Over Population - Page 3 - 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 02-05-2018, 06:12 PM
alv7722's Avatar
alv7722 alv7722 is offline
Come and Take Them!
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Where I Am Now
Posts: 2,806
Thanks: 14,955
Thanked 7,339 Times in 2,118 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Just 'cause something CAN be done, does not mean it SHOULD be done!! There are estimates that the Earth could support 15B+ people!! I, for one, would not wish to live that kind of "existence", and am old enough that I won't have to! For example, life for the ordinary citizen, would be much as it is now for the people of NK!!
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to alv7722 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 06:27 PM
GG42 GG42 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,124
Thanks: 1,043
Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,899 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alv7722 View Post
Just 'cause something CAN be done, does not mean it SHOULD be done!! Their are estimates that the Earth could support 15B+ people!! I, for one, would not wish to live that kind of "existence", and am old enough that I won't have to! For example, life for the ordinary citizen, would be much as it is now for the people of NK!!
%0 years ago the world population was 1/3 of a current one. Are we living in NK? The whole world is living better than ever. Chinese standard of living is INFINITE better than 50 years ago. And so is European.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to GG42 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 10:43 PM
Im RIght's Avatar
Im RIght Im RIght is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Redneck Riviera
Posts: 4,346
Thanks: 6,429
Thanked 8,118 Times in 2,827 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajole View Post
Totally in line with the popular science, and totally wrong.

We don't have too many people. We have too many people crowded into the wrong places. Urbanization is the problem.

We have more than enough resources on this planet for everyone, and then some, we just can't efficiently get them to the folks that are in those wrong places.
What population number is over population in your opinion? What are the symptoms of overpopulation?

I would also think people would live where they do because it makes sense logically... For example, I don't live in a dessert because I want to live where the water is. I live near the ocean because that's where the fish are. I live near the forest because that's were the deer are. I don't live off the land, but I could.

I don't live in NYC because there is no way to live off the land if one needed to. I don't live in a dessert because the water isn't there.... Population density isn't the only reason to avoid an area. Needing to rely on government help for subsistence is another.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Im RIght For This Useful Post:
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-05-2018, 11:30 PM
Helion Helion is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,642
Thanks: 327
Thanked 6,778 Times in 2,403 Posts
Default

Overpopulation is a UN/ Globalist ploy to get fools to build up instead of building out, in the name of the environment and for sustainability.

There's a push to herd people into densely populated cities and cram them into apartments and tenements with large swathes of natural "no go" zones.

Really not to dissimilar from your favorite post war/ big event "red" future dystopian science fiction story.

Its all spelled out plain as day in all those UN agendas. Same as the recent surge in paving bike paths and public transportation infrastructure and capital.

There's plenty of room but at the end of the day private land ownership is the ultimate display of wealth and power and there are certain entities that dont like little people exercising that much power and control over something they consider "everybody's" and not in their direct control and under their direct supervision.


As for SOUTHERN California's drought, I dont care. It is a desert, deserts dont get much rain. It may be developed but it is still a desert when its all said and done.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Helion For This Useful Post:
Old 02-06-2018, 02:44 PM
alv7722's Avatar
alv7722 alv7722 is offline
Come and Take Them!
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Where I Am Now
Posts: 2,806
Thanks: 14,955
Thanked 7,339 Times in 2,118 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GG42 View Post
%0 years ago the world population was 1/3 of a current one. Are we living in NK? .
Not yet, but we are on our way. More population means more laws, regulations, and restrictions. It means loss of individual rights and freedoms granted innately by the Creator!

If China is so great, why do so many there want to move here??
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to alv7722 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-06-2018, 03:33 PM
bhowle's Avatar
bhowle bhowle is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 805
Thanks: 278
Thanked 834 Times in 370 Posts
Default

The only people that believe perpetual growth is possible are madmen and economist.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bhowle For This Useful Post:
Old 02-06-2018, 03:33 PM
InOmaha InOmaha is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 7,057
Thanks: 6,088
Thanked 21,712 Times in 5,673 Posts
Default

If we lost 1/2 of the world's population, people might be sad because they lost relatives. But as long as the highest level producers stayed alive through it, our standard of living wouldn't go down. I might even rise without the resource competition.

Would the world miss really miss the populations in all the shanty towns around the globe? Harsh, but true.

When the next serious epidemic comes through, which populations will have the greatest chances of making it?
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to InOmaha For This Useful Post:
Old 02-06-2018, 03:46 PM
soocom1's Avatar
soocom1 soocom1 is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 781
Thanks: 9
Thanked 1,558 Times in 492 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InOmaha View Post
If we lost 1/2 of the world's population, people might be sad because they lost relatives. But as long as the highest level producers stayed alive through it, our standard of living wouldn't go down. I might even rise without the resource competition.

Would the world miss really miss the populations in all the shanty towns around the globe? Harsh, but true.

When the next serious epidemic comes through, which populations will have the greatest chances of making it?
That would put us at 3.5 BILLION people. The number would grow back to current levels in about 10 years.

to do what you want, we would literally have to see about 80% of the population dead.

So we would have to loose 5.8 Billion people and drop our numbers back down to about 1.1 Billion. That would put us back to around 1950 numbers.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-06-2018, 04:21 PM
GG42 GG42 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,124
Thanks: 1,043
Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,899 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alv7722 View Post

If China is so great, why do so many there want to move here??
Chinese standard of living is up 10-20 times for most people. For some it is up 10 million times. But here is STILL much better.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-06-2018, 04:35 PM
InOmaha InOmaha is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 7,057
Thanks: 6,088
Thanked 21,712 Times in 5,673 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soocom1 View Post
That would put us at 3.5 BILLION people. The number would grow back to current levels in about 10 years.

to do what you want, we would literally have to see about 80% of the population dead.

So we would have to loose 5.8 Billion people and drop our numbers back down to about 1.1 Billion. That would put us back to around 1950 numbers.
I didn't say I wanted it. I just said they wouldn't be missed.

How much do illiterate, uneducated, people in shacks, with no running water, sewage, or electricity contribute to the world? There are literally billions of them attached to major cities all over the world.

Not that any of them, or the earth, would miss me either. I guess if it turns out they're disease resistant, they'll end up owning the planet after the next major disease comes through and will have won the evolution game.

I find the concept that the population needs to grow in order for human's to maintain or expand their standard of living, odd. But many economists follow and politicians fell it necessary. Growth for growth's sake is cancer's mode of operation.

I don't feel my standard of living has doubled due to the earth's (or US's) population more doubling in my lifetime.

Not that you're advocating any of that, just me thinking.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-06-2018, 04:40 PM
NCalHippie's Avatar
NCalHippie NCalHippie is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 13,491
Thanks: 28,379
Thanked 23,648 Times in 9,209 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InOmaha View Post
I didn't say I wanted it. I just said they wouldn't be missed.

How much do illiterate, uneducated, people in shacks, with no running water, sewage, or electricity contribute to the world? There are literally billions of them attached to major cities all over the world.

Not that any of them, or the earth, would miss me either. I guess if it turns out they're disease resistant, they'll end up owning the planet after the next major disease comes through.

I find the concept that the population needs to grow in order for human's to maintain or expand their standard of living, odd. But many economists follow and politicians fell it necessary. Growth for growth's sake is cancer's mode of operation.

I don't feel my standard of living has doubled due to the earth's (or US's) population more doubling in my lifetime.

Not that you're advocating any of that, just me thinking.
I get the feeling that you don't understand the meaning of life, just saying.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to NCalHippie For This Useful Post:
Old 02-06-2018, 04:49 PM
InOmaha InOmaha is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 7,057
Thanks: 6,088
Thanked 21,712 Times in 5,673 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCalHippie View Post
I get the feeling that you don't understand the meaning of life, just saying.
I understand evolution and the drive to pass on genetic information. The world doesn't care about anything else. Any random meteor could wipe out life and not care about whatever meaning we put to it.

Other cultures may attempt to wipe out our people and culture because they feel theirs has more meaning then ours.

Life is harsh, might be an understatement.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-06-2018, 06:55 PM
clc79092's Avatar
clc79092 clc79092 is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: TEXAS
Age: 54
Posts: 1,925
Thanks: 197
Thanked 3,074 Times in 1,070 Posts
Default

Actually researched this in depth many years ago and reducing the world population to approximately 100 million worldwide without nuclear war is possible. It would take 5 to 7 years after implementation and 2 to 3 years prep time before.. Harsh but doable.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to clc79092 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-06-2018, 10:45 PM
ralfy's Avatar
ralfy ralfy is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,167
Thanks: 94
Thanked 1,613 Times in 1,144 Posts
Default

Some countries also face population ageing, which is why they are relying on young immigrants to take care of their elderly.

Meanwhile, overpopulation coupled with overconsumption is leading to limits to growth.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-06-2018, 10:53 PM
ralfy's Avatar
ralfy ralfy is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,167
Thanks: 94
Thanked 1,613 Times in 1,144 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InOmaha View Post
If we lost 1/2 of the world's population, people might be sad because they lost relatives. But as long as the highest level producers stayed alive through it, our standard of living wouldn't go down. I might even rise without the resource competition.

Would the world miss really miss the populations in all the shanty towns around the globe? Harsh, but true.

When the next serious epidemic comes through, which populations will have the greatest chances of making it?
Unfortunately, that's not how the economy on which that standard of living rests works. Rather, the "highest level producers" earn by selling more of what they produce to markets, and as they compete with each other, they require expanding markets.

Which is why the last thing they want to do is "miss the population in all the shanty towns around the world." Because they can't earn if they don't sell, and they can't sell if there aren't more buyers in a global economy. That's why those "shanty towns" are developing.

Harsh, but true.

What's the catch? In order to maintain that global economy and standard of living, more energy and resources will be needed. But that's not likely given a limited biosphere. Hence, there are limits to growth.

In which case, there won't be any "highest level producers" in the end. Everything will be shanty towns or worse.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-07-2018, 12:38 PM
TMOD's Avatar
TMOD TMOD is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 146
Thanks: 221
Thanked 158 Times in 73 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clc79092 View Post
Actually researched this in depth many years ago and reducing the world population to approximately 100 million worldwide without nuclear war is possible. It would take 5 to 7 years after implementation and 2 to 3 years prep time before.. Harsh but doable.
by what means?
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2018, 06:08 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 NY Min View Post
Only if you think Africans will somehow escape the population crash of the rest of the world. That would seem highly unlikely based on their track record to date. Like most of the 3rd world, their high birth rate is based on an historically high child mortality rate in a culture where only having adult children can provide Social Security in your old age.

Besides, in this modern age of genetics, we now know an eighth of the "white" population of Louisiana and South Carolina have at least 1% African ancestry (and the "blacks" of course are 20% to 30% white). Unless you are going to claim the fact Southerners have a higher percentage of African ancestry than Northerners is why they lost the Civil War, I don't see any need to be unduly concerned about a little more African stirred into the gumbo.
They will escape the population "crash" because their death rates will decline with our help, and they will also mostly move to the West to turn it into Detroit. Human population will go from 7 to 11 billions in 2100 (UN): THREE of those 4 extra billions will be sub-Saharan Africans, all of it with an average 20-30 points of IQ less, and the gene selection of tribal hunter gatherers. (Instead of winter farmers, like whites have been for 30 000 years). Whites will be 9% in 2060, from a height of 30% in 1950. Blacks will go from 9% to over 30% in 2060.

G.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Gaston444 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-08-2018, 06:48 PM
Ankylus's Avatar
Ankylus Ankylus is offline
Listen to the ghosts
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 4,876
Thanks: 5,178
Thanked 8,549 Times in 3,229 Posts
Default

You’re aware, aren’t you, that birth rates are declining globally? Certainly more so in some places than others, but they are declining universally.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/artic...across-regions
http://brilliantmaps.com/fertility-rates/
https://worldview.stratfor.com/artic...t-economy-hard
http://www.economist.com/node/14744915

The world’s total population will begin to decline by 2050 at current rates and trends. So if you Malthuseans will just calm down a bit, the problem will take care of itself.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2018, 06:50 PM
Ankylus's Avatar
Ankylus Ankylus is offline
Listen to the ghosts
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 4,876
Thanks: 5,178
Thanked 8,549 Times in 3,229 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clc79092 View Post
Actually researched this in depth many years ago and reducing the world population to approximately 100 million worldwide without nuclear war is possible. It would take 5 to 7 years after implementation and 2 to 3 years prep time before.. Harsh but doable.
I am curious to hear this too.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2018, 06:52 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry D Young View Post
I was going to address these issues in my first post in this thread, but wound up doing the self-correcting aspect instead.

While I believe that the earth could sustain not only the current population, but considerably more, if, as has been pointed out, land use, population location, food processing, and transportation issues were addressed and changes made to redistribute the population, and then maximize food production and distribution.

The problem is, it is just not going to happen. People will fight tooth an nail to stay were they are. And those that would wind up with neighbors they do not want will also fight it tooth and nail. And efficiency on a global scale is beyond current human ability simply because there are too many differences between people for them to even agree on what efficient means, much less what foods to grow.

The same goes to voluntary population growth control. "Fine for the other people. They should limit their population. But not us..." , among many other reasons and attitudes will preclude this happening. For the overwhelming majority of people, sex is not about having children, it is about the enjoyment of the act. People do not willing give up what they enjoy. And when it comes to artificial means of birth control, between religious objections, social objections, general distrust of science, superstition, and probably a dozen more reasons, not enough people would willingly submit to the programs.

And if you use force, then it enters the realm of genocide.

Simply not going to happen. So, while over population in the scientific sense, and the word accuracy sense, is not the problem, the reality is that the type of overpopulation we have now is the problem.

Therefore I still believe my first post applies.

Just my opinion.
Nevertheless, North America is populated with people whose ancestors came from elsewhere. Australia, too. Largely true also for South America. I've even heard that someone wants to build a wall to block migration from Mexico to the US.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mule Skinner For This Useful Post:
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 08:15 AM.


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