Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The World is NOT Over Populated !!!!!!!!!

Posted 11 months ago on May 14, 2013, 5:49 p.m. EST by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

  • The area of the state of California is 163,696 sq miles....
  • which is 4,563,582,566,400 sq ft....
  • dividing that by the world population of 7,085,200,000.... is 644 sq ft...

  • You can put everyone in the world into the state of California .... and each person will have 644 sq ft... to stand on....

  • THE WORLD IS NOT OVER POPULATED !!!!!!!!!

53 Comments

53 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 11 months ago

Obviously, the premise here of this post is severely flawed.

Wake Up Critical Thinkers: Is the only problem concerning Over-Population to be considered: Land Area?

How long Brad did you take to make such a short sighted conclusion base solely on land area? 5 minutes, ten minutes?

But apparently you got some takers. Maybe their of the same mind set as you.

Personally, I think a more well thought conclusion might actually mean something, maybe advance the ball a yard or two.

Your conclusion, which is utterly on wrong multiple levels, has little "meat on the bone".

You could have just said, "hey anyone care to discuss over-population"?

At least that would have been honest and not ridiculous immediately on it's face.

Try harder next time. DO some research, Give us something that will advance our understanding. I know it's harder but isn't that the point. Let's accomplish something worthwhile. DO you want real change or are you just pretending?


COME TOGETHER NOW with the evident truth at our backs!!!

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago

Try harder next time. DO some research

hmmm... well Thanks for the condescending reply....

I did do research.... ie...

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

quote:

Area Ranked 3rd in the U.S. - Total 163,696 sq mi (423,970 km2)

it ain't that difficult ... DUMB ASS

[-] 0 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 11 months ago

SO you lose. Your use of language proves it.

You obviously did not make this post to discuss anything.

Here's my GUT response to your GUTTING: "Talk to my hand. It doesn't know how to write. Let alone reason."

By the way, look up the definition: Troll. You may find it useful if you have an open mind which I highly doubt.

Want to prove it again. Just reply here. Others will clearly see your evidence. But you'll get no more replies from me. That's another aspect of the definition you should look into.

Anyway, take a chill pill, and don't be rude if you receive criticism. Last I checked none of us are perfect. But bad behavior is not tolerable no matter how imperfect we are.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 11 months ago

We still need Venus Project's "intelligent management of Earth's resources". $45K for that machine? Very interesting! http://thevenusproject.com/en/technology/latest-technology/viewvideo/6/food-production/omega-garden-hydroponic-system?tmpl=component

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 11 months ago

yes of course, all the land is exactly the same, and people can provide for all their needs in a 644 square foot plot,. your logic is a thing of positive marvel.

Lets consume the rest of the natural world and make more plastic sht in slave labor camps over-seas,. that is working out so well so far.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago

Lets consume the rest of the natural world and make more plastic sht in slave labor camps over-seas,. that is working out so well so far. ....

I assume that's sarcasm ;) ... if so... we ALL agree ... but what does that have to do with the World not being over populated ?

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 11 months ago

As this is what you are arguing in favor of.

Clearly the billions of people here now are ravishing the planet, and depleting resources that where built up of many many millennia. Arguing that there are no limits, and people should just keep growth-for-growths-sake going, is the entire point of saying the planet is not over populated.

Unless and until the people already here can do the work to live in a sustainable balance instead of being a destructive vampire-virus on the life of the planet, then arguing for more of us, is a silly suicidal position. We are vastly over populated in our current consumptive form,. if we where to live in sanity perhaps we could find room for more people but we will never know, since we refuse to see logic and change out patterns.

[-] 1 points by DebtSUSPENSIONRights (181) 11 months ago

Very well stated.

[-] 1 points by DebtSUSPENSIONRights (181) 11 months ago

Now tell us how many acres it takes to feed, cloth, supply water, electricity, communication, plus sewage waste removal for each human.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 11 months ago

Compare that to non corporate dependent society that integrates itself with natural systems.

[-] -1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago

I'm pretty sure... that the entire rest of the world has enough land to feed California ..... hehe ... what do ya think ?

[-] 1 points by DebtSUSPENSIONRights (181) 11 months ago

Now add in all the animals, subtract half of Russia, no?

[-] 1 points by grapes (2626) 11 months ago

I agree if we use averages but the world population is not distributed at the averages at all. The better concept to apply here is the Nazis' 'Lebensraum' or the environmentalists' ecological footprint. We have overpopulation in a place if its population is likely prone to a sudden drop due to the conglomeration of the ecological footprints exceeding the ecological environment's carrying capacity.

The U.S. Southwest is overpopulated due to its fragile dependence on unsustainable water supply even though it offers huge amount of land to its inhabitants. Australia is likewise overpopulated for the same reason. In addition, the distances involved there made the vast consumption of fossil fuels for transportation mandatory.

Emergence of new strains of corona virus and bird flu virus that will be capable of ready and sustained human-to-human transmissions makes a strong case that the world is over populated.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago

I'm sorry grapes.... but I'm not going to agree with or support anything Nazi

[-] 1 points by grapes (2626) 11 months ago

The Nazis corrupted the meaning of 'Lebensraum' by their imperialist ambitions and drives under its banner. In German, 'Lebensraum' simply means 'living space' which could be a forerunner of 'ecological footprint'. Using the terminology of 'Lebensraum' turned the Nazi conquests into a survival issue for the German people. It was propaganda. The concept of 'living space' is quite neutral unless the emotional revulsion of anything Nazi overcomes the original meaning in German.

Some people such as the Kochs will surely rejoice if the environmentalists could be linked up in people's minds with the Nazis.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Historic actions repeated - make a word or term derogatory - say like theory and conspiracy when used together. Or Anarchy - TPTB have hated that one for a very long time now - look at how it is considered to be derogatory/bad - another instance of successful PR/marketing.

[-] 2 points by grapes (2626) 11 months ago

There is this unceasing churning of our terminologies that successful PR/marketing/advertising/propaganda efforts cause. It makes discussions across these terminologies' boundaries very difficult due to the emotional baggage shutting off the thinking mind.

Actually the environmentalists are simply more aware of the connections amongst all things and so are actually more enlightened than the ones who are unaware or refuse to become aware. The environmentalists are 'narcissistic', too, but it is a great thing to love oneself when oneself includes so many things and so many others.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

narcissistic

I think that would be an improper use of the term.

To promote the environment - healthy living - is too love others as well as self.

No - there are no absolutes as it likely there are narcissists in every walk of life.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2626) 11 months ago

Perhaps we should understand 'narcissistic' in its original meaning of 'like a Narcissus flower' which is a beautiful yellow flower living by the water. That is actually a very beautiful description of what human beings can be. We are sustained by fresh water. Wherever you see masses of human beings, you can be sure that there is a large source of fresh water available. The reflection of ourselves is good for our contemplations, too. For all meanings come from the meanings that we generate for ourselves from our contemplations. There is no other meaning.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

In that case.

Better to give voice to the definition/meaning you are wanting to express rather than the word. As has been mentioned.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (25478) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 hour ago

Historic actions repeated - make a word or term derogatory - say like theory and conspiracy when used together. Or Anarchy - TPTB have hated that one for a very long time now - look at how it is considered to be derogatory/bad - another instance of successful PR/marketing.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink

[-] 0 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago

Agricultural Preparedness PCAST Report On December 7, 2012,

  • "Agricultural Preparedness & the United States Agricultural Research Enterprise" in Washington, DC.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_ag_release_20121207.pdf

[-] 0 points by highlander21 (-46) 11 months ago

All those abortions help matters

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 11 months ago

How much area does it take per person to raise livestock and farms, along with creating shelter?

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago

I'm pretty sure... that the entire rest of the world has enough land to feed California ..... hehe ... what do ya think ?

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 11 months ago

Ya I think theres plenty of land. It was more of an honest question, because its been something Ive been trying to figure out. Exactly how much land do I need to be able to farm and raise livestock for a family?

Honestly though, Im pretty sure if Mother Earth had a human voice- she is expressing her frustration in other ways currently- then I have a slight feeling she may think there are WAY WAY WAY too many destructive and consuming humans on the planet :)

[-] 3 points by ChemLady (576) 11 months ago

Depends on where you are, what animals and crops you are going to try to raise, and if you know what your doing. A well balanced group of vegetables and a farmer that knows what he's doing might feed one person on as little as 1000 ft sq., but I've seen that number disputed as being too optimistic. In addition few places have the ideal farming conditions. Add in animals and your land requirements go up.

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago
  • the thought that we as a people do not have enough resources to feed ourselves is nothing but "Fear Tactics"...
  • promoted by greedy corporations and governments who are trying to control the people, profit from it and make excuses for not doing things for the common good....
  • If we can put men on the moon.... we can certainly feed, cloth & shelter everyone on the planet... and by 100 fold... If we simply wanted to...
  • the promotion of fear... is always simply a grab for power & profit....
[-] 1 points by DebtSUSPENSIONRights (181) 11 months ago

Explain India to me.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago

any problems that we as a people worldwide encounter as population increases... are simply due to the unwillingness to share and act responsibly that is inflicted upon us by those in the world who are greedy for money and power....

When we figure out how to control that .... this planet can easily house as many people as we want.... without any harm to the environment, resources or nature...

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 11 months ago

My guess is a family of four needs about three acres.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago

hmmm... tell that to the guy's in the space station ;)

ok... seriously... family of four might need three acres in the 1700's.... but.... don't you think we are a little more advanced now.... hell... we are already printing beef with ink jet printers

[-] -1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago

or....

  • The land surface area of the World is 57,500,000 sq miles ....
  • which is 1,603,008,000,000,000 sq ft....
  • dividing that by the world population of 7,085,200,000.... is 226247.38 sq ft...

  • You can everyone in the world an equal area of land .... and each person will have 226247.38 sq ft... to stand on....

  • THE WORLD IS NOT OVER POPULATED !!!!!!!!!

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 11 months ago

The square footage is a meaningless statistic. What good are the mountain tops, deserts, or the ice caps? If you can't feed yourself on the land it's useless to you. Your 226247.38 sq ft sounds massive, but it's only a little over 5 acres each, nice only if you get land you could actually live on and use.

You have to look the availability of fresh water and agricultural potential. It also makes a difference if you allow a western diet with meat and fish or limit everyone to a vegetarian diet. There are estimates the earth can support 9 to 10 billion people, but no one actually knows.

[-] -1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago

"...but no one actually knows...."

  • I know.... the earth can support 100 billion people ... or more ... if we wanted to simply work together
  • the earth can only support a billion people... if we have to support the greed too...
[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 11 months ago

Upper limits that I've seen are more like 15 or 16 billion. That assumes several unlikely things. Everyone on the planet is limited to a vegetarian diet, no food loss to pests (in some places it's as much as 40%), perfect weather conditions for crops.

We're nearing our limit on food production, unless we end Western diets with meat and fish. We're also close to our limits on available fresh water.

[-] -1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago
  • there are many already existing enclosed green houses... that are producing millions of lbs of food annually ...
  • thru hydroponics and fish pond integrated systems ...
  • there are also many many new vertical green house systems surfacing everyday....
  • they just don't support the corporate agenda of spraying pesticides and patented seed all over the planet
[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 11 months ago

It has nothing to do with pesticides or corporate agendas. There are certainly going to be ways to supplement the food supply but increases of the magnitude you need to feed 100 billion people are never going to be possible. You're talking about increasing total food production by a factor of nine or ten.

Then you get into the question of how much energy is required to produce and maintain an artificial environment for growing crops and the limits placed on us by limited fresh water.

While I don't think we're at our maximum sustainable population yet, we are getting close.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2626) 11 months ago

The Earth cannot support 100 billion people (people as we know them). How many people the total amount of photosynthesis on Earth can provide for will surely limit the world's population to below 100 billion people. There are laws of physics that cannot be breached ever.

We can of course contemplate workarounds such as designing significantly more energy-efficient people for the future. A simple enough workaround is to create and mass-produce smaller people who metabolize slower, or people with significantly reduced brain sizes (because the brain is the most metabolically intensive organ in the human body), etc.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Possible/Impossible - which limits - which does not look - which does not improve?

[-] 1 points by grapes (2626) 11 months ago

Nearly all of our present energy sources derive in one way or another from the sun so the amount of sunlight falling on Earth provides an upper bound on the maximal population number on Earth. That does not improve much unless the sun gets brighter, too. Photosynthesis turns that sunlight into organically available energy for all life. Photosynthesis is a few billions years old evolved process that is likely already nearly optimal so we cannot expect to improve its efficiency much at all. There is definitely an upper bound on the population on Earth if we assume that each human being takes about 60W to maintain life.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

You have placed a limit on your thinking - as such you can not consider alternatives. That there might even be alternatives.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2626) 11 months ago

There might be alternatives in the future so I have not really placed a limit on my thinking. When the alternatives arrive, I can revise my limit then when I think about them.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Give your imagination a boost a lift - watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9noGsz_HVcI

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 11 months ago

Where did you get the idea that the earth could ever support 100 billion people?

[-] -1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago

because I don't live in fear

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 11 months ago

So you have nothing to base your claim on other then your lack of fear? Did you just make up a large enough number to make yourself feel better?

[-] -1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago
  • come on MsStacy .... the only reason that you believe we can't feed the population is because the media tells you so.... no?
  • the truth is that the capitalists are in trouble ... because technology is advancing so rapidly....
  • and their inherited monopolies are losing their edge... because their industries are being replaced with new...
  • further...even if... we don't get our act together and work together to feed everyone....
  • technology will do it for us in the next 50 yrs...
[-] 0 points by MsStacy (1035) 11 months ago

It isn't about what I believe. You stated that you believe the earth could support 100 billion people. Is it a number you picked out of the air because it sounds good to you? Is it 100 billion because you believe in a conspiracy of some sort? What facts if any support your 100 billion figure?

[-] 0 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago
  • ok... how bout the fact ...
  • that if you divide the surface land of the Earth by 100 billion people and give everyone equal share
  • they will still have 16030 sq ft each ....

  • and that is not counting another fact....

  • that in today's modern world we can build things like sky scrapers ....
  • and in tomorrow's near future modern world we will grow food in Petri dish's...

  • and much more....

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 11 months ago

It has nothing to do with the amount of space per person. You can always pack people together like they do in Hong Kong or New York. You have limited farmland and limited fresh water to consider. Deserts, mountains, and glaciers make up most of the land surface area.

Your petri dish solution to the food problem is nothing more then wishful thinking. It comes close to sounding like you believe corporate agriculture and GMOs will somehow provide the ten fold increase in food needed.

[-] 0 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago

hmmm.... I might believe corporate agriculture can help.... some types of GMO's might help ... but actually ZERO of those... that are based on the spread of pesticides.....

it ain't that difficult...

maybe see...

"Agricultural Preparedness & the United States Agricultural Research Enterprise" in Washington, DC. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_ag_release_20121207.pdf

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 11 months ago

We know with the behaviors we exhibit, that about 1/5 of the existing will work for awhile.

Clearly, humanity needs to be able to control its behavior. The first step is understanding what drives the problem behaviors. Unfortunately, psychology is infiltrated, no one can understand this, so we are going extinct.