Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Overpopulation - Thoughts?

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 6, 2013, 7:42 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I've been seeing this issue pushed more and more now. More recently it was pushed by Steve Irwin's daughter and her views were censored/re-worded in the article for the secretary of state's e-journal.

I do not want to discuss the censorship or the 2 party system in this forum post. I am simply using this example to show that the overpopulation topic is gaining momentum.

I would like to discuss the theory of over population. Where does it begin and where does it stop? What does it mean? What are solutions?

I worry if this topic were to become mainstream it could lead to a further rise of extremism. More specifically in the future, when the harsher effects of climate change occur, with intolerable heat waves, droughts, collapsing ecosystems, etc...

Obviously the best way to reduce fertility rates is through raising economic standards as it shows to be the best route, and that's without regulation on birth rates. The areas with the highest fertility rates are also the highest in poverty. But these higher poverty areas aren't always necessarily the highest contributors to pollution and consumption.

The replacement fertility rate is 2. Which means there is 1 child to replace each person, which would keep the population size the same. Some research has shown with continuing trends that in 75 years the population size will be about the same as it is now.

My thoughts on this issue - The safest way of dealing with this issue seems simple. Increase economic standards across the globe and solve the poverty issue as well as drastically change our oil and pollutant based economy. But will that be enough in regards to what the overpopulation theory suggests? This is where this gets tricky and why I would like a discussion on this topic.

Questions to ask yourself on this topic

Where does it begin and where does it stop? What does it mean? What are solutions?

Edit: more of my thoughts on this issue to clarify - One part of the overpopulation theory is that we are overpopulated in regards to the current way of life. Which means to continue living the way we do, oil/coal based/corporate takeover, means population size plays a dangerous factor, ie climate change. However the population size being a problem is indeed a myth if we were to change our lifestyle. This means lifestyle is the problem, not population size.

166 Comments

166 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I think that to a great extent, the theory of overpopulation is a myth. If you've ever flown over North or South American, you would have seen that both continents are mostly vast areas of unpopulated land. If you drive through the center of California, one of the most populous states, you'll see that it's mostly empty.

Even in China, the most populated country on the planet, the population of its western regions is very sparse. Its only in the coastal cities, where people go for opportunity, that over population seems to be a problem.

The financial oligarchy wants to keep world population low, so that it is more manageable. They fear that if there were too many of us, that we could over throw them much more easily. So they try to decrease our population through propaganda, war and austerity.

If we were to grow without the interference of the oligarchy, cities would pop up in the middle of nowhere, in central regions of the US and other countries, that would be linked to coastal areas by railways, and would be provided with water by vast aqueduct systems such as NAWAPA.

People would be drawn to these cities, from the overpopulated coastal regions, for opportunity.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3056) 1 year ago

Just because there are vast areas of unpopulated land does not mean that the land there are underpopulated. People require far more than land to live. A better measure may be each person's ecological footprint relative to what is available in the environment where that person primarily resides. There are underpopulation, just-right population, AND overpopulation on Earth. The largest contribution to global environmental problems came from third-world populations attaining first-world living standards that use up resources and dispose of them sometimes at orders of magnitude higher rates. Of this, the U.S. is definitely one of the greatest contributors or a culprit.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Perhaps this is just propaganda from people who wish to prevent third world populations from developing into first world nations?

[-] 1 points by grapes (3056) 1 year ago

Alleged overpopulation is not necessarily propaganda from ill-wishing people.

Decades ago, we worried about running out of coal. Then we studied how much coal was available and we were really relieved that there were many centuries worth of it. However, we also asked what if we would burn all of that coal. Yikes! We would run out of clean environment before we run out of coal. Yes, indeed, we are nowadays going exactly on this path to develop new first world nations -- a very bad idea!

Solar energy is really the only enduring clean form of energy for people worldwide to exploit without causing much environmental degradation. There is also conservation and efficiency improvements that are not politically sexy but hey, they really put more money in our pockets and I do not regret a bit for thinking and acting differently to achieve that!

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I don't think that "we" if you mean the western countries are going on the path of developing third world nations into first world nations, in fact, I think we are resisting that. If third world nations are moving towards first world status, its mostly through their own efforts.

Our western countries, on the other hand, are moving from first world towards third world status. If our world survives, perhaps some decades in the future we will see who made a better choice. My personal hope is that the US will return to, and lead the way towards, returning to first world status for all the nations.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3056) 1 year ago

You are missing a major source of the development. Many countries developed through their trading with the U.S. Yes, their own efforts are definitely involved but without the U.S. being their major customer they were unlikely to have developed fast.

First-world status has to be changed and I hope that the third-world population will get that it is not the amount of consumption that will mark first-world status. First-world status has far more to do with the "coolness" of the living rather than the "gaudiness" of consumption. People with an artistic bent will probably understand.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I think the trade issue is a mixed blessing, consider China. Free trade policies did result in the development of major cities from agricultural areas. But that development was limited, most of the production is low paid sweatshop labor.

And now that citizens in countries like the US are less and less able to buy even inexpensive Chinese products, due to the financial crisis, the Chinese economy is entering a period of sharp decline.

The better approach to development would have been FDR's approach, which was to use the manufacturing economy, left over from the WWII mobilization, to produce high tech infrastructural goods for developing nations on credit.

As the developing countries were to install these goods in their economies, they would have generated revenue, part of which would go to the developing country, and the other part going to pay off the US credit.

I think first world status simply involves being able to produce what you consume at increasing levels of quality. I don't think the products need to be gaudy or cool, but just to suit the purpose that they were developed for in superior manner.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the world is a closed system

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

But humanity is capable of going beyond the world and gaining access to resources outside of it.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

not likely

those asteroids have little value as rock with out an energy source like the long dead biological material decay to oil

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

yes likely, according to Wikipedia:

Asteroid Mining

In fact, all the gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium, ruthenium, and tungsten mined from the Earth's crust, and that are essential for economic and technological progress, came originally from the rain of asteroids that hit the Earth after the crust cooled.

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

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

those metals are non essential to future biological structures

among those rare metals which produces energy ?

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

If you're talking about uranium, I don't know about its presence in space. But hopefully we will eventually get to using nuclear fusion, which would use hydrogen from ocean water. There is an abundance of the hydrogen isotope used in nuclear fusion on the surface of the moon as well.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

boron has some possibilities

Aneutronic fusion

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

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Interesting, thanks.

[-] 1 points by yodavision (3) 1 year ago

Yes, and we need open minds to know how to preserve vital resource.

Who taught Americans how to consume like they do? Media, we need to effectively go after them.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3056) 1 year ago

FDR's approach seems to be operated in reverse these days. Look at the high-tech infrastructural goods used in the U.S. You can see many Japanese heavy machinery and South Korean electronic products. Much of that consumption has been funded on credit by China or our own infinite-credit federal reserve system.

Ultimately, "coolness" involves more than quality although "coolness" requires high quality as a stepping stone. "Coolness" is not an attribute of products but it involves the nifty relationship of the products to the users. Note the difference of contextual relationships from the simple attributes. The products can be used in vastly different ways from the purposes that they were developed for and in such ways can provide "coolness."

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I think you are right about today's approach being the reverse of FDR's, and now see what you mean by "coolness".

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

i think it is possible. Currently the wars are doing that to some countries, and war has been doing it for a while throughout history. My biggest fear is that if this issue takes lead it will be used by extremists.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I agree, I think its something to be concerned about.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by VQkag1 (-112) 1 year ago

No, overpopulation is about resources, not space.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Hey there, Thras.

[+] -5 points by VQkag1 (-112) 1 year ago

Leave me alone you vile republicon! When you're ready to move on to progressive solutions for the 99% give me a shout.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Awe. Thras.........I'm crushed.

[-] -2 points by VQkag1 (-112) 1 year ago

Republicons will all be crushed by the new social models. You have no chance my dear, might as well embrace progressive solutions while you still can. You right wingers will soon be left behind.

[-] -2 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

back so soon from your advaned indoctrination classes? "progressives", code for fascists.

[-] -3 points by VQkag1 (-112) 1 year ago

Nothing fascist about being progressive and helping each other out.

[+] -4 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

progressives ARE fascist.

[-] 0 points by VQkag1 (-112) 1 year ago

How so? Are you able to formulate an argument to support your opinion?

[-] -2 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

go to a dictionary and lookup the word.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Trollin trollin trollin

And your ego's swollen

Keep them untruths rolling ...

[-] 1 points by VQkag1 (-112) 1 year ago

The definitions for progressive and fascist are quite different. As per the definitions, it's quite clear that progressives are not fascist, they are almost the opposite. Are you able to read? Perhaps English is your third language and you failed to properly understand the definitions?

[-] -1 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

centralized govt, severe social and economic regimentation,supression of opposition, exalts the state over the individual. thats fascism and the "progressives"

[-] 1 points by VQkag1 (-112) 1 year ago

You're not defining progressives, you're defining republicans.

How is Occupy's idea of having direct democracy on each street corner centralizing government. If anything, I would say it's spreading it way too thin.

Severe social regimentations? Occupy would let gays and lesbians marry, women vote, etc.... Republicans don't want that. The republicans have stricter rules.

Exalts the state over the individual??? Occupy wants direct democracy which is the complete opposite.

Are you dumb?

[-] -1 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

thats the definition of fascism,..........and the dem/progressive s. where have yo been,

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Humanity has always used up resources, throughout history, but this has always impelled us towards locating or developing new resources that were superior to the ones we'd previously used.

The example would be first using wood for fire, than progressing to coal, then gas, etc, which each provided more energy than their predecessors per amount of fuel. Now that we are using up fossil fuels, the next natural step would be to solve the problems of nuclear energy, and provide ourselves with much greater amounts of energy per units of fuel available.

[-] 0 points by VQkag1 (-112) 1 year ago

The future is solar, not nuclear.

[-] -1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Solar uses larger amounts of resources to produce smaller amounts of energy. Whether or not its the future, it isn't progress.

[-] 0 points by VQkag1 (-112) 1 year ago

False.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

That's not much of an argument.

[-] 0 points by VQkag1 (-112) 1 year ago

You can check the numbers on Google. What you said is false.

[-] -1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Solar electricity generation is ridiculously costly, and has only caught on because of huge government subsidies. Studies in the U.S. show that the true cost for the average home is 35 cents per kilowatt hour, and 25 cents per kWh in the desert. Electricity can be generated from nuclear plants at 1.3 cents/kWh, if plant construction time is reduced to a reasonable five years or less.

[-] -1 points by VQkag1 (-112) 1 year ago

Solar energy is getting cheaper by the day. This is what you forget.

[-] -1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

If it ever gets cheaper than nuclear energy, perhaps that will be something to remember.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3056) 1 year ago

Depending on the particular form of solar energy application, some solar energy solutions are already cheaper than nuclear energy and have fewer long-term storage problems.

Nuclear energy is so-called cheap because we excluded the cost of maintaining the containment of the high-level radioactive waste for ten thousand years or so. Every two or three decades, we need to build new containment structures to replace the decayed ones. We should also guard it all of the time, not to mention that we may not even have the corporate or political entities stable or responsible enough for ten thousand years to carry out the requisite watchdog function. Try a few corporate takeovers or mergers and we can have lawsuits galore looming for decades to assign responsibilities. Yes, meanwhile, the radioactive waste is surely given a good chance to leak out.

You tend to advocate big- or high-tech solutions (nuclear energy, asteroid mining, high-speed trains, NAWAPA 21, etc.) but there are many readily available small- and low-tech solutions that can solve our problems a little bit at a time without the big upheavals and are far cheaper. We have NOW a zero-cost nuclear fusion reactor at 93 million miles away that we do not and cannot manage but it beams its energy to us nearly everyday. It is our sun, Sol. Think about coordinating and cooperating with Sol to solve our problems. Sol can be a really great partner.

Rather than using air conditioners, one may be able to plant some deciduous trees to provide shades in the summer and allow sunlight to warm the home in the winter. Rather than using clothes dryers, we can hang our clothes out to dry in the sun and winds. We can paint the house different colors to change its thermal characteristics. We can install a solar vacuum-tube heater for hot water to replace the electric water heater. We do not open the refrigerator unless we have an idea of what and where to reach for. We can post the grocery store receipts on the refrigerator door and cross out items that have been used up. We can use reflective mirrors (such as full-body-length dressing mirrors) to direct light where it is needed rather than turning a light on. My main point is that there are many many things one can do to reduce energy consumption and pollution and come out wealthier.

"Sunlight is too diffuse a power source to fuel human progress." so we can concentrate sunlight with mirrors to get around the problem. Sunlight will become THE dominant form of power source to fuel human progress because others will run out or have unacceptable environmental impact.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Sol is a fine partner, but I think he would be better off employed in providing sunlight for the growth of plants. Sunlight is too diffuse a power source to fuel human progress.

[-] -1 points by VQkag1 (-112) 1 year ago

Countries such as Russia, China and Argentina are going full speed ahead with nuclear energy. This will give us an opportunity in the future to evaluate which countries took the better path.

I wouldn't trust Chinese with nuclear power! Those people can't build quality!

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

These days, the Chinese are the world's leader in building fast trains. No problem with their nuclear plants so far.

[-] -1 points by VQkag1 (-112) 1 year ago

Well, then there's nuclear fusion, which is something like 100 or 1,000 times more powerful that nuclear fission. Fusion is something like being able to create our own "sun", that is, a "solar" power source, right here on earth.

The Sun can provide enough 10,000 times more energy than we consume at the moment and it's safer than nuclear solutions. It's also possible to harness solar energy from things we already have, thus by foregoing the need to build on more land. For example, solar paint is being developed in Australia. You paint your house and the paint collects solar energy all day. Solar highways are also being developed. All roads will be built to harness the power of the sun, and will act as a huge power grid since they are already connected together. Nuclear already had it's heyday. Look at Japan, they closed almost 50 nuclear power plants. Look towards the future, don't stay stuck in the technology of the 50's.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Countries such as Russia, China and Argentina are going full speed ahead with nuclear energy. This will give us an opportunity in the future to evaluate which countries took the better path.

And by the way, Japan has reopened it nuclear plants:

"Despite an insane anti-nuclear policy dominating the ruling Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) since the Fukushima crisis, the reality of industrial collapse, economic breakdown, and an incalculable number of deaths that would have resulted from a decision to forego nuclear power in a nation which was 30% dependent on its 54 nuclear power plants, has forced the leadership to announce a dramatic change in direction, calling for the rapid re-opening of the nuclear plants which have passed the required safety tests."

http://larouchepac.com/node/23068

[-] -1 points by VQkag1 (-112) 1 year ago

It will, very soon.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Well, then there's nuclear fusion, which is something like 100 or 1,000 times more powerful that nuclear fission. Fusion is something like being able to create our own "sun", that is, a "solar" power source, right here on earth.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I do know one part of the overpopulation theory is that we are overpopulated in regards to the current way of life. Which means to continue living the way we do, oil/coal based, means population size plays a dangerous factor, ie climate change.

However the population size being a problem is indeed a myth if we were to change our lifestyle. Which means lifestyle is the problem, not population size.

DKA and I have an interesting conversation about sustainable communities and innovative gardening in the comments here. I know you've talked of NAWAPA 21 before.

Like I said in this post, I do fear this overpopulation theory could be used in the future for a form of extremism to take rise.

Huge problem preventing solutions - the corporate takeover.

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 1 year ago

If you really want to know where the theory first got started check out Thomas Malthus.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

yeah the website Overpopulation is a myth.com talks about a lot of the different overpopulation scares throughout history.

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 1 year ago

My own opinion is that we are overpopulated and quickly damaging the ecosystem that we depend on. Eventually we will end up with an ecosystem that will support alot less of us and things will equal out. Unfortunately that will come with alot of suffering and possibly wars that could extinguish the species all together.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Overpopulation - Thoughts?

Improper use of land - failed stewardship - visit the permaculture post.

People can be employed at fruitful labor reclaiming - LOST GROUND - not to mention implementing green technology.

[-] 2 points by occupyitnow (31) 1 year ago

It was the justification for Hitler to kill over twenty million people to make room for Germans. This was a big idea before Hitler. Many Germans supported it. Germany was considered too small, especially after it's territory was reduced in WWI. Same motive for Japan and Italy. They were all after land to spread out their people at the expense of those who were already there, Slavics, Poles, French, Jews, or anyone non-Aryan.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Westward Expansion.

[-] 1 points by occupyitnow (31) 1 year ago

Colonialism. Natives be damned. Expand the prison system to Australia while you are at it.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

The current explosion in population growth has been made possible by cheap fossil fuel. As we are running out of these, especially cheap oil, we will not be able to support the existing population, much less billions more. It is a situation called "overshoot".

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I have followed this issue for a long time. Rather than spouting another set of statistics I would offer this.

Any closed system has limited resources, by definition. If you want to do an interesting exercise, do the calculation to calculate the amount of water, food, fuel. chemicals, wood, metals etc.would be required if every current resident of earth used the average amount used by the average US resident.

The easiest and dumbest assumption is the "somehow" assumption. Somehow THEY (and it is always they, not me, or we) will invent our way out of this problem.Of course, if we stop the rate of premature deaths in the world (starving and disease, wars and crime etc.) the rate of growth would immediately increase as a result, so you would need to recalculate.

You will find that climate change will accelerate, sea levels will rise flooding the coastal dwellers, and violent storms and drought will result in reduced production rates and fresh water shortages and these will all be significant factors and pretty soon you will conclude that it all looks pretty scary and that "somehow" may not be a good enough answer.

My answer is to check out before the excrement gets into the HVAC system. I have seen calculations that show that we are about 40% higher in population that is sustainable in the long term. If you assume that we are above that ceiling or are likely to get there, you need to decide how we get back to that level in some responsibly humane way. Unless you aren't a humane sort of person.

Some think we have already made and distributed enough poison to solve the problem. Some of us will see, won't we?

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Well said.

[-] -1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Are you saying that our world is a closed system? What about the rest of the solar system, and even the universe? There are vast quantities of resources just within our reach.

You say that thinking in terms of "somehow" is the dumbest assumption. But this way of thinking is what historically lead to great progress in America. The American people were traditionally the "can do" sort, who believed that they could accomplish anything through concentrated effort.

You could say that today's financial crisis is due in part to the relinquishment of this way of thinking, that we can accomplish anything if we try hard enough. Now, we are a country that can't produce its own products or rebuild its decaying infrastructure, let alone make progress towards a better future.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Your arms must be longer than mine. I worked on the Apollo program and one thing I learned is there are things which are insurmountable constraints. We did invent solutions (and I have my name on some patents) to a lot of problems we hadn't faced before. But if your plan requires inventing a new physics. I don't consider it a probability worth staking the life of a planet on. If all other solutions are impossible, you might as well try it. IT will keep your mind off of the inevitable.

This financial crisis was no mystery and didn't require any invention to get out of it. The fact that we settled for a few tentative measures and refused to hold the folks who caused it responsible, is the second dumbest idea. The folks who caused this had many convinced that they were the great financial innovators, that they just needed the freedom from restrictive regulations and then there would be prosperity for all. (Like Phil Gramm) Trying hard is great as long as it is consistent with physics and real economics. Trying hard pushing rope isn't going to produce significantly positive results. I have spent most of my life as an entrepreneur and it takes hard work and a good idea and a lot of luck. I had a lot of ventures with the first two that had no success, only to see others with the same two plus the third succeed.

You are wrong about the last paragraph. The main change that must be made is eliminating the dominance of corruption. Until you do that somehow and hard work has no chance. When you do, you will find plenty of both hard work and good ideas are still here

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

If we simply had floating cities able to produce aquaculture and hydroponics, imagine how the population could grow without much detriment to the planet.

My GOD! Why aren't the oceans filled with floating cities yet? Is it just because we haven't killed everything on land, so there is no urgency?

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

The toxic waste dumps that are now larger than Texas floating in vortices in our oceans may one day be corralled and compressed, and terra-formed, simply because they are too large to do anything else with.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

What a nightmare this world has become. The incompetence of our so called leaders... shame on them.

We can teach our children to fix this mess by deliberately, proudly destroying the root cause, brutal capitalism.

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I don’t know the solution. But ultimately mother nature will handle overpopulation. Too many people, not enough food results in starvation, disease and competition for food. We will die of starvation or kill others for their food. But we’re nowhere near being overpopulated.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

True

No one gets out alive.

One thing everyone can count on.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Unless of course you are a Corp(se) then you never were alive and you don't pay taxes you get subsidies from real peoples taxes.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by DeathsHead1 (-111) 1 year ago

There is no such thing. Pure propaganda.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Can you please elaborate and try to back your claim?

I would like to start a discussion on all perspectives.

[-] 0 points by DeathsHead1 (-111) 1 year ago

The birth rate in the Western World has been declining for many years. This is one of the many reasons for the present difficulties in our various nations. Google it.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Yes I did include that the original post that the population rate, due to current trends, will stop increasing and go back to what we're at now in 75 years.

I've watched several videos from the website Overpopulation is a myth.com

I don't necessarily think the population size is the problem. But instead is the way we live.

An apple if used properly grows more apples.

However at the current lifestyle of choice, population size does seem to play a factor.

But like I said, at that approach where do we go next? Where does it stop? What are the solutions? This is an important conversation to have now, as this issue will gain momentum.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

You must always include depletion of finite resources into the equation of whether overpopulation is, or will be, a problem.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

With the development of new technologies, which are currently on the drawing board, it would become possible to reclaim many used resources and gain access to other resources that were previously unusable.

It appears that we are using up resources, but this mostly just applies to concentrated resources. Many minerals, as well as oil for example, are concentrated by animals dying in mass in certain regions, and leaving the resources that were concentrated in their bodies in those areas.

New technologies, such as the "fusion torch" would allow us to separate the resources that are found in common "earth", such as iron, etc., making them available for our use. Its estimated, for example, that one cubic mile of earth contains most of the mineral resources that the US would need for a year.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Hey arturo. Fascinating stuff. Hadn't heard about the 'fusion torch' or that estimate in your last paragraph. That's good to know. It means it's not as bleak as one would assume. Provided someone actually begins using these new technologies. Well, I guess we'll have to at some point, hopefully sooner not later.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3056) 1 year ago

gnomunny, beware of the "fusion torch" because arturo did not state where the concentrated form of energy needed to power it would come from. In essence, this quest for the concentrated form of energy is our eternal quest -- its success or failure determines if we have overpopulation or not.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Good point.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Hi, glad to hear you think so. There's not much out on the fusion torch concept now, but here's a little from Wikipedia on it:

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

Also, if you go to the following site, and type "fusion torch" into the search field, you'll be referred to a few PDFs on the fusion torch:

http://www.larouchepub.com/

Happy reading!

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Thanks, arturo. I just checked out the Wikipedia link and for some reason that page sounds familiar, specifically its association with fusion reactors. Have you posted about this before? It didn't ring a bell when I first read your comment.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Yes, I have mentioned it before. Did you check out the PDFs? There are some pretty good ones.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

No, haven't got to them yet. But I respect LaRouche regardless of his 'reputation' here so definitely will. I just bookmarked it so I can check it out this weekend. Time will fly too quick for me to get to them any sooner. You can probably relate.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Glad to hear it, happy Chinese New Year, by the way.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Wow, didn't realize that. It is about that time. Happy Chinese New year to you, too. Hug one of those beautiful Chinese women for me. I'll be fantasizing about that later on tonight, heheheh.

Just kidding about that fantasizing part (I think). The hugging part I'm serious. ;-)

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Nothing too thrilling to be honest, just a girl from work who was quitting her job to go back to her home province, wanted to get a photo of herself with a foreigner. It happens quite often here, people will just walk up and ask to get a photo with you, if you're a foreigner in China.

Don't think I'll be going out tonight, but may hit the seen tomorrow, have a good rest.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Nothing to thrilling to be honest, just a girl from work who was quitting her job to go back to her home province, wanted to get a photo of herself with a foreigner. It happens quite often here, quite often people will just walk up and ask to get a photo with you, if you're a foreigner in China.

Don't think I'll be going out tonight, but may hit the seen tomorrow, have a good rest.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Thanks, I did that yesterday actually.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Hilarious! Well, do it again, damn it! This time for me. Tell her it's from a friend.

Gotta log off now. If you reply, I'll pick up the conversation tomorrow.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3056) 1 year ago

gnomunny, there is no practical fusion reactors and there will probably be none for many decades. I have lived my life hoping for the "too-cheap-to-meter" electricity from nuclear power plants and the "break-even" fusion reactors. I wonder why I am still paying electricity bills. I do not see any flying nuclear-powered airplanes. The U.S. national ignition facility for fusion has declared itself a dud for igniting controlled fusion.

Controlled fusion power is very unlikely because if one heats up the plasma, it expands and isn't our objective to compress the plasma to high-enough density so that fusion reactions can occur? The more powerfully we heat up the plasma, the harder it gets to compress it -- aren't we acting against ourselves? Maybe we fell for the misnomer of "thermonuclear" reactions.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Oh, I understand that. I realize fusion reactors are a long way off at best. I think arturo was just showing one example of possible future technologies. I don't think he believes it's anything viable in the near future.

And regardless, finite resources are still finite. It's just a matter of when, not if, they'll ever run out.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Remember though, that although we live on this planet, we are not restricted to its resources alone. There is a company, for example, I forgot its name, that is planning to mine asteroids in the not too distant future.

We could make much more rapid progress towards fusion energy, as well, if we conducted a "crash program", something like the Manhattan Project or the space program.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

It's a coincidence that you bring up asteroids because that was one of my thoughts when I was typing that finite resources comment. There are a couple companies looking into it, Planetary Resources, for one. And Deep Space Industries. That's a good thing having more than one looking into it. Competition in this regard is definitely a good thing. Although it will take quite a few years to do it, it's a definite option down the road. As well as mining the moon eventually, although that will take quite a bit of infrastructure. I imagine there are quite a few scientists and engineers around the world working on this as we speak. And considering the costs, it will undoubtedly be a joint effort.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

would be a lot easier of earth can get its people helping each other

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Hmmm, not sure which would be easier, really. It would be better if we could get earth's people helping each other, but all things considered, it might be easier to start mining asteroids.

I'm all for doing both.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

not likely

those asteroids have little value as rock with out an energy source like the long dead biological material decay to oil

[-] 1 points by grapes (3056) 1 year ago

Oil, which powers most of our transportation, is running out of people's ability to pay for it. With so much dependency built on global transportation, this can cause some hardships.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Definitely. One of the problems with oil is the extreme waste involved. Far too much gas and oil are wasted needlessly. I posted recently on how much refined oil (and money) could be saved just by people changing their engine oil less often. Or shopping a little closer to home. And I think it's crazy how inefficient some of our supply chains are.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3056) 1 year ago

Yes, it is indeed shocking how much farther their supplies have traveled than many people in their whole lifetimes. Overpopulation is just one factor of of global environmental degradation. The other factor is per-capita (over)consumption. Technology can change the balance but it itself is extremely unlikely to solve the problem. We tried building more highways to alleviate traffic congestion but that did not help much eventually.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Overconsumption is one of the things I've railed against since I've been here. Far too much waste. Far too much planned obsolescence in products.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I think that the developments that you, and many others, had hoped for, have not occurred because the scientific process has been seriously interfered with in our country. Scientific progress brings power to the people, and this is something that the oligarchy is quite determined to prevent from happening.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3056) 1 year ago

Over promise on the part of wild-eyed scientists and marketing people are more likely the cause of the disillusionment rather than the oligarchy. People were greatly empowered by the electronics revolution and I am sure that the oligarchy had a hand in that. What was important was that there was incessant and fierce competition in that revolution. Even oligarchy had a tough time holding their own turfs.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

The space program produced ten dollars in terms of economic development for every dollar that was put into it. I don't think there is anything wild-eyed about that. If we had continued it, we wouldn't be in the crisis that we are in today.

I think there is more to be gained from cooperation than from competition, particularly by pooling our money, through the government, to attain economies of scale when investing in advanced infrastructure and scientific research.

[-] 0 points by grapes (3056) 1 year ago

We never get economies of scale when investing in advanced infrastructure and scientific research even with government money. There has to be a societal pull for ideas to come to fruition. That pull could be produced by marketing or sales people. It can also be produced by arranging the proper user people to meet with the idea people. The U.S. government had subsidized Solyndra and A123. They were flops because there was no concomitant buildup of the societal pull. Solyndra's product was geeky but it lacked esthetic appeal. Large-size batteries were already available from Japan and the U.S. car industry was very slow and perhaps actually impeded moving into electric propulsion. Both cooperation and competition have their proper places but the U.S. has largely been served well with mostly competition sprinkled with a modicum of cooperation.

It was the spin-offs from the space program that eventually reached economies of scale. The space program never achieved that itself. In fact, it was a big money loser. Without competition, NASA had been operating a truck to near space at mostly a loss because there just were not that many worthwhile things to do there with troublesome (who breathe, eat, and excrete that require much logistics [i.e., orders of magnitudes more rocket propellants than the resources themselves] to provide) human beings onboard.

Solyndra was a flop because the Chinese government took the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers very seriously and wanted to be a leader in green technologies. The disappearance is still very much on track (to provide floods and droughts for China and its neighbors) and we will all see the ill effects, probably within our lifetimes.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

We did get economies of scale when investing in the New Deal and in the space program. Solyndra was a flop because it was intended to be a flop.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

Tesla got dumped on hard the CEO Edison

Tesla invented alternating current which moves energy through wires at a much lower resistance and thus greater distance than DC current.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

[-] 1 points by grapes (3056) 1 year ago

With Tesla and Edison, you see the power of capital to crush a genius. Cooperation between genius and capital can bring great ideas into practice. The AC/DC story is not entirely over because most of our home electronic devices require DC power sources and solar panels also provide DC power. The two may perhaps be matched without losing much power as opposed to converting to AC and back to DC. The idea of a neighborhood DC power station has merits, too. For example, solar cells or natural gas fuel cells can produce DC power locally.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

that is the main issue in the overpopulation theory. Too many people contributing to over consumption of resources and too much pollution.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

In compliment to your post: ( if things are done properly - well .... ? )

http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-have-the-answer-to-all-the-worlds-problems/

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

man grows 1 million pounds of food on 3 acres.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q3CE7dcvpw

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yeah - I saw this guy before - gr8 stuff

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

it only shows that real solutions exist. If only this corporate takeover would stop trying to destroy the earth for short term profits.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Exactly - there are many better ways to live and prosper. This corpoRAT BS would like to run us into depletion failure/death not to mention pollution.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I am intrigued by the title in the link. I am clicking it now.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Good videos - looking at not only reclaiming land - but also forwarding proper land management.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

yah I watched the first one already and have the greening the desert video playing in the background now. Cool stuff! Very innovative!

This is the kind of stuff I was hoping would come up in this conversation.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Simple - low tech ( mostly no tech ) - so much common sense when they talk about returning the unused bio-mass to the soil to retain water as well as be turned back into soil. That is better then letting a field go fallow for a few years to regenerate the soil - because the soil never gets depleted.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Do you know of any good books on this topic?

I am trying to increase my library. I actually just ordered James Hansen's Storms of my Grandchildren a couple days ago. I need to expand my knowledge on this very important issue.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I ran across this one and it seems suitable as it deals with our part of the world :

Permaculture Handbook permaculturehandbook.com/ Permaculture Handbook, Permaculture, permaculture design, permaculture design course, review, permaculture book ... (13.36 MB PDF, Download Report) ...

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

thanks I'll check it out. I'm planning on going to the book store tomorrow.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

"Limits to Growth" would be a good start.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

It's one reason we need to abandon this 'throwaway society.' Consider how much is made from plastics for example, things that are deliberately designed to have a very short life. Plastics, of course, come from oil.

There's no easy answer to that aspect since the fact that they are 'finite' means no matter how small the population, they will eventually be depleted if alternatives aren't discovered.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago
[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

That's too cool!

This government definitely needs to rethink it's attitude about hemp.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yes and the rest of the world as well. So much from one source. Grows fast - does not need fertilizer or pesticides. Let the trees grow flourish provide proper shade as part of permaculture - the job it should be doing along with cleaning the air.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yep, there are dozens of ways (maybe hundreds?) that hemp can benefit. Cleaning the air is a good addition to that list, especially since it grows so fast.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - fixing carbon - sequester it in the ground in mulch/soil - sequester it in products from the plants - textiles ...............

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

"lol yeah I have had attempts at humor and sarcasm fall flat before. We need emoticons."

Absolutely. I think I may have mentioned that a long time ago. I wonder what Harvey Ball would think if he saw how far the smiley face has come.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

He Be Smiling?

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Damn, DK! I'd twinkle you twice for that one if I could.

I mean up-vote. I don't quite like how that sounded, heheheh.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The dam is bursting - runnnnnn

The Damn - Wha......


[-] 1 points by gnomunny (4279) from St Louis, MO 3 minutes ago

What a difference one letter makes! ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

aAHhahaha - just don't remove that all important w - heehehe


[-] 2 points by gnomunny (4279) from St Louis, MO 0 minutes ago

Damn, DK! I'd twinkle you twice for that one if I could.

I mean up-vote. I don't quite like how that sounded, heheheh. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

What a difference one letter makes!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Plus it can make non-toxic biodegradable plastics and paper and packaging and building material - provides a healthy food source can be used medicinally ................... recycle? sure shred it and spread it on a field if you want fertilizer/mulch.

I also put that link in this post as a complimentary item:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-have-the-answer-to-all-the-worlds-problems/

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I saw it over there but didn't click on it. I did click on it here tho. I think I heard about Henry Ford somewhere else but don't remember where. Hell, it might have been this forum!

Edit: I bookmarked that page to peruse at a later time. Good quote by George Washington Carver, by the way. Pretty insightful.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

lol yeah I have had attempts at humor and sarcasm fall flat before.

We need emoticons.


[-] 2 points by gnomunny (4279) from St Louis, MO 1 minute ago

Yeah, actually I edited it at the last minute and replaced 'who' with 'mega-industry' so there wouldn't be any misunderstanding.

Sarcasm is so hard to detect on a forum, eh? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LOL - no I wouldn't do that. I think it might have been one of my green technology posts. Or someone Else's as there has been some discussion on alternatives to what is being done today.


[-] 2 points by gnomunny (4279) from St Louis, MO 0 minutes ago

Well, there ya go! Wasn't there a 'Suppressed technologies' post not too long ago?

And I wonder what mega-industry, pray tell, was responsible for suppressing it in the first place?

If you actually answer that question, I will have to consider it an insult to my intelligence. ;-) ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yeah, actually I edited it at the last minute and replaced 'who' with 'mega-industry' so there wouldn't be any misunderstanding.

Sarcasm is so hard to detect on a forum, eh?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - long long time ago - imagine if that had taken off - a world without fiberglass?

Suppressed technologies: Henry Ford's Hemp Plastic Car


[-] 2 points by gnomunny (4272) from St Louis, MO 1 minute ago

That's almost unbelievable, isn't it? I'm sure a lot of people would say "bullshit" if you told them that. But he was a hell of an innovator, so I wouldn't be surprised. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Well, there ya go! Wasn't there a 'Suppressed technologies' post not too long ago?

And I wonder what mega-industry, pray tell, was responsible for suppressing it in the first place?

If you actually answer that question, I will have to consider it an insult to my intelligence. ;-)

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yeah - Henry made a car using hemp plastic.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

That's almost unbelievable, isn't it? I'm sure a lot of people would say "bullshit" if you told them that. But he was a hell of an innovator, so I wouldn't be surprised.

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 1 year ago

Are you sure this is the forum for you totenkopf? Wouldn't you be more comfortable somewhere like else?

[-] -2 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

Yes. Overpopulation is bad. It is a bad thing; a really, really bad thing. I am waiting for Malthus' theory to be proven with popcorn and a Coke

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Lets see, Russia just said they wanted to their population to produce more children - the United States population is on the decline - in just 30 years of so there will be aroud 78 million baby boomers well over the age of 65.

So I think the problem is going to be "population decline".

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

America's fertility rate is 2.16, so we are still growing. But you are correct, it is declining over time. China's population will decrease in the nearer future, their current fertility rate is 1.6, which means as time goes on they are replacing less people. But the problem claimed by overpopulation theory is that the world is already overpopulated and that the way of life is over consuming and over polluting.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

The population decline in China has some serious drawbacks, such as a declining number of the younger generation having to support a comparatively larger, unproductive older generation.

[-] 0 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

The US population is Not in decline. Where did you get such an absurd idea?

[+] -5 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

Well,if Obama and the Democrats win the House in 2014 they could then introduce a mandatory Abortion bill for just white people at first, followed by,continuing to foster his disastrous economic policies and circumstances that will create a food shortage and exploit that into a nationwide famine (Rahm should come in handy on this one).

When the food riots start and Martial Law is called Obama will be able to put to use all the "personal defense weapons" and billions in ammo that DHS has been hording and don't forget the FEMA camps just sitting there waiting to be used (gas chambers?). That will take down quite a few. Obama will be able to count on his Private Army to commit as many kills as possible being that they are as well funded and supplied as the Military.

Then Drone Master Obama will go surgical and do as many prominent Conservatives and Republicans kills as financially possible,at least before he has to print more money.

And of course you can't forget that if Obama actually tries to confiscate Americans firearms that will result in a lot o blood shed too.

So,those are my thoughts on how at least in America population control could be administered. And we all know Obama has this on his agenda along with Climate Change,disarming America,destroying capitalism and the free market,wiping his ass with the Constitution,creating a complete dependence state and serving as King long after 2016.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

blah blah blah

stinkle

[+] -4 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

Rendered speechless I see.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[-] -3 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

It's called facetiously extrapolating on current events while still understanding that crazy as it may seem anything is possible with this Regime.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

All you ever talk about is becoming a pro hockey player, but there's a problem: you're not any good.

[+] -4 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

I'm sorry, I forgot you were an Obama drone. I should have realized that my words could be hurtful to you. I didn't know you had such thin skin.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Well that was generous - I would have thought his (x)umptions would be treated at the sewage waste treatment plant.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Hedges talks about people like him in American Fascists. They operate on a belief system and are incapable of reason and logic. Instead they have their preachers who tell them what to believe. Not much point in wasting time with them.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28452) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Nope - getting em into a health care program - might be a good idea though.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

He thinks we're all Obama drones. He pretty much said so earlier today.

[-] -3 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

The word "assume" didn't appear anywhere in my post,perhaps you should follow your own advice rather then giving it out.