The End Of Humanity.

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
That isnt how it works.. no academic journal would be so rectionary. You have to look at studies of the effects of population size.

Can you provide any scholarly article in supoort of your stance? I always marvel at how that demand is placed but never reciprocated.
 

Mr.Grieves

Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
680
Provide me one academic scholarly article from a reputable journal article that states that overpopulation is going to be the end of humanity?
The title of this thread is 'The End Of Humanity' but the only article referenced was about low native-European birth-rates.
I never claimed that overpopulation is going to be the end of humanity, simply that low Euro-birth rates isn't going to be, and that overpopulation is the far greater threat to our environment, and thus us.
Here's a whole book about it, one of many.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=VQShBwAAQBAJ&rdid=book-VQShBwAAQBAJ&rdot=1&source=gbs_vpt_read&pcampaignid=books_booksearch_viewport
 

Illuminized

Established
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
206
From a Pythagorean perspective, Jahwe's command for humans to "be fruitful and multiply", which is really an instinctive urge (never meant to be misconstrued as a commandment), is essentially a command to imprison more souls in bodies, which thereby disrupts the whole entire reincarnation cycle (people being born at the wrong time) and increases suffering for all ("evil" is not restricted to the human kingdom). An overpopulation of human beings deteriorating in quality, mentality, behavior, conduct is clearly against the "will of God". Even a Christian mystic, Beinsa Douno, acknowledged this:
People should not multiply like fish, or like birds, or like mammals. People should differ in quality, and not quantity. Why do we need such a great multiplication, to have millions of people, who would kill each other? Why do we need millions of people, who give birth to criminals? Why do we need people, whom we’ll have to teach how to live? First of all, these people have no idea of life.
But such an overpopulation is exactly what the Catholic Church wants, so it can have more customers who will subscribe to it's dogma. The power of the church rests upon it's teachings of "sin", "forgiveness of sins", "grace", and "redemption". It is indisputable that there have been many more illegitimate births in Catholic countries. This site has over 12 pages on the topic.
 
Last edited:

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
People are choosing to have less kids because they can't afford them. Doesn't look like a choice to me.
That and other factors causing infertility such as synthetic estrogen in birthcontrol pills that is ending up in the water supply. Yes, in trace amounts, but enough to feminize fish.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/birth-control-in-drinking-water-a-fertility-catastrophe-in-the-making

(UK/EU)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/02/water-system-toxic-contraceptive-pill
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
Living like sardines in major cities while the majority of the rest of land is just forestry and field. Like I said the whole world's population can fit in just Texas alone.

.
And this point alone debunks the "overpopulation" myth. If we could all fit in Texas, that means the rest of the usable land could theoretically be used for the development of resources. And even with that we'd STILL be on the way to "overpopulation"? I dont buy it. As you said, I think its more about greed. But not just over consumption, but in regards to WHAT resources are getting pushed. For instance, Tesla had a model that utilized free energy. Instead of going with this, the elite went with the model in which they could make money off of. Instead of trying to develop water powered engines, we're running our oil usage up with no regard to its effects on the environment. Instead of solar powered energy, we're still going with the electric model. These are reasons we have the issues we have, not "overpopulation"...

As far as birth rates, Europe, like America, is on its last legs
 

Kung Fu

Superstar
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,087
And this point alone debunks the "overpopulation" myth. If we could all fit in Texas, that means the rest of the usable land could theoretically be used for the development of resources. And even with that we'd STILL be on the way to "overpopulation"? I dont buy it. As you said, I think its more about greed. But not just over consumption, but in regards to WHAT resources are getting pushed. For instance, Tesla had a model that utilized free energy. Instead of going with this, the elite went with the model in which they could make money off of. Instead of trying to develop water powered engines, we're running our oil usage up with no regard to its effects on the environment. Instead of solar powered energy, we're still going with the electric model. These are reasons we have the issues we have, not "overpopulation"...

As far as birth rates, Europe, like America, is on its last legs
Here's something even funnier. We're not even running out of oil. "Scientists" claimed back in the 70s that we would soon run out of oil but 47 years later we have more oil now than we had in the past with no end in sight. In truth, we actually have no idea how much oil we have, where it exactly comes from in the ground, how it's made, and or if it renews itself. However, thanks to greed the corporations have decided to continue to use oil and cars have continued being made to utilize oil when in fact we could very easily be using renewable energy.

Just America itself throws away perfectly good food annually that if we were to collect all of it we could feed the world over with a 2000 calorie diet.

The only thing that isn't sustainable is this consumer culture. All the problems the world faces today like the wars, famine, poverty, and etc. is caused simply by greed and not "overpopulation" but of course, the elite can't tell us that because then they wouldn't be able to own a disproportionate amount of the resources and so typically they use "overpopulation" as the scapegoat.
 

Mr.Grieves

Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
680
And this point alone debunks the "overpopulation" myth. If we could all fit in Texas, that means the rest of the usable land could theoretically be used for the development of resources. And even with that we'd STILL be on the way to "overpopulation"? I dont buy it. As you said, I think its more about greed. But not just over consumption, but in regards to WHAT resources are getting pushed. For instance, Tesla had a model that utilized free energy. Instead of going with this, the elite went with the model in which they could make money off of. Instead of trying to develop water powered engines, we're running our oil usage up with no regard to its effects on the environment. Instead of solar powered energy, we're still going with the electric model. These are reasons we have the issues we have, not "overpopulation"...

As far as birth rates, Europe, like America, is on its last legs
Koncrete, you don't buy gravity.

Here's something even funnier.
That you're aligning yourself with VC's resident self-proclaimed block-head is pretty funny.

"Scientists"
Ugh.... much like the "professor", right...?
claimed back in the 70s that we would soon run out of oil but 47 years later we have more oil now than we had in the past with no end in sight.
What they were talking about was 'peak oil', as in the point at which the demand of oil starts exceeding the supply, and the cost of producing oil becomes so high that the oil we spend to get it out of the ground is almost equivalent. Here's a neat little 30 minute documentary on the concept of 'peak oil', and the danger we face in regard to it; not that it will be all be gone, but that our growing demand will eventually vastly exceed our ability to produce. I doubt you'll watch it, but I encourage you too, as it's decent and informative.
In truth, we actually have no idea how much oil we have,
True, which is why the Arctic has become such a hot-button issue between American, Russian and Canadian authorities, as both the warming conditions up there and the growing scarcity in other regions drives oil-speculators up there.

where it exactly comes from in the ground, how it's made, and or if it renews itself.
This isn't true. We have an exceedingly good idea of where oil comes from. It's ancient organic matter, mostly water-based like algae and plankton, that settled to the floor of whatever body of water it was present in and was eventually buried and compressed in conditions where little to no oxygen is present. The algae/plankton, which in life were basically floating goop, condense and fossilize into a denser goop over millions and millions of years, eventually becoming petroleum. In a sense that means petroleum is 'renewable', in that in the life-ages of the planet, more will eventually be produced. However, all the petroleum we've utilized in the last few centuries is millions upon millions of years old, and no new petroleum will be produced for millions and millions of years to come.

However, thanks to greed the corporations have decided to continue to use oil and cars have continued being made to utilize oil when in fact we could very easily be using renewable energy.
This is possibly true, but theoretical, and wouldn't prove 'very easy'.

The only thing that isn't sustainable is this consumer culture. All the problems the world faces today like the wars, famine, poverty, and etc. is caused simply by greed and not "overpopulation" but of course, the elite can't tell us that because then they wouldn't be able to own a disproportionate amount of the resources and so typically they use "overpopulation" as the scapegoat.
The massive volumes of piss and shit humanity and its livestock produce is widely documented as incredibly detrimental to the environment, and that has nothing to do with corporate greed whatsoever. I'd agree absolutely however that consumer culture is the main offender, but consumer culture is your culture and my culture, as much as you may not want to admit it. Own a home? Own a car? Own a phone? Own a computer? Congratulations, you're part of the problem. That's the issue here; we're not overpopulated if we'd all just start living like monks or surfs with strict community housing, strict community transport, strict community meals, all geared toward minimal impact on the environment... but very, VERY few people want to live that way. Our consumer culture and our quality of life go hand in hand, and sacrificing them is indeed essential if we want our environment to survive our growing population.
 
Last edited:

Kung Fu

Superstar
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,087
That you're aligning yourself with VC's resident self-proclaimed block-head is pretty funny.
He's a block head because he agrees with me? You were having a good time when you, Justjess, and Fake-He-man were having a circle jerk and patting one another on the back.

Ugh.... much like the "professor", right...?
You mean the alleged professor who either lied or made a huge blunder?

What they were talking about was 'peak oil', as in the point at which the demand of oil starts exceeding the supply, and the cost of producing oil becomes so high that the oil we spend to get it out of the ground is almost equivalent. Here's a neat little 30 minute documentary on the concept of 'peak oil', and the danger we face in regard to it; not that it will be all be gone, but that our growing demand will eventually vastly exceed our ability to produce. I doubt you'll watch it, but I encourage you too, as it's decent and informative.
Don't play the semantics card again with me. They were claiming that oil is running out in order to drive up prices when they in fact had no real clue on the matter.

This isn't true. We have an exceedingly good idea of where oil comes from. It's ancient organic matter, mostly water-based like algae and plankton, that settled to the floor of whatever body of water it was present in and was eventually buried and compressed in conditions where little to no oxygen is present. The algae/plankton, which in life were basically floating goop, condense and fossilize into a denser goop over millions and millions of years, eventually becoming petroleum. In a sense that means petroleum is 'renewable', in that in the life-ages of the planet, more will eventually be produced. However, all the petroleum we've utilized in the last few centuries is millions upon millions of years old, and no new petroleum will be produced for millions and millions of years to come.
I've read what you have said here and it's all just guesses. Truthfully we don't know so please don't pass it off like we do know exactly where it comes from.


The massive volumes of piss and shit humanity and its livestock produce is widely documented as incredibly detrimental to the environment, and that has nothing to do with corporate greed whatsoever. I'd agree absolutely however that consumer culture is the main offender, but consumer culture is your culture and my culture, as much as you may not want to admit it. Own a home? Own a car? Own a phone? Own a computer? Congratulations, you're part of the problem. That's the issue here; we're not overpopulated if we'd all just start living like monks or surfs with strict community housing, strict community transport, strict community meals, all geared toward minimal impact on the environment... but very, VERY few people want to live that way. Our consumer culture and our quality of life go hand in hand, and sacrificing them is indeed essential if we want our environment to survive our growing population.
It can all be used as some kind of fertilizer. Like I said if everyone stopped wasting and throwing away good food, or wanting to own 3 different cars, or stuffing there faces with junk, and etc. then yes, it's sustainable for everyone. However, we live in a culture where people want way too much. We don't have to live like monks to enjoy our lives and to make it sustainable so stop throwing out blatant lies backed up by nothing except for what the elite say who they also tell the masses without offering any kind of real data on the matter.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
Koncrete, you don't buy gravity.


That you're aligning yourself with VC's resident self-proclaimed block-head is pretty funny.
This thread has nothing to do with the fact that you nor anybody else has EVER proven gravity to exist. What this thread is about is the fictitious lie you're pushing or believing that the world is "overpopulated" which it can't be if we all could fit in one state the side of Texas.

As KF pointed out probably better than I can, the problem is actually overconsumption of resources and the type of resources we're even consuming. Again Tesla had a free reusable energy model that we do not utilize. There's also patents I believe on water powered engines. But since this doesn't support the elites bottom line, they suppress these things then turn around and tell us "there's too many of YOU" (because if anyone is getting reduced it will be you the serfs not them)... And you buy into that BS lol

The real issue for them is that they want to be gods who control everything. The ever growing population makes that hard to do
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
Texas does not have enough water to sustain the entire earths population. This isn't as simple a question as square footage. While we may all be able to FIT there it doesn't mean we'd all be Able to LIVE there. You have waste disposal, water access, and food production at the very least to think about. Waste disposal probably being your biggest hurdle.

With that said I don't understand the high emotions here, no one is saying there should be a concerted depopulation effort. Just that if people choose to have less kids it's not the end of the world and probably would be a good thing for the planet.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
I didn't name call anyone, I'm lumped into this supposed circle jerk somehow though.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
Texas does not have enough water to sustain the entire earths population. This isn't as simple a question as square footage. While we may all be able to FIT there it doesn't mean we'd all be Able to LIVE there. You have waste disposal, water access, and food production at the very least to think about. Waste disposal probably being your biggest hurdle.

With that said I don't understand the high emotions here, no one is saying there should be a concerted depopulation effort. Just that if people choose to have less kids it's not the end of the world and probably would be a good thing for the planet.
I don't think I was being emotional. Just stated my stance before being called a "blockhead". But I don't think it's about the state of Texas itself sustaining the worlds population. But that the worlds population could fit inside Texas to which then the newly uninhabited lands (49 states) could be specifically utilized to develop resources to sustain the population. That's just with the states though. There's still Mexico Canada Africa Asia etc.. that would be untouched. All this unused land in this theoretical scenario and we STILL wouldn't be able to provide for everyone? That's hard to buy

I do feel that people should be able to decide whether to have more,less, or no children if they wish to. I just think that the elite WANT people to have less or no children so if you had the ears of the world, do you think we should suggest to the population that we go along with what the elite want?
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
I didn't name call anyone, I'm lumped into this supposed circle jerk somehow though.
I know. And I don't think he meant anything by it to you though I'll step aside and let him speak for himself. I think he was just saying that when you three were stating your opinions that agree, there wasn't a problem but when someone agrees with his position it's a problem. Not a problem for you but with the other guy
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
Waste disposal man, can't be outsourced.

Wasn't really talking about u just the overall tone the thread is taking.

I would advise people to live their lives however the hell they want and don't worry about the elite atleast not in that capacity. I don't think people are opting to not have kids or to have less kids because of the elite or overpopulation in any way shape or form - atleast not on a statidtically significant level.

People's family size decisions are usually based on their finances and the lifestyle the want. Kids are expensive and a whole lot of work. For instance id love to travel the world and go to law school, but I had my first son at 19 and am now pregnant again at 33 so realistically those plans/dreams will now have to be put off until I'm 51! Entirely not what I had in mind.

We also aren't an agrarian culture anymore and childhood mortality has declined significantly so the original NEED to have boatloads of kids doesn't exist anymore.

I just think it would be a whole lot more practical to figure out how to fund pensions with decreased workers then it will be to figure out how to cram all the worlds people into small spaces or to undo the damage done to the earth by large populations coupled with excessive consumption.
 

Kung Fu

Superstar
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,087
I didn't name call anyone, I'm lumped into this supposed circle jerk somehow though.
I was speaking about Mr. Grieves and how he was having a good time when you and He-man were liking his posts even when they were completely illogical or straight up un-ethical such as the fake hadith but then when KM came and agreed with what I was saying he all of a sudden felt that wasn't right.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
The fake Hadith wasn't meant to show Muhammad actually drank. It was meant to show that there was difference of opinions on some things even among muslims.

I don't think his posts were illogical. I also don't think that the professor was lying. We seem to Be reading the same things but seeing them completely differently and I'm not sure why that is.
 
Top