Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Too many people? 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Too many people?
Imagine our planet is a Petri dish of agar. Imagine humanity is a bacterial colony living on that agar. The population grows unchecked in an exponential fashion until there is no more food, whereupon the entire population dies, becoming extinct.

That is, of course, an oversimplified model of a predicament that we may be facing. In reality, the situation is vastly more complex, perhaps beyond our complete comprehension, but some things we do understand. For example, species do go extinct, like the dinosaurs, and more recently, the dodo bird. Even when they don't go extinct, they can decline to dangerously low population levels where the risk of extinction looms large, as eagles experienced during the days of extensive DDT usage.

There are humans that believe the only way to save humanity from its own extinction is by reducing the population. Global depopulation may be behind many of the programs being pushed by the ruling sociopaths, including orchestrated wars, artificial pandemics, genetically modified foods and organisms, fluoridated water, chemtrails, nuclear plant accidents, oil spills, artificial earthquakes and tsunamis, and weather modification. The mysterious Georgia Guidestones call for a sustainable global population of 500 million, which means for every group of 14 people, we need to reduce the population of that group down to one person. If couples are limited to one child, that could be accomplished peacefully in as little as six or seven generations.

The videos listed on this webpage argue that 100 million is the target population for global sustainability, which means for every group of 70 people, we reduce down to one. Again, if couples are limited to one child, that could be accomplished peacefully in as little as nine or ten generations. By the way, historically humans supposedly passed the 100 million mark around 500 B.C.

I was first exposed to the population problem in college in 1974 from my physics professor, Albert A. Bartlett. You can listen to his lecture, very similar to what I heard nearly 40 years ago, here.

I personally had two children, a roughly zero-growth model. I know from the experience that a rather full and meaningful life can be had with only one child per couple. It can even be argued that a full and meaningful life can be had with no children per couple. I certainly understood the logic of the Chinese when they sought to limit couples to a single child, though I did not approve of their enforcement methods.

I am familiar with some of the arguments that claim our planet can support much more than the current 7 billion humans, especially if free energy technologies are released to the public. But we had those free energy technologies 90 years ago, and they have essentially been suppressed by the ruling sociopaths.

Even today, it is clear that the inequities present in the human condition across the globe indicate a serious problem that may indicate excessive population, though I tend to think of this as more of a psychological problem stemming from the rule of sociopaths. And therein lies an interesting question. We've heard how the so-called "elite" consider most humans to be "useless eaters", and how they favor eugenics, genocide, war, disease, and poison as the preferred means of population reduction without being affected themselves. Clearly they have an agenda for population reduction since they benefit. They are also withholding the free energy technologies. So how much of the program behind population reduction is based on genuine concern and need, and how much is a propaganda-based deception and manipulation designed to benefit the human parasites perched at the top of the hierarchical pyramid, who exempt themselves from the program?

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:26 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Too many people?
Next thought: soil depletion. The Stanford video series makes the claim that it takes 15 years for soil to recover after one season of planting. I find this hard to believe and strongly misleading. It is common knowledge that a garden plot can produce continuously throughout one's lifetime. Rice fields have historically been used continuously year after year for generations. How is that possible? It's possible through proper management based on the cyclical model Nature herself uses. Sustainability is the result of that cyclical model.

Another thought: energy depletion. When burning wood was the primary source of energy, wood sources near major population centers were indeed being depleted. The problem was solved not through population control, but by changing to other energy sources, like coal and oil. These eventually introduced a new set of problems, which we are suffering from even now. It is conceivable that when the switch to "free energy" is made, we will again eventually hit limits with their own set of unique problems.

Growth, in the sense of constant expansion, is not compatible with sustainability. There is plenty of growth in Nature, but it occurs within limits that ensure sustainability. Clearly, human population growth also needs to occur within limits, and it needs to attain the proper balance of sustainability. This has not been occurring, as evidenced by the exponential graph of human population growth. Any scientist will tell you that without any management, such a graph is a sure prelude to dramatic population collapse. The real question is who do we want to do the managing -- the vast non-sociopathic majority, or the tiny sociopathic minority? Who do you think is attempting to do the management currently?

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:05 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:04 am
Posts: 303
Reply with quote
Post Re: Too many people?
First thought on this topic for me is, yes too many people.
Complex topic.
Excellent topic.
It has been on my mind.
I always wondered what happened to the urgency of population growth that was around when I was in school/college in 70's-early 80's. It seems to me that in the 80's and ever since the topic of pop. growth diminished.
Was it maybe because the NWO -Georgia Guidestones- crowd decided to "hush" it and take care of it themselves?


Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:26 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Too many people?
It has been on my mind.

Mine too. A thinking person cannot avoid it. Here is another thinking person that sees the problem.

Quote:
Was it maybe because the NWO -Georgia Guidestones- crowd decided to "hush" it and take care of it themselves?

It certainly appears that way. If it's within their capabilities, they will pursue it. It's what sociopaths do -- it's all part of the "game", and their "raison d'être" is to win it.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:28 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Too many people?
The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8)

[...]

http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/showthre ... #post58454


beginExcerpt

Zero Population Growth Rate. <----------- easy answer.

I debunked the alarmist video above ... and the nutty professor who misapplies the exponential function (treats humans as non-sapient yeast growing in a Petri Dish) and applies fraudulent Malthusian arguments (e.g. arithmetic growth of resources versus geometric growth of population) to make the argument for peak oil and what not ... at Avalon. If I can retrieve those arguments again, I will repost them here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

The power pyramid phonies are destroying the resource sector deliberately to create scarcity ... and had long encouraged the populations to balloon rapidly by spreading poverty (poverty breeds high birth rates) and religion (e.g. Catholic proscriptions against birth control) ... to create a crisis worthy of being explained by a scholastic giant in his own time but a quack by modern standards of science. One can't blame Malthus ... for his error can be mitigated by the narrative of his era. But the apocalyptic Guidestone quadruplet of war mongers, pestilence mongers, death mongers, famine mongers ... are on a gallop to effect crises ... from which they can change clothes at the three-quarters pole - while still mounted - and charge in as the righteous cavalry.

Problem. Reaction. Solution.

And occultist allegiance to the all-seeing eye hovering over the power pyramid.

[...]

ps: To wit, there is no crisis other than that created for the narrative of the power pyramid. No power pyramid. No crisis.

ps2: The solution to overpopulation is as easy as zero growth rate.

end


Now that Chico's been exposed as a gatekeeper of the establishment, he's going all out to affirm the establishment agendas. Evicted from the brotherhood of truthseekers, he's now looking for fraternity with the false flag flying fukkers. One of the FalseFlagFlyingFratFukkers' (or quintuple F) main agendas is pop. redux.

Clowns like Professor Bartlett see the opportunity to fearmonger and gain favor with the establishment and its scientific dictatorship. A dictatorship which equates yeast in a Petri dish with sentient, sapient higher order organic systems such as human beings. But even yeast alter reproductive strategies when faced with limited food and space resources. In contempt of yeast culture studies, Bartlett attempts to argue that the exponential growth function is applicable to human populations as if they existed in a theoretical mathematical space. We clearly do not. Not only is there space enough on the Earthly petri dish for over a 100 billion souls ... we still won't approach yeast-in-a-Petri dish threshold conditions.

E.g. Earth's total land mass is approx. 150 million square km. Let's assume only a third is suitable for human inhabitation or 50 million sq. km. Earth's population is approx. 7 billion humans. Ergo, 140 humans per sq. km.
1 sq km = 247 acres ... which translates to 1.76 acres per every human ~ 2 acres

Question needs to be asked ... is the ratio of approx. 2 acres per human (on 1/3 Earth's land surface) genuine Petri dish saturation conditions?? Or is it fearmongering about Petri dish conditions?
:jest:

To further the thought experiment, a 100 billion souls is roughly 14 times the current population. So we still have 2 acres divided by 14 humans or ~ 1/7th acre for each human being at a 100 billion total population or 678 sq. yds or 6000 sq. ft or 77ftx77ft for each human at a 100 billion population.

The numbers don't lie. Human overpopulation is not a problem ... and won't be for a very long time even at this rate of mismanagement. By contrast, human population mismanagement by the power pyramid is a huge problem. In the power pyramid scheme of things, where the Queen is reported to own 6,600 million acres herself, overpopulation is indeed a problem. Humans basically represent squatters from the Banksters/Queen's perspective; and they need to be removed. Ergo, Georgia Guidestones and said culling agenda.

http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-th ... atrick.net

I've made the counterarguments to the overpopulation meme insurrection into popular education and culture ... at Avalon and Nexus. Visit those sites to see the kryptonite that defeats Superman's agenda of pop. redux. ...
namely, zero population growth rate.

The meme of overpopulation is a power pyramid scam. Period. And Chico is caught yet again in trying to steer a supposed truthseeking forum into a cul-de-sac of controlled discussion. Qui bono by this steerage? The existing power-hungry, pyramid-design establishment.

Pax Humanitas

ps: Professor Bartlett knows the exponential growth function, true enough ... but he doesn't know the proper implementation of it as it pertains to human populations. We are not yeast cells. But even if we were, say, on a macroscopic level, we would still not see exponential growth, e.g. the increasing scarcity of space and food resources will alter our breeding practices.

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:03 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:33 pm
Posts: 4156
Reply with quote
Post Re: Too many people?
Zero population indeed. I love how they get us to believe its our fault. This system is organic? My ass....

The best evidence is to get out of your house and look at your environment.
In my home town there is tons of space, unused like the brain our society uses to direct itself.

Negligence to the extreme creating a schism in responsibility, a disassociation creating a compartment in the mind.

I think the confusion lies in the way we are herded into dense population. It creates claustrophobia.

Fundamentalism is the power that shapes societies.

_________________
Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.


Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:30 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Too many people?
UncleZook wrote:
ps: To wit, there is no crisis other than that created for the narrative of the power pyramid. No power pyramid. No crisis.

The idiocy of binary thinking at its finest. "No power pyramid. No crisis." Does anyone even take you seriously? Oh, right, there are some that do. But to ignore the math and the numerous examples in nature of that math in action is stunningly stupid. And then to argue that it can't apply to humanity, that we are somehow exempt, is just unbelievable.

Quote:
ps2: The solution to overpopulation is as easy as zero growth rate.

Yes, or even negative population growth, but the difficulty is in the execution, especially when it doesn't seem to be in our repertoire. The numbers don't lie. An exponential growth curve is not sustainable. Period.

Quote:
Not only is there space enough on the Earthly petri dish for over a 100 billion souls ... we still won't approach yeast-in-a-Petri dish threshold conditions.

Space is not the limiting factor, Dummkopf. I can't believe you would present that simple-minded argument. And then to spend so much time developing it! How shallow is your intellect, Zook? Is that really you, or is someone trying to impersonate you? Tell me it's not so!

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:53 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Too many people?
Hey, Binary thinking! babbling bobblehead, human population growth is best mapped with a sigmoidal function and not an exponential one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function

Professor Bartlett got it wrong by trying to map the exponential growth function to human populations. There is, indeed, an exponential growth phase to human pop. growth ... but this phase then yields to a steady state (when pushed into the scarcity of spaces and resources).

If you don't have the knowledgebase to enter into rational discussion on a topic, please exeunt yourself.

Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:20 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:33 pm
Posts: 4156
Reply with quote
Post Re: Too many people?
:lol:
This is good stuff.

We are being herded. So the question of population growth is not the question, but the misdirection.

Does that make sense?

Priori i thinking?

_________________
Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.


Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:26 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Too many people?
UncleZook wrote:
human population growth is best mapped with a sigmoidal function and not an exponential one.

Here is a graph of human population throughout history. It doesn't resemble a typical sigmoid function at all. Now perhaps it might turn into one given enough time, or it could end up as a steep spike after a sudden, dramatic fall. I sure wouldn't want to dance around like a know-it-all claiming "human population growth is best mapped with a sigmoidal function" when no one has a clue how the graph will turn out. Especially if I was as severely busted as you are.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:35 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.