https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/population-seven-billion
I sure don't. Why do we allow this kind of growth to continue?
I sure don't. Why do we allow this kind of growth to continue?
Population Seven Billion - Do we really want more people?
- Thread starter Finished
- Start date
Help Support Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum:
TheRealCallie
Princess Pink Love
So what's your plan? Are we killing people off or are we making everyone have abortions? Or perhaps both?
user 135671
21st Century Boy
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,327
- Reaction score
- 4,209
No longer an option in certain territories so looks like we'll have to start killing 'em, how about you can have a million quid at 21 years of age and we kill you at 30?
NoxApex(N/A)
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
- Messages
- 2,501
- Reaction score
- 2,266
Last I checked there's no magical Stork Delivery Service, either.
I'm fortunate enough to neither have nor want children, so I just dodge around it in the between.
I'm Pro-Choice, but that's entirely because I understand the conundrum from a socio-economic and environmental perspective. The religious aspect, and the moral aspect of the debate, literally never come into my thought process.
That's perhaps because even though I study the history of mysticism, I don't adhere to any faith solely. Arguably speaking, one could say that I'm Non-Denominationally (or loosely) Pagan, but that's as close to it as I get. And morality is just a subjective attempt to push an objective narrative. That's why I am the way that I am with it, I prefer just the numbers to work with, not the whole emotional uproar and passion-infused endless debate. Actually in my college debate class the abortion debate was forbidden because it's seemingly never-ending, so was religious debate for the exact same reason.
(Why is there no emoji for "Meh" ?)
I'm fortunate enough to neither have nor want children, so I just dodge around it in the between.
I'm Pro-Choice, but that's entirely because I understand the conundrum from a socio-economic and environmental perspective. The religious aspect, and the moral aspect of the debate, literally never come into my thought process.
That's perhaps because even though I study the history of mysticism, I don't adhere to any faith solely. Arguably speaking, one could say that I'm Non-Denominationally (or loosely) Pagan, but that's as close to it as I get. And morality is just a subjective attempt to push an objective narrative. That's why I am the way that I am with it, I prefer just the numbers to work with, not the whole emotional uproar and passion-infused endless debate. Actually in my college debate class the abortion debate was forbidden because it's seemingly never-ending, so was religious debate for the exact same reason.
(Why is there no emoji for "Meh" ?)
TropicalStarfish
Well-known member
Simply Put:
The planet does have an equilibrium level for the amount of human beings it can sustain.
However, population levels aren't a problem within themselves.
The real problem is how the population conducts itself, how it functions, and organizes.
10 People can easily fit into a small room, if they cooperate with each other.
2 People can barely share a mansion with one another if they are both idiots and irate towards each other.
We need to liberate higher education from _all_ monetary barriers.
We need to liberate _all_ scientific research and literature from paywalls.
We need to start using our power to manipulate genetics, not to create super beings, but to put an end to genetic disorders and things of that nature.
Case in point, we have the means, and the know how; but, we probably just aren't ready...
The rest is just my rambling on about the same...
The planet can handle 9 billion. I'd argue, it can handle 10 billion, or whatever arbitrary number. The planet can handle anything we throw at it. It's big, and will destroy us with ease, if we misuse it.
What _we_ can't handle, as a species, is ignorance, fear, intolerance...
The problem isn't the population level, it's how a civilization organizes itself and functions that is the problem; and society is dysfunctional right now.
You could go down to best-buy right now (the electronics store) and buy a hard drive, many times over big enough, to hold the entire human history of printed word. Yet knowledge is behind prohibitively high cost barriers that only a few people can make it over, and more-ever the collegiate is often quite stupid too. They try to tackle engineering problems from a sociological perspective; meanwhile business is trying to tackle sociological issues through engineering means... No wonder everything is a mess.
The real reason we can't handle larger and larger population levels, is just the simple fact that, human progress is being held back in the dark ages in certain places, and it's moving increasingly fast, in places where, we need to heed our next step.
Higher education needs to be treated like a right; such that, rich or poor, if you are capable and willing to put in the effort, you can become a neuro-surgeon if you want.
Scientific literature needs to permanently come out from behind any and _all_ paywalls. I don't know why scientists put up with that garbage paywall peer reviewed journal ******y. You can't do science without access to knowledge.
So, it's just simple organic engineering problems. It's really not complicated (the science can be, but the issue of population is not a complex thing to understand.) The people who have the means to control and change things, however, are neither inclined, and probably not competent enough to carry us to higher population levels, however; it would not be in their interest to do so, individually. So the status quo will be maintained, as long as they can maintain it.
So, population problems, CAN be very, very, very bad. However, you can't achieve certain technological feats without a certain number of people and machines, organized in a certain way. That simple fact means that, we are meant to multiply, quite a bit more. If we are to be a space-fairing species, we will be capable of handling populations of 200 billion humans.
But, I don't think we will get there, the way we are doing things now. There needs to be a fundamental shift in the way humanity conducts itself; and, so far, humanity is very quickly careening towards the edge of a precipice.
So yeah, overpopulation: if it's a problem, there are reasons as to why it's a problem. If things were done differently, we could handle 9 billion just fine, maybe more; we just choose to largely live our lives like ******* ignorant ***** (often quite willfully so, I'm inclined to believe.)
The planet does have an equilibrium level for the amount of human beings it can sustain.
However, population levels aren't a problem within themselves.
The real problem is how the population conducts itself, how it functions, and organizes.
10 People can easily fit into a small room, if they cooperate with each other.
2 People can barely share a mansion with one another if they are both idiots and irate towards each other.
We need to liberate higher education from _all_ monetary barriers.
We need to liberate _all_ scientific research and literature from paywalls.
We need to start using our power to manipulate genetics, not to create super beings, but to put an end to genetic disorders and things of that nature.
Case in point, we have the means, and the know how; but, we probably just aren't ready...
The rest is just my rambling on about the same...
The planet can handle 9 billion. I'd argue, it can handle 10 billion, or whatever arbitrary number. The planet can handle anything we throw at it. It's big, and will destroy us with ease, if we misuse it.
What _we_ can't handle, as a species, is ignorance, fear, intolerance...
The problem isn't the population level, it's how a civilization organizes itself and functions that is the problem; and society is dysfunctional right now.
You could go down to best-buy right now (the electronics store) and buy a hard drive, many times over big enough, to hold the entire human history of printed word. Yet knowledge is behind prohibitively high cost barriers that only a few people can make it over, and more-ever the collegiate is often quite stupid too. They try to tackle engineering problems from a sociological perspective; meanwhile business is trying to tackle sociological issues through engineering means... No wonder everything is a mess.
The real reason we can't handle larger and larger population levels, is just the simple fact that, human progress is being held back in the dark ages in certain places, and it's moving increasingly fast, in places where, we need to heed our next step.
Higher education needs to be treated like a right; such that, rich or poor, if you are capable and willing to put in the effort, you can become a neuro-surgeon if you want.
Scientific literature needs to permanently come out from behind any and _all_ paywalls. I don't know why scientists put up with that garbage paywall peer reviewed journal ******y. You can't do science without access to knowledge.
So, it's just simple organic engineering problems. It's really not complicated (the science can be, but the issue of population is not a complex thing to understand.) The people who have the means to control and change things, however, are neither inclined, and probably not competent enough to carry us to higher population levels, however; it would not be in their interest to do so, individually. So the status quo will be maintained, as long as they can maintain it.
So, population problems, CAN be very, very, very bad. However, you can't achieve certain technological feats without a certain number of people and machines, organized in a certain way. That simple fact means that, we are meant to multiply, quite a bit more. If we are to be a space-fairing species, we will be capable of handling populations of 200 billion humans.
But, I don't think we will get there, the way we are doing things now. There needs to be a fundamental shift in the way humanity conducts itself; and, so far, humanity is very quickly careening towards the edge of a precipice.
So yeah, overpopulation: if it's a problem, there are reasons as to why it's a problem. If things were done differently, we could handle 9 billion just fine, maybe more; we just choose to largely live our lives like ******* ignorant ***** (often quite willfully so, I'm inclined to believe.)
Last edited:
StarDust
Life is a journey, not a destination 😉
Absolutely!
StarDust
Life is a journey, not a destination 😉
Just read the article and gives much to think about
First thought that came to mind was people raiding the stores, lining up at night and banging on the grocery store windows once the lights were turned on. Imagine word got out of food shortages
do think we need to focus on agriculture.
Adamridge79
Mr Bakerman
Maybe reading articles from several reputable sources that are concerned about the actual decline of reproduction makes me a bit skeptical. Hell, China is all for multiple births...or do I read crass news outlets?
TheRealCallie
Princess Pink Love
But see, that's the problem. Nearly anyone CAN go for that. With the lovely addition of student loans to make yourself go into massive debt before you can even work. My kid is taking a class as a transient student at another college this semester because he can't handle the professor that teaches the class at his college (the dude is an *** that doesn't bother actually helping the students.) With tuition and books, it's almost $4000. FOR ONE CLASS. Had to get a private student loan to pay for it.
My kid will have a pretty low amount of debt (compared to the average) when he graduates next year , but that's only because of scholarships and financial aid.
TropicalStarfish
Well-known member
I meant Higher Education should not have monetary barriers. University should be voluntary; but, available like middle and high-school, free of charge, supported by the tax payer.
The student loan game is predatory, yeah... And the University game, with it's politics and such, is a whole different ball game...
TheRealCallie
Princess Pink Love
In my state, it is available for kids in grades 7-12 and it's free. As long as they don't go over a certain numbers of credit hours each year, they can take all the classes they want. That's how my kid is graduating early. He would have graduated this year if he didn't change majors.
Hereward87
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2022
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 108
The Rockefeller family and Bill gates and his father are heavily involved in family planning and depopulation.
Maybe I didn't get bad Covid because I got a vasectomy a long time ago. 
So, no need to get vaccinated/sterilized according to the conspiracies.
So, no need to get vaccinated/sterilized according to the conspiracies.
user 139760
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2017
- Messages
- 5,581
- Reaction score
- 2,262
Well, we don't really have a choice now do we? I doubt people would accept to be neutered...
Well, atleast in the US, laws are made to encourage people to have children. We could just as easily encourage people to not have children. Say, $10K to get permanently fixed. Or, atleast tax incentives for people without children. Money motivates people. That's one way the government controls what people do.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 50,573
- Reaction score
- 7,597
Have had that disc laying around for quite a while, just haven't gotten around to watching it yet.
My impression is that it may be closer to a satirized political version of "The Most Dangerous Game" than the NWO belief that the elites have decided to eliminate 90% of the population because they no longer need them.
Ha! ha! New movie to watch. Thanks!
Similar threads
