Peter Schwartz on Overpopulation & Environmental impact 2002

[melrobRTF]

totally untrue watch the MOST IMPORTATN VIDEO YOU WILL EVER SEE!

[TheBecalmed]

It is a fact that the majority of people in the world have never made a telephone call.

[sadaeus]

(2)

Then we have to calculate that every 41 years the population woudl double.

2041 - 12 billion people

2082 - 24 billion people

2123 - 48 billion people

2164 - 96 billion people

and 2205 - 192 billion people

Based on how far the long term forcast is, a billion might be a very small number compared to what we have. If it is 10 years into the future, it is huge. If it is one and a half generations in the future, it is almost nothing.

So he omitted the most important factor.

[sadaeus]

It has come to my attention that, indeed, I have failed to consider another of his foolish statements

He says: "...the UN lowered the long term forcast by almost a billion people again."

Well, what is "long term"?

70 years? 150? 200?

I believe that is a very important factor.

If we assume that in 2000 there were 6 billion people on the planet and we have a constant growth of 1.7 percent worldwide, this would mean we have to calculate with a doubling time of about 41 years.

[notcob1965]

err Shanghai China poor????? 'in 2005 Shanghai became the world's largest cargo port' and 'has been described as the "showpiece" of the world's fastest-growing major economy' Errrm poor, I don't think so. alarm bells start too ring when you here statements like that.

[juankenon]

He doesn't say its poor, just an ecological nightmare, which it is.

Nonetheless he is still talking out of his arse. Doubtlessly people are living better now than ever have but that doesn't imply that the status quo is sustainable or that growth rates are tenable.

[kuraiken]

Correction to the fourth comment below this (my first one):

In the second passage of the last quote I made, a "well" belongs into the passage.

- "Then have ever lived well before."

[kuraiken]

With all the internal problems of each nation, unemployment, crime (violence, murder, rape, etc.) and unsatisfying living conditions, I have a hard time picturing even 50% of population of europe and the USA to be happy. And 50% would be about 565 million. So even if that were the case, where are the other 1 billion?

If we only have 500 million in the richest nations, where do we get the other 1 billion? But maybe people who have nothing are happier that way? I know this person speaks nonsense.

[kuraiken]

Now if he mentions happy people in europe and the USA, and claims they are about 1.5 billion, then clearly every human being in europe and the USA have to be HAPPY.

And every third to fourth familiy must be secretly raising a child that they have adopted from a poor country, who, naturally, also have to be happy.

Now I don't know the figures in every country, but in Germany for example, the lower class that just gets by is about 40%.

[kuraiken]

Just because the total sum of people who are more happy today is bigger, doesn't mean the PERCENTAGE is bigger.

500 Years ago, for example, we had far less then 1 billion people. So NATURALLY if we have many times more people, the total amount of happy people rises.

Now Mr. Stupid claims about 1.5 Billion people live well in europe and the USA.

USA's pop is estimated at around 300 million, europes total population is about 830 million. That's about 1billion and 130 million.

[kuraiken]

This person is fundamentally stupid.

"Dirtiest places are the poorest"

INCORRECT. The most waste, by cars, ships, private airplanes, etc. is produced by the RICHEST. CLEARLY an airplane creates more waste then someone living in under a bridge with no money can EVER produce.

"More people live well today on this planet, then have ever lived before in any moment in human history."

DUH. Correct.

Can you figure out why?

GROWTH RATE.

We also have MORE people on this planet, then EVER.

[notcob1965]

the cleanest places on the planet are the richest- what a foolish statement I agree with Kuraiken, big producers and consumers very clearly produce the most waste, and  worse of all waste which even in small ammounts has the potential to destroy our

environment, you don't see too many Kalahari bushmen producing plutonium do you? As for "the UN lowered the population growth predictions", I think they know the problem and are busy producing some population solutions of their own...

[StigmataBOB1]

In revelation John describes that the kingdoms of the world will unite to go to war against God, at Armageddon. Why? It is because the creator is coming back to destroy the Demonic spirits. It is the Demonic spirits who want as many people as possible, to use in their fight against the Creator. Demonic Spirits will take possession of mortal bodies in this fight. That is why so many people. So it is Demonic Spirits that want the overpopulation.

[DonQuixotedeKaw]

If all of Schwartz's optimistic BS were true,

(and it was not)

that was still the beginning of the BushCo era.

There was no responsible government in place.

Unimaginable amounts of damage was done,

by doing nothing. Well, nothing good!

This video should be disregarded as horseshit.

[opchidexio]

FINALLY! The voice of REASON. 5 stars!

Way to go Peter Schwartz!!!

To HELL with the global Marx-tards. They are IDIOTS. May they all be castrated so they do not reproduce!

[pmarie2003]

There are more than twice the number of people in the world than when I was born. People I work with are popping 'em out like the party will go on forever. We are on the way down a long, slope to the end because of stupidity.

[larrymouse]

"More people live well today than ever before". Sadly, More people live in poverty today than ever before. Both the statements are true because there ARE more people than ever before. Mr. Schwartz takes comfort in the prediction that world human population is predicted to level off at around 10 billion. Given the present sorry state of the planet I am very surprised that anyone can believe the Earth will be able to tolerate an additional 3billion or so living off her.

[stopchemtrails]

Google : 2025

There are a range of plans for the world. Seems we are gearing up for some monumental change ie; Global economy, one single currency, a single world government etc .. all organisations are a part of it, like porns carrying out 'the great work' unknowingly enabling NWO heads to

sit back and watch it all come together.

Check out : singleglobalcurrency[.]org

[DrStrangelife]

It does not seem like he has noticed the scale of the impact and size of CURRENT human population. Sure we can change... But changeing 6b and rising with falling resource base that is NOT going to be pretty. Even through the very highest level of prosperity humankind did didleysquat to prepare for the future and poverty DID NOT get reduced at all. Sure more people got a lot of resources, but even more got poorer. This dude is propelled by endless optimism, not realism.

[mikelogic303]

1/6th of the world population doing "pretty well"? Only 1/3rd (2 billion) in poverty? I'd call that a disaster. Not a grounds for optimism.

Either everybody wins, or nobody wins.

[MARTIN0641]

A disaster? Talk about out of touch with reality. In years past, not even 2% of people lived well. We are talking Kings and Merchants. When you take into account the logistics of giving 6.5 billion people a "modern" standard of living, and account for resource use, we're doing grand. Could be better, but better is where we are headed.

If you think this is a disaster, it's because in your candy-coated make-believe world you think the universe will take care of us. It wont, that's our job.

[mikelogic303]

Yes yes, it is of course our job to take care of ourselves. It is just the cost to the environment we do not percieve in our candy-coated society. Pumped full of created wants by the media, we don't realise the imprint on the environment all this has.

It is difficult to quantify the true benifit of our modern standard of living. Families segregated due to career pursuits, genetically modified mass-produced food, cancer epidemics. We are more out of touch with our environment than ever before.

[procommenter]

Genocide. That's plain Jane Goodall's & the Rockefeller Foundation's answer to this population quandary. Kill and infect the people of the Third World through the U.N.'s World Health Organization. From these fiends has come A.I.D.S.

[itCameFromEarth]

How have you come to believe the UN wants to spread AIDS?

[procommenter]

Research: {the nonogenarian} David Rockefeller on population; A.I.D.S. as a C.I.A. warfare project; & the book: "The Myth of Heterosexual A.I.D.S."

[mgilbo1]

Its not happening as fast as he says it is. The reason why those areas of continents are reducing in population is because they are migrating to other parts of the world. The biggest polluters are 1st world countries, not third world countries due to population, cars, industry. He quietly slides around this.

Control population or mother nature will in much more horrific ways.

[sonnyj6]

he makes some valid points,however,i fail to see how he comes to the conclusion that the wealthiest nations are the cleanest,thats complete rubbish,no pun intended..

[shumila]

I don't know about that. I grew up in Nigeria and you have no idea how many actually live atop rubbish heaps. Every time I went back to Nigeria and came back here to Texas, it took me weeks to start noticing and minding the cigarette butts laying here and there.

[Golgo13ThePro]

He failed when he equivocated technology with energy. Technology is not energy, and understanding that fact is fundamental to our predicament.

We don't have any renewable alternatives that have the potential to replace more than a fraction of the energy we're getting from fossil fuels.

He talks about everyone wanting to be rich, but America's vast wealth is a product of it's energy consumption (25% of world energy) Until he figures out where the energy is coming from, he's got nothing.

[pgregston]

This is not an argument against Bartlett. Schwartz is saying that we must embrace a new set of values to accelerate these trends. The last doubling has happened, but it might be due to starvation, rather than development.

He is right- we have to select technologies that make it possible for nine billion people to live together.

[GOSPELGANGSTAR]

Lies Propaganda, a few billion here a few billion there...

Not exactly a fact based argument.

Plus I heard he takes it up the bum..