PDA

View Full Version : The Overpopulation Myth


foreverspirit
08-06-2007, 04:05 AM
The Overpopulation Lie is Killing Us!
(Part 1)
.
"There are now 6 billion people on Earth. The planet's population will most likely continue to climb until 2050, when it will peak at 9 billion; other predictions have the world's population peaking at 7.5 billion in 2040. In either case, it will then go into a sharp decline. The world may soon be facing an under-population crisis -- a prospect that has all but escaped media scrutiny." -- Anthony C. LoBaido (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19076)
.
"The world is NOT over-populated. More than 97% of the land surface on Earth is empty.... Yes, certain cities are over-populated, of course. Yet the entire population of the world could fit inside the state of Arkansas. So, then, how is the world 'over-populated'? Europe and Japan will be facing under-population crises in the coming decades, even according to UN studies on population." -- Anthony C. LoBaido (http://w114.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28797)
.
=========================================
Overpopulation? -- 10 Myths
by Dr. Jacqueline R. Kasun, Economist and Author
.
It's a day like any other. Your child comes home from school with an assignment. Only today, the assignment is to detail the problems that "overpopulation" is causing the world's ecosystem.
.
And part of this assignment is to educate you about the world's population "problem."
.
What do you do? Do you go along with what s/he's being taught? After all, this is what you've been hearing on television and in the newspapers for decades. Or do you have some counter-arguments? Might you, in fact, need to defend yourself and your child from a very real threat?
.
You should be aware that the question of "overpopulation" is no longer merely a topic of conversation, if it ever was. It is a burning matter of policy and action at the local, national and international level. Our national government is actually committed by law and by international agreement to reducing the worldwide rate of population growth.
.
Government spokesmen, such as Ambassador Timothy Wirth, insist that this effort must also apply to the population of the United States. Your chances of having grandchildren depend on whether and how this program is carried out. In many countries already, governments sterilize and abort their citizens by force, often with financial help from the United Nations, the United States and government-supported private agencies such as Planned Parenthood.
.
There are many government policies that make it difficult for families to bring children into the world, and for those children's fathers to support them and their mothers to stay home and raise them. Those policies include levying heavy taxes on families with children, discrimination against men in the job market, building codes and land use restrictions which increase the cost of housing, regulations which discourage productive activity. The groups which have supported these policies have plainly stated their intent to reduce population growth.
.
The United States government and the United Nations have promoted sex education in the schools, teaching children that there are too many -- far too many -- people in the world. The programs teach that abortion, sterilization and contraception are necessary to reduce "excessive" population growth.
.
If you familiarize yourself with the myths surrounding "overpopulation," you'll be in a better position to defend yourself and your family against these idealogical threats.
.
MYTH 1: The world is overcrowded and population growth is adding overwhelming numbers of humans to a small planet.
.
In fact, people do live in crowded conditions, and always have. We cluster together in cities and villages in order to exchange goods and services with one another. But while we crowd together for economic reasons in our great metropolitan areas, most of the world is empty, as we can see when we fly over it. It has been estimated by Paul Ehrlich and others that human beings actually occupy no more than 1-3% of the earth's land surface.
.
If you allotted 1250 square feet to each person, all the people in the world would fit into the state of Texas. Try the math yourself: 7,438,152,268,800 square feet in Texas, divided by the world population of 5,860,000,000, equals 1269 square feet per person. The population density of this giant city would be about 21,000 -- somewhat more than San Francisco and less than the Bronx.
.
Another fact: World population growth is rapidly declining. United Nations figures show that the 79 countries that comprise 40% of the world's population now have fertility rates too low to prevent population decline. The rate in Asia fell from 2.4 in 1965-70 to 1.5 in 1990-95. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the rate fell from 2.75 in 1960-65 to 1.70 in 1990-95. In Europe, the rate fell to 0.16 -- that is, effectively zero -- in 1990-95.And the annual rate of change in world population fell from 2% in 1965-70 to less than 1.5% in 1990-95.
.
Worldwide, the number of children the typical woman had during her lifetime (total fertility) fell from 5 in 1950-55 to less than 3 in 1990-95. (The number necessary just to "replace" the current generation is 2.1.) In the more developed regions, total fertility fell from 2.77 to 1.68 over the same period. In the less developed regions it fell from more than 6 to 3.3. Total fertility in Mexico was 3.1 in 1990-95. In Spain it stood at 1.3, and in Italy, it was 1.2.
.
Official forecasts of eventual world population size have been steadily falling. In 1992-93, the World Bank predicted world population would exceed 10 billion by the year 2050. In 1996, the UN predicted 9 billion for 2050. If the trend continues, the next estimate will be lower still.
.
MYTH 2: Overpopulation is causing global warming.
.
The message that is most likely to arouse the fervor of young people is that overpopulation is destroying the environment and the biosphere. On this point, the first thing to keep in mind is that some of the most beautiful parts of the world, with the highest environmental quality, are in densely populated countries such as western Germany, which has more than 600 persons per square mile, and the Netherlands, which has almost 1200 persons per square mile, compared with 330 in China. Several myths promote the belief that we are engulfed in an environmental catastrophe.
.
For instance, Vice-President Al Gore and some scientists say population growth is causing global warming. But there is much disagreement in the scientific community about this. Seventy-nine scientists issued the "Leipzig Declaration" in 1995 saying "...There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about ... greenhouse warming ...." Additionally, the satellite readings of global temperature, available on the NASA Web site at www.nasa.com, do not show a warming trend. And further, respected climatologists such as Hugh Ellsaesser, Richard S. Lindzen and Robert C. Balling vigorously dispute the notion of a global warming danger.
.
MYTH 3: Overpopulation causes ozone depletion.
.
Like global warming, the cause and significance of the so-called ozone "hole" is a matter of intense scientific dispute, although the United States and other nations have agreed to reductions in the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were alleged to have caused it. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist who participated in the earliest ozone measurements, calls the ozone scare a "misuse of science." In fact, many think the chief function of the CFC ban has been to help big chemical companies establish highly profitable new monopolies on the CFC substitutes which they developed.
.
MYTH 4: The world's forests are disappearing because of overpopulation.
.
This is an important matter because forests are an essential part of the world's environment and, therefore, humanity's well-being. The Psalmists spoke in awe of the cedars of Lebanon. Today we know that trees inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, which means that they are a first line of defense against air pollution and the specter of global warming. The world forested area, estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), currently amounts to four billion hectares, covering 30% of the land surface of the earth. Few people realize this is the same figure as in the 1950s.
.
In the United States, vast forests cover a third of the land, according to the US Forest Service. That's equivalent to two-thirds of the amount of land that was forested when the Europeans arrived in the 1600s. This acreage has not declined since 1920. In fact, annual forest growth today is more than 3-1/2 times what it was in 1920. Two-thirds of the nation's forests are classed as timberland, capable of producing at least 20 cubic feet per acre of industrial wood annually. Another fact: Trees are growing 33% faster than they are being cut.
.
The highest volumes of growth occur on privately-owned forest industry land, while the government-owned national forests, where the trees are older, have the lowest volumes of tree growth. The National Wilderness Preservation System grew from nine million acres in 1964 to 96 million acres in 1993. But this is not enough for the environmentalists of The Wildlands Project, who hope to turn fully half of the land area of the United States into wilderness areas inhabited by grizzly bears, wolverines and mountain lions, and make it off-limits to humans. There has also been great agitation about the "destruction of the tropical rainforests." Someone has claimed that an area twice the size of Belgium is now being logged worldwide each year, but people don't realize Belgium could fit into the world's tropical forests 500 times, and in the meantime, the rest of the world's trees -- 99.6% of them -- are continuing to grow. One of the greatest of these tropical stands exists in Brazil, with more than half of the forests of South America.
.
FAO and Brazilian government figures suggest that logging takes about 0.2% of forest acreage per year, and in 1993, Brazilian forests covered 58% of the country's total land area. Such figures hardly suggest a catastrophic decline. Another thing that's misleading is that FAO figures show a "decline" in forest cover even when forest land is appropriated for use as public parks, and not a single tree is cut down. And if in fact some deforestation is occurring in Brazil, it can scarcely be the result of overpopulation; Brazil has less than half as many people per square mile (31.2) as the world average (101).
.
MYTH 5: Air pollution is the result of overpopulation, and acid rain, a byproduct of air pollution, is destroying lakes, rivers and forests.
.
In fact, air and water pollution levels have been highest in the centrally-planned economies of Eastern Europe and China, where population growth is low or negative. Legendary air pollution in Poland and Russia has occurred in areas with thinly-settled populations. In the United States, air pollution is declining significantly. The federal government's National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program recently reported "no widespread forest or crop damage in the United States" related to acid rain.
.
MYTH 6: Many plants and animals are disappearing because of the growth in human numbers.
.
There is absolutely no scientific data whatsoever to support this claim. Even a scientist such as David Jablonski, who believes species will decline, says, "We have no idea how many species are out there and how many are dying." Some species, such as blue whales, spotted owls and blackfooted ferrets, have been found to be more numerous than was once thought. Since many species exist in forests and the earth's forest cover is remaining about the same, the claims of massive species extinction appear doubtful.
.
MYTH 7: Overpopulation is threatening the world food supply.
.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, world food supplies exceed requirements in all world areas, amounting to a surplus approaching 50% in 1990 in the developed countries, and 17% in the developing regions. "Globally, food supplies have more than doubled in the last 40 years ... between 1962 and 1991, average daily per caput food supplies increased more than 15% ... at a global level, there is probably no obstacle to food production rising to meet demand," according to FAO documents prepared for the 1996 World Food Summit. The FAO also reported that less than a third as many people had less than 2100 calories per person per day in 1990-92 as had been the case in 1969-71.
.
At present, farmers use less than half of the world's arable land. The conversion of land to urban and built-up uses to accommodate a larger population will absorb less than 2% of the world's land, and "is not likely to seriously diminish the supply of land for agricultural production," according to Paul Waggoner, writing for the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology in 1994.
.
MYTH 8: Overpopulation is the chief cause of poverty.
.
In reality, problems commonly blamed on "overpopulation" are the result of bad economic policy. For example, Western journalists blamed the Ethiopian famine on "overpopulation," but that was simply not true. The Ethiopian government caused it by confiscating the food stocks of traders and farmers and exporting them to buy arms. That country's leftist regime, not its population, caused the tragedy. In fact, Africa, beset with problems often blamed on "overpopulation," has only one-fifth the population density of Europe, and has an unexploited food-raising potential that could feed twice the present population of the world, according to estimates by Roger Revelle of Harvard and the University of San Diego. Economists writing for the International Monetary Fund in 1994 said that African economic problems result from excessive government spending, high taxes on farmers, inflation, restrictions on trade, too much government ownership, and overregulation of private economic activity. There was no mention of overpopulation.
.
The government of the Philippines relies on foreign aid to control population growth, but protects monopolies which buy farmers' outputs at artificially low prices, and sell them inputs at artificially high prices, causing widespread poverty. Advocates of population control blame "overpopulation" for poverty in Bangladesh. But the government dominates the buying and processing of jute, the major cash crop, so that farmers receive less for their efforts than they would in a free market. Impoverished farmers flee to the city, but the government owns 40% of industry and regulates the rest with price controls, high taxes and unpublished rules administered by a huge, corrupt, foreign-aid dependent bureaucracy. Jobs are hard to find and poverty is rampant. This crowding leads to problems such as sporadic or inefficient food distribution, but this problem is caused -- as in Ethiopia -- by that country's flawed domestic policies.
.
It is often claimed that poverty in China is the result of "overpopulation." But Taiwan, with a population density five times as great as mainland China's, produces many times as much per capita. The Republic of Korea, with a population density 3.6 times as great as China's, has a per capita output almost 16 times as great. The Malaysian government abandoned population control in 1984, ushering in remarkable economic growth under free market reforms, while Ecuador, Uruguay, Bulgaria and other countries complained at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo that though they had reduced their population growth, they still had deteriorating economies.
.
MYTH 9: Women and men throughout the world are begging for the means to control their fertility.
.
Not so, according to reports from such places as Bangladesh, Africa and the Philippines. The fact is, surplus condoms and birth control pills fill warehouses in the less developed world and women flee the birth control workers and beg to have their implants and IUDs removed.
.
US foreign assistance law requires countries receiving American foreign aid to take steps to reduce population growth [you can find this in 22 US Code, sec. 2151-1; 22 US Code, sec. 2151(b)]. Far from meeting an "unmet need" for birth control, foreign-supported family planners in India, Bangladesh and other countries must pay, or force, their clients to accept it, according to reports from these countries. Foreign-supported population control is so unpopular in Bangladesh that riots over this issue prevented the prime minister from attending the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994.
.
Dr. Margaret Ogola, a Kenyan pediatrician, disputed the claim of "unmet need" for family planning at the International Conference on Population and Develop-ment in Cairo in 1994. She said that foreign aid givers have lavished pills, condoms and IUDs on hospitals and clinics in Kenya, but that simple medicines for common diseases remain unavailable. A United Nations survey of abortion and birth control policies throughout the world found that high proportions of women were familiar with and were using "traditional" methods (NFP) of limiting births.
.
In 1981, the typical Bangladeshi woman was having seven children during her lifetime; since then the number has fallen to 3.4. According to Bangladesh press reports in 1994, the secretary of health acknowledged that "coercion, blackmail [and] abuse of payment provisions" were problems in the population control program. Alarmed by extremely low fertility, South Korea reported to the International Conference in Cairo that it has slashed its government expenditures on birth control. Singapore, faced with below-replacement fertility, reported that it now offers tax rebates to couples with more than two children. Government-supported "family planning" agencies in the United States, such as Planned Parenthood, claim their services save public assistance costs. In fact, published research has shown that states which spend large amounts on birth control subsequently have higher costs of public assistance. Research also shows that states which require parental consent for a minor to have an abortion have lower rates of adolescent pregnancy.
.
MYTH 10: Overpopulation causes war and revolution.
.
The most war-torn continent on earth -- Africa -- is also one of the least densely populated, with about half as many people per square mile as in the world as a whole. Bad governments, propped up by ineptly and unjustly managed foreign aid, are more probably the root of strife.
.
The worldwide movement which promotes population control is not small or weak. It is a powerful alliance of United Nations agencies, national governments, foundations and "nongovernmental organizations." It commands many billions of dollars in resources. Its members include family planning agencies, radical leftist environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Fund, development planners, international financial institutions such as the World Bank, foreign relations agencies such as the US Agency for International Development, and "research" organizations such as Worldwatch Institute. Its ideology increasingly dominates school and college instructional programs and textbook publishing.
.
Ultimately, however, its power rests on public ignorance in countries such as the United States. For the billions of people who inhabit God's creation, and for the billions more He intends it for, it's up to us to find out the truth about "overpopulation," and to share it with as many people as will listen.
.
Dr. Jacqueline R. Kasun is an economist and the author of The War Against Population: The Economics and Ideology of World Population Control (Ignatius, 1988, 1998). :cool:

john white
08-06-2007, 04:53 AM
Very nice find forever Spirit: and Teslafire could do with reading this. I look forward to getting into it in depth, there a definately various parts I would question: IMO poverty (with associated infant mortality and lack of social support structure) causes overpopulation, not the other way around... so there, for example, I agree but with a different POV

shadow cat
08-06-2007, 05:00 AM
Great posting thanks foreverspirit, and good news....thanks! :)

montag
08-06-2007, 05:11 AM
Good article foreverspirit, here is a particularly nasty piece of overpopulation propaganda from today's paper..

Memo humans: stop breeding like bunnies

WHEN kangaroo numbers rise beyond the land's ability to sustain them, we cull them. When rabbits breed like, well, rabbits, we poison them. Given the terrible damage that billions of humans are inflicting on Earth, why are we not controlling our numbers, albeit in more humane ways?

Now that we Australians are up a dry creek with nothing to paddle in, we're finally starting to think about the big, hot pickle we're in. We're flailing about for solutions to global warming, but no one seems to want to raise a critical, bleedin' obvious source of the problem — there are too many of us.

Instead, we're going to ban inefficient light bulbs and we've mandated half-flush toilets (although we can still build and fill private swimming pools). We might trade carbon emissions (a technical term for buck-passing), or find a way to stuff our poisons underground.

But cut our population here and overseas and blind Freddy could see that we'd consume far fewer natural resources, reduce waste and pollution, and improve everybody's quality of life — from emaciated, exhausted African mothers to Aussies stuck in traffic jams that belch tonnes of carbon dioxide.

In Melbourne, everyone is justifiably whingeing about the cost of urban housing and crowded public transport, and wringing their hands as polar caps melt, eastern Australia gets hotter and dam levels keep falling. Why, therefore, would Treasurer Peter Costello want to crow, as he did recently, about Australia's booming population, which will only worsen the problems?

A report published recently by Britain's Optimum Population Trust said: "The most effective personal climate change strategy is limiting the number of children one has. The most effective national and global climate change strategy is limiting the size of the population."

It warned in its report that each Briton produced nearly 750 tonnes of carbon dioxide in a lifetime, equivalent to 620 return flights between London and New York. Britain is expected to add another 10 million people by 2074. Multiply that figure by 750 tonnes and you get, well, Buckley's chance of meeting well-intentioned emission targets. Just as Australia will have Buckley's chance of meeting targets — and that's assuming that those who masquerade as leaders set any — if its population keeps growing.

Try to raise the issue of population, or overpopulation, and you get shot down as a misanthrope, a racist, a xenophobe seeking to deny others access to the fruits of Australia, or life to the billions of eggs sitting in women's ovaries.

And watch politicians and the business lobby jump up and down shrieking that population growth is essential to maintain economic growth and living standards.

But this doesn't add up. There are not enough natural resources, depleted as they are, to sustain a constantly expanding population, let alone to give everyone cars, two television sets, 20 pairs of shoes and overseas holidays every two years.

And if there is a strong correlation between growth in per capita GDP and population growth, how come most people in the Third World aren't driving around in Mercs and holidaying in Ibiza?

Politicians also insist that population growth, and the revenue it raises, is required to pay for the welfare and health costs of ageing baby boomers. But baby boomers and those who follow them are working longer, and putting more money away for their retirement. Treasury acknowledged this recently when it reduced its projected cost of looking after old baby boomers.

In Australia and other First-World economies, living standards are largely defined by people's capacity to consume by way of higher wages and cheaper goods. The more we consume, and the more of us who consume, the better. But the returns from so-called increasing (material) living standards are fast diminishing. Most of us in Australia now have everything we need and much more that we don't.

In many ways, population growth and a strong, consumption-based economy are diminishing living standards. Sure, we've got dishwashers and we're no longer vulnerable to the black plague or death in childbirth but our lives have not been improved by owning excessive amounts of stuff, or by the social and environmental problems generated by an expanding, ever-consuming population.

Traffic congestion is awful and affordable housing is on the ugly, barren, car-dependent city fringes. We cannot swim or fish in many of our creeks and rivers. Geelong just about meets Torquay. The Gold Coast, a paradise in the 1950s, is now one, long, depressing suburb choked with cars and drug addicts.

Yes, a bigger population generates more revenue, but also a great deal more social problems and related costs in terms of civic infrastructure, health, education, law enforcement and welfare, let alone more greenhouse emissions and environmental damage, which politicians and industry keep refusing to count as a cost in their stocktaking.

I'm no economist, scientist or engineer, but I would still bet $1 million that the sky would not fall if we had a lot fewer people in the world. I would bet another $1 million that we'd all live a lot better if this was the case. But we won't, and not much else will, if we keep breeding the way we are.

Sian Watkins is a staff writer.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/memo-humans-stop-breeding-like-bunnies/2007/06/07/1181089232475.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

adramelech
08-06-2007, 05:27 AM
Being a transhumanist, the subject of overpopulation is very important to me. While it is true that the Earth is not overpopulated by humans in a literal sense (cue the old arguments of "you can fit the whole world in Texas"), it is overpopulated in virtually every cultural and societal aspect.

Let's put it like this. You could fit all of the monkey and great ape population of the world into one expanse of jungle in the Congo. Then, watch as they war over ample food supplies, struggle to find mates and ultimately self destruct. Natural selection kicks in and vast genetic pools are wiped out and assimilated into a larger structure, eliminating diversity. This is what the elite call "multiculturalism" in humans.

People need to be spread out in order to grow. When varied groups of people live together in close proximity, sharing the same resources, they do not peacefully intermingle and flourish. They merge into an artificial whole, at best sustaining. Over the course of generations, they, along with their religions, beliefs, art, music and culture, combine into one. The elite teach people that this is a good thing, despite the fact that two cultures have been destroyed in order to create an artificial hybrid.

Our greatest technological achievements and philosophical concepts were and are made possible by the fact that we are an incredibly diverse and most importantly separate species. We can simultaneously approach these subjects from a hundred different viewpoints. When a discovery is made, the entire species can benefit. If we were combined into a giant population paste, progress would decline massively.

The first trick of the Control Pyramid was called agriculture. By created a central food source, the elite were able to force tribal populations together into city states to be more easily ruled over. This eventually led to "civilization", the next big prison.

One world, one population, one culture, one people, one government, one religion, one order. This is the agenda.

space monkey
08-06-2007, 05:35 AM
One world, one population, one culture, one people, one government, one religion, one order. This is the agenda.

What is you vision of a world without the control pyramid? I understand that transhumanism plays a big part for you in this, and obviously we could all benefit unspeakably from the eradication of disease, death ect., but after that, providing we can wrestle these technological miracles from the elite, then what?

teslafire
08-06-2007, 05:56 AM
Very nice find forever Spirit: and Teslafire could do with reading this. I look forward to getting into it in depth, there a definately various parts I would question: IMO poverty (with associated infant mortality and lack of social support structure) causes overpopulation, not the other way around... so there, for example, I agree but with a different POV

I was trying to find a map of the US showing how many parts of the land are restricted from public use, will post it when I find it. The migration to city population centers makes us feel like we're overpopulated. And our society has been designed to act as locusts, ultimately all for the impression it creates about ourselves, to guide us out of harmony with nature...for the purpose of being forced to come back into sync, with all these conditional provisos that benefit the elite. Just makes ya think how far back this PRS goes, eh.

But you misinterpreted me when I said all of this WILL happen...has nothing to do with the earth needing to clean itself (though a couple of years ago I did have that notion--before I looked straight into the face of the NWO agenda)...but simply as part of their grand sacrifice plan, which is why I said I think it'll happen in 2010, 2012, 2023, 2030, 2061...all significant occult dates.

adramelech
08-06-2007, 06:19 AM
What is you vision of a world without the control pyramid? I understand that transhumanism plays a big part for you in this, and obviously we could all benefit unspeakably from the eradication of disease, death ect., but after that, providing we can wrestle these technological miracles from the elite, then what?

I wrote:

"Anarchy is simply a society that functions without a state or other authoritarian constructs. It is not some Mad Max, nihilist world of no rules, but rather the idea that, were oppressive, pathological, unnatural and inhuman methods of control, government and religion removed, leaving human beings to their own free human will, the world would function on naturalistic terms, such as mutual aid.

In short, the presence of the elite pyramid structure is what fascilitates the perceived necessity of the elite pyramid structure, not some fundamental flaw in human beings that requires them to be ruled over."


"Defensive identification is a rarer process that occurs when the learner is a captive in a hostile environment in which the most salient role models are the hostile captors, e.g. prison guards, authoritarian bosses or teachers, etc. The process was first described in relation to Nazi Concentration Camps where some prisoners took on the values and beliefs of the guards and maltreated fellow prisoners. In the face of severe survival anxiety, for some learners "identification with the aggressor" was the only solution (Bettelheim, 1943). Genuine new learning and change occurred, but, of course, in a direction deemed undesirable by others. In considering such outcomes one is reminded that unfreezing creates motivation to learn, but does not necessarily control or predict the direction of learning. If the only new information available is from salient and powerful role models, learning will occur in that direction. One of the key elements of a managed change process is, therefore, what kind of role models one makes available to the learners once they are unfrozen."

"Defensive identification, usually occurs when the change target experiences feelings of helplessness, relative impotence, fear and threat as a result of involuntary entry into the setting and feeling that he/she cannot escape. The target has little power in this situation; most of the power is with the change agent. This change agent often occupies a formal position which is supported by institutionalized sanctions. The expectation of the target is to change.

Positive identification occurs when a target enters a situation voluntarily and is free to leave when he/she is ready. A sense of autonomy, freedom of choice, trust and faith exist. There is an equalization of power and rarely do formal sanctions exist.

The basic mechanism of change, in both types of identification, is as a result of the change target, using interpersonal cues, which he/she gets from the person he/she identifies with. The cues allow the target to redefine the cognitions he/she holds concerning him/herself, others and the situation."

;)

space monkey
08-06-2007, 06:55 AM
I wrote:

"Anarchy is simply a society that functions without a state or other authoritarian constructs. It is not some Mad Max, nihilist world of no rules, but rather the idea that, were oppressive, pathological, unnatural and inhuman methods of control, government and religion removed, leaving human beings to their own free human will, the world would function on naturalistic terms, such as mutual aid.

In short, the presence of the elite pyramid structure is what fascilitates the perceived necessity of the elite pyramid structure, not some fundamental flaw in human beings that requires them to be ruled over."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Merton

Robert King Merton (July 4, 1910 – February 23, 2003, born Meyer R. Schkolnick to immigrant parents) was a distinguished American sociologist perhaps best known for having coined the phrase "self-fulfilling prophecy." He also coined many other phrases that have gone into everyday use, such as "role model" and "unintended consequences". He spent most of his career teaching at Columbia University, where he attained the rank of University Professor.

The basic mechanism of change, in both types of identification, is as a result of the change target, using interpersonal cues, which he/she gets from the person he/she identifies with. The cues allow the target to redefine the cognitions he/she holds concerning him/herself, others and the situation."

;)

Well, I must say, you manifest this most admirably. ;)

hagbard_celine
08-06-2007, 12:31 PM
You only have to look at a population density illustration map of the world to see that overpopulation is a myth. The land accounts for barely 30% of the planet's surface; all the rest is sea. Of that remianing 30% over half is almost entirely uninhabited: Antarctica, Siberia, the great forests and mountain ranges of North and South America, the great deserts of Australia and Africa. In fact most of the world's people are squeezed into the plains of China, India and Northern Europe, together with the world's big coastal cities. Take those away and you have hardly anyone left!

The idea that the Earth can no longer support the human population is based on bioeconomic fallacies and the lie that we're going to run out of energy. Enough has been said on Free Energy on other threads, but let's look at feeding: The human race, whether it is 6 billion of 12 billion, accounts for a tiny portion of the Earth's biomass. The bioeconomic calculation that claims we're running out of food comes from the delusion that modern intesive farming with chemicals and pesticides is the most productive form of food production. Wrong! There are a few articles around at the momemt about ORMUS. There's one that's been in both Caduceus and Nexus magazines. ORMUS are natural elements which when added to soil increase its fertility by emormous degrees and don't deplete it.

Also watch this!:http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2809044795781727003&q=the+secret+of+eldorado Apologies for the spoilers, but why the hell don't we use this "Terra Preta" everywhere! Maybe this is how the Earth is supposed to be: natural, harmonious, overflowing with life-supporting energy!

john white
08-06-2007, 01:20 PM
Nice find Hagbard, that "Eldorado" vid looks well worthwhile checking out

hagbard_celine
08-06-2007, 05:09 PM
Nice find Hagbard, that "Eldorado" vid looks well worthwhile checking out


It's interesting, and the producers undertate its imapct, in true BBC style! It shows also how much wisdom existed in the native Amazon cultures before the Conquistadors destroyed them. By Conquistadors I'm not just talking about Cortes and Pissarro etc, I'm talking about the modern Conquistadors too: the missionaries and schools and TV salesmen.

I feel like i want to grab them by the shoulders and shout: "do you know what you've enearthed here!?" Terra Preta is an answer to all the doomsday-mongers. It will help us rebuild the rainforest when the logging has finally stopped.

chattanova
08-06-2007, 09:27 PM
Im not sure if anarchy would have worked at the planet earth, way too many cowboys for that..

space monkey
08-06-2007, 10:37 PM
You only have to look at a population density illustration map of the world to see that overpopulation is a myth. The land accounts for barely 30% of the planet's surface; all the rest is sea. Of that remianing 30% over half is almost entirely uninhabited: Antarctica, Siberia, the great forests and mountain ranges of North and South America, the great deserts of Australia and Africa. In fact most of the world's people are squeezed into the plains of China, India and Northern Europe, together with the world's big coastal cities. Take those away and you have hardly anyone left!

The idea that the Earth can no longer support the human population is based on bioeconomic fallacies and the lie that we're going to run out of energy. Enough has been said on Free Energy on other threads, but let's look at feeding: The human race, whether it is 6 billion of 12 billion, accounts for a tiny portion of the Earth's biomass. The bioeconomic calculation that claims we're running out of food comes from the delusion that modern intesive farming with chemicals and pesticides is the most productive form of food production. Wrong! There are a few articles around at the momemt about ORMUS. There's one that's been in both Caduceus and Nexus magazines. ORMUS are natural elements which when added to soil increase its fertility by emormous degrees and don't deplete it.

Also watch this!:http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2809044795781727003&q=the+secret+of+eldorado Apologies for the spoilers, but why the hell don't we use this "Terra Preta" everywhere! Maybe this is how the Earth is supposed to be: natural, harmonious, overflowing with life-supporting energy!


This is where most people, and their "voices" like George Monbiot (www.monbiot.com) absolutely fall short when discussing civilisation: Free energy.

space monkey
08-06-2007, 10:39 PM
It ain't pie-in-the-sky, it ain't dun been discovered by Steorn. It's been with us for a very long time, violently supressed, and stamped into the dirt of history.

hagbard_celine
03-06-2008, 06:49 PM
New article on Terra Preta by the fascinating Philip Coppens:

http://www.philipcoppens.com/terrapreta.html

rixxmixxhell
03-06-2008, 10:06 PM
Very nice find forever Spirit: and Teslafire could do with reading this. I look forward to getting into it in depth, there a definately various parts I would question: IMO poverty (with associated infant mortality and lack of social support structure) causes overpopulation, not the other way around... so there, for example, I agree but with a different POV

REALLY.....THIS YOU SAID.....IMO poverty.....with 'associated infant mortality' ...mortality in high or low you never stated, do you even know what you mean??..and then you said, 'causes overpopulation, not the other way around..umm i shouldn't be wasting my time, as YOU said, your POV, POV!? wtf has POV got to do with it?? You understand nothing. Come to a place like 'what you describe', and see for yourself. Overpopulation caused by poverty, via infant mortality, so by that you also say infants are the only ones to die, or not die, because you never said anything about other demographics...

Have you lived in a place like Africa??, like i have, have you lived/worked in poverty stricken areas only to have media turn up and write /CONplete 'falsities to Please westerners' that their ''charity given pennies are used in their 'supposed' finale destination???...

and your POV!?!

hagbard_celine
05-06-2008, 04:08 PM
Nice find Hagbard, that "Eldorado" vid looks well worthwhile checking out


Damn!:mad::( It's been taken down. Shame; that was one of the best Horizons. I've got a VHS copy somewhere.

lifeofbrian
05-06-2008, 04:12 PM
Unless we want humans to be the only migratory species on Earth, people had better think before spreading their legs.

I for one appreciate other species (animals) too. Humans aren't that wonderful in the long run. Animals at least have some sense of balance.

krakhead
05-06-2008, 05:19 PM
Damn!:mad::( It's been taken down. Shame; that was one of the best Horizons. I've got a VHS copy somewhere.

The transcript for the show is available here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/eldoradotrans.shtml)

hagbard_celine
05-06-2008, 05:26 PM
The transcript for the show is available here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/eldoradotrans.shtml)

Thanks, KH.:)

A transcript is better than nowt!

I wonder why they've taken this Horizon down and left so many other up.:confused:

fromthatshow
05-06-2008, 05:28 PM
hm never considered this
thanks! :)

Mo0n5tar
05-06-2008, 05:41 PM
Malthus is widely accredited with his Malthusian Scenario. Its basic tenets are such:

1. Food production is increasing arithmetically (add a specific amount each year)
2. Human population is increasing geometrically (add more and more each year)
3. Given time, geometrical increase will far outstrip arithmetic increase
4. This will result in lack of food for an ever-growing population
5. This cannot be averted except by leaving a significant amount of people to death

The Malthusian scenario is extremely pessimistic, and there are pointers that it is simply not true


The Malthusian Premise (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/malthusian_premise.htm)

http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/trufax/learchives/malprem.html

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.

Another aspect of Malthus' theory is that is maintained that "all animated life was governed exclusively by the sexual-reproductive drive. Like Freud, Malthus reduced a complex interplay of factors to just one factor-sexual drive. Reducing any issue to just one factor is reductive determinism, which on its face has little or no scientific merit. Although the Malthusian doctrine was one of the most influential of modern times, it never had any scientific basis. The Malthusian doctrine later came to the attention of Charles Darwin, who read Malthus' essay in 1838. For Darwin, who was familiar with the viewpoint of Thomas Hobbes, "life consisted of a struggle, one against all." The Malthusian idea of existence also incorporated this Hobbesian viewpoint, and it appealed to Darwin. When applied to populations and society, it resulted in Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism appealed to the European elite, who saw it as prima facie justification their "evolutionary superiority." The elite adapted the Malthusian principle of "management of unprincipled populations"- population control. Moreover, Darwinism achieved orthodox status among his friends in the British Royal Society, two of whom were Thomas Huxley, president of the Royal Society, and Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin. Galton founded the eugenics movement, which later expanded in the United States and subsequently in Germany.

Darwin's vision of existence as a "purposeless struggle", after 1859, quickly replaced the Judeo-Christian vision of human life as a purposeful, divinely guided moral struggle. This idea of "life as a meaningless struggle" played a decisive role in the brutalization of the Western world for the rest of the 19th and 20th centuries. Social Darwinism prompted the enlargement of colonial empires, and also conditioned a struggle for power on an unprecedented scale. The principle targets of war switched from enemy armies to populations themselves.

National Socialism, as seen in the Nazi Third Reich, was in fact applied Social Darwinism, built on a biomedical vision of race purification that progressed from sterilization to extensive killing-all of which was later transferred to the United States after World War II, manifested in the German allopathic medical paradigm involving drugs, surgery and radiation, combined with population experimentation (especially on the military, prisoners and those who could not defend themselves).

The combination of Malthusian population control, which included the deliberate neglect of populations and indirect methods of killing off population, with Darwinism, produced National Socialism (Germany), International Socialism (Marxist Russia) and International Corporate Capitalism (Global Socialism, headquartered in the United States), and these forms of social conduct have constituted the main reason for the unequal distribution of planetary resources, famines, planned biological warefare, environmental poisoning, suppression of knowledge, suppression of inventions, dependence on backward technology for the population, planned wars to kill off populations and general planetary disorder. The problem is in the Social Darwin-Malthus paradigm, which has now been combined with the pseudo-sciences of behaviorism and genetics in the attempt to assert even tighter control over the planetary population, yielding forms of Neo-Darwinism being perpetrated by a host of post-Atlantean re-treads, per a 1947 Princeton consensus.

Yes, the problem is in the paradigm, and it is deftly explained in the book Avoiding Extinction, as well as the solution to the problem which is already upon us (changing the paradigm through recognition of the nature of the current paradigm and its unscientific, perverted basis, and substitution of the quantum paradigm of scientific holism, and dumping the paradigm of materialistic scientism, science as a religion devoid of philosophy).

The Population "Non-Problem"

The thought pattern that "there are too many people on the planet" is without sound scientific basis. Yet, this is a theory that is being voiced to the population in order to justify global control and influence. There is enough room, and there are enough resources. Socialism and politics are in the way. If these were discarded, there would be equitable distribution of planetary resources and new technological development for peaceful purposes that would allow the population to peacefully expand into space. For a total understanding of all of this, read Avoiding Extinction.

Malthus opposed the optmism of the Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794), who saw the human mind as capable of removing all obstacles to human progress. Malthus wrongly predicted that the population growth rate would exceed the growth of the food supply. Today, analysts have resorted to constructing models in which population growth drives technological change, which permits further population growth. This is opposed, of course, by elitists and global socialist policy.

Even as early as the 18th century, projections for the carrying capacity of the planet far exceed the "gloom and doom - we have over 6 billion!" projections of social propagandists. Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) estimated that the maximum number of people the planet could support was 13.4 billion. General estimates over time have varied greatly from "less than 1 billion" to "greater than 1 trillion." Estimated published by Harvard, ironically, estimate a maximum of 44 billion people (see the exhibit page).

With all of this in mind, it is quite clear that the actual objective of the recent population meetings in Cairo, Planned Parenthood and international institutions that preach population problems actually have another objective in mind - population reduction in order to preserve elitism and global socialist objectives, despite the fact that in reality, the planet Earth is currenty occupied by 13% of its maximum carrying capacity, and will only reach 25% of its maximum capacity by the year 2350.

So, having reviewed the material presented in Matrix IV, which details future life projections and various paradigms probing what life will actually be like for the next 500 years, we see that there are less people here - which means that the actual mechanism that will reduce population will be external to political processes, probably geological or dimensional in nature, or both. All political policies and projections then become invalid, unsupportable and irrelevant.

lifeofbrian
05-06-2008, 05:48 PM
The Malthusian Premise (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/malthusian_premise.htm)

http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/trufax/learchives/malprem.html

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.

Another aspect of Malthus' theory is that is maintained that "all animated life was governed exclusively by the sexual-reproductive drive. Like Freud, Malthus reduced a complex interplay of factors to just one factor-sexual drive. Reducing any issue to just one factor is reductive determinism, which on its face has little or no scientific merit. Although the Malthusian doctrine was one of the most influential of modern times, it never had any scientific basis. The Malthusian doctrine later came to the attention of Charles Darwin, who read Malthus' essay in 1838. For Darwin, who was familiar with the viewpoint of Thomas Hobbes, "life consisted of a struggle, one against all." The Malthusian idea of existence also incorporated this Hobbesian viewpoint, and it appealed to Darwin. When applied to populations and society, it resulted in Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism appealed to the European elite, who saw it as prima facie justification their "evolutionary superiority." The elite adapted the Malthusian principle of "management of unprincipled populations"- population control. Moreover, Darwinism achieved orthodox status among his friends in the British Royal Society, two of whom were Thomas Huxley, president of the Royal Society, and Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin. Galton founded the eugenics movement, which later expanded in the United States and subsequently in Germany.

Darwin's vision of existence as a "purposeless struggle", after 1859, quickly replaced the Judeo-Christian vision of human life as a purposeful, divinely guided moral struggle. This idea of "life as a meaningless struggle" played a decisive role in the brutalization of the Western world for the rest of the 19th and 20th centuries. Social Darwinism prompted the enlargement of colonial empires, and also conditioned a struggle for power on an unprecedented scale. The principle targets of war switched from enemy armies to populations themselves.

National Socialism, as seen in the Nazi Third Reich, was in fact applied Social Darwinism, built on a biomedical vision of race purification that progressed from sterilization to extensive killing-all of which was later transferred to the United States after World War II, manifested in the German allopathic medical paradigm involving drugs, surgery and radiation, combined with population experimentation (especially on the military, prisoners and those who could not defend themselves).

The combination of Malthusian population control, which included the deliberate neglect of populations and indirect methods of killing off population, with Darwinism, produced National Socialism (Germany), International Socialism (Marxist Russia) and International Corporate Capitalism (Global Socialism, headquartered in the United States), and these forms of social conduct have constituted the main reason for the unequal distribution of planetary resources, famines, planned biological warefare, environmental poisoning, suppression of knowledge, suppression of inventions, dependence on backward technology for the population, planned wars to kill off populations and general planetary disorder. The problem is in the Social Darwin-Malthus paradigm, which has now been combined with the pseudo-sciences of behaviorism and genetics in the attempt to assert even tighter control over the planetary population, yielding forms of Neo-Darwinism being perpetrated by a host of post-Atlantean re-treads, per a 1947 Princeton consensus.

Yes, the problem is in the paradigm, and it is deftly explained in the book Avoiding Extinction, as well as the solution to the problem which is already upon us (changing the paradigm through recognition of the nature of the current paradigm and its unscientific, perverted basis, and substitution of the quantum paradigm of scientific holism, and dumping the paradigm of materialistic scientism, science as a religion devoid of philosophy).

The Population "Non-Problem"

The thought pattern that "there are too many people on the planet" is without sound scientific basis. Yet, this is a theory that is being voiced to the population in order to justify global control and influence. There is enough room, and there are enough resources. Socialism and politics are in the way. If these were discarded, there would be equitable distribution of planetary resources and new technological development for peaceful purposes that would allow the population to peacefully expand into space. For a total understanding of all of this, read Avoiding Extinction.

Malthus opposed the optmism of the Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794), who saw the human mind as capable of removing all obstacles to human progress. Malthus wrongly predicted that the population growth rate would exceed the growth of the food supply. Today, analysts have resorted to constructing models in which population growth drives technological change, which permits further population growth. This is opposed, of course, by elitists and global socialist policy.

Even as early as the 18th century, projections for the carrying capacity of the planet far exceed the "gloom and doom - we have over 6 billion!" projections of social propagandists. Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) estimated that the maximum number of people the planet could support was 13.4 billion. General estimates over time have varied greatly from "less than 1 billion" to "greater than 1 trillion." Estimated published by Harvard, ironically, estimate a maximum of 44 billion people (see the exhibit page).

With all of this in mind, it is quite clear that the actual objective of the recent population meetings in Cairo, Planned Parenthood and international institutions that preach population problems actually have another objective in mind - population reduction in order to preserve elitism and global socialist objectives, despite the fact that in reality, the planet Earth is currenty occupied by 13% of its maximum carrying capacity, and will only reach 25% of its maximum capacity by the year 2350.

So, having reviewed the material presented in Matrix IV, which details future life projections and various paradigms probing what life will actually be like for the next 500 years, we see that there are less people here - which means that the actual mechanism that will reduce population will be external to political processes, probably geological or dimensional in nature, or both. All political policies and projections then become invalid, unsupportable and irrelevant.

Typically human, innit? :) "What is the maximum carrying capacity". Selfish buggers. Like saying; how far can we abuse this thing without killing it?

What's really sickening is that it's all based on theories. The psychos in favour of the Vaticanstyle-baby factories can't have looked into the recent reports re: wildlife lately.

Animals are dying for good. No more coming back.

What will you give us instead?

This place seems to be full of comatose selfish prats similar to the prats they fight.

hagbard_celine
19-06-2008, 11:42 PM
The Secret of Eldorado is back on G-vid! Sadly it's not on the download list, but you can watch it. It's very good quality:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8993313723654914866&q=secret+of+el+dorado&ei=f8VaSIGGDI-ijQKX8_TJCw

pandamania
20-06-2008, 12:40 AM
You only have to look at a population density illustration map of the world to see that overpopulation is a myth. The land accounts for barely 30% of the planet's surface; all the rest is sea. Of that remianing 30% over half is almost entirely uninhabited: Antarctica, Siberia, the great forests and mountain ranges of North and South America, the great deserts of Australia and Africa.

This is so true. Just to illustrate the point a friend of mine works for US Geological Survey and she tells me than even im 2008 there are vast areas of the USA were no human being has ever set foot, or maybe some one passed through once in a century and that's it. And she was not talking northern Alaska, but places like Northern California, Oregon, Washington State, New Mexico, even parts or upper New York State and small states such as Maine and West Virginia still contains sections were no human lives, or has even been. Just because they have maps culled from airplanes photos in the 40's, does not means that people have been there and explored them. She also gave a lot of credibility in the Bigfoot story for this same reason.

Now if most of the USA is empty then think of the rest of the world.

The over population myth for some reason appeals to really sick people who want to cull the human race and use political problems in the third world to back it up.

hagbard_celine
12-02-2009, 01:49 PM
BUMP!

Because of this: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=1802

hagbard_celine
12-02-2009, 01:53 PM
The Secret of Eldorado is back up!:)

DL it quick before it gets wiped again!:eek:

anthony65
12-02-2009, 01:55 PM
Thanks Hagbard!

This is the myth that is used by cynical (and ignorant) westerners to justify the mass murder of millions, or even billions of human beings without any regard to the true facts.

If there are any genocidal wannabe's out there, let's have an intellectual rumble.

Is there anybody who wants to argue that the world is overpopulated?

Please state your arguments and let's debate...

And remember...

Those numbers are people...

januspolanski
12-02-2009, 03:57 PM
Great post OP TY.

Population of 6 Billion+ not so easy for the NWO to control.

Population of 500 Million. easy for the NWO to control.

endlessvista
12-02-2009, 04:11 PM
Being a transhumanist, the subject of overpopulation is very important to me.

What I always find interesting about transhumanists is how none of them look like they could get a date.

Always found if funny how the most unttacative and most socially retarded types who have done nothing with their lives are the ones who want to improve humans.

Perhaps if the transhumanists learn to wash and dress themselves properly they might come across as something other than a bunch of losers mad at the world for making them pathetic.

hagbard_celine
15-02-2009, 01:19 PM
Thanks Hagbard!

This is the myth that is used by cynical (and ignorant) westerners to justify the mass murder of millions, or even billions of human beings without any regard to the true facts.

If there are any genocidal wannabe's out there, let's have an intellectual rumble.

Is there anybody who wants to argue that the world is overpopulated?

Please state your arguments and let's debate...

And remember...

Those numbers are people...

I know, and the intellectuals who go on about OP talk of us as if we're weeds. Or to quote Report From Iron Mountain "people are the problem".

Here, it's amazing that this should appear in the headlines: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53671

ownoiz
15-02-2009, 01:51 PM
Now that we Australians are up a dry creek with nothing to paddle in, we're finally starting to think about the big, hot pickle we're in. We're flailing about for solutions to global warming, but no one seems to want to raise a critical, bleedin' obvious source of the problem — there are too many of us....

Why, therefore, would Treasurer Peter Costello want to crow, as he did recently, about Australia's booming population, which will only worsen the problems?

So were up a dry creek eh, says the articles writer...

So why would Peter Costello and the governments here want more people and went as far as paying women to have childen?

Because we are NOT up a dry creek, they just want us to think that, Costello and TPTB KNOW there will be plenty of water for us all...as long they own it, and we pay lots for it, and its full of all the good stuff they like to add to it.

Otherwise they wouldnt be pushing to have more slaves er i mean people, we cant work if we have no water, we would die.

Costello isnt stupid, far from it. The stupid ones are the ones that cant see that mankind and TPTB are capable of engineering more water supplies whenever they wish or need to do so, and it is the politicians and media who have taken up us bullshit creek without a paddle.
.