Is the human race in serious trouble?

[GW in Ohio]

All of our environmental problems have their origin in overpopulation. There are just too many people for the earth to sustain. All of our problems, from pollution to global warming, have their roots in overpopulation.

But unless all the nations of the world come together and agree to impose draconian limits on reproduction, we will continue to produce more humans than the earth can sustain.

What will happen is there will be nasty wars for the earth's scarce resources. Many people will die nasty deaths in the future before we finally come to terms with this overpopulation thing. And before those people mercifully die, they will experience nasty, brutish living conditions brought on by excessive heat and scarce food and water.

And institutions like the Catholic Church have made themselves the enemy of mankind because on their intransigence on reproductive rights.

Sinead O'Connor had it right.....Fight the real enemy....the Pope.

[stephanie]

WE ARE........DOOMED.

[-Cp]

All of our environmental problems have their origin in overpopulation. There are just too many people for the earth to sustain. All of our problems, from pollution to global warming, have their roots in overpopulation.

But unless all the nations of the world come together and agree to impose draconian limits on reproduction, we will continue to produce more humans than the earth can sustain.

What will happen is there will be nasty wars for the earth's scarce resources. Many people will die nasty deaths in the future before we finally come to terms with this overpopulation thing. And before those people mercifully die, they will experience nasty, brutish living conditions brought on by excessive heat and scarce food and water.

And institutions like the Catholic Church have made themselves the enemy of mankind because on their intransigence on reproductive rights.

Sinead O'Connor had it right.....Fight the real enemy....the Pope.

You should take a lesson from George Carlin:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ljNDbKpusT0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ljNDbKpusT0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[mundame]

All of our environmental problems have their origin in overpopulation. There are just too many people for the earth to sustain. All of our problems, from pollution to global warming, have their roots in overpopulation.

But unless all the nations of the world come together and agree to impose draconian limits on reproduction, we will continue to produce more humans than the earth can sustain.



Sure. Well said, GW.

There are far, far too many people: does anyone suppose anyone would have any worries about human-caused climate change (assuming that is happening, which I don't) if we weren't crowding up the Earth so badly?

With all the AIDS infecting Africa, their main problem is STILL overpopulation: Ethiopia has been on the edge of starvation as long as any of us can remember, and it just tipped over again. Why? Way too many people! The land can't support them: relocation is the only answer, one aid worker said. Simply transporting the people out -------- but to where? Here? I'd rather not.

Migration of wildly overpopulating poor people to less-populated, better managed areas like Europe and the U.S. are the big story of this century. It'll end by these overpopulating peoples taking over, and not to the advantage of humanity generally, since these groups tend to be Muslim and primitive and have nothing ressembling Western values.

[avatar4321]

We aren't suffering from overpopulation. We are suffering from overregulation that keeps us from using our resources as efficiently as we can.

I cringe every time we hear about "overpopulation". Because that line of thinking leads to genocide.

[-Cp]

Sure. Well said, GW.

There are far, far too many people: does anyone suppose anyone would have any worries about human-caused climate change (assuming that is happening, which I don't) if we weren't crowding up the Earth so badly?

With all the AIDS infecting Africa, their main problem is STILL overpopulation: Ethiopia has been on the edge of starvation as long as any of us can remember, and it just tipped over again. Why? Way too many people! The land can't support them: relocation is the only answer, one aid worker said. Simply transporting the people out -------- but to where? Here? I'd rather not.

Migration of wildly overpopulating poor people to less-populated, better managed areas like Europe and the U.S. are the big story of this century. It'll end by these overpopulating peoples taking over, and not to the advantage of humanity generally, since these groups tend to be Muslim and primitive and have nothing ressembling Western values.

Do you have any sources which provide evidence that the land in the world cannot support the humans which occupy it?

Also, did you know you can fit everyone in the world who's alive today inside the state of Texas and give them each their own home?

The math:
27,878,400 square feet in a square mile

268,581 square miles in texas

thats 7,487,608,550,400 (7.487 _trillon_) square feet in texas

Divided by 6 billion people leaves us _only_ 1247.9 square feet per person... thats almost twice the size of my apartment.. of course, some people would be living on lakes and rivers and such, but nevertheless. another simple computation that shows just how big this world is -- and how small "we" are..

[-Cp]

I also want to add:

Fact: World population growth is rapidly declining. United Nations figures show that the 79 countries that comprise 40 percent of the world's population now have fertility rates too low to prevent population decline. The rate in Asia fell from 2.4 in 1965-70 to 1.5 in 1990-95. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the rate fell from 2.75 in 1960-65 to 1.70 in 1990-95. In Europe, the rate fell to 0.16 — that is, effectively zero — in 1990-95. And the annual rate of change in world population fell from 2 percent in 1965-70 to less than 1.5 percent in 1990-95.

Worldwide, the number of children the typical woman had during her lifetime (total fertility) fell from 5 in 1950-55 to less than 3 in 1990-95. (The number necessary just to "replace" the current generation is 2.1.) In the more developed regions, total fertility fell from 2.77 to 1.68 over the same period. In the less developed regions it fell from more than 6 to 3.3. Total fertility in Mexico was 3.1 in 1990-95. In Spain it stood at 1.3, and in Italy, it was 1.2.

Official forecasts of eventual world population size have been steadily falling. In 1992-93, the World Bank predicted world population would exceed 10 billion by the year 2050. In 1996, the U.N. predicted 9 billion for 2050. If the trend continues, the next estimate will be lower still.

[namvet]

and who was that loser that came up with global warming?????? mine was cold as a well diggers ass last winter.................:laugh2:

[glockmail]

All of our environmental problems have their origin in overpopulation. There are just too many people for the earth to sustain. All of our problems, from pollution to global warming, have their roots in overpopulation.

But unless all the nations of the world come together and agree to impose draconian limits on reproduction, we will continue to produce more humans than the earth can sustain.

What will happen is there will be nasty wars for the earth's scarce resources. Many people will die nasty deaths in the future before we finally come to terms with this overpopulation thing. And before those people mercifully die, they will experience nasty, brutish living conditions brought on by excessive heat and scarce food and water.

And institutions like the Catholic Church have made themselves the enemy of mankind because on their intransigence on reproductive rights.

Sinead O'Connor had it right.....Fight the real enemy....the Pope. Why not start by collecting all your liberal friends and walking into the ocean like a bunch of Lemmings? When you meet up with Lucifer, tell him I said "Fuck you, bitch". :lol:

[mundame]

I cringe every time we hear about "overpopulation". Because that line of thinking leads to genocide.


Not at all! Genocide is a wholly different issue, and is of course the ultimate goal of war, getting entirely rid of an enemy and taking their resources.

Overpopulation is about the Reverend Malthus' ideas. It's a natural phenomenon, happens to every species. When any species reaches the limit of its food, one of two things happen:

1) starvation keeps births just exactly balanced with resources

2) something besides starvation lowers population: disease, war, etc.


A species can luck out and get into a new territory or take someone else's territory by killing them or them dying out (American Indians come to mind). Or in the case of humans, have scientific discoveries, like the genetics of food crops.

But at SOME point........there are inevitable limits. There just are.

And locally there are limits before the whole world feels them, as in currently starving Ethiopia, or in Darfur where refugees from Chad are trying to take over the land but are constantly getting burned out by the Janjaweed. If people are trapped in an area, they come up against the resource limits sooner; that's why all the migration.

We can't reproduce geometrically and live on air, you know.

[GW in Ohio]

I also want to add:

Fact: World population growth is rapidly declining. United Nations figures show that the 79 countries that comprise 40 percent of the world's population now have fertility rates too low to prevent population decline. The rate in Asia fell from 2.4 in 1965-70 to 1.5 in 1990-95. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the rate fell from 2.75 in 1960-65 to 1.70 in 1990-95. In Europe, the rate fell to 0.16 — that is, effectively zero — in 1990-95. And the annual rate of change in world population fell from 2 percent in 1965-70 to less than 1.5 percent in 1990-95.

Worldwide, the number of children the typical woman had during her lifetime (total fertility) fell from 5 in 1950-55 to less than 3 in 1990-95. (The number necessary just to "replace" the current generation is 2.1.) In the more developed regions, total fertility fell from 2.77 to 1.68 over the same period. In the less developed regions it fell from more than 6 to 3.3. Total fertility in Mexico was 3.1 in 1990-95. In Spain it stood at 1.3, and in Italy, it was 1.2.

Official forecasts of eventual world population size have been steadily falling. In 1992-93, the World Bank predicted world population would exceed 10 billion by the year 2050. In 1996, the U.N. predicted 9 billion for 2050. If the trend continues, the next estimate will be lower still.

Yes, you're right. World population growth is declining.

But....

The true reasons why our population is crashing is we have passed our sustainable limits for both of our major food energy sources, grains and fish, as well as very quickly reaching our fresh water limits.

This is bad because we have yet to recognize the alarming facts that for the last 16 years we have passed the sustainable food limits that Earth can produce relative to population. This plus our population is going down faster and faster each year for 13 straight years. Meanwhile 3.6 billion people are barely getting enough to eat with more than 1 billion of them in total abject poverty. And let us not forget that somewhere between 10 and 30 million children die every year of the worst possible death, starvation and starvation related diseases.

The rise in Grain Yield per hectare is slowing in all major grain-producing regions. Since 1984, grain output per person has fallen on average by .6 percent per year. Global warming will accelerate the decline in arable farmland and lead to widespread famines.

Hungry people wage war, because they have nothing to lose.

[actsnoblemartin]

I know tigers are, GOD DAM HUMANS :death:

in 1900 their were 100,000 tigers, today there are 3,000


All of our environmental problems have their origin in overpopulation. There are just too many people for the earth to sustain. All of our problems, from pollution to global warming, have their roots in overpopulation.

But unless all the nations of the world come together and agree to impose draconian limits on reproduction, we will continue to produce more humans than the earth can sustain.

What will happen is there will be nasty wars for the earth's scarce resources. Many people will die nasty deaths in the future before we finally come to terms with this overpopulation thing. And before those people mercifully die, they will experience nasty, brutish living conditions brought on by excessive heat and scarce food and water.

And institutions like the Catholic Church have made themselves the enemy of mankind because on their intransigence on reproductive rights.

Sinead O'Connor had it right.....Fight the real enemy....the Pope.

[GW in Ohio]

WE ARE........DOOMED.

You'll notice I did not say, "we are doomed."

What I said was that we've already passed the tipping points for sustainable human population. We cannot feed millions of the people who are alive today. And our overcrowded human population has been causing serious pollution and global warming problems which will further erode the arable land and water and increase the problems of starvation and disease.

And if any of you are planning to do a knee-jerk Rush Limbaugh talking point and deny global warming and therefore deny that any problems with overpopulation and pollution exist, I'll tell you in advance that even if we remove global warming from the equation, we still have to deal with the problems caused by pollution and overpopulation.

And whoever the idiot is who said we don't have an overpopulation problem, we have an underpopulation problem, why don't you go and tell that to the millions of people who can't get enough to eat today? I'm sure they'll give you a warm reception (as they roast you).

[actsnoblemartin]

Please comment on my post, I was being serious. :poke:


You'll notice I did not say, "we are doomed."

What I said was that we've already passed the tipping points for sustainable human population. We cannot feed millions of the people who are alive today. And our overcrowded human population has been causing serious pollution and global warming problems which will further erode the arable land and water and increase the problems of starvation and disease.

And if any of you are planning to do a knee-jerk Rush Limbaugh talking point and deny global warming and therefore deny that any problems with overpopulation and pollution exist, I'll tell you in advance that even if we remove global warming from the equation, we still have to deal with the problems caused by pollution and overpopulation.

And whoever the idiot is who said we don't have an overpopulation problem, we have an underpopulation problem, why don't you go and tell that to the millions of people who can't get enough to eat today? I'm sure they'll give you a warm reception (as they roast you).

[midcan5]

I agree with the post but I think if we are smart and get away from wasting resources, population itself is not the problem but jobs may be in a world of better use of resources. Work less maybe? Consider the amount of plastic junk coming from China to a walmart near you. (full disclosure I do not shop in walmart) The plastic uses oil and resources and so much of it ends back in landfills as American do not recycle enough of it. Or our roads and cars, the interstate was a great idea but the way it was built created the mess we now find ourselves in. Europe has done so much better in these areas due to space and I think a subdued capitalism that respects the local crops and workers. But still I love our small towns and I love those road trips especially when the boys were young. If the bees go and the salmon die we will all be a lesser people, for those reasons we need to take care of land. And not drill the F out of it because we are too stupid to know we are doing the wrong thing.




A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2008/03/australian-labo.html

[actsnoblemartin]

I hate walmart, but how do we stop them


I agree with the post but I think if we are smart and get away from wasting resources, population itself is not the problem but jobs may be in a world of better use of resources. Work less maybe? Consider the amount of plastic junk coming from China to a walmart near you. (full disclosure I do not shop in walmart) The plastic uses oil and resources and so much of it ends back in landfills as American do not recycle enough of it. Or our roads and cars, the interstate was a great idea but the way it was built created the mess we now find ourselves in. Europe has done so much better in these areas due to space and I think a subdued capitalism that respects the local crops and workers. But still I love our small towns and I love those road trips especially when the boys were young. If the bees go and the salmon die we will all be a lesser people, for those reasons we need to take care of land. And not drill the F out of it because we are too stupid to know we are doing the wrong thing.




A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2008/03/australian-labo.html

[actsnoblemartin]

what about THE FUCKING TIGERS, sheesh :poke:

do they not even get a mention in this thread? :dance:

FUCK humans, 6 billion of those fuckers :slap:, 3,000 tigers and rapidly depleting.

I say save the tigers FIRST, save humans FOURTH


I agree with the post but I think if we are smart and get away from wasting resources, population itself is not the problem but jobs may be in a world of better use of resources. Work less maybe? Consider the amount of plastic junk coming from China to a walmart near you. (full disclosure I do not shop in walmart) The plastic uses oil and resources and so much of it ends back in landfills as American do not recycle enough of it. Or our roads and cars, the interstate was a great idea but the way it was built created the mess we now find ourselves in. Europe has done so much better in these areas due to space and I think a subdued capitalism that respects the local crops and workers. But still I love our small towns and I love those road trips especially when the boys were young. If the bees go and the salmon die we will all be a lesser people, for those reasons we need to take care of land. And not drill the F out of it because we are too stupid to know we are doing the wrong thing.




A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2008/03/australian-labo.html

[avatar4321]

Yes, you're right. World population growth is declining.

But....

The true reasons why our population is crashing is we have passed our sustainable limits for both of our major food energy sources, grains and fish, as well as very quickly reaching our fresh water limits.

This is bad because we have yet to recognize the alarming facts that for the last 16 years we have passed the sustainable food limits that Earth can produce relative to population. This plus our population is going down faster and faster each year for 13 straight years. Meanwhile 3.6 billion people are barely getting enough to eat with more than 1 billion of them in total abject poverty. And let us not forget that somewhere between 10 and 30 million children die every year of the worst possible death, starvation and starvation related diseases.

The rise in Grain Yield per hectare is slowing in all major grain-producing regions. Since 1984, grain output per person has fallen on average by .6 percent per year. Global warming will accelerate the decline in arable farmland and lead to widespread famines.

Hungry people wage war, because they have nothing to lose.

Such a pessimistic viewpoint. Perhaps you should have pointed these facts out to the left before they came up with the brilliant idea that we need to turn food into fuel.

[avatar4321]

You'll notice I did not say, "we are doomed."

What I said was that we've already passed the tipping points for sustainable human population. We cannot feed millions of the people who are alive today. And our overcrowded human population has been causing serious pollution and global warming problems which will further erode the arable land and water and increase the problems of starvation and disease.

And if any of you are planning to do a knee-jerk Rush Limbaugh talking point and deny global warming and therefore deny that any problems with overpopulation and pollution exist, I'll tell you in advance that even if we remove global warming from the equation, we still have to deal with the problems caused by pollution and overpopulation.

And whoever the idiot is who said we don't have an overpopulation problem, we have an underpopulation problem, why don't you go and tell that to the millions of people who can't get enough to eat today? I'm sure they'll give you a warm reception (as they roast you).

Why dont you tell them that as you turn their food into energy to sustain your bullcrap global warming policies against oil?

[actsnoblemartin]

I never said i believe in global warming, but i wanna save the tigers :cheers2:


Why dont you tell them that as you turn their food into energy to sustain your bullcrap global warming policies against oil.

[Trigg]

And locally there are limits before the whole world feels them, as in currently starving Ethiopia, or in Darfur where refugees from Chad are trying to take over the land but are constantly getting burned out by the Janjaweed. If people are trapped in an area, they come up against the resource limits sooner; that's why all the migration.

We can't reproduce geometrically and live on air, you know.

Africa isn't over populated. The people there starve and die from diseases because their governments are corrupt. The reason population growth in Africa is bad right now is because their leaders haven't built the infrastructure to take care of them.

[mundame]

Do you have any sources which provide evidence that the land in the world cannot support the humans which occupy it?

Sure, starvation. Google Ethiopia.



Also, did you know you can fit everyone in the world who's alive today inside the state of Texas and give them each their own home?

The math:
27,878,400 square feet in a square mile

268,581 square miles in texas

thats 7,487,608,550,400 (7.487 _trillon_) square feet in texas

Divided by 6 billion people leaves us _only_ 1247.9 square feet per person... thats almost twice the size of my apartment.. of course, some people would be living on lakes and rivers and such, but nevertheless. another simple computation that shows just how big this world is -- and how small "we" are..

If Texas were actually habitable, it would already be filled up! It isn't, so it isn't. Have you ever actually BEEN to Texas? Migod, it takes 14 acres of it to support one cow; an apartment-size chunk of Texas or Rio Grande river or rocks isn't going to feed anyone.

[mundame]

I know tigers are, GOD DAM HUMANS :death:

in 1900 their were 100,000 tigers, today there are 3,000


Sure, we kill out all the other species as we take THEIR territory. They are easier to force out than other people, but we do war, too.

We're going to lose most large species; we already have lost many, or they exist only in zoos.

Where are the quagga?

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont give a fuck about the people, what about the TIGERS :drillsarge:

[actsnoblemartin]

THANK YOU.


Sure, we kill out all the other species as we take THEIR territory.

EXACTLY!, they we hear first. And we, a bunch of arrogant pricks, steal THEIR land, and kill them. It pisses me off :death:

They are easier to force out than other people, but we do war, too.

We are evil, pure evil for that

We're going to lose most large species; we already have lost many, or they exist only in zoos.

We better stop killing off tigers, and yes :poke: other species of animals too.

Where are the quagga?

mundame, what is a quagga?

[Trigg]

Sure, starvation. Google Ethiopia.


Agriculture in Ethiopia is the foundation of the country's economy, accounting for half of gross domestic product (GDP), 60% of exports, and 80% of total employment.

Ethiopia's agriculture is plagued by periodic drought, soil degradation caused by overgrazing, deforestation, high population density[citation needed], high levels of taxation and poor infrastructure (making it difficult and expensive to get goods to market). Yet agriculture is the country's most promising resource. A potential exists for self-sufficiency in grains and for export development in livestock, grains, vegetables, and fruits. As many as 4.6 million people need food assistance annually.

Agriculture accounts for almost 41 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), 80 percent of exports, and 80 percent of the labour force. Many other economic activities depend on agriculture, including marketing, processing, and export of agricultural products. Production is overwhelmingly of a subsistence nature, and a large part of commodity exports are provided by the small agricultural cash-crop sector. Principal crops include coffee, pulses (e.g., beans), oilseeds, cereals, potatoes, sugarcane, and vegetables. Exports are almost entirely agricultural commodities, and coffee is the largest foreign exchange earner. Ethiopia is Africa's second biggest maize producer.[

According to this article there is a problem in Ethiopia with people needing food. But, at the same time Ethiopia is Africas second biggest maize producer and agricultural exports amount to 41% of the GDP.

Once again if the gov. actually cared about it's people it would feed them first and export the leftover.

[MtnBiker]

All of our environmental problems have their origin in overpopulation. There are just too many people for the earth to sustain. All of our problems, from pollution to global warming, have their roots in overpopulation.

But unless all the nations of the world come together and agree to impose draconian limits on reproduction, we will continue to produce more humans than the earth can sustain.

If there is to be an agreement on how many humans there should be occupying the earth exactly how would that number be realised? How many humans can occupy the earth and how do you know it? Would such an agreement keep current demographics of humans at a constant level or would there be ethnic cleansing so other ethnic groups could prosper?

How would population allocations be agreed upon? By what methods would population be limited? Forced contraceptives, forced abortions how do you keep people from procreating?

What would be the reprocussion of nations that do not conform to the agreement? Could the UN go into a country and put people to death until the correct number of allocated population is reached?

What would be the reprocussion to couples that have more childern than are allowed? Again, forced abortion?

Should we reverse smoking bans to dimish life expectancy?
Should New York city reverse trans fat ban to help dimish life expectancy?
Should we take universal health care off the table in the hope that life expectancy is lowered?

[actsnoblemartin]

Government is the problem.

I think people, must be held accountable for their actions.

But how is the question?


According to this article there is a problem in Ethiopia with people needing food. But, at the same time Ethiopia is Africas second biggest maize producer and agricultural exports amount to 41% of the GDP.

Once again if the gov. actually cared about it's people it would feed them first and export the leftover.

[mundame]

THANK YOU.

mundame, what is a quagga?


http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/Quagga_photo.jpg

The public domain images shown are an old photograph and a print of the known (extinct) quagga from Africa. This specimen was at London's Regent Park Zoo over a hundred years ago.
************************************************** ***

When I was a small child I had a set of wooden blocks, old ones, that had "Q is for Quagga." When I got a little older I looked it up in the Brittanica, because I hadn't heard of it, and was quite shocked to find that there were no more, they were now extinct.

I never forgot that.

[mundame]

Once again if the gov. actually cared about it's people it would feed them first and export the leftover.



Ah, but..................what will the people do who depend on those exports? The people who live in uninhabitable Texas on an apartment-size bit of land where nothing grows?

The Wall Street Journal today says that the No. 2 and 3 top rice producer countries (Thailand and India) have stopped all rice exports. China has just stopped all fertilizer exports.

World soybeans and corn prices have doubled inside one year. For people who spend 75% of their few dollars of income a year on food............you do the arithmetic. Could be a problem for getting enough to eat.

Soon.

[Trigg]

Ah, but..................what will the people do who depend on those exports? The people who live in uninhabitable Texas on an apartment-size bit of land where nothing grows?

The Wall Street Journal today says that the No. 2 and 3 top rice producer countries (Thailand and India) have stopped all rice exports. China has just stopped all fertilizer exports.

World soybeans and corn prices have doubled inside one year. For people who spend 75% of their few dollars of income a year on food............you do the arithmetic. Could be a problem for getting enough to eat.

Soon.


Well for one our gov. could stop PAYING farmers to NOT farm.

Texas is not uninhabitable by the way just ask the people who live there. I have plenty of family there and they like it just fine.

If India and China have stopped their exports in order to feed their people than good for them. Maybe African countries could care a bit more for their populations also.

Did you know that during the potatoe famine when Millions of Irish either left or starved to death, their gov. was EXPORTING FOOD??? Another example of the gov. not giving a shit about their people.

[mundame]

If there is to be an agreement on how many humans there should be occupying the earth exactly how would that number be realised? How many humans can occupy the earth and how do you know it?

The fewer the better, right? The human population graph looks like a hockey stick. We had only a few million till quite recently; now it's a few BILLION, a thousand times that, suddenly. Of course other species are being pushed off the Earth.

I never understand why people want population to be stable. Surely smaller is better --- leave the natural beauty of the Earth for everyone to enjoy. A few million again would be plenty.



Would such an agreement keep current demographics of humans at a constant level or would there be ethnic cleansing so other ethnic groups could prosper?

There is always ethnic cleansing and genocide.............I'm sorry, did you think there was something new about that? Think Mongols, Turks and Armenians, Rwanda, Uganda, Spanish bringing smallpox to the New World, the Black Death corpses thrown over the wall into Kaffa, which killed 1/4 to 1/2 of Europe, the most effective biowarfare ever waged, in ....1347.


How would population allocations be agreed upon? By what methods would population be limited? Forced contraceptives, forced abortions how do you keep people from procreating?

It can only be national, right? You have to have a power base or it doesn't work. That's how the Chinese did it.


What would be the reprocussion of nations that do not conform to the agreement? Could the UN go into a country and put people to death until the correct number of allocated population is reached? What would be the reprocussion to couples that have more childern than are allowed? Again, forced abortion?

Not unless they have the power, which of course they don't.



Should we reverse smoking bans to dimish life expectancy?
Should New York city reverse trans fat ban to help dimish life expectancy?
Should we take universal health care off the table in the hope that life expectancy is lowered?

Wow, that's creative. But you make me think --- I've realized for a long time that the Chinese population planners KNEW they would have a cultural multiplier: their people prefer males, who of course do not reproduce. Only females reproduce. (Population statistics do not consider males at all, ever. No point. It can be assumed that however few males there are, they'll get the job done. Women are all that matter, because only women have babies.) So they could factor in a lot bigger decline because people would.....................arrange not to have girls. As has happened. And the excess males can be used for soldiers, another advantage. Oh, those clever Chinese.

Also: was it really THAT good an idea to rain vaccines and extra food and DDT and all sorts of health stuff onto Africa, none of it anything they could do for themselves? What resulted?

A population explosion, of course, which they cannot feed.

Better to let people work out for themselves how to do, or not. "Helping" them isn't necessarily kind if it just sets them up for a bigger disaster later.

[Trigg]

World soybeans and corn prices have doubled inside one year. For people who spend 75% of their few dollars of income a year on food............you do the arithmetic. Could be a problem for getting enough to eat.

Soon.

Write Al Gore and say thank you.

Some 16 per cent of the 2006 US grain harvest was used to produce ethanol. With 80 or so ethanol distilleries now under construction, enough to more than double existing ethanol production capacity, nearly a third of the 2008 grain harvest will be going to ethanol.


Since the United States is the leading exporter of grain, shipping more than Canada, Australia, and Argentina combined, what happens to the US grain crop affects the entire world. With the massive diversion of grain to produce fuel for cars, exports will drop. The world's breadbasket is fast becoming the US fuel tank.

[mundame]

Write Al Gore and say thank you.

Some 16 per cent of the 2006 US grain harvest was used to produce ethanol. With 80 or so ethanol distilleries now under construction, enough to more than double existing ethanol production capacity, nearly a third of the 2008 grain harvest will be going to ethanol.


Since the United States is the leading exporter of grain, shipping more than Canada, Australia, and Argentina combined, what happens to the US grain crop affects the entire world. With the massive diversion of grain to produce fuel for cars, exports will drop. The world's breadbasket is fast becoming the US fuel tank.


Yes, it is rapidly becoming apparent to all that the ethanol requirements have to be lifted. Or at LEAST the tariffs that keep Brazilian ethanol out of our country have to go (Brazil apparently drives entirely on ethanol, they have so much sugar.)

I agree, Trigg, it has to stop.

But to be fair, that was a leftist, GREEN idea, to use ethanol for cars!! A green solution to the oil problem. Darn, we can't win for losing.

Unintended consequences, they'll get you every time.

[Trigg]

Yes, it is rapidly becoming apparent to all that the ethanol requirements have to be lifted. Or at LEAST the tariffs that keep Brazilian ethanol out of our country have to go (Brazil apparently drives entirely on ethanol, they have so much sugar.)

I agree, Trigg, it has to stop.

But to be fair, that was a leftist, GREEN idea, to use ethanol for cars!! A green solution to the oil problem. Darn, we can't win for losing.

Unintended consequences, they'll get you every time.

I knew we'd agree on something if we posted long enough :cheers2:

[mundame]

I knew we'd agree on something if we posted long enough :cheers2:

I like your posts. http://macg.net/emoticons/peace.gif

[MtnBiker]

The fewer the better, right? The human population graph looks like a hockey stick. We had only a few million till quite recently; now it's a few BILLION, a thousand times that, suddenly. Of course other species are being pushed off the Earth.

So what is the number and how is that number established? How do all of the nations of the world agree upon that number?


I never understand why people want population to be stable. Surely smaller is better --- leave the natural beauty of the Earth for everyone to enjoy. A few million again would be plenty. Plenty for who?





There is always ethnic cleansing and genocide.............I'm sorry, did you think there was something new about that? Think Mongols, Turks and Armenians, Rwanda, Uganda, Spanish bringing smallpox to the New World, the Black Death corpses thrown over the wall into Kaffa, which killed 1/4 to 1/2 of Europe, the most effective biowarfare ever waged, in ....1347.


Should there be an international treaty allowing genocide?



It can only be national, right? You have to have a power base or it doesn't work. That's how the Chinese did it.

All nations should model human rights from the Chinese?



Not unless they have the power, which of course they don't.

Such power would need to be granted through any international treaty (agreement) for population control, otherwise what would be the point of an agreement?

[mundame]

So what is the number and how is that number established? How do all of the nations of the world agree upon that number?

Do the nations of the world agree on anything? Ever?



Plenty for who?

Plenty for me!

http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/surp/surp96/laughlin/stat/3D_tutor/world_pop.gif


The world population has grown significantly in the 20th century (http://www.debatepolicy.com/www.sv.vt.edu/.../stat/3D_tutor/world_pop.htm) and is projected to grow exponentially in the 21st century mostly in the developing regions. This growth rate can be understood with a simple two-dimensional (2D) graph that shows the population growth as a funtion of time. The dashed line is a prediction based on available data that assumes finite resources.
**************************************************


Should there be an international treaty allowing genocide?

Oh, I think there already is, implicitly: it's called "nuclear weapons."



All nations should model human rights from the Chinese?

Ummmm........what? Well, I guess we could model human rights from the Romanians: Ceaucescu required women to have more and more children, everybody was supposed to be pregnant to increase population, but the resentful women ditched the unwanted babies at night on the doorsteps of huge state orphanages. They mostly died, or were mentally damaged and adopted out to unsuspecting Americans.

I don't believe you didn't get my point, which is that a people can only do what their government has the power to do, and right now that seems to involve nationstates. China is the only power known to have instituted required birth control. There it is.


Such power would need to be granted through any international treaty (agreement) for population control, otherwise what would be the point of an agreement?

Can't do that, there is no international law that is enforceable, not about anything anyone cares about. People can't do what they can't do, you know, and stopping people from having babies is definitely one of the hard tasks, as a hundred billion fathers of teenage daughters have found out.

[MtnBiker]

Can't do that, there is no international law that is enforceable, not about anything anyone cares about. People can't do what they can't do, you know, and stopping people from having babies is definitely one of the hard tasks, as a hundred billion fathers of teenage daughters have found out.


Agreed, the very idea that all of the nations would come together in agreement to limit their populations is absurd, it is a liberal pipe dream. And even if there were some sort of agreement there would be no enforcement of such an agreement international, but only mabye by western societies with a free press.

[Sitarro]

And institutions like the Catholic Church have made themselves the enemy of mankind because on their intransigence on reproductive rights.

Sinead O'Connor had it right.....Fight the real enemy....the Pope.

So China and India are listening to the Pope? You and Gabby should get together and try to have a meaningful discussion, that ought to waste all of your time so you won't waste ours on this board.

[Yurt]

http://jeffreykishner.com/images/full_moon_large.jpg

[glockmail]

I read an article in The American Spectator about two years ago that presented an excellent argument that the world population is in for a precipiced decline, citing birth rates in Europe and trends as populations turn from agrarian economies to industrialized ones. It is obvious that European and their descendent populations will be declining.

What the article did not address, however, is the desire of Islam to take over Europe, and for Mexico to take over the US. Birth rates among those populations will continue to be high, enabling them to eventually simply vote their way to a takeover. Look for Sharia Law in Europe within 2 generations and no habla Englesa in the US within three.

[mundame]

What the article did not address, however, is the desire of Islam to take over Europe, and for Mexico to take over the US. Birth rates among those populations will continue to be high, enabling them to eventually simply vote their way to a takeover. Look for Sharia Law in Europe within 2 generations and no habla Englesa in the US within three.


Sure. And with all this, a major intelligence decline. Those populations are substantially less intelligent that the European and American dominant populations.

Proof?

LOOK at their countries and what they have (not) accomplished!!!!!

Now look at Europe and America -- the relative order and wealth and accomplishment generally.

[mundame]

I wonder how we fell into this strange idea that we should assume every population is somehow..............equal....................


Even if some populations are eating each other and forcing women to wear burkas and building an economy primarily on goats and eating chimpanzees they kill with sticks.

[Little-Acorn]

All of our problems, from pollution to global warming, have their roots in overpopulation.


It's always entertaining to see some kook leftist start an "argument" with a flat lie like this. Pretty much lets you know how nutty and dreamlike the rest of the discussion will be.

Some commentators say we shouldn't get rid of all liberals, but should keep a few around after the country comes back to its senses and quits listening to them. Their reason is, to remind us of just how kooky these people can get.

But I say we should do it for another reason: Because when you have some spare time, they are an absolute ball to watch. You never know what silly thing they will say or do next. Their entertainment value is top-notch. For that reason alone, it's worthwhile to keep a few of them around.

[Hagbard Celine]

We aren't suffering from overpopulation. We are suffering from overregulation that keeps us from using our resources as efficiently as we can.

I cringe every time we hear about "overpopulation". Because that line of thinking leads to genocide.

This is just plain dumb. If we were completely free to resources as we wished, all resources would be used up faster than they are currently. On top of that, what you're calling for (i.e. "efficiency") is in essence REGULATION. As always, your lame political philosophy isn't even congruent with what you're actually calling for. :laugh: No wonder conservatism is dead.

[avatar4321]

This is just plain dumb. If we were completely free to resources as we wished, all resources would be used up faster than they are currently. On top of that, what you're calling for (i.e. "efficiency") is in essence REGULATION. As always, your lame political philosophy isn't even congruent with what you're actually calling for. :laugh: No wonder conservatism is dead.

Efficiency is created through the market meeting it's needs. Not through government. The fact that you don't understand markets is not my problem.

[Yurt]

This is just plain dumb. If we were completely free to resources as we wished, all resources would be used up faster than they are currently. On top of that, what you're calling for (i.e. "efficiency") is in essence REGULATION. As always, your lame political philosophy isn't even congruent with what you're actually calling for. :laugh: No wonder conservatism is dead.


Efficiency is created through the market meeting it's needs. Not through government. The fact that you don't understand markets is not my problem.

what about sea otters? fishing? trees?

[theHawk]

All of our environmental problems have their origin in overpopulation. There are just too many people for the earth to sustain. All of our problems, from pollution to global warming, have their roots in overpopulation.

But unless all the nations of the world come together and agree to impose draconian limits on reproduction, we will continue to produce more humans than the earth can sustain.

What will happen is there will be nasty wars for the earth's scarce resources. Many people will die nasty deaths in the future before we finally come to terms with this overpopulation thing. And before those people mercifully die, they will experience nasty, brutish living conditions brought on by excessive heat and scarce food and water.

And institutions like the Catholic Church have made themselves the enemy of mankind because on their intransigence on reproductive rights.

Sinead O'Connor had it right.....Fight the real enemy....the Pope.


If your so upset about the existance of humans, why don't you do the world a favor and take yourself out of the equation? :laugh2:

[Yurt]

If your so upset about the existance of humans, why don't you do the world a favor and take yourself out of the equation? :laugh2:

her/his problem is not "them" it is "over" population. thus, some population is good.

what amount is good? i don't know. seems to me that, according to "history" books, there was an ice age...and this "latest" ice age enabled people from "eurasia" (sp?) to come to the continental US. is that over population?

seriously

what exactly is overpopulation?

[Sitarro]

seriously

what exactly is overpopulation?

India, China, Mexico....... most photographs of these places, especially India and Mexico, would give the indication of severe overpopulation. A lot of Africa also gives the same feeling even though there is tremendous amounts of actual open land.

If the population is not able to sustain itself with food, water, space and employment....... I would consider that overpopulation.

The view of the world in "The Fifth Element", the shots in the beginning of the cityscape or the view of the dismal world in "Blade Runner" are both examples of the ugliness of overpopulation. California......... especially in the L.A. area....... with it's 3 hour commutes, blinding and unbreathable pollution, homes on top of each other, lack of water which is causing problems with the growing of food, the overuse of areas in dangerous locations that are prone to natural destructive forces such as fire, mudslides and earthquakes. I lived in San Bernardino for 4 years in the late sixties/early seventies. As pretty as it was in the early morning, the smog from L.A. sixty miles away, would roll in and cover the views of the Mountain Range to the North and East. The first 2 weeks we lived there we stayed at a hotel with a pool. As kids, we were in the pool most of the day, couldn't take a deep breath that night........ we didn't know what was happening to us. We also didn't have any idea that San Bernardino was almost surrounded by mountains, the smog was that bad. 40 years later it isn't better........ it's much worse.

My 2 cents.

[Yurt]

India, China, Mexico....... most photographs of these places, especially India and Mexico, would give the indication of severe overpopulation. A lot of Africa also gives the same feeling even though there is tremendous amounts of actual open land.

If the population is not able to sustain itself with food, water, space and employment....... I would consider that overpopulation.

The view of the world in "The Fifth Element", the shots in the beginning of the cityscape or the view of the dismal world in "Blade Runner" are both examples of the ugliness of overpopulation. California......... especially in the L.A. area....... with it's 3 hour commutes, blinding and unbreathable pollution, homes on top of each other, lack of water which is causing problems with the growing of food, the overuse of areas in dangerous locations that are prone to natural destructive forces such as fire, mudslides and earthquakes. I lived in San Bernardino for 4 years in the late sixties/early seventies. As pretty as it was in the early morning, the smog from L.A. sixty miles away, would roll in and cover the views of the Mountain Range to the North and East. The first 2 weeks we lived there we stayed at a hotel with a pool. As kids, we were in the pool most of the day, couldn't take a deep breath that night........ we didn't know what was happening to us. We also didn't have any idea that San Bernardino was almost surrounded by mountains, the smog was that bad. 40 years later it isn't better........ it's much worse.

My 2 cents.

good points, thanks

[GW in Ohio]

I read an article in The American Spectator about two years ago that presented an excellent argument that the world population is in for a precipiced decline, citing birth rates in Europe and trends as populations turn from agrarian economies to industrialized ones. It is obvious that European and their descendent populations will be declining.

What the article did not address, however, is the desire of Islam to take over Europe, and for Mexico to take over the US. Birth rates among those populations will continue to be high, enabling them to eventually simply vote their way to a takeover. Look for Sharia Law in Europe within 2 generations and no habla Englesa in the US within three.

Y'know, for once I am in agreement with my esteemed colleague, glockie.

I also agree with yurt that there's no way we're going to have international cooperation to limit population.

We're screwed......

[red states rule]

This crap is out of the book "The Population Bomb" ny the nutcase Paul Ehrlich

Like most enviro wackos, not one of his doom ad gloom perdictions have come true. But libs still keep tossing them out

snip

His Population Bomb began, "The battle to feed all of humanity is over ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." In 1969, Ehrlich added, "By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." The same year, he predicted in an article entitled "Eco-Catastrophe!" that by 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million. In the mid-seventies, with the release of his The End of Affluence, Ehrlich incorporated drama into his dire prophesies. He envisioned the President dissolving Congress "during the food riots of the 1980s," followed by the United States suffering a nuclear attack for its mass use of insecticides. That's right, Ehrlich thought that the United States would get nuked in retaliation for killing bugs.

As good as they were for the rest of us, the 1980s weren't so kind to Prof. Ehrlich. There were no food riots of 1980, Congress stayed in session (though perhaps Reagan should have taken a hint from Ehrlich when the Senate started wondering why we didn't send the Girl Scouts to deal with the Sandinistas), and in general Americans got richer, fatter, and more numerous. As did the rest of the world. According to the Food and Agriculture, the Third World now consumes 27 percent more calories per person per day than it did in 1963. India is now exporting food, and deaths from famine, starvation, and malnutrition are fewer than ever before.

Despite the increase in population and consumption, there is no sight of the shortages that Ehrlich predicted. Since 1980, The Economist reports, the world food commodity index has fallen 50 percent. If there were no food left, it would make little sense for farmers to lower the price on what little remains. During the 1980s thirty-three of thirty-five common minerals fell in price. In 1990, unexploited reserves of oil amounted to 900 billion barrels, 350 billion more than the total oil reserves of the 1970s, when Paul Ehrlich asked poignantly, "What will we do when the pumps run dry?"

For those wondering why things are so good when they should be so bad, the answer is not Al Gore. Rather, we're richer, fatter, and more populous because technology -- the gift of free minds -- has again advanced us. When scarcity rears its angry head, historically it's been techies (the types that consider the "outdoors" to be the parking lot outside the lab) that have kept humanity afloat, and not academic doomsayers or pretentious tie-dyed greens. The Iron Age began after wars in the eastern Mediterranean caused tin shortages; the age of coal resulted from timber shortages in 16th century Britain; the 1850s shortage of whale oil translated into the first oil well in 1859; as pessimists began worrying about the copper shortage that telephone wiring would cause, fiber optic communication emerged.
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/ehrlich.html

[namvet]

All of our environmental problems have their origin in overpopulation. There are just too many people for the earth to sustain. All of our problems, from pollution to global warming, have their roots in overpopulation.

But unless all the nations of the world come together and agree to impose draconian limits on reproduction, we will continue to produce more humans than the earth can sustain.

What will happen is there will be nasty wars for the earth's scarce resources. Many people will die nasty deaths in the future before we finally come to terms with this overpopulation thing. And before those people mercifully die, they will experience nasty, brutish living conditions brought on by excessive heat and scarce food and water.

And institutions like the Catholic Church have made themselves the enemy of mankind because on their intransigence on reproductive rights.

Sinead O'Connor had it right.....Fight the real enemy....the Pope.

I agree. shoot every fuckin' liberal on the planet. all they do is eat, shit and make little liberals. :laugh2:

[Binky]

All of our environmental problems have their origin in overpopulation. There are just too many people for the earth to sustain. All of our problems, from pollution to global warming, have their roots in overpopulation.

But unless all the nations of the world come together and agree to impose draconian limits on reproduction, we will continue to produce more humans than the earth can sustain.

What will happen is there will be nasty wars for the earth's scarce resources. Many people will die nasty deaths in the future before we finally come to terms with this overpopulation thing. And before those people mercifully die, they will experience nasty, brutish living conditions brought on by excessive heat and scarce food and water.

And institutions like the Catholic Church have made themselves the enemy of mankind because on their intransigence on reproductive rights.

Sinead O'Connor had it right.....Fight the real enemy....the Pope.


Hi there. I'm new here and have just begun checking out the site. I've often thought that maybe there should be a limit set as to how many kids people can have. China's been doing it for decades. And it's understandable, considering the amount of people they have living in that country.

As far as global warming goes, that's a natural occurance that has been happening since the beginning of time. It has gotten worse since the population has began adding in chemicals and carbons or whatever into the atmosphere. However, these are not the cause of the warming. There was warming going on long before all the chemicals and such arrived on the scene. They've just been speeding up the process.

Gore has been touting this global warming thing as he is wanting to make us all pay a carbon tax. I think we're taxed enough. He has jumped on that bandwagon in hopes the sheeple will become receptive to the idea and not balk when we get hit up for it. It's a scare tactic! He's full of bullpucky! Please don't believe everything he or anyone else has to say. Do some research on it yourself to discover the truth.

I remember as a child my teacher telling us about how the earth goes through it's changes. We are right now, at this point in time, between ice ages. It is going to get warmer and then, we will head into a cooling cycle. These cycles take thousands of years at the least, to get through.

[Said1]

Hi there. I'm new here and have just begun checking out the site. I've often thought that maybe there should be a limit set as to how many kids people can have. China's been doing it for decades. And it's understandable, considering the amount of people they have living in that country.

Apparently, the biggest reduction in the total fertilaty rate occured prior to the policy.

It's a pretty sick policy, unless you support forced and/or selective abortion based on the sex of the child (among other things). You should also note that the policy veries in severity amoung ethnic groups and location. Eugenics are also practiced prior to a couple being permitted to have a child. Those are just a few things WRONG with that sort of social policy.

[glockmail]

Hi there. I'm new here and have just begun checking out the site. I've often thought that maybe there should be a limit set as to how many kids people can have. China's been doing it for decades. And it's understandable, considering the amount of people they have living in that country......
They should have found a better way to handle it. Families have killed their girl babies that they can put up for adoption, and kept the boys to further their family names. When these kids get to marrying age there's going to be a shortage of eligible women to go around, which means that criminal behavior will skyrocket.

[MtnBiker]

All of our environmental problems have their origin in overpopulation. There are just too many people for the earth to sustain. All of our problems, from pollution to global warming, have their roots in overpopulation.

But unless all the nations of the world come together and agree to impose draconian limits on reproduction, we will continue to produce more humans than the earth can sustain.




Hey GW, is this what you want to emulate? Creating a black market for stolen children. Ah the unittened consequences of good intentions;


Review Summary
Australian-born Jeeza Neumann presents a scathing indictment of perhaps the largest experiment in social engineering ever conducted with this undercover documentary investigation of China's notorious stolen-child black market. Narrated by Ben Kingsley, China's Stolen Children highlights the tragic consequences of China's controversial one-child policyIn 1979 the Chinese government implemented the one-child policy in an effort to curb the growing population boom. In the wake of this policy, baby boys are kidnapped and sold like valued commodities, and unborn girls are aborted before birth so that parents can ensure that they will have someone to care for them in old age. While such practices are indeed highly illegal, they are so uncontrollable that they have reached epidemic proportions. The Chinese government has worked tirelessly to ensure that the outside world remains totally unaware of the problem, and as a result the film crew was forced to pose as tourists in order to speak with a detective frequently hired to locate missing children as well as a human trafficker who was once forced to sell his own son. A conversation with one of the kidnapped children who was rescued offers unparalleled insight into the disturbing practice, and a look at the dilemma faced by a nineteen year-old expectant mother who is still too young to be legally married emphasizes some of the harrowing decisions often faced by many expectant parents in China. ~ Jason Buchanan

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/410964/China-s-Stolen-Children/overview

[SpidermanTUba]

Do you have any sources which provide evidence that the land in the world cannot support the humans which occupy it?

Also, did you know you can fit everyone in the world who's alive today inside the state of Texas and give them each their own home?

The math:
27,878,400 square feet in a square mile

268,581 square miles in texas

thats 7,487,608,550,400 (7.487 _trillon_) square feet in texas

Divided by 6 billion people leaves us _only_ 1247.9 square feet per person... thats almost twice the size of my apartment.. of course, some people would be living on lakes and rivers and such, but nevertheless. another simple computation that shows just how big this world is -- and how small "we" are..


I'm pretty sure man needs more than just space in order to survive. Food, water, and a place to dispose of his waste is necessary. Even if you could get enough food and water from your 1247.9 sq ft - which would be doubtful in huge parts of Texas that are desert - where would you put your trash? Your 1247,8 sq ft. would fill up pretty quickly, don't you think?

[fj1200]

Overpopulation is about the Reverend Malthus' ideas. It's a natural phenomenon, happens to every species. When any species reaches the limit of its food, one of two things happen:
...
And locally there are limits before the whole world feels them, as in currently starving Ethiopia, or in Darfur where refugees from Chad are trying to take over the land but are constantly getting burned out by the Janjaweed. If people are trapped in an area, they come up against the resource limits sooner; that's why all the migration.

We can't reproduce geometrically and live on air, you know.

I can't read four pages before commenting on this. Malthus was WRONG in 1798, Ehrlich was WRONG in 1980. The causes of starvation are not the lack of resources as said above, it's the government intrusion that limits freedom and leads to the death of it's own people.

[fj1200]

Yes, you're right. World population growth is declining.

But....

I apologize if I restate something I haven't read yet. World population growth is declining because economic development leads to lower birth rates. European population is not in decline because they're starving, it's that they're having less children. Children are an economic necessity in lesser developed countries and a choice in developed countries.

[fj1200]

Ah, but..................what will the people do who depend on those exports? The people who live in uninhabitable Texas on an apartment-size bit of land where nothing grows?

The Wall Street Journal today says that the No. 2 and 3 top rice producer countries (Thailand and India) have stopped all rice exports. China has just stopped all fertilizer exports.

World soybeans and corn prices have doubled inside one year. For people who spend 75% of their few dollars of income a year on food............you do the arithmetic. Could be a problem for getting enough to eat.

Soon.

I think the idea is to live in TX and grow your food everywhere else...

and what could be leading food prices higher, besides the aforementioned policy of a large corn producing country subsidizing the use of corn for gas? If everything is doubling, oil, food, copper, etc. even things that we are not in danger of running out of, maybe the problem is a little larger. I say it's the Fed's fault...




Sweet, I now have Rep Power.

[bullypulpit]

All of our environmental problems have their origin in overpopulation. There are just too many people for the earth to sustain. All of our problems, from pollution to global warming, have their roots in overpopulation.

But unless all the nations of the world come together and agree to impose draconian limits on reproduction, we will continue to produce more humans than the earth can sustain.

What will happen is there will be nasty wars for the earth's scarce resources. Many people will die nasty deaths in the future before we finally come to terms with this overpopulation thing. And before those people mercifully die, they will experience nasty, brutish living conditions brought on by excessive heat and scarce food and water.

And institutions like the Catholic Church have made themselves the enemy of mankind because on their intransigence on reproductive rights.

Sinead O'Connor had it right.....Fight the real enemy....the Pope.

I figure we're coming up on a major die-back. Happens whenever a species taxes its environment beyond the ability of that environment to support it.

[Gaffer]

I figure we're coming up on a major die-back. Happens whenever a species taxes its environment beyond the ability of that environment to support it.

With any luck you and gw will be part of it.

[JohnDoe]

no worries, Armaggedon will take care of it i suppose.... :(

[Binky]

All of our environmental problems have their origin in overpopulation. There are just too many people for the earth to sustain. All of our problems, from pollution to global warming, have their roots in overpopulation.

But unless all the nations of the world come together and agree to impose draconian limits on reproduction, we will continue to produce more humans than the earth can sustain.

What will happen is there will be nasty wars for the earth's scarce resources. Many people will die nasty deaths in the future before we finally come to terms with this overpopulation thing. And before those people mercifully die, they will experience nasty, brutish living conditions brought on by excessive heat and scarce food and water.

And institutions like the Catholic Church have made themselves the enemy of mankind because on their intransigence on reproductive rights.

Sinead O'Connor had it right.....Fight the real enemy....the Pope.



Over population has nothing to do with global warming other than the chemicals used may be excellerating the warming process. The earth has been warming, cooling and going through cycles for millions of years. That's what it does. We are between ice ages right now. And Gore keeps touting global warming because he is on a mission to get the carbon tax passed so we can pay yet another tax. It's all about the money, plain and simple. And it will prob'ly get passed as the sheepal follow and believe whatever they are told, rather than use they minds and being free and open thinkers. And if the planet didn't have any humans on it, it would still go through a global warming phase and make it's changes. It does it all by itself without the help from man. It's been changing long before human came on the scene.

The chemicals we used are not good for the planet, man and our environment. They have more than likely been speeding up the process. But they are not the cause for the actual change to begin with. That's a natural process that's been taking place since the beginning of time.