[mustrevolt]

this is a question ive been kicking around for a long time deep in my moral membrain. it is what some say and i somewhat believe may happen in the future, DEPOPULATION. just wondering what everyone elses ideas are on the subject. is it such a bad idea? is the world actually overpopulated? or just mis-managed? do we fight the tyrants and help to depopulate? or try to avoid it? is the important question, after the battle (WAR) who will be left to repopulate if any? i have allready made up my mind and sure alot of you have to, so lets hear it!!!!

 

[RobertRogers]

well, I suspect the fewer the people the more everyone can have. No sense reaching the carrying capacity of the earth and then something happening resulting in a mass die off of people.

Think about the black death of the middle ages. 1/3 of the people in Europe died and then suddenly the survivors had plenty of land to farm and other resources - they went from a life where most people lived in abject poverty to the Renaissance.

My feeling is that a couple of billion people on earth is plenty and much healthier than the current population.

 

[hillsidedigger]

Depopulation is going to occur whether people choose it or not, even without widespread military conflicts.

Note: The higher the number goes before the crash the lower will be the number surviving after the crash.

If the world had never exceeded 2 billion then 2 billion might have been fine for a while (although would be too many for a long time)

but if the world reaches 9 or 10 billion here shortly as is predicted then the decline must be to far fewer than 2 billion (like 1/10th. or less of 2 billion) due to the way that in just a few decades that the huge numbers ravaged and degraded the natural systems of the world.

 

[nattylite]

There are now twice as many people on earth now than when Kennedy was elected.

Since the industrial revolution, through the use of technology, we have basically converted ancient carbon (oil, coal, gas) into human biomass. Since this ancient sunlight is running out, it is inevitable that allot of people are going to have to die.

In mathematics when you have a finite input and an exponetially increasing formula that takes away from the input, it is called a death cycle equation.

Rent/buy "The 11th Hour", if you have not already.

have a look at this starting at 45 seconds:

 

[kajunman1]

modernized advanced societies usually cannot sustain their population.

 

[cadethepagan]

I know it is cruel. But civilizations that rely on others to manage and support their population should be left to whither and die as nature intended. Life and death are part of the cycle on this planet and to much of any throws it out of whack.

In this case there is too much life.

Usually as history fortells when a species reaches climatic populations, climate changes, disease and catastrphies lead to a massive extinction then a slow recovery.

I don't know how and I don't know when but unless our technology allows us to escape this planet before the population doubles again...it may be to late for the human race.


-Cade

 

[Aubb]

All you folks that think depop is good please go to the nearest euthanasia center.

 

[mustrevolt]

that was awesome.

 

[spacemanspiff]

All you folks that think depop is good please go to the nearest euthanasia center.

I agree. Who wants the be first to volunteer?

 

[FXjohn]

modernized advanced societies usually cannot sustain their population.

why do you say that?

 

[hillsidedigger]

modernized advanced societies usually cannot sustain their population.

There has not been a previous modernized, advanced society to compare the current one with. This is an one-time-only-possible event which apparently the entire Universe and all of history was created for (although may exist in an infinite number of variations and outcomes in parallel universes).

 

[Hess]

Our world has had a ten fold population increase since the beginning of the oil age circa 1860. We have bred like rats locked in a feed mill. Our population will be like the bell curve created when bacteria is introduced to a petrie dish full of protein. A massive increase, followed by a massive decrease, get ready my fellow bacteria cause ladies and germs it's going to happen.

 

[test]

There is another thread floating around here JUST LIKE THIS ONE....same theme, different words.

You sir, lack original thought and the inability to use a simple 'search' feature on a forum which shows you also lack mental acuity.

Your question suggests that 'we' should have some say so over whether other people have children or not, or that 'we' should control the number of children people should have and whom should be allowed to have them.

Let me put this to you bluntly:
If you feel there are too many people here on earth and your 'moral membrain' is overly taxed because of it, please, do us all a favor and put yourself out of your misery.

BTW, Lrn 2 speel ad use cepital letters at the bee ginning of ur sentances.

 

[mustrevolt]

please forgive me, im just a newbie. grovel grovel

 

[hillsidedigger]

"There is another thread floating around here JUST LIKE THIS ONE....same theme, different words."

I've only posted here for a couple of days and it seems like there are and have been numerous threads on this subject

and with good reason

for, the primary and greatest threat to and the source of most all problems that potentially face those who realize the need to prepare as 'survivalists' is the very real fact that we are locked in competition with far too many other people on this small planet with it's one world economy and limited resources.

Some few enlightened thinkers started to perceive and publicize their thoughts concerning this developing problem about 200 years ago. Many more figured it out about 40 years ago. China saw the future and adopted the one-child-per-couple policy. The American Congress studied the issue and concluded that America had best not grow beyond 200 million people.

Many then and many still continue to deny thinking that perpetual growth in human numbers is not only natural but it is the only possible option.

 

[test]

"There is another thread floating around here JUST LIKE THIS ONE....same theme, different words."

I've only posted here for a couple of days and it seems like there are and have been numerous threads on this subject

and with good reason

for, the primary and greatest threat to and the source of most all problems that potentially face those who realize the need to prepare as 'survivalists' is the very real fact that we are locked in competition with far too many other people on this small planet with it's one world economy and limited resources.

Some few enlightened thinkers started to perceive and publicize their thoughts concerning this developing problem about 200 years ago. Many more figured it out about 40 years ago. China saw the future and adopted the one-child-per-couple policy. The American Congress studied the issue and concluded that America had best not grow beyond 200 million people.

Many then and many still continue to deny thinking that perpetual growth in human numbers is not only natural but it is the only possible option.

The numerous threads saying the same thing over and over started by people who are new to this site only means that trolls are being redundant and attempting to stir up crap.


Considering that you're advocating a communist government ideology only proves my point.

If you believe this is such a wonderful idea, I think you should prove to the world how important this is, make a public statement then thin the herd of the american population starting with yourself.

 

[cicio]

Talk, talk , talk , talk talk. We need the Yobs man, screw the environment. Talk is cheap folks.

 

[Watcher]

If you believe this is such a wonderful idea, I think you should prove to the world how important this is, make a public statement then thin the herd of the american population starting with yourself.

I think it's possible to be worried about the impact of very high population on the Earth and not be a communist or be in favour of mass killing or some such thing.

 

[Peter]

Is depopulation the new improved politically correct sanitized terminology for genocide...
If thats the case I'll let someone else go first...

 

[kajunman1]

why do you say that?

In general, as societies progress and people become more affluent, families go from double digit number of children to something like 1.58. 2 for 2 leads to population decline.

Poor reproduce in higher numbers than rich.