Over Population - Page 22 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Manmade and Natural Disasters Drought, Diseases, Earthquakes, Riots, Wars

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why the advice to pay off debts prior to a SHTF situation? yosh Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 124 03-27-2018 08:37 AM
tree stands and pillbox davej1138 Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 30 10-10-2017 04:17 AM
Let's talk political implications of changing population demographics cleversloth Political News and Discussion 114 02-07-2017 03:56 PM
Food in a population die off in UK Yorkshire Boy British Isles and ROI 8 12-26-2016 12:31 PM
Choosing a BOL with water and food resources in terms of population chuck duster Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 10 10-08-2016 06:45 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-19-2019, 01:30 PM
Gaston444 Gaston444 is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 719
Thanks: 106
Thanked 463 Times in 287 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmas View Post
IQ numbers are suspect. You really believe blacks are that much dumber? And iq average in states has gone up about 10-15 points since 1950s. You think kids now are smarter than the 1950 generation?
It is true that IQ tests had to be adjusted upwards for about 90-100 years (something called the Flynn effect), and this on the same populations (but while testing different generations within these populations), so it does introduce an aspect of cultural adaptation to a non-rural, less concrete, more symbol-based urban lifestyle, since the major difference in these populations, through time, is the move from "practical" rural to more "abstract" urban environments.

IQ clearly favours abstraction, but just because the same population historically becomes more atuned to abstraction, this does not invalidate the measured performance at any given time. True, you might argue Africans are more rural, and so discriminated against by the IQ test, but this would not apply to US blacks who are even more urban than whites: It does cover why US blacks score 15 points higher at 85.

IQ is a rock-solid predictor of income earning and well-being in modern urban societies (crime, behaviour, earning ect): There is hardly anything in social sciences that is a more reliable predictor of outcomes. Even some aspects of physics and chemistry sciences rate far lower in reproducibility...

Even more worrysome, anything cultural or education-based in IQ tests tends to greatly favor third-world non-whites: They do even worse on culturally-neutral non-verbal parts of IQ tests (like puzzles, basic math and interpreting geometric shapes)... It is when you get to the purest non-education based brain performance aspects, with a higher G-loading (G for the more culturally neutral "General intelligence"), that the disparities between races are the greatest.

And the effects could not be clearer: There is 1.2 billion Africans, and yet when we build a factory there, everything has to be imported, as if it was being implanted on Mars... Even the chain link fences have to imported. The one item made locally? The gravel in the parking lot.

I also looked up if, in all of 1.2 billion sub-saharan Africa (excluding South Africa), there is a single company making manufactured bicycles. There isn't. These are countries that have had hundreds of billions funnelled into them for decades, not to mention the huge number of their higher IQ expats sending in money from the West, which sent money is thus a total net loss to our economies...

And if you ever wondered why Detroit looks the way it does: Let's just say it is the least white large city in the US, at under 10%...

Gaston
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Gaston444 For This Useful Post:
Old 10-27-2019, 12:01 PM
Cliff Nieporte's Avatar
Cliff Nieporte Cliff Nieporte is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 1,762
Thanks: 5,972
Thanked 2,606 Times in 1,200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaston444 View Post
It is true that IQ tests had to be adjusted upwards for about 90-100 years (something called the Flynn effect), and this on the same populations (but while testing different generations within these populations), so it does introduce an aspect of cultural adaptation to a non-rural, less concrete, more symbol-based urban lifestyle, since the major difference in these populations, through time, is the move from "practical" rural to more "abstract" urban environments.

IQ clearly favours abstraction, but just because the same population historically becomes more atuned to abstraction, this does not invalidate the measured performance at any given time. True, you might argue Africans are more rural, and so discriminated against by the IQ test, but this would not apply to US blacks who are even more urban than whites: It does cover why US blacks score 15 points higher at 85.

IQ is a rock-solid predictor of income earning and well-being in modern urban societies (crime, behaviour, earning ect): There is hardly anything in social sciences that is a more reliable predictor of outcomes. Even some aspects of physics and chemistry sciences rate far lower in reproducibility...

Even more worrysome, anything cultural or education-based in IQ tests tends to greatly favor third-world non-whites: They do even worse on culturally-neutral non-verbal parts of IQ tests (like puzzles, basic math and interpreting geometric shapes)... It is when you get to the purest non-education based brain performance aspects, with a higher G-loading (G for the more culturally neutral "General intelligence"), that the disparities between races are the greatest.

And the effects could not be clearer: There is 1.2 billion Africans, and yet when we build a factory there, everything has to be imported, as if it was being implanted on Mars... Even the chain link fences have to imported. The one item made locally? The gravel in the parking lot.

I also looked up if, in all of 1.2 billion sub-saharan Africa (excluding South Africa), there is a single company making manufactured bicycles. There isn't. These are countries that have had hundreds of billions funnelled into them for decades, not to mention the huge number of their higher IQ expats sending in money from the West, which sent money is thus a total net loss to our economies...

And if you ever wondered why Detroit looks the way it does: Let's just say it is the least white large city in the US, at under 10%...

Gaston
Sounds like something out of a Jean Stravinsky novel.

Sent from my SM-J337P using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-27-2019, 09:04 PM
Mule Skinner Mule Skinner is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,893
Thanks: 1,878
Thanked 3,587 Times in 1,715 Posts
Default

OK we can support many more people than we currently have,
what with advances in agriculture, and by allocating less
living space per person (see Hong Kong, see Manhattan).

BUT
the earth is finite.
There is an absolute limit somewhere;
and a quality-of-life limit before that.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-01-2019, 02:31 AM
William Ashley William Ashley is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 152
Thanks: 14
Thanked 73 Times in 53 Posts
Default

I find it funny you don't realize that giving USD around the world reinforces the US global economy.

THere is a massive realignment with the US greenback loosing position as the global currency, and with the fallout of the petrodollar alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia, the US's only means of creating business ties and gaining access to foreign resources is by flooding foreing markets with US dollars under the guise of IMF loans and development funding with strings attached.

All the hard nosers really don't get how it works seeing them as hand outs rather than buy ins to use USD by these countries that are now dealing with China instead of the US because the US isn't paying them to do business with the US. So now China is buying into those economies and the US is loosing market share on resource expoitation in those countries.

The previous US colonial empire is being replaced by Chinese Imperialism and the US is being relegated to an isoated island nation that is going to get cut out of global trade. Thats why it hurts to see people talk about US development funding being talked about like it was only benefiting those countries and was a real drain on the US... it lacks perspective of understanding how soft power translates in colonial systems into economic power that goes way beyond trade ledgers and direct funding initiatives.

There is a creation of a system that creates the confines of global economies, getting fixated on microeconomics is just small brain thinking. Keep the macros in persepective.

Reducing global economics or international trade to microeconomic thought is just a little retarded. Macroeconomics better apply to international trade and developmental programs.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/bo...icroeconomics/



IQ is a cultural capacity measure not a measure of raw intelligence. Society is generally "Specialized functions" and general labour


the micros do matter as supply and demand does matter but generally markets for survival form along social trends -- ease of water management for public utility of shared resource .. cooperative farming out of cottage industries due to refridgeration and chemical treatments...


Its not a question of "population contorl" it is amatter of the social conflict caused by increasing population.. and reduced quality of life due to resource scarcity. People become violent if faced with death so social controllers will sacrifice quality of life for the whole... there will be streses.


Even by choking off immigration countries with posiive growth rates will face challenges in quality of life reduction... but offset by any rewriting of quaity of life to align with quality o life being linked to access to technologies that are widely available ... so by creating intangible goods as linking to quality of life an infinitate basis of quality of life can be generated artificially.

At the end of the day the idea that nutrition access to basic needs, food water shelter is hte basic measure and eerything else is jsut a cultural creation, and people with IQ can recognize what things mater in a specific culture.

Still the boiling frog will emerge as "social values" will be realigned to conform to social norms and commons lifestyle being "the acceptable level" and wool will continue to be pulled over peopes eyes generationally. What was good then will be archaic today and what is good today will be ever so poor tomorrow

IT is the fact society is so misdirected and blind to any real raison d'etre. But no people will continue to breed until their social values are changed to make them more selfish to have physical graitfication without any tie in to the spirit or soul or the importance of building a family to make your clan stronger, or religous values to control more of the world through people rather than technology and money.

If they have money they don't need human resource they can buy it, if they have technology to perofrm tasks they don't need human skill to peform them.

Its no nonsense why social controllers promote population growth as a positive model in creating wealth in non-technological societies.

Conflict theory states on a cost benefit analsis that things that do not benefit us we do not seek out -- since the state has destroyed the family unit and reduced family power in the commons it is a question of "do you want kids" not" do I need kids" or " am I required to have kids to keep my social status that will let me live in this society"

this is why population happens in developed countries... sex and procreation as natural events are no more real than long hair. Birthrates very much are an effect of systems of social control that shape the psychologies of the commoners. Even if people don't understand the order in the chaos, it is only as much a problem of the fact that people will and HAVE learned to live like sardines, the west culturally is not prepared for that but where growth rates continue there are status quo stresses causing anomie.

All you have to do is look to India or China to see that "over population" is the norm. We are "under populated" by their standards. They are "Very socialist states" though. Again to meet those population levels would require mass socialization of society and a realignment of social values.

That said India and China are both under massive social stress and resource management issues.


Lots of dynamics again, in the areas such as Africa where we are seeing fertility rates peak around 7, these are also highly ethnic and tribal societies are are still developing societies reliant on human labour. They are resource based economies that highly dependent upon a workforce to extract natural resources. It may be startling but there is such a demand for labour in those countries that even children are put to work. https://www.voanews.com/africa/sub-s...ts-development


People need to see it from the perspective of the soceties there because they don't live the way we live, BUT they wouldn't be able to live without living that way.


Procreation is more than just more humans, it is a human resource. It is the creation of capacity.


Back to micros and human resources.. we shouldn't be frightful of overpopulation but realize that global development goals need to be closely aligned with leveraging human resources to insure that people gain the skills they need and are able to gain access to areas where those skills can be used to create a better quality of life for everyone.


Mass sterilization really ain't too cool these days. Never depend on social consensus to stop procreation. Its all social values.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-01-2019, 09:43 AM
tedlovesjeeps71's Avatar
tedlovesjeeps71 tedlovesjeeps71 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 14,534
Thanks: 10,562
Thanked 38,389 Times in 11,468 Posts
Default

More wall of text... blah blah blah.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tedlovesjeeps71 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-01-2019, 11:18 AM
Idaho Survivalist Idaho Survivalist is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,403
Thanks: 277
Thanked 1,568 Times in 733 Posts
Default world population

Quote:
Originally Posted by Im RIght View Post
Almost all of the posts in this section are related to over population, yet rarely are they discussed within the particular thread.

Today, I read 2 threads on water shortages (Ca, and Capetown). All the articles I read related to each all point to various points such as drought, not enough storage reservoirs, over use of water by individuals, crops that are not water efficient, climate change... Any and all of the prior may be true, but none discuss the cause. Human over population.

This can be extended to almost any crisis we face as a global community. Too much carbon dioxide being created = too many people. Food shortages = too many people. Deforestation = too many people. Emerging illnesses found deep in jungles becoming problematic for humans = too many people. I would even suggest war is a result of too many people living too close to one and other as they fight for various limited resources.

Most of all of our problems can be pinned on having too many people living on this rock. Every effort is made to extend the life of indivduals globally through importation of food, medicine, vaccines, shelters relocation practices, improved general wellness and health education services... So even when people would naturally die of natural causes, we intervene prolong their life and the cycle of human growth.

Global human population continues to grow. The only decline in population since WW2 happened with the tsunami that hit Thailand 2004, which was a blip on the radar.

Perhaps today we are not at capacity, but at some point, the caloric needs and resource needs of the people collectively will be greater than what can be supplied by the farmed land. It seems we are starting to see this happening.

Food shortages and water shortages will cause many to relocate, stressing the resources of their new neighborhood - and so on.

I suspect countries suffering from their own overpopulation problems will aim to solve it through war. This accomplishes 2 things at the same time. It expands territory and resource availability while reducing the aggregate needs of their citizens through reduced population from the effects of war.

Looking at countries who have problems such as this, China, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Japan all come to mind...


Quote from Pew Research, June 7, 2019. Search for "World population growth is Expected to Nearly Stop by 2199..."

"For the first time in modern history, the world's population is expected to virtually stop growing by the end of this century, due in large part to falling fertility rates, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new data from the United Nations."

Lots of startling information on this site.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Idaho Survivalist For This Useful Post:
Old 11-01-2019, 11:23 AM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13,153
Thanks: 2,663
Thanked 17,722 Times in 7,424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho Survivalist View Post
Quote from Pew Research, June 7, 2019. Search for "World population growth is Expected to Nearly Stop by 2199..."

"For the first time in modern history, the world's population is expected to virtually stop growing by the end of this century, due in large part to falling fertility rates, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new data from the United Nations."

Lots of startling information on this site.
With the number of men becoming women and women becoming men I have no doubt population growth will suffer. LOL
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to PalmettoTree For This Useful Post:
Old 11-01-2019, 11:28 AM
Copymutt Copymutt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 33
Thanks: 4
Thanked 61 Times in 20 Posts
Default

Hunter, gatherer =survival, short life

Tribal, Trader, specialist skills = thriving slightly longer life

Rural agronomist, hunt, fish = thrive and multiple offspring, elder care

Urban, monetary based existence= Exposure to uncontrollable threat to your income and existence. Welfare and unsustainable support programs to counteract. Worker bees taxed into not reproducing. A percentage try to survive via theft, murder, scamming.

Which makes sense to you?
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-01-2019, 12:01 PM
MattB4's Avatar
MattB4 MattB4 is offline
Don't get me started
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 15,701
Thanks: 21,963
Thanked 30,460 Times in 10,673 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Ashley View Post
...

The previous US colonial empire is being replaced by Chinese Imperialism and the US is being relegated to an isoated island nation that is going to get cut out of global trade. ...
What alternate reality are you talking about? In this one the US has never been a Empire with colonies. It also is not a isolated island nation. Also the Chinese, for all their faults, are not imperialistic.

Now on Earth 9 the Americas were never discovered by European explorers and remain under native rule. The blood soaked Aztecs have expanded from what we call Mexico all the way to our Canada. South America is still under Mayan rule. Europe is under Roman conquest. China is broken up into many Asian war lord ruled provinces.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MattB4 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-01-2019, 12:42 PM
FerFAL's Avatar
FerFAL FerFAL is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,673
Thanks: 231
Thanked 5,201 Times in 1,682 Posts
Default

yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no

Overpopulation? Look around. Very few countries have a fertiltiy rate over 2.1
In fact, most developed countries are, today, counting on immigration so as to not die.
Even in ****holes, the fertilty rate keeps dropping. Latin America for exmaple used to be a place where you had high fertiltiy rates but not any more.
Global fertility keeps dropping, people want to have less problems, less kids and its increasingly hard to get people to have more than two kids.

Overpopulation isnt a thing, never was and its certanly not one now. Aging population, thats not a myth but a problem today in many places.

Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FerFAL For This Useful Post:
Old 11-01-2019, 01:48 PM
The Old Coach The Old Coach is online now
Militant Normal
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Western West Virginia
Posts: 9,064
Thanks: 2,835
Thanked 18,873 Times in 6,422 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattB4 View Post
What alternate reality are you talking about? In this one the US has never been a Empire with colonies. It also is not a isolated island nation. Also the Chinese, for all their faults, are not imperialistic.
He only knows of one history book; Howard Zinn's. Read aloud to him by Noam Chomsky, I'm sure, since it's becoming more and more apparent that he's too intellectually lazy to actually read a book on his own.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to The Old Coach For This Useful Post:
Old 11-02-2019, 02:55 PM
Gaston444 Gaston444 is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 719
Thanks: 106
Thanked 463 Times in 287 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FerFAL View Post
yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no

Overpopulation? Look around. Very few countries have a fertiltiy rate over 2.1
In fact, most developed countries are, today, counting on immigration so as to not die.
Even in ****holes, the fertilty rate keeps dropping. Latin America for exmaple used to be a place where you had high fertiltiy rates but not any more.
Global fertility keeps dropping, people want to have less problems, less kids and its increasingly hard to get people to have more than two kids.

Overpopulation isnt a thing, never was and its certanly not one now. Aging population, thats not a myth but a problem today in many places.

Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth - YouTube

Population will still increase from 7 to 11 billion in 2100, and 3 of those 4 extra billions will be from sub-saharan Africa.

Overpopulation is very much a thing.

And an aging population doesn't mean "dying"...

G.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-02-2019, 03:05 PM
The Old Coach The Old Coach is online now
Militant Normal
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Western West Virginia
Posts: 9,064
Thanks: 2,835
Thanked 18,873 Times in 6,422 Posts
Default

Old folks ain't making babies, so yeah, and aging population definitely is dying.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to The Old Coach For This Useful Post:
Old 11-05-2019, 03:28 PM
Gaston444 Gaston444 is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 719
Thanks: 106
Thanked 463 Times in 287 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Coach View Post
Old folks ain't making babies, so yeah, and aging population definitely is dying.
Africa has 6 children per women, and the average age is dropping.

Sub-saharan Africa will be 30% of the world population by 2060, it is 19% now.

This part of Africa is projected to be 39% by 2100, when it will near Asia at 44%. (4.3 billions to 4.7) Conservative estimates...

Asia is 60% today.

Whites, who peaked at 30% of the world in 1950, are 17% today, and will be 9% by 2060. Exactly what Africans were in 1950...

If the white trend were to hold to 2100, whites would be around 5% of the world by 2100...

Whites fell below replacement birth rates (of 2.1 per woman) around 1990, and absolute non-Hispanic white numbers in the US started to fall in 2013 (probably the same all around the West).

According to a very credible 1995 historical study, European-origin inventions and scientific events represent 97% of the human total...

The majority of this output (over 90%) being since the European Renaissance (or since around 1500, and, in its early stages, heavily funded by the Catholic Church).

G.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gaston444 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-05-2019, 07:48 PM
FerFAL's Avatar
FerFAL FerFAL is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,673
Thanks: 231
Thanked 5,201 Times in 1,682 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Coach View Post
Old folks ain't making babies, so yeah, and aging population definitely is dying.
Actually yes, an aging population is a dying population.. I mean.. That is how it dies. Less and less children, the average age keeps going up until its only old people that are left and then even those die.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FerFAL For This Useful Post:
Old 11-06-2019, 09:11 AM
neiowa neiowa is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,278
Thanks: 458
Thanked 1,285 Times in 649 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaston444 View Post
Population will still increase from 7 to 11 billion in 2100, and 3 of those 4 extra billions will be from sub-saharan Africa.

Overpopulation is very much a thing.


G.
Crystal ball, tea leaves, rune sticks or some phony egghead college prof generated drivel? Population expansion theories have at least as many variables and unknowns as their manmade global warming apocalyptic nonsense.

Same song different verse for at least decades.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to neiowa For This Useful Post:
Old 11-11-2019, 07:55 PM
Gaston444 Gaston444 is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 719
Thanks: 106
Thanked 463 Times in 287 Posts
Default

These were all UN numbers...


World population estimates from 1800 to 2100, based on "high", "medium" and "low" United Nations projections in 2015 and UN historical estimates for pre-1950 data.
Quote:

"The median estimate for future growth sees the world population reaching 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100"


"From 2017 to 2050, nine countries are expected to account for half of the world's projected population increase: India(82), *****ia (IQ 82 and now 200 millions), the Democratic Republic of the Congo(65), Pakistan(84), Ethiopia (69), Tanzania (72), the United States(98), Uganda, and Indonesia(87), listed in the order of the expected size of their contribution to that projected population growth.[7]"

IQs are the attached numbers. Funny how politically correct spelling will not allow the biggest contributing African country to be spelled out...

Gaston
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net