Jump to content

Overpopulation (This thread may not be suitable for minors)

Overpopulation is a serious problem. To tackle it, should we...  

59 members have voted

  1. 1. Overpopulation is a serious problem. To tackle it, should we...

    • Deliberately exterminate 3.5 billion people in the most humane way science can devise.
    • Allow "nature to take it
    • Do everything we can to avert this catastrophy and allow numbers to fall naturally in line with declining birth rates due to the higher standard of living enjoyed in the West.
    • Pray

Recommended Posts

as Gaia matures, so we will eventually perfect a means to fertilise another planet and the Gaia life cycle will continue.


Though not a Gaia fan; I do like this part of the theory and have pondered it muchly with the small bit of the Electric Universe model that I understand and with a lot of wild guess work.


If Venus was at one time a cometary body, until it found its elecrical balance in the solar field, then could humans one day learn to manipulate the charge in the field of other solar bodies to shift them into a more habital orbit (keeping a safe distance from our own planet) (Dibs on the moon) or go with an Arthur C. Clarke vision and turn a gas giant into a sun (as I now believe they do in time anyway, once they gain enough mass and get enough charge from a Birkeland current to switch to glow mode.)

We might have a useful reason for using HAARP and CERN tech yet; (although there is a resonable chance we may destroy ourselves trying.)


Sorry AT, this is not a hijacking attempt; It's just that once the electric model is accepted in an individual worldview, it tends to overspill into many areas of thinking, science, life etc.


I didn't vote either and I think it very poor of you AT, not to give the ultimate answer to one of the worlds biggest problems in your options. :wink:

All the worlds governments and people are keenly waiting for you to sort that poll out, so don't take too long.


Got no answer meself but here's some more options you could throw up on the board:


1. Have a legal murder day holiday every couple of months.


2. Get terraforming on other planets quicksmart.


3. Give up, kill ourselves and leave it to the monkeys.


4. Less baby making rooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How do you do that? I mean seriously, how? :roll: :evil: :wink:


Certainly not through dismissing them, as you would have us do. (all 5-6 billion of them)


I would create change through the means I proposed above.

I'm not going to let you off that easy, Njugle. Religions are opposed to population control. It's part of their dogma. How do you propose to deal with that? Ask nicely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nature has tried to reduce our levels..


the killer flu in the early 20 C


At most a virus will thin the herd a little where things are bad while boosting up the human immune system at the same time, then after doing the rounds will go back to being benign.


The influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 started as a US army bacteriological warfare weapon that infected US army ranks at Camp Riley KS in March 1918, and spread around the world.




and any other thing


The AIDS was posted out among some of the smallpox eradication vaccine and it has long been known about with little said...


In his 1989 book, 'AIDS: The End of Civilization,' Douglass claims the WHO laced the African vaccines. He blames "the virologists of the world, the sorcerers who brought us this ghastly plague, and have formed a united front in denying that the virus was laboratory-made from known, lethal animal viruses. The scientific party line is that a monkey in Africa with AIDS bit a native on the butt. The native then went to town and gave it to a prostitute who gave it to a local banker who gave it to his wife and three girl friends, and wham - 75 million people became infected with AIDS in Africa. An entirely preposterous story."


If all this seems mad conspiracy nonsense because you're sure no power that be would employ such inhuman methods as a means to an end, then look up things like The Tuskegee Syphilis Study...


For forty years, from 1932 to 1972, 399 African-American males were denied treatment for syphilis and deceived by officials of the United States Public Health Service. As part of a study conducted in Macon County, Alabama, poor sharecroppers were told they were being treated for “bad blood.â€In fact, the physicians in charge of the study ensured that these men went untreated. In the 25 years since its details first were revealed, the Tuskegee Syphilis study has become a powerful symbol of racism in medicine, ethical misconduct in human research, and goverment abuse of the vulnerable.


That's just one cat that got out of the bag on them but don't think for one seconed that this is an isolated rare event and that every other person in the business up to and including the WHO is there for the good of your health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would create change through the means I proposed above.

I'm not going to let you off that easy, Njugle. Religions are opposed to population control. It's part of their dogma. How do you propose to deal with that? Ask nicely?


Well, as you are determined to endeavour to justify your prejudice, I feel obliged to proffer up an answer to that.


In approximately ten minutes I have found references to moderation, self-control, vows against sex (not monastic either, but islamic!) and more, (via the magic of google), from the Bible, Torah, Koran and without even looking I know that Buddhism encourages all men to spend at least a couple of years living without any pleasures or vices, sex included. So I'm not sure where you get this baseless idea that "Religions are opposed to birth control".


Though, in consideration, I would guess that you are

a) generalising greatly

B) equating catholicism with "religions"

c) not appreciating that the chinese whispered historical accounts of all the major religions leave enough scope within their dusty pages to be interpreted any which way their leaders choose.



But, rather than get bogged down in the details, I would rather promote further the concept that religion is a far broader term than you accept it to be and doctrine can indeed be science. In your very own scientific approach to the current paradigm you are coming across as a placard carrying "The end is nigh, seek salvation now" manner, and willing us all to adopt the "samaritan" guise and attempt to change the world by altruistic example, that is throw the CT fund away on some environmentally significant idols, the like of which would be unequalled elsewhere. Great monuments to our ecological piety, to be worshipped unreservedly and that will save all the world from a hellish future of burning heat and eternal torment. For instance. :wink:


Whereas, I would tend to prefer the option of targeted education and resources, with a dose of acceptance thrown in for good measure, and if I were to wrap my own doctrine up and call it a faith based religion, I have no problem with that. It is entirely possible to construct modern religions that are faith based and can offer scientific and practical solutions to the population problems. A new testament, if you will, to offer hope to those forlorn and lost in the bleak visions of doom portrayed by the 'old testament' prophets, such as yourself. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twartree random towts.


James Lovelock

Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis is graetly misunderstood.

As faur as I can see aa da guy wis sayin is at da makk up o Earth's atmosphere, an a temperature reenge at allows liquid watter on moast oda surface is REDICULOUSLY unlaekly - an da reason fur dat is biological feedback fae da biossphere. No planetary intelligence or God stuff, joost biological an chemical feedback loops. An if da atmosphere is dependent on da biosphere (ta de extent at you wid hae a Mars type, or Venus type atmoshphere wi-oot it), BEST NO HACK ABOOT CARELESSLY WI DA BIOSPHERE.


Demographic Transition

1 Da red 'population' curve on da 'Demographic Transition' graph at ArabiaTerra posted is da first half o a Bell Curve. Whit geengs up, duly comes doon. As is happening in some 'developed' nations. e.g. Russia http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/russiapop.htm

Russia's population is drappin laek a ston, an no a gas chamber in sight.

2 200 years is faur too short a time frame ta make conclusions - an mind dat 200 year is been a unique and unrepeatable period o expanding energy supply.


Could I be so bold as ta suggest you read Jared Daimond's buik 'Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book)

- reading aboot Anasasi an Maya collapses, an aboot da wey at fok dere fortified der individual hooses as der societies collapsed, pat me very in mind oda massively fortified hooses in prehistoric Shetland - da wark at geed inta something laek Belmont 'broch' at haes multiple waas and ditches around whit luiks laek a single hoose says 'environmental an societal collapse' bigtime. You need a lok a motivation ta bigg aa yun wi haund tools! Dan ageen, I keen b**r aa aboot history. Google 'multivallate shetland'


Malthus wis right regairdin population increase, but didna see fossil fuels coming. Economically fok is baith producers an consumers. Environmentally, fok is aye consumers.


I am an aethiest, but voted for 'pray'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In a cynical sense, the news story today that scientists have developed a means to make sperm without a man could be viewed as a viral mutation of sorts. While mother nature (or pollution/gene pool corruption) is reducing fertility rates in the west, "we've" now come up with a way to self replicate.

Just to add to that top heavy demographic, and dodgy gene pool. Soon we will live forever and all can reproduce, without exception.


Yay. :roll:


We're going to need a bigger planet.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest posiedon

It is entirely possible to construct modern religions that are faith based

Yep! That says it all.

It's not only "entirely possible" It has been happening for millennia.

Aren't all religions and superstitions, faith based constructions? IE no evidence to support them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest posiedon

Why dont we all just vote in a government that doesn't PAY PEOPLE TO HAVE CHILDERN

Ra-men to that.

Unfortunately there isn't a party at present that fits the criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well , as you've taken me out of context poseiden, I ought to reply.


The emphasis on that point was on modern, new, forward thinking, scientifically complementary.


Like a religion that believes there was a big bang, and that there was nothing before it, and that preaches that repenting our carbon fuel based ways will bring salvation to the world, and that dictates that every man has the right to fresh water and education, and that if they receive that, then he may have faith in a better future for all and not just himself. One that requires that politicians hold their hand on a Richard Dawkins book and swear by almighty conscience that they will do their best to be honourable, truthful and serve the good of all.


That would be a modern religion. Or perhaps even post-modern, if you like.



What we really need to deal with overpopulation, in the absence of a decent religious leader, is a forward thinking dictator. That would help. All this democracy nonsense is getting us nowhere. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how odd to kill a child to get stem cells to make sperm to make a child. sciences is amazing.


How odd to think of a amalgamation of a few cells a child, when thousands are aborted weekly without a care. I think I heard on the TEE VEE that most pregnancies fail, and it is quite an achievment for a human to conceive..and go full term...


I think the simple view of stem cell treatments you describe their is covered by a few regulations. To kill a few men to liberate thousands, mm same sorta context but more believable...


Tis how we as a race desire to live, indeviduals may protest and remove themselves by taking a bit of a moral stance, but then, are you not denying folk who are already living with problems a chance to feel better, and live a more productive life, or just to say that because of something, which has most opposition from religious groups, you have to suffer for as long as you live...


Tis a hard one, but overall, it has nothing to do with this topic of reducing planatery population to a level that the planet can sustain.


I feel tis another topic, all of its own...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...