I Believe Global Population Is Reaching An Unsustainable Level

Bretrick

Bretrick

Well-known Member
Location
Perth Western Australia
Consider these figures.
1970 Population 3.68 Billion
1980 Population 4.44 Billion
2000 Population 6.12 Billion
2020 Population 7.61 Billion
2050 Population 9.60 billion est.
Surely serious birth control should be implemented at some stage soon?
Of course people will say it is a violation of my Human Rights to stop me having children.
Well how are Human Rights for every person going to be maintained when the population reaches 10 Billion?
We are not feeding the 7 1/2 Billion people now.
The inevitable outcome of unfettered Population growth?
 

world-overpopulation.jpg

“If the world is to save any part of its resources for the future, it must reduce not only consumption but the number of consumers.” - B.F. Skinner​

 
Insanity of dominant wealthy, wealth seekers, and their corporate world of myopic endless growth and development. Already way past a human population for sustainability and environmental health. Ultimate pyramid scheme of human doom.

https://overpopulation-project.com/...man-population-an-eminent-economist-weighs-in

snippet:

But not complete uncertainty! Within a range of plausible answers to these questions, Dasgupta delivers a range of optimal global populations between 0.5 and 5 billion. Like his earlier paper, this more rigorous effort suggests that humanity is already grossly overpopulated relative to global ecological carrying capacity and relative to the per capita consumption reductions that people are likely willing to undertake to remain within it. So does a revision of the earlier “Socially Embedded Preferences” paper, “Population Overshoot,” in the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of Population Ethics. This new effort defines per capita environmental impact in terms of average production, rather than average consumption, as in the earlier version. It sets an optimal sustainable global population at 1.8 billion people.

weight-of-vertebrate-land-animals-and-human.jpg
 

David777 said:
Insanity of dominant wealthy, wealth seekers, and their corporate world of myopic endless growth and development. Already way past a human population for sustainability and environmental health. Ultimate pyramid scheme of human doom.

https://overpopulation-project.com/...man-population-an-eminent-economist-weighs-in

snippet:

But not complete uncertainty! Within a range of plausible answers to these questions, Dasgupta delivers a range of optimal global populations between 0.5 and 5 billion. Like his earlier paper, this more rigorous effort suggests that humanity is already grossly overpopulated relative to global ecological carrying capacity and relative to the per capita consumption reductions that people are likely willing to undertake to remain within it. So does a revision of the earlier “Socially Embedded Preferences” paper, “Population Overshoot,” in the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of Population Ethics. This new effort defines per capita environmental impact in terms of average production, rather than average consumption, as in the earlier version. It sets an optimal sustainable global population at 1.8 billion people.

weight-of-vertebrate-land-animals-and-human.jpg
Click to expand...
Wow, the Wild Animals shrinking to 1% is really scary.
 
Bretrick said:
Consider these figures.
1970 Population 3.68 Billion
1980 Population 4.44 Billion
2000 Population 6.12 Billion
2020 Population 7.61 Billion
2050 Population 9.60 billion est.
Surely serious birth control should be implemented at some stage soon?
Of course people will say it is a violation of my Human Rights to stop me having children.
Well how are Human Rights for every person going to be maintained when the population reaches 10 Billion?
We are not feeding the 7 1/2 Billion people now.
The inevitable outcome of unfettered Population growth?
Click to expand...
Time to get real about world population growth. For a country to sustain its population (let alone grow it) a birthrate of 2.1 children per woman must be maintained. Here are the Numbers:
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/total-fertility-rate/country-comparison
Oops! The United States is 1.84.
Don't believe me? How about CNN? "US fertility rate is below level needed to replace population, study says"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/10/health/us-fertility-rate-replacement-cdc-study/index.html

In fact, what we think of as the "First World", Europe, North America, and East Asia is well under replacement rate. Japan is desperate. Have you read about the deserted villages of Italy or the empty cities of China? So where are all the babies being produced? Almost entirely in the so called third world -- Africa, South and Central America, the Middle East and South Asia. Look at the numbers for yourself. If populations are growing in low birth rate countries, it's a product of uncontrolled migration.

So what to do about it? First place to start is to accept the truth of what is happening, and why.
 
Bretrick said:
Surely serious birth control should be implemented at some stage soon?
Click to expand...

I like this old YouTube presentation, it uses cute ways to demonstrate that the number of children already plateaued and the growth is from increased lifespan. It also has a few funny survey results that indicate most people still think (incorrectly) that the rates of birthrate, poverty rate, literacy rate are all the same as when us boomers were in elementary school. And that things have changed vastly for the better, but still has a way to go.

Unfortunately the presentation is an hour long, but has enough humor and interesting personal stories to make it very watchable:

 
ElCastor said:
under replacement rate. Japan is desperate. Have you read about the deserted villages of Italy or the empty cities of China?
Click to expand...
I have trouble understanding why a country of a billion would limit family size to avoid growing and then when they stagnate at one and a half billion they are anxious not to reduce to a billion.
Maybe when I retire (80 days! or sooner if they force me to work at the office) I'll have time to read about economics.
 
Chet said:
Nature has a way of controlling population. I present covid-19 as evidence.
Click to expand...

Not a drop in the bucket compared to babies born during this year. So far, we're at a global net population gain of over 77 million for 2021 and most Covid deaths are in people beyond reproductive age. Planet Earth needs a pandemic with a mortality rate far beyond Covid's IFR of less than 2% in most countries.
 
Last edited:
AnnieA said:
Not a drop in the bucket compared to babies born during this year. So far, we're at a global net population rate of over 77 million for 2021 and most Covid deaths are in people beyond reproductive age. Planet Earth needs a pandemic with a mortality rate far beyond Covid's IFR of less than 2% in most countries.
Click to expand...
I spoke about this very issue on another forum and was met with hatred and vitriol.
I was called callous in the extreme.
But to my way of thinking we need to lose at least half the population.
 
If I'm rembering correctly from a college evolution class, of all the species that have ever existed, 99% are now extinct, and only 1% are extant.

One of Darwinian principles for a species survival to remain extant is it has to continue to grow in geometric proportion. We're currently violating that...
 
Back in the late 90's, the UN released a report which said that the maximum sustainable human population would be no more than 6 billion. We are well beyond that, and could reach 12 billion by the end of this century....at present birth rates.

Most of the excessive births are occurring in the poorer nations, and among the most disadvantaged, and the developed nations are seeing the effects as illegal immigration continues to soar. These poorer people have little choice but to try to move North into N. America and Europe, in an attempt to escape the crime and poverty in their nations.

Sometime in the latter half of this century, there will be a huge war. It will Not be nation vs. nation, but instead the Haves against the Have Nots. The result will be a reduction in population in the billions. If the Haves win, the world will begin to unite under a common language and government, and mankind will begin a serious reach for the stars. If the Have Nots prevail, humanity will revert back to the Dark Ages, and it will be every man for himself.
 
News media with strings pulled from their corporate masters, has for years been peppering us with stories like the below whining about too low a birth rate and a need for greater immigration. This is all about the wealth seeking greedy wanting more during their short term existence without concern for the future of mankind or the planet. And this is also a prime reason why since the 1986 immigration legislation, that facet of the issue is all much worse because for politicians and their masters, it was all talk and no action, monkeywrench anything that threatens the myopic status quo. There are almost no politicians of either party interested in a sustainable world as they know where their money to be re-elected comes from.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-growth-is-still-the-key-to-america-s-success

Last year I published a book titled “One Billion American,” recommending pretty much that. This week the Census made it official: There are only 331,449,281 Americans. The argument of my book — the title, to be clear, is aspirational — is that the U.S. should aim for more rapid population growth so it can better compete internationally, especially with China. And while the Census data shows the U.S. had the slowest population growth rate since the 1930s, as fewer immigrants arrive and the birthrate continues nearly 30 years of steady decline, my thesis still holds...
It is in America’s best interests to get back to growth. That will require political leaders to support the families already here — and to win their backing for changes in U.S. immigration policy that will allow more people from around the world to come here to build families and livelihoods of their own.

...So all the rest of you can all live equally like sardines in a can... and we rich can retire to Palm Springs and Palm Beach to play golf!
 
Last edited:
Considering the problem with overpopulation, one would think it wouldn't be a good idea to force women to have children they can't afford or are unable to take care of, or that they just don't want, but that's what's happening. Just another thing that doesn't make any sense in the f*cked up world.
 
Bretrick said:
I spoke about this very issue on another forum and was met with hatred and vitriol.
I was called callous in the extreme.
But to my way of thinking we need to lose at least half the population.
Click to expand...
You go first 😂😂😂. Just kidding. I know someone else on the forum that I would volunteer to go first. Just kidding, maybe, ok not really kidding, oh, wait, don’t want to be accused of being mean spirited so, just kidding.

Hmm, ok folks, who wants to start the ball of death rolling? Volunteers? 😂😂😂
 
Aneeda72 said:
You go first 😂😂😂. Just kidding. I know someone else on the forum that I would volunteer to go first. Just kidding, maybe, ok not really kidding, oh, wait, don’t want to be accused of being mean spirited so, just kidding.

Hmm, ok folks, who wants to start the ball of death rolling? Volunteers? 😂😂😂
Click to expand...
Trouble with volunteers, most would back out at the death.
So the first volunteers would have died without the desired result coming to fruition:confused:
 
HoneyNut said:
I have trouble understanding why a country of a billion would limit family size to avoid growing and then when they stagnate at one and a half billion they are anxious not to reduce to a billion.
Maybe when I retire (80 days! or sooner if they force me to work at the office) I'll have time to read about economics.
Click to expand...
China? We are not privy to their motives, but here is probably as clear an explanation as we will get. No degree in economics required.
"Why China Is Ending Its One-Child Policy"
https://abcnews.go.com/International/china-ending-child-policy/story?id=34824002

As for world population growth, as I explained in a previous post, the First World is to blame but only indirectly. First World birth rates are below replacement rate. Were it up only to that First World we would be talking about the alarming decline in our population and how we might encourage women to have more children. Instead, as First World populations stabilize and then decline we open our borders to the swelling populations of Third World countries. The result, a continual net growth of the human population.
 
Irwin said:
Considering the problem with overpopulation, one would think it wouldn't be a good idea to force women to have children they can't afford or are unable to take care of, or that they just don't want, but that's what's happening. Just another thing that doesn't make any sense in the f*cked up world.
Click to expand...
Maybe sterilization should be mandatory. In certain cases, like, for women, after the second abortion, or, for both partners, after you've had your "replacement" child.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top