old age.
datzfast 1 year ago
@datzfast
Increasing the world's population forever can not be the solution. Economists always want an increasing population, because it is like taking a credit from our children. Increase the population is good for the economy, until we run out of the first major resource. Then the prices will just soar.
flamifer 1 year ago
@Myleanto "controling births and euthanasia go hand in hand"
And people in your camp want nothing more than to rape children.
Can we stop with the baseless accusations? If you have a point to make, then make it. Don't just say that people who disagree with you are just evil.
ManicEightBall 1 year ago
@ManicEightBall Disagree with me if you want. I give my opinion same as you. Controling births=people wanting to dictate the "appropriate" amount of children we may have. I think I made several good realistically based points. Mainly there are already people dieing while others are born. This seems to be left out of alot of these "alarming" videos. Come on, little black kettle. I read rather well and can't penpoint where I say you are evil.
Myleanto 1 year ago
@ManicEightBall Secondly: When you start demanding population control, consider what you are really asking for and how far you are are willing to let it be controlled. Then Realize that once you give that power to the Government, you really won't have control of how far it goes. Like a rolling snowball, it will take on more control of you and the rights we have established will begin to diminish.
Myleanto 1 year ago
@ManicEightBall
Birth control and euthanasia are not the same thing. That is a big fat propaganda lie spread by ultraconservative fanatics. Each day the problems caused by overpopulation become worse. Something has to be done. People who are not effected by it, should at least have the decency to shut up.
flamifer 1 year ago 3
@flamifer "Each day the problems caused by overpopulation become worse"
True. But we are all affected by it.
ManicEightBall 1 year ago
@ManicEightBall
Sorry, spelling mistake.
flamifer 1 year ago
@Manic EightBall the air and water were far more polluted 40 years ago science proves that, so your statement is political but not truthful. the truth doesnt fit your agenda. if some one spoke to me like this i would be furious and attack spelling grammar punctuation and call them ignorant.
datzfast 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@datzfast "the air and water were far more polluted 40 years ago..."
I don't know what comment I made that got you so upset, but I agree the air and water is the US are cleaner nowadays. Over population is still a real problem, and we need to work on it just like we did with pollution.
...and feel free to insult my spelling any time you like.
ManicEightBall 1 year ago
@flamifer I dont know why people more people in the US dont just start shooting, when you look at what crap they are fed.
amemy1 6 months ago
I guess I am on a soap box...Cont. as to the last sentence of my last comment. I realize that some of you would look at my children and wish they weren't born. Think though, my 6th child may be the one who saves your life one day, but wait, did you want your life saved?? You know, for mankind's sake. Maybe we should just do what most do with their dogs: if the damage costs more than $100 to fix we should "put you down". That might fix the cost of health care. Someone's got to say it, right?
Myleanto 1 year ago
@Myleanto
Good points and a little wishful thinking. Hope and faith is a good think as you state with that 6th child, but it is not proof or substance. We have to deal with the current problems, and cannot wait on some hopeful solution.. It simply is not sustainable with the way population is going. They should consider birth rate regulation hands down. I hate to admit it, but it is a solution that works.
JBlakeFloyd 1 year ago
@JBlakeFloyd Could you provide me with PROOF of that solution working. I see that solution in the works and it doesn't work. Hopeful solution: isn't that what you have also. Hoping that they will institute a law to outlaw more than 1 birth per female? To me I would rather hope that everyone would do what they can to conserve our resources through recycleing and such. No rights are taken away and the world is better for it.
Myleanto 1 year ago
continued...Pity for those who screech "The end is near!" I know too many who are without love and criticise those who give it freely. If the end comes let it come, but I will live a fully loved life surrounded by my many children and grand children. I wouldn't look at any of them and wish they were never born so I could have another tank of gas.
Myleanto 1 year ago
Just a thought here: Did any of you note the oil discovery recently in North Dakota? Also: Which of you are volunteering to be "put down" for the sake of the Earth and its people? Are you going to slay my children or your own? Who goes first, my grandmother or yours? Do you people pay attention to the news...There have been countless lives lost in How Many Earthquakes within the last few months?? People are born and they die. A circle of life.
Myleanto 1 year ago
Yeah, I think so !! So many systems have been tried all along human history. I think system was avaible just for a period of time. Maybe we've come to the end of this one... But the problem is different today. Man kind is young and we've lived in the illusion that we're the most adapted and powerfull specy on earth. We are'nt. We did'nt make the proof of that. Easter islands faced the same problem. They died... Today easter island is the whole planet. We must act now !!
bonbondesel 1 year ago
Any civilisation that consumes resources faster than it replaces them collapses. We have no alternatives in place to replace oil. When oil goes, we collapse...UNLESS we choose to use contraception right now and stop at two kids or less until we reach a level where oil is no longer needed.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
Oil burning has been obsolete for 250 years now. Ever heard of wind and solar? Humans have adapted for hundreds of millenniums and we will adapt when the oil runs low.
We do need to control our population, but humanity did just fine before oil, and we will do just fine after we stop using it.
Psychentist 2 years ago
You cannot produce artificial fertiliser (vital for intensive agriculture which supports most of the world population) without oil. I'm not concenred about the nergy side of it, i'm concerned about the food side. There will be intense resource competition when oil runs low leading to famine wars maybe even cannibalism. It happened on Easter island/pitcairn when their primary resource ran low.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
Since when is artificial fertilizer a requirement for growing food?
My garden has never been subjected to artificial fertilizers, and my grapes are damn tasty.
Psychentist 2 years ago
It's a requirement for HIGH yields. next.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
It isn't a requirement for high yields, it just makes it easier. You can still do it without the fake fertilizers. We will be fine without oil.
Psychentist 2 years ago
Yes it is. If it wasn't a requirement for high yields then why do farmers buy it?
You need to do some research on yields with and without oil based fertiliser. I haven't even factored in pesticides and herbicides, many of which are also made with oil. Nor have I included transport although this may be replaced with electric vehicles from renewable sources
sharkblubber 2 years ago
They fed the entire roman empire for hundreds of years, all without synthetic fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides.
There are a wide variety of methods to increase yields, such as crop rotation, hydroponics and naturally occurring fertilizers. As I've said many times, humanity was fine before oil, and we would be just fine without it today. The "only way" mentality has never been true of anything in history, and is not true in the case of oil. I'd rather eat organic anyway.
Psychentist 2 years ago
The roman empire covered most of europe and had 60 million at its peak. Europe now has 830 MILLION primarily because of higher yields from oil based intensive agriculture. Organic uses oil based artificial fertilsers too in some cases, just no pesticides/herbicides.
Hydroponics requires artificial fertilisers to gain high yields i.e. from oil.
We cannot feed 6 billion properly let alone the predicted 9 billion by 2050 without oil. We reach peak oil in 2020, from then on oil prices rise.
sharkblubber 2 years ago 2
Ok man. You win. I guess we all get to starve when the oil runs out.
Mankind has always found a way before, and we will find a way again. We could always go back to using dead animals for fertilizer...
Psychentist 2 years ago
the problem is that we only hear about when civilisations survive rather than the civilisations that perish from overconsumption of resources. We have forgotten the mistakes made by the easter islanders, the mayans, pitcairn islanders and every failed civilisation that thought technology would save the day and we could carry on regardless. It didn't and we can't.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The main point of artificial fertilizer is it's nitrogen content.
The present composition of the atmosphere is 79% nitrogen.
So, what's the problem again?
You don't need oil to access something that abundant!
The real issue here isn't technical obstacles. It's political/greed obstacles, and the fact that people keep believing what the oil companies want them to believe.
I get the feeling you're one of those guys trying to convince us on behalf of your employer.
Psychentist 2 years ago
Ok, we use all the nitrogen to fuel population growth for a few more generations until we hit the trillion mark, by this point all biodiversiy has been wiped out apart from a fw species, then what? Growth is never sustainable on a finite planet.
sharkblubber 2 years ago 2
I'm not advocating more growth. I'm just saying that there are better ways to run our country than to base our economy on oil, especially when that policy forces us to go to war again and again. My comment about atmospheric nitrogen was to debunk your claim that oil is necessary for high yield farming.
The country of Dubai just began construction of a city that will be completely self sustained and have 0 emissions.
Why was this not done first in America? The answer: Greed!
Psychentist 2 years ago
If you aren't advocating growth why are you suggesting we increase yields? How do you propose to turn nitrogen gas in the atmosphere into nitrate based fertilser? I agree that oil is not something to base our economy on so we should start moving away from it right now.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
@Psychentist
Storage and application of some nitrogen fertilizers in some weather or soil conditions can cause emissions of the potent greenhouse gas—nitrous oxide. Hope this has helped!
standswithafish 2 years ago
Sure, humans will do perfectly fine after 90% of the population dies off.
kernjesus 2 years ago 28
@kernjesus
If that catastrophy should ever happen due to overpopulation, there will not be much left. Only ultraconservative fanatics believe, that God will reach out with his hands and let manny rain from the sky to save all the "true believers".
flamifer 1 year ago
@kernjesus but who will be the judge....over the 90%
opiated666 1 year ago
@kernjesus Exactly. I have troubles to understand, why there is still people being scared of the idea that the population should shrink. I don't know where this fear comes from I'd guess its just because of delusions (religions, cultural hypnosis, etc.). It can't be a result of common sense. The overpopulation is the only problem we've got. Less people = less consumption but still more for each one. Easy to understand.
MillyVanillification 1 year ago
@kernjesus that's what these people want.
phil8888 1 year ago
@kernjesus Do you wish to be one of those 90% if not shut up.
Rename your video to overconsumption, and do your math. We could fit everyone in the world on the land size about the size of ont. canada. Over consumption is the use of to many resouces.
Zamriasra 9 months ago
@Zamriasra I will die one day! And so will you. I'm not all that worried about it, it's beyond my control. =)
kernjesus 9 months ago
@kernjesus Well i want to grow old and not die young ^^ if you want to kill yourself go ahead I am all for it to reduce "Over population." Infact sense you are avocating genocide let me know when you are going to kill yourself :D. It's a day i will smile.
Zamriasra 9 months ago
@Zamriasra What a pile of shit you have written. Just when I was beginning to believe there was some intellegnt life in the U.S.
amemy1 6 months ago
@amemy1 Care to back up your insult with factual information ?
Zamriasra 6 months ago
@Zamriasra You can obviously use a computer, and read, try waching this, or finding other web sites liked to the Science journals like New scientist and such, its easy as that. If you are religious, then puedoscience is the useless tool you use to interpret the world and base decisions. Oil man and post oil man will stuggle on in some shape or from regardless, just that finding a balance usually prevent a great deal of unnecessary suffering.
amemy1 6 months ago
@amemy1 Overpopulation is when a species is reached beyond capacity of it's environment. We can feed everyone in the world we just don't. There is enough space for everyone in the world people are just greedy. We could support a couple more billion people, but we wont allow it. Disease stops from over population, genocide and war helps as well. Even if we were over populated which were not we wouldn't be for long. Another thing. You wrote and insult which means you have nothing better to say.
Zamriasra 6 months ago
@Zamriasra Fact: people are greedy. Greed and consumption is and has been promoted as a keystone of western economies. In the US it is a human right and a religion. Fact: China and India are planning to get 'greedy' soon also. Disease and war is a very very very nasty/dangerous way of checking a population and alocating deminishing resources.. The best bet is to tackle the problem from all sides, and encouraging a lower but healthier population to replace the old one is one way forward.
amemy1 6 months ago
@amemy1 How is having a lower population healthier how do you expect to take care of the older generations? With less people supporting the elderly the society would collapse. Already we are having elderly issues every where in the world. Having less people support them isn't going to fix the growing problem. China especially is having problems with this due to the one child policy. They just can't support the elderly basically leaving them for dead. So you support that ?
Zamriasra 6 months ago
@Zamriasra do you really thing consumption and industrialization would be possible if we had not so many people? where do you think corporations get all their cheap manpower from? answer:overpopulation.
LordHaidrir 6 months ago
@LordHaidrir Many companies don't use man power they use machines to mass produce their items. Nothing is made without the help of a machine. A factory can pump out 10000 cars a day and only need one person to control the machines and press buttons. These arguments that were put forth were not about consumption which crop dusting doesn't happen on all farms. Organic farms for an example.
Zamriasra 6 months ago
@Zamriasra
Society would not 'collapse', society adapts to changes as it always has.
'Having less....', !!WTF.
China had too many people they would discard the Girls. Infact my sister adopted one of the very many Chinese orphans. Do you really want childeren murdered, or put on rubbish dumps? 'Genocide and war' as population control? Many of the comments originating from the US are dangerously ludicrous, and it is frightening, it is a cultural thing you have there. Try reading some books.
amemy1 6 months ago
@amemy1 You must learn to read, look at what I wrote please. You are a person that was advocating for restricted population growth or a 1 child policy. I don't see why you just changed your argument to my side of a countries sovereignty to choose . Whatever the case, that is insult number two. When insults are made in debate it means the other person has nothing better to say. Rules of debating never insult unless backed up with factual information which none was provided have a good day
Zamriasra 6 months ago
@Zamriasra '..Disease stops from over population, genocide and war helps as well'. !!??? Do you have any idea what genocide is?? The stuff about China you must have more or less made up!
There is no debate to be had, you must come to the table with a least a little knowledge and some common sense. Good day to you too, how bizarre.
amemy1 6 months ago
@amemy1 Europe black plague. Usa and social security trouble. Google: China's ageing population. WW2 = decrease in population. Genocide kill-pot = decrease in population great leap forward famine = decrease in population. It stated if we did reach a peak a disaster would occur like it does in the animal kingdom to decrease the population. Most likely biological. I know you feel that you are "More educated," but if you don't understand something basic like china's ageing population you are only
Zamriasra 6 months ago
@Zamriasra Just found that reply. You are nuts or a troll, or on drugs.
amemy1 6 months ago
@amemy1 back it up with factual info please.
Zamriasra 6 months ago
@Zamriasra There are no 'facts' which are black and white, to give a reason for overpopulation being problem. Try and get a balanced view of Human consumption and expectations, and history.
amemy1 6 months ago
@amemy1 only seeing half the argument and you must do much much more research you only know what people tell you. You are not opening your mind, and researching a topic to it's fullest. If you only look at one side of an argument you shouldn't even bother with the rest of the topic.
Zamriasra 6 months ago
@Zamriasra You've just writtwen anothe pile of clown fodder. I worked in the sciences for years in various capacities, and was very sucessful. I am not from the US, so I dont get exposed to your extreme weird paranoid bullshit puesdoscience culture, and I have not had my ability to reason disabled by religious clap trap.
Go and get yourself an education, start by reading some decent science journals.
amemy1 6 months ago
@amemy1 You ignore china's aging population ? Typical of foreigners. You hate our country so when we make a statement it's completely ignored. How many noble prizes does you country have. We have 400. That is number one in the world x 3 of anyone. We also educate all of our people and not only a few. I posted facts and you ignored them. You have nothing supporting your argument other then "You are American and have to be wrong," I am also atheist and as forth religion has nothing to do with this
Zamriasra 6 months ago
@Zamriasra Chinas ageing population, like running out of cheap oil, like stong possibilty of climate change,like the rise of Islam in Europe like a nuclear Iran, like curing/controlling the next aids type illness, like the next recession, avoiding nuclear conflict, like securing deminishing rescources..etc, is like many any other problems, yet not so serious.
Not religious? Even less excuse for being so dumb then. Try watching the video, it is easy to understand even by people like you. lol
amemy1 6 months ago
@Zamriasra Dude go and find out what genocide means thats like really really dumb. Would you wanna be in a war? or dyin with a desease? Those thing are what we gota stop, and more people means more wars.And like who wont allow another couple more of billions of people? There gonna happen anyway. the worlds problems are bigger because of too is too many of us and greed like you say is like stupidity and stupidity is like havin more children in a family who want more...
mrduffy1100 6 months ago
@mrduffy1100 There will always be a war a genocide and a disease. It doesn't mean more wars at all. In before the industrial revolution there were many wars and even more in the manor age. Wars are brought on by a difference in ideals not by population. I am educated on this topic quite well.
Zamriasra 6 months ago
@Zamriasra the difference is now dude is the the bombs arnt like they used to be, the way to kill now is much more effective now well have nuclear weapons, lots of them. the cheap oil is coming to an END, and thats means the cheap food, flying, transports.... religion and ideals caused wars for sure, people are dumb, but we got billions of people wantin what the wests got. I know there is always goin to be wars, desease, and genocide, but resouce wars are goin to become a NEW reason,
mrduffy1100 6 months ago
@mrduffy1100 That is not true there has never been a war started over population. Anyways even if we were to have a war over population it wouldn't work with all the countries that have nuclear weapons. This is why the united nations were formed and we have no had a war that's really bad. Current wars are just over terrorism/oil. Even though the usa has a surplus of it we just want more of it so it can be cheaper. Oil might be coming to an end like you say but there are other fuels.
Zamriasra 6 months ago
@Zamriasra Dude, are fought to gain land and recources. A population will fight the population of another country for the gain for the agressors population. Been doin it for thousands of years, that what peple do, just give em the smallest reason. kind of agree, US culture IS cheap oil. plenty of oil which is goin to use more and more energy to get at, and so be less viable. Other sources, well oil ISNt that easy to replace, its amazin stuff,and billion more people wantin it.
mrduffy1100 6 months ago
@Zamriasra ... the united nations can help prvent wars, it cant stop em. Thats not to say what will happen. I think that you missin the notion that more mouths to feed and wantin TVs cars , flying, food, is not going to make this tiny planet more dangerous. more poeple isnt a as such problem, it just adds to and compounding the existing problems we got, You think science will sort it out, maybe, maybe not, but more greedy dumb fucks on earth wont help.
mrduffy1100 6 months ago
@mrduffy1100 Persian war was stopped by united nations. I find that hard to believe it couldn't stop many more seeming it has stopped many more. Not everyone is greedy stick it to yourself mate.
Zamriasra 6 months ago
@Zamriasra What persian war, when was that?
mrduffy1100 6 months ago
@mrduffy1100 in the 2000s It was when iran invaded kuwait.
Then the united nations helped with bosina and 3 other countries that I forgot about.
Zamriasra 6 months ago