Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Following on from The overpopulation myth (part 1) discussion thread: /topic/show/...

Excerpt from The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy:

When considering the overpopulation theory, sparsely-populated landmasses with mostly wide, open spaces also must be taken into account. Places where you can drive across hundreds of miles of farmland or virgin landscapes without seeing a town or a village, or even a person in some cases.

Such landmasses include Canada, Brazil, Australia, Mongolia, Scandinavia, Russia, much of central Asia, many parts of the Middle East and large chunks of Africa and South America. Even some rural regions of the two most populated countries on earth � China and India � would fit into this category, not to mention certain states in America such as Alaska, Idaho, Nebraska, Maine, Utah, Arkansas, Wyoming, Texas and Montana � each of which have larger landmasses than many countries.

As reported in the August 2003 edition of International Journal of Wilderness, Conservative International conducted a major assessment into how much global wilderness is left. The conclusion was that the “study found that 46% of the planet qualified as remaining wilderness�.

Say what? If almost half the Earth’s surface � not including oceans � is comprised of untouched wilderness, why are we being told there’s hardly enough land to accommodate everyone?

Another statistic that shatters the overpopulation myth is that the entire world population could fit into the state of Texas. This has been confirmed by various sources.

Even the environmentalist website treehuger.com concurred in a July 27, 2011 article headed At NYC's Density, the World's Population Could Live in Texas. The writer states, “If the entire world's population � 6.9 billion people � lived at the same density level as New York City, we could all fit within the borders of the Lone Star State (Texas).�

In 2010, the overpopulationisamyth.com website calculated as follows: “Divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft (total landmass of Texas) by 6,908,688,000 people (world’s population in 2010), and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house. An average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard�.

Nobody is suggesting living conditions in a Texas with 7-plus billion people would be sustainable given land is needed for industrial and commercial premises, farms, orchards, schools and other community facilities. But the Texas statistic does at least prove space is not an issue given Texas is a tiny percentage of the planet’s habitable land.

Another little known fact is that for decades, economists have advised sparsely populated countries they need to increase their population to stimulate their economies. In our native New Zealand, which currently has a population of just under 4.5 million people, this has certainly been the case. Although the pro-active immigration policies of successive governments have been criticized by some, New Zealand’s present strong economy would likely not have been possible without the valuable input of immigrants who boosted the country’s population. At the time of writing, incidentally, New Zealand’s economy is rated one of the most buoyant in the Western world.

Australia, a continent with only 23 million people, and Russia, which covers one sixth of the world’s total land mass, are other examples of countries which could potentially benefit from increased populations.

In the mid-2000’s the Australian Government, under Prime Minister John Howard, subscribed to the little-known Underpopulation Theory by implementing a child encouragement policy nicknamed the Baby Bonus. This scheme, a brainchild of Australian treasurer Peter Costello, paid Australian citizens lump sums any time they produced newborn babies. Howard and Costello believed increasing the population would help stimulate the nation’s economy and put Australia in good shape for years to come.

Short of a nuclear war or some other cataclysmic event, world population levels are only going to continue to increase. According to some estimates, it will reach 8 billion in about a decade. Rather than worrying about this, humanity needs to focus on social responsibility, fair wealth distribution, equality and universal justice. In other words, the very things that are needed to sustain Mankind alongside food, water, clothes and shelter.

We are not saying we know better than scientists, futurists and economists. However, it’s a fact that 99% of these experts are blissfully unaware of the suppressed science mentioned throughout The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy. Ask most scientists about Nikola Tesla and you’ll be met with a blank stare � or at best a comment like, “Oh yeah, wasn’t he the guy who developed the AC current?�

And yet, the US government has classified more files on Tesla than any other scientist in history.

There is good reason for that and it didn’t happen by accident.

When the experts estimate how long the world can sustain life based on current and projected populations, they never take into account the radical technologies that would of course be released if we found ourselves on the brink of extinction.

Technologies like Tesla’s free energy inventions, and his pollutant-free and self-charging transportation inventions that would reduce pollution levels almost overnight.

Most experts never include such technologies in their gloomy forecasts as they simply don’t know about them. Or perhaps some of them have heard about these technologies, rumored or otherwise, but have written them off as fanciful conspiracy theories.

After reading The Orphan Conspiracies, and hopefully absorbing the often contentious, usually little known and sometimes revolutionary material contained within its pages, it should now be blindingly obvious that we, the writers, are diametrically opposed to the diatribes of the elite who consistently imply humans are parasites destroying the Earth.

So go ahead and propagate, and know that your offspring have the potential to assist the planet, not wreck it. In fact, go forth and multiply like rabbits. You have our blessing, but be warned: there’ll be no baby bonus from us!

“I think we have enough food and money to feed everybody � I don't believe in overpopulation. I think that's kind of a myth the government has thrown out to keep your mind off Vietnam, Ireland and all the important subjects.� �John Lennon. Excerpt from an interview on The Dick Cavett Show on September 11, 1971.

What do others think...I'm interested to know.

interesting. ..have to be honest, over population is a subject I've never really paid much attention to. It's always been more the frustration of people having more children than they can nurture & financially take care of. I need to look up more sources on this issue in order to comment, but I'm assuming that we need some uninhabited space/nature in order to create oxygen and other substances, allow for wild life and whatever else is needed for life on earth. What is a realistic ratio of humans vs wildlife and agricultural space?

I found the answer to some of these questions on the documentary Cowspiracy. Has anyone watched it yet?

haven't heard of it. ..

Lisa wrote: "haven't heard of it. .."

I recommend watching it. It speaks about how our resources are being wasted and what we can do to reduce it drastically.
It speaks mainly of water, soil and air (gas emissions). Very interesting.

On the subject of global population, I agree with this article by Alex B. Berezow who is the editor of RealClearScience and holds a Ph.D. in microbiology.


The World Is Not Overpopulated
By Alex B. Berezow

An opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times declared the world to be overpopulated and even compared humanity to a cancerous growth. This reasoning is not only disturbing, but is almost certainly incorrect, as well.

The world, indeed, has a lot of people. By the end of 2011, there will be nearly 7 billion people living on the planet. But population growth rates will not sustain at those levels. An analysis by The Economist describes how each subsequent billion will take longer and longer to achieve, until population growth eventually plateaus at around 9 billion people by 2050.

A 2003 assessment by the United Nations concurs. The UN projects, under its medium-growth scenario, that the human population will remain relatively stable at 9 billion until the year 2300.

The reason is that birth rates are naturally falling around the world. The current growth in world population exceeds the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman, but there are good reasons to believe that growth will slow down in the future. As countries become more technologically and economically advanced, people naturally choose to have fewer children. Also, there is a link between increasing female education and a declining birth rate.

Europe is the poster child for this phenomenon, where the total fertility rate is below 2.1 in all 27 EU nations. The problem is so bad in Russia, which may shrink by 25 million people in the next 40 years, that demographers are referring to a population crisis. This will put an enormous strain on Russia's economy as the government struggles to care for its aging population.

The authors also contend that "reproductive freedom" benefits all of humanity. But does it? Research shows that families around the world, particularly in Asia, selectively abort female infants. This "gendercide" distorts natural male-female ratios in the population. In some provinces in China, the ratio is perversely skewed in favor of boys, with 130 male births for every 100 female births. Obviously, this will have dire consequences for society.

If population poses a problem, it is likely due to distribution, not to growth. After all, only so many people can fit on the coasts of China, India, and the United States. There are many wide-open spaces for the population to expand. The trick will be to figure out a way to incentivize responsible growth, not to discourage it entirely.

Finally, the authors claim that poverty results from overpopulation. While this might be partially correct, many other factors contribute to poverty. China, with a population of approximately 1.3 billion, has entered a period of skyrocketing economic growth. India, with a similarly sized populace, is also slowly working its way out of poverty.

Instead of focusing on controlling population growth, a better way to tackle poverty is to help solve humanity's basic problems. Infectious disease, corrupt governance, and lack of access to global markets are Africa's biggest problems. When these devastating issues are corrected, African countries could experience rapid economic growth in the same way as did the Asian Tigers.

When the world becomes a more prosperous place, the "problem" of population growth will largely take care of itself.

I love it when people like Ted Turner say the world is over populated. I say: "fine Ted, lets start with you. The world would be a lot better off without genocidal malthusians like yourself. Please do the planet a favor and off yourself. Maybe your buddies will take a hint and join you." Of course, when they say the world is over populated, they never include themselves in that equation. The planet seems over populated only because people have congregated in tight locales, and over consume. There is no other reason. The planet is not over populated at all; not when seen in a proper context.

Erick wrote: "I love it when people like Ted Turner say the world is over populated. I say: "fine Ted, lets start with you. The world would be a lot better off without genocidal malthusians like yourself. Please do the planet a favor and off yourself. Maybe your buddies will take a hint and join you." Of course, when they say the world is over populated, they never include themselves in that equation. The planet seems over populated only because people have congregated in tight locales, and over consume. There is no other reason. The planet is not over populated at all; not when seen in a proper context. ..."

Well said.

It's interesting that British Reverend Thomas Malthus (who some call the Godfather of the Eugenics movement) theorized the overpopulation theory way back in the late 1700s (1790s, I believe). He warned that the world's population growth would exceed resources available by the early-mid 1800s and destruction of the Earth would then occur.

Here's an excerpt from a Forbidden Knowledge article: "In 1798, Thomas R. Malthus (1766-1834), a 19th century pessimist, after reading about goats on Galapagos Island, published his essay Principles of Population. The essay extended his observations of goats to humans, and maintained that populations are unprincipled and have no internal constraints toward growth. Now, in the first half of the 19th century in Europe, members of the ruling classes met subsequent to the publication of Principles of Population to discuss "the population problem." Before Malthus, populations were considered to be an asset. After Malthus, the concept of land acquisition to support "future large populations" became a motivating factor for war."
Read more of this article here and how Malthus ties in with elitism, Social Darwinism and especially with eugenics:

Same predictions of the world's imminent demise happened in the early 20th Century when this theory (aka The Malthusian Premise) was promoted by British and American politicians and scientists who also supported institutionalized eugenics.

By the 1960’s, when the planet’s total population was 3 billion, the overpopulation theory reached popular consciousness � aided no doubt by those influential figures who regularly trumpeted it in the media. The concept was always presented as if it was an absolute fact: the world could not handle many more people and humanity would soon cease to exist unless depopulation strategies were implemented immediately.

Most experts in the 1960s predicted if nothing was done about population levels then by 1970s or 1980s the world would end.

Since then the world's population has more than doubled - it's almost 7.5 billion people as of today.

In recent months/years, China (to my knowledge the only nation in history to have population controls) relaxed its 30+ year one child policy allowing many children to have siblings again.

Most economists in China and worldwide say their population controls were a disaster. For example, the New York Times stated in an article earlier this month that "Something had to be done. China’s population has stabilized at around 1.4 billion, but people over 60 now make up more than 13 percent of the population, and the percentage of people 14 years of age and under shrunk at least 6 percent between 2000 and 2010, reaching a new low of 16.4 percent in 2013. The rapid decline of China’s fertility rate � which has plunged to 1.6 births per woman, way below the replacement rate of 2.1 births � could stunt the country’s future economic growth. The declining working-age population will no longer be able to support the increasingly older Chinese population."

To my knowledge (and again correct me if I'm wrong) no other countries are planning population controls.

So people need to start accepting the world is going to get more and more populated. I think, instead of looking at human beings as being like parasites who are THE problem, we should look at the world's population as assets who can be part of the solution :)

These two images provide a good visual of how many underpopulated or sparsely populated large sections of the Earth there are:

/photo/group...

/photo/group...


We are also now running a group poll on this topic asking: Do you believe the world as a whole is overpopulated and at or close to the absolute limit of what it can handle? /poll/show/1...

It's all about water...not acres. The reservoirs of the world, many of them tens of thousands of years old, are rapidly being drained at an alarming rate because population expansion has far far far exceeded the rate of reservoir replenishment. Sure, maybe we can fit the population of the world in a space the size of Texas, but what will they drink?

And it's not just water...there's a long list of critical minerals and ores that are forecast to run out by mid century (which is only 35 years away...and world population is forecast to increase to 10.5 billion by mid century). Oil resources too are forecast to be exhausted by midcentury...and no, nothing has come along yet that can replace it in the volume that we use it. We've nearly exhausted sources of fish. And then there's the 6th Extinction...150,000 species going extinct annually, among them critically important pollinators. It's estimated by the end of the century, 75% of all creatures may be extinct. So not only will all those people crammed into a space the size of Texas have nothing to drink, they aren't going to have much to eat either.

The world's population should have been managed so that it didn't increase beyond what it was in the 17th century.

Jeffrey wrote: "It's all about water...not acres. The reservoirs of the world, many of them tens of thousands of years old, are rapidly being drained at an alarming rate because population expansion has far far fa..."

Hey Jeffrey, I've just added your book No Solid Ground: Renewable Contentment and Sustainable Happiness in an Age of Uncertainty which looks fascinating given your career in psychology and the book also seems to relate to this very subject.

On the issue of water, it's not something I've read that much about. Do you (or any other members) know of any planned solutions or ideas to solve the projected water shortages to come? I tend to believe there's a solution for everything if humanity can be creative enough (which it usually is during crisis). I think humanity would immediately unify and end wars if together we were all simultaneously facing a global catastrophe. Either that, or we'd all end up in some Mad Max scenario!!

Re the Texas example, I believe experts who don't agree overpopulation is real simply use Texas' landmass as an example to say space is not the issue. But nobody I know of is seriously saying the entire population would be able to survive (or at least not survive for long) in the state of Texas. However, I think the example of Texas does make a valid point regarding land acres vs. world population.

Hi James,

The issue of water is a huge open question. There is no viable solution at this point. This situation is made worse by extensive and serious drought occurring around the world.

Research during recent decades has shown that there have been cyclical periods of large-scale drought, both regional and global, ranging from several decades to a thousand years. Within the last 7,000 years, there have been seven large-scale droughts. And there’s even evidence of a major global drought 70,000 years ago so catastrophic that it left its mark in the human genetic record, which shows a bottleneck indicating a severe population die-off of humans at that time, with perhaps as few as several thousand survivors. Noted paleontologist Meave Leakey reflected on this, asking, “Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction?�. The period between 6300 and 4200 BCE was also marked by repeated, extreme drought that lasted for centuries.

Recently, researchers have concluded that drought was the primary cause of the Late Bronze Age crisis and collapse of the Greek Mycenaean kingdoms, the Hittite Empire in Anatolia and Syria, and the New Kingdom of Egypt in Syria and Canaan. Another epic drought in the Americas lasted from approximately 1100 to 1200 CE. And a mega-drought in the sixteenth century CE wreaked havoc for decades in the Americas.

Currently, widespread severe drought is occurring over large sections of the globe, and the global drought projections for the next two decades make for grim reading. According to a comprehensive study conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, extensive regions of the world could experience catastrophic drought conditions by the 2030s. Five Western states have declared a drought emergency (so far) and are imposing water use restrictions. Water wars are being fought in the courts. There's no solution in sight, and the Western states drought is thought to be a hundred year drought. This, combined with rapidly shrinking reservoirs is resulting in much uncertainty...

Jeffrey wrote: "Hi James,

The issue of water is a huge open question. There is no viable solution at this point. This situation is made worse by extensive and serious drought occurring around the world.

Researc..."

Thanks for that info, Jeffrey.
Sounds like it's an issue the world's governments should be giving a very high priority to then.
Instead of wasting trillions annually on wars we should be funding the greatest scientific minds to find solutions for this coming challenge and other environmental problems the Earth is currently facing.

I tend to have faith in the creativity of humans to solve such an issue, especially given we have done other seemingly impossible things like putting men on the Moon and building pyramids in Ancient times etc.
And paradoxically enough, there's a school of thought that says bigger populations actually make finding such solutions easier (due to higher consumer demand and larger economies driving advanced technology breakthroughs as occurred in the Industrial Revolution era and perhaps the 20th Century also).

In response to the question “Do you believe the world as a whole is overpopulated and therefore at or close to the absolute limit of what it can support?� in our latest Underground Knowledge group poll, interim results are:

56% say NO the world ain’t overpopulated.
38% say YES it is.
6% are unsure.

Poll closes June 29. If you haven’t cast your vote yet, please do. And feel free to comment. As always, all viewpoints welcome!

As per the group poll, here are some other recent articles on the subject:

Mawuna Koutonin On The Myth Of “Overpopulated� Africa

Population myth:

Is Overpopulation a Legitimate Threat to Humanity and the Planet? (NY Times):

The Myth of Overpopulation

Taking on the Overpopulation Myth (The Washington Times)

Overpopulation Is Not the Problem (NY Times)

These MAINSTREAM media articles prove it ain't just this group or conspiracy theorists or those with some hidden agenda that are debating whether the Malthusian theory of Overpopulation is true or not.

The group poll which asked members if they believe the world is overpopulated is now complete.

Here are the results:

56.5% voted NO
36.2% voted YES
7.2% voted UNSURE

Check out the lively debate in the comments section beneath the poll that occurred during the voting period: /poll/show/1...

Overpopulation Is A Myth

OVERPOPULATION: FACT OR MYTH?

Debunking the Myth of Overpopulation

My favorite novels are fantasy books set in a sparsely populated world.

As Sartre said, "Hell is other people."

A myth is something that is not real. Discarding 8 billion people as a myth is not seeing reality.
Humans are becoming Earth's cheapest commodity, due to technology and the "myth of of overpopulation."
I would like for all us to agree on the facts. There are excess people suffering of hunger everywhere in this world, killing themselves in senseless wars and the near future promised to be robotized to the point that it will eliminate 40% of jobs in the industrialized nations.
You may think that numbers will dwindle, okay. But a myth?
Politizising reality is the biggest problem we have in this country.

You're describing an unfair, unjust, cruelly managed world, not an "overpopulated" one. Most of the same issues you raise (e.g. Hunger/starvation) were as severe if not more severe when the planet was 3 billion.

If the world was managed with equality for all, we wouldn't be mentioning population issues in my opinion.

Hugely populated Japan is a pretty good example. Very densely populated, but good social reforms to protect citizens. Not to say Japan is without its own problems, including pollution, of course. But they also have universal healthcare, a strong minimum wage, invest heavily in communities and their own people (instead of spending half their budget on military ala the US...).
So what I'm getting at is many of the most extreme issues are not as a result of population by rather the gross inequalities inherent in the global elite.

Therefore I still maintain overpopulation is indeed a myth.

Again we're mixing facts, and I'm also guilty of that. I agree that management of economies and populations is, agreed, sorely lacking in foresight. Yet, that does not erase the fact that 7 billion, going to 8, is real. Just stop throwing your garbage away for 2 weeks and then multiply that by 7 billion and put all that somewhere public. Myths don't stink that much.

Paco wrote: " Yet, that does not erase the fact that 7 billion, going to 8, is real. Just stop throwing your garbage away for 2 weeks and then multiply that by 7 billion and put all that somewhere public. Myths don't stink that much. ..."

You're mixing apples with oranges there.
7.5 billion world population is a FACT. Indisputable.
The Overpopulation Theory (which claims we now have too much population to be able to manage and are at breaking point due to our population) is not a fact, but just that: A theory.

I maintain much of what we call problems blamed on population (which remember are exact same problems in many instances that we blamed on population when the world was only 3 billion in the 1960s) are not actually population problems but rather fairness/equality/corruption issues...For example, the greed of the ruling classes, the 1% dominating the 99%, the global war machine, banking crimes, corporatocracy, Big Pharma, etc, etc.

Fix those problems, and I'd be interested to see how many still blame population issues.

Consider Africa also. Huge continent in terms of land mass. Only 1 billion live on the entire continent. Sparsely populated in some areas. But we have some of the worst suffering on the planet there. Is that due to population? Or is it something else for the most part? If we halved Africa's population to say half a billion like it was 50 years ago, would it have any less suffering? Was Africa any more just 50 years ago?

I don't like to use the word theory loosely. A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven by facts and a cogen proof. Like the Theory of Evolution. I agree that we are grossly mismanaged, and I agree that giving up because there are too many of us is allowing them to win.
I don't like the word myth associated with overpopulation. Because the only effective way to control population is with education, health care and opportunities to combat religious fanatics that control the sex lives of their people.

Erick wrote: "The planet seems over populated only because people have congregated in tight locales, and over consume. There is no other reason. The planet is not over populated at all; not when seen in a proper context. ..."

Yup.

Paco wrote: "Because the only effective way to control population is with education, health care and opportunities to combat religious fanatics that control the sex lives of their people. ..."

You're assuming it's a fact that the world needs to be depopulated. Again, I say go back to it and reanalyze this theory that's been promoted as if a fact.

Enforced population controls, or even subtle strategies designed to reduce populations in certain regions of the world, are not something I personally agree with.

Also, I find it pretty interesting that certain well-known figures who heavily promote overpopulation theories and the need to drastically reduce population (e.g. charming people like Bill Clinton, Ted Turner and Bill Gates) always seem to point the finger at mostly non-White populated Third World nations...It's a bit reminiscent of British Royals during the height of the British empire thinking the peasants in the colonies are "breeding too fast"!

One of the best ways for Africa to become super strong and challenge Western dominance, might be to increase its population not decrease. That's how China is succeeding in rising up. Likewise with India.
Nigeria, for example, is projected to have the population of all of Europe by the year 2060. Maybe that thought scares a lot of powerful, rich white dudes...

The planet, in my view, can AND WILL, handle a much bigger population in years and decades to come...If we can sort out the big issues like challenging the ruling classes, getting greener/cleaner technologies (and more importantly releasing classified tech from the military), fairer distribution of wealth, creating a more just civilization etc, then this overpopulation myth will hardly be discussed again I predict.

The UN released this in 2015:
World population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050. The current world population of 7.3 billion is expected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100, according to a new UN DESA report, “World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision�, launched today.Jul 29, 2015

Those population figures are only less than a 50% increase in population in the next 80+ years.

That (relatively) small increase is not going to be prevented and it's not going to cause an Armageddon-scenario like many pessimistic scientists predicted in the 1960s and 1970s.

So we need to not fight nature, but rather work with it.

Sorry, James, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I have lived in South East Asia and can see on a daily basis the effects of overpopulation: traffic jammed Bangkok, unemployment, low wages, Dickensian education system, the list goes on. Anyone who visits India can see massive poverty and the degradation of what it is to be human, people sleeping (living) on railways stations, the stink of urine everywhere ...

Prince Philip seems to have the answer. In 1988 he said:

"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation."

God bless the royals, right..........

;)

Harry wrote: ""In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation."..."

Yeah, and if he succeeds, something tells me the Duke would start with non-Royals, non-Brits and non-Whites ;)

I have a feeling this thread will spill into NSFW territory.

Peter wrote: "I have a feeling this thread will spill into NSFW territory."

How so?

not taking the bait

Peter wrote: "not taking the bait"

O...kay
Sounds like a fishing story.

ok Here is a nibble. A video of Eric Kaufman speaking on how demographics will increase the numbers of fundamentalists of all kinds over secular people which could swamp liberal democracies with illiberal majorities in the near future. It doesn't bode well for normal people at all.

Peter, that's not a nibble ! Its one big bite for mankind ! Kaufmann, in one speech has outlined the decline and fall of the West. I really thought I was alone in these ideas. The Nazis tipped Germany with less than a third of the real popular vote. And of these ,only around half were rabid supporters of Hitler. Thankyou for this link. I tried to express this in my first book with the fall of pagan Rome to evangelical Christianity. This guy takes the issue head on. Very brave indeed. I hope that progressive secularists heed this message before its too late.

Here is this guy Eric Kaufman's author page on Amazon. He is kind of interesting. He sounds like a secular liberal academic who sees the writing on the wall.

Thanks Peter.

I'm not sure if anyone in this thread has defined the term "overpopulation", given the various directions this conversation has taken. I define overpopulation as having more people than the current governing bodies can reasonably care for. Some governments, certainly the Scandinavians, some Euro states, Japan, and to a lesser extent, the U.S., are providing their people with reasonable jobs and education opportunities.

But for much of the world, the regimes in control allow large percentages of their populations to go uneducated, offer no public assistance of any kind to the extent that children actually starve. That's pretty much the definition of overpopulation.

Even though the first world countries have decent living standards, they use entirely too much dirty energy in order to get that living standard. Dirty energy is defined as electricity from coal and gas, and transportation energy from oil. There is no way for the rest of the world to adopt our energy use without catastrophic outcomes involving untold misery and the premature deaths of billions.

Reasonable people do not insist on higher populations until the governing body can provide decent housing, jobs, and especially education. And no one should be calling for higher populations until our energy use has transitioned to 100% clean energy. We are at the beginning of this transition now, and it should be mostly complete within 20-30 years. Sadly, the Trump debacle will slow that down a bit.

My novel, "Radical: With billions of lives at stake, what would you do?" discusses this very question. In it, I offer two solutions, one a fantasy, the other, a viable, effective solution that is already underway. That is the elimination of dirty energy from our grid. I encourage all of you on this thread to do that for yourselves as soon as humanly possible.

As written by Professor Mario Pinheiro (also an Undergrounder):

"I believe the world is not overpopulated. It seems to be, because the poorest countries are naturally overpopulated due to a lack of state education and overspread corruption, but the population world growth is decreasing, contrary to the expectations of pseudoscientific theories, like malthusianism (in fact, Malthus inferred it based on the crazy reproduction of a population of rats, how likely he thought we are similar to that small animals...) and Darwinism...But, in a way that I still don't grasp, the supposed world elite keeps using and strongly spreading these ideologies. Are they irrationals or just evil?" -Prof. Mario Pinheiro

SCIENCE ALERT: WATCH: Is Overpopulation a Myth?

The World's Shrinking Population

Dire predictions about an impending overpopulation crisis have loomed large in the human imagination for centuries. Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson co-authors of, "Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline," say these predictions have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, the global population is on the decline. They join The Agenda to discuss a shrinking planet and the myriad challenges it poses.

Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline



-----------------------

Why the world population won’t exceed 11 billion | Hans Rosling | TGS.ORG

Eugenics is another issue. However the world is grossly overpopulated. Just because society has not yet collapsed does not mean that our future is not bleaker than armageddon.

We are past peak food, peak water, peak energy, and past peak on over a dozen other key factors. That does not mean there is a shortage now. Or even a shortage in the near term.

But it does mean that costs will continue to go up for many necessary items and that somewhere in the middle run, way before the long run, that things will go critical and armageddon will look like a sunday school picnic.

The Global Fertility Crisis


Japan's fertility crisis even worse than before as births fall sharply
To counter these trends, the government has set a fertility rate target of 1.8, according to The Economist Intelligence Unit. It has focused its efforts on improving women's work-life balance by increasing the number of places in day care centers and providing more parental leave.

The Global Fertility Crisis
The global decline of fertility rates is one of those factors. The total fertility rate at which a population replaces itself from one generation to the next is called the replacement fertility rate. At least two children per woman is needed to ensure a stable population from generation to generation. The fertility rate of five live births per woman in the 1960’s dropped to 2.43 by 2017 � close to that critical threshold. Why? Several reasons:

-Declining child mortality
-Greater access to contraception
-More women in education and work: the empowerment of women
-The rising cost of bringing up children

While the global average fertility rate was still above the rate of replacement, about half of all countries had already fallen below it. For places such as the U.S. and parts of Western Europe, which historically are attractive to migrants, loosening immigration policies could make up for low birth rates. In other places, more drastic policy interventions may be called for.

Note there's some interesting comments on global overpopulation in our Climate Change/Global Warming discussion thread at /topic/show/...

Undergrounders are reminded those comments should be reserved for this EUGENICS thread.