Human population explosion. Solutions please.

This is a discussion on Human population explosion. Solutions please. within the The Foyer forums, part of the Off the Grid category; http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.earth.html WHAT CAN BE DONE? 5. ALL COUNTRIES CAN FORMULATE POPULATION STABILISATION AND REDUCTION POLICIES This markets topping out, due ...

View Poll Results: Paying extra tax to help improve population control.
Yes,happy to pay a tax that will improve population control and quality of living for poorer nations 2 40.00%
Essentially, NO. I'm aware the problem exists ,but someone else please deal with it. 0 0%
CB. Look, the world knows its cheaper to let nature run its course with these things. 3 60.00%
Funnily enough, if we paid for the solution ,it would be cheaper & deliver. 0 0%
Voters: 5. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 5, 2007, 1:23pm   #1
 
Crap Buddist's Avatar
Joined Jan 2007
Human population explosion. Solutions please.

Click the image to open in full size.

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.earth.html

WHAT CAN BE DONE?
5. ALL COUNTRIES CAN FORMULATE POPULATION STABILISATION AND REDUCTION POLICIES


This markets topping out, due for a slump ?
__________________


"You smell that? Do you smell that? Coin, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of Coin in the morning."~ Colonel Coin

Last edited by Crap Buddist; May 5, 2007 at 1:29pm. Reason: nice chart :)
Crap Buddist is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks! The following members like this post: JTrader
Old May 5, 2007, 2:33pm   #2
Joined Dec 2002
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...rolagenda2.htm
JTrader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2007, 2:48pm   #3
Joined Dec 2002
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...assculling.htm
.
Quote:
Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth's population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. "The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050," states a United Nations report. Conservation International's own study revealed that 46% of the earth's surface was an untouched wilderness, that is land areas not including sea..

Last edited by JTrader; May 7, 2007 at 9:45pm.
JTrader is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks! The following members like this post: fibonelli
Old May 5, 2007, 5:40pm   #4
Joined Nov 2001
Nothing can be done. Have you listened to the Reith Lectures on BBC 4, this year, featuring Sachs.

He is very optimistic. I'm not, at all. The problem with my point of view, and I admit it, is that if we do not try to do something, we are putting our heads on the block without a fight.

Nevertheless, human greed and self preservation will not allow us to trust that others will do the same as we do. Right now, we are waking up, but I fear that we expect others to make sacrifices, while we are not. Where I say "We", I mean all of us, worldwide

Split
Splitlink is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2007, 6:06pm   #5
Joined Nov 2001
Hi Jtrader re: your post on prisonplanet.

This smells of sheer desperation and I fear that nature will do that for us, but only partially. Starvation and a world shortage of water are, already, working on this but the population is still increasing so, sooner or later, these shortages will extend to other over populated areas. Food will get scarcer and more expensive and wars will be fought over water. The BBC today, treated rather lightheartedly, the fact that wood for fencing is almost impossible to get in some areas and that some house owners are having their palings thieved. That is what we are coming to and these shortages will become more evident as time passes. While the West can stumble along giving people higher wages so that they can buy ever more expensive food, other countries will sell to us and poorer countries will not be able to import what they need.

This is what comes of being a member of an ever increasing population on a planet with dwindling resources. With the threat of these terrible deseases, such as aids and bird flu, doesn't it seem laughable that the world is worried about the threat that nuclear energy poses?

Split
Splitlink is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2007, 9:15pm   #6
 
new_trader's Avatar
Joined Jan 2006
Solution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crap Buddist View Post
Click the image to open in full size.

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.earth.html

WHAT CAN BE DONE?
5. ALL COUNTRIES CAN FORMULATE POPULATION STABILISATION AND REDUCTION POLICIES


This markets topping out, due for a slump ?
WHAT CAN BE DONE?

1) Print EVERY e-mail you get, even spam
2) Leave lights on in empty rooms
3) Fill UP your kettle when making only 1 cup of tea
4) Fly more often, especially on low cost airlines
5) Drive a 4x4
6) Put plastic, paper and cardboard in the "bad" bin.
7) Take your jumper off and turn UP the thermostat instead.

Reverse the above once population has been reduced to acceptable levels
new_trader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2007, 9:58pm   #7
 
fibonelli's Avatar
Joined Oct 2006
Here's my tongue in cheek solution to the "alleged" over population scam.

Cull the following
1. Believers of this scam
2. AGW believers
3. Fascists

Leaving plenty of room for everyone else with fair access to land, water and money.
__________________
Audere est Facere

"The trend is your friend and divergences are your best friend until the bend at the end"

Party on like it's 1930, until Mr C (Wave) gatecrashes the party.
fibonelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2007, 11:09am   #8
 
trendie's Avatar
Joined Jan 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by fibonelli View Post
Here's my tongue in cheek solution to the "alleged" over population scam.

Cull the following
1. Believers of this scam
2. AGW believers
3. Fascists

Leaving plenty of room for everyone else with fair access to land, water and money.
fibonelli,

why do think this is a scam? (agree on your two other points)

generally:
before any decisions are made, we need to quantify the issues;
for example, not all people are equal: the poor in developing countries have very few resources, and are possibly leaving a small carbon footprint, whereas people in the developed countires, europe and usa, use a disproportionate amount of the worlds resources.
so, each american culled could mean 5-10 poor people getting to live well. kill all americans, 300 million, and you may help to spread those resources more fairly, and give 1-3 billion a better standard of life.

if developed countries have a fall-off of population growth, fast-tracking developing countries into better life could mean fewer births at some point.

its not how many people there are, but how we use/squander the resources between us.
__________________
# If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail - Abraham Maslow
# There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those that understand binary, and those that dont. -Anon
# Ed Seykotas Whipsaw Song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiE1V...Wlxk8&index=10
# Defeat is temporary. Giving up makes it permanent. Anon
trendie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2007, 12:02pm   #10
 
options's Avatar
Joined Jul 2001
Another world war will sort everything out...Sadly though it will probably mean that we have no planet left.

Problem solved!
__________________
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/truth/

"Adapt or die!" Said the Coackroach to the Dinosaur.

Beware of false signals bearing gifts.

"I have seen the enemy...and it is me."

Follow the path of least resistance.
options is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2007, 2:49pm   #11
 
Crap Buddist's Avatar
Joined Jan 2007
Crap Buddist started this thread ok so if theres 2 billion fertile females & their partners, why not tax (ongoing) the worlds richest nations to raise a couple of trilion dollars to pay for

an allowance (to be used for funding self sufficiency programs) so they do not reproduce as much , just have 1 or 2 children, that will actually stand a better chance of surviving because of improved quality of living.

That has to be the way forward doesnt it ? what would the extra tax burden be to raise a couple of trillion across the developed world.

and do we support this idea, I feel a poll is required.

please have a look.
__________________


"You smell that? Do you smell that? Coin, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of Coin in the morning."~ Colonel Coin
Crap Buddist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2007, 4:45pm   #12
 
frugi's Avatar
Joined Mar 2003
CB,

You could tax those in the world's richest nations who have more than say 2 children. Apparently a rich child costs the equivalent of up to 200 poor ones in terms of resource, people and planet abuse. Though I doubt you'd be in power for long. Then do something helpful to poorer ones with the money.

But I don't follow why an allowance to promote self-sufficiency would encourage moderate reproduction. Are you saying desperately poor families have lots of kids at the moment simply because it improves their chances of overall survival? Like a dandelion on some stony ground .... if they throw out enough seeds and 1 or 2 may by a miracle live to repeat the process. What a depressing thought. But it doesn't sound right to me. From a survival point of view, surely it would make more sense to have fewer children when resources are very scarce?
Though I see that in case of rife disease the situation is less clear, perhaps there would be safety in numbers in this case.

In my ignorance I thought it was lack of contraception (plus a fair amount of brainwashing of the god doesn't like the pill variety) that is the main cause of profligate breeding. Perhaps some of the allowance could be used for giving that out for free, thus sparing several children from unpleasant, preventable fates.

Last edited by frugi; May 6, 2007 at 4:52pm.
frugi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2007, 4:59pm   #13
 
fibonelli's Avatar
Joined Oct 2006
[QUOTE=trendie;328550]fibonelli,

why do think this is a scam? (agree on your two other points)

Hi Trendie,

Because in my opinion there is sufficient productive land available (needs to be shared out!).

With fair access to water and money, this will enable land to become productive on a self sustaining basis.
__________________
Audere est Facere

"The trend is your friend and divergences are your best friend until the bend at the end"

Party on like it's 1930, until Mr C (Wave) gatecrashes the party.
fibonelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2007, 5:08pm   #14
 
trendie's Avatar
Joined Jan 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugi View Post
CB,

You could tax those in the world's richest nations who have more than say 2 children. Apparently a rich child costs the equivalent of up to 200 poor ones in terms of resource, people and planet abuse. Though I doubt you'd be in power for long. Then do something helpful to poorer ones with the money.

But I don't follow why an allowance to promote self-sufficiency would encourage moderate reproduction. Are you saying desperately poor families have lots of kids at the moment simply because it improves their chances of overall survival? Like a dandelion on some stony ground .... if they throw out enough seeds and 1 or 2 may by a miracle live to repeat the process. What a depressing thought. But it doesn't sound right to me. From a survival point of view, surely it would make more sense to have fewer children when resources are very scarce?
Though I see that in case of rife disease the situation is less clear, perhaps there would be safety in numbers in this case.

In my ignorance I thought it was lack of contraception (plus a fair amount of brainwashing of the god doesn't like the pill variety) that is the main cause of profligate breeding. Perhaps some of the allowance could be used for giving that out for free, thus sparing several children from unpleasant, preventable fates.
ahhh, frugi, but I belive you are entirely wrong here.

it is the infant mortality being so high that means parents HAVE to have so many children, as so few children survive the first 5 years of life, succumbing to a myriad of preventable diseases, mostly due to contaminated water.
(imagine a UK where half the children die. if you want 2 healthy children, statistically you would need to have 4 to ensure 2 survive into adulthood. I am not going to mention the trauma of KNOWING you would be burying some of your children. This is a daily experience in most parts of the world.)

also, they dont have councils, or a welfare state, so their ONLY resource is a fit and healthy family who will look after them in their old-age, and provide food and help.
they cant afford expensive tractors, so people again are the only cheap resource to provide assistance.
(this is tragically the reason where girl-babies are killed in favour of boy-babies, as boys are seen as an asset in the fields, and girls seen as a drain on resources. This kind of mentality has resulted in some parts of rural India where the boy/girl ratio is so distorted, many men cannot find brides!)

this is why tackling infant mortality is a major component. the reproduction slow-down will (mostly) take care of itself. we only have fewer children here, because child-deaths are so low, in a developed country.
(there will some cultural aspects to tackle as well. but India again is a good example. Educated, middle-class couples with access to good healthcare have (generally) fewer children.)
__________________
# If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail - Abraham Maslow
# There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those that understand binary, and those that dont. -Anon
# Ed Seykotas Whipsaw Song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiE1V...Wlxk8&index=10
# Defeat is temporary. Giving up makes it permanent. Anon
trendie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2007, 5:34pm   #15
 
Crap Buddist's Avatar
Joined Jan 2007
Crap Buddist started this thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugi View Post
CB,

You could tax those in the world's richest nations who have more than say 2 children. Apparently a rich child costs the equivalent of up to 200 poor ones in terms of resource, people and planet abuse. Though I doubt you'd be in power for long. Then do something helpful to poorer ones with the money.

But I don't follow why an allowance to promote self-sufficiency would encourage moderate reproduction. Are you saying desperately poor families have lots of kids at the moment simply because it improves their chances of overall survival? Like a dandelion on some stony ground .... if they throw out enough seeds and 1 or 2 may by a miracle live to repeat the process. What a depressing thought. But it doesn't sound right to me. From a survival point of view, surely it would make more sense to have fewer children when resources are very scarce?
Though I see that in case of rife disease the situation is less clear, perhaps there would be safety in numbers in this case.

In my ignorance I thought it was lack of contraception (plus a fair amount of brainwashing of the god doesn't like the pill variety) that is the main cause of profligate breeding. Perhaps some of the allowance could be used for giving that out for free, thus sparing several children from unpleasant, preventable fates.
hmm yes, I think thats the way nature works.(if you threaten a plant with its survival ,control its conditions, it will go into flower to produce more seeds ,humans the same ? ) If infant mortality is 50/60 % sorry dont know the exact ,but guessing, then it makes sense to sow many seeds ,that 1 or 2 may gain a hold to grow. Now I did type contraception funding, but scartched it, thinking o.k. if death rates ,due to resources (food,shelter,improved health as a result) being available, then a more considered family control mindset might take hold, as it has in the west. So yes ,contraception after improved facilities will need to be available .

hmm but they are a long way off having the luxury off discussing contraception morals, a' la Kilroy Silk day time TV.

We get payments offered, an allowance to continue to breed in the U.K. so maybe an allowance to keep breeding in check in areas that need it is the solution, but whilst the catch 22 of scant resources prevails , then i can see the ironic sense in a few out of many might make it.

I think its something like 30,000 infants per day, die because of hunger.

But why not a humanitarian Tax imposed, maybe even make it optional, but all tax payers will pay for the administration and the controlled ethical distrubition costs of resources, so that every dollar counts.

OK so we get charity ,donations, concerts all trying to bang home the message now and then, that makes public news. But if the governements get more involved, with a humanitarian tax deduction showing on pay slips alongside. N.I. and Income tax then I think a more sustained progress will take hold and gather a natural momentum.

As a by product of this, the entire worlds psyche towards humanitarian issues may be more prominent,leading to postive and sustained change for the better. Governments have the influence to effect change, so why dont they. ?
__________________


"You smell that? Do you smell that? Coin, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of Coin in the morning."~ Colonel Coin
Crap Buddist is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Global Bee population disappearing TWI The Foyer 21 Jul 2, 2007 12:46pm
winning-solutions.com , anyone ? findcount Forex 5 Apr 2, 2007 4:21pm
Manipulation of human consciousness Andoprime Psychology, Risk & Money Management 10 Dec 19, 2006 4:07pm
Population breaks 60 million! rols The Foyer 8 Sep 29, 2006 7:28am
The Most famous/recognisable living human being grubs50 The Foyer 39 Feb 12, 2006 3:39pm

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)