Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Earth Changes / Global Warming / Chemtrails / Weather Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 22-04-2017, 12:05 PM   #41
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

this is really quite simple....
finite resources.
that means the more people there are the quicker it gets used. the higher the average standard of living the resources get used even quicker.
renewable resources. they only renew so fast. so there is a limit on the use of renewable resources and so the same thing applies with population with regard to renewables.

long story short...the more of us there are the quicker we use it all up. if we dont want to control our population but want to be here for a while it simply means that more of us means a lower standard of living. so yeah, theres room for 20 billion if you dont care about when the party ends.

the planet is finite. end of.

question: why do so many people think we need to have more people? what does that accomplish in a positive way that can possibly counter the argument of finite resources on a finite planet?
Likes: (1)
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2017, 12:23 PM   #42
the apprentice
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,637
Likes: 2,987 (2,092 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
this is really quite simple....
finite resources.
that means the more people there are the quicker it gets used. the higher the average standard of living the resources get used even quicker.
renewable resources. they only renew so fast. so there is a limit on the use of renewable resources and so the same thing applies with population with regard to renewables.

long story short...the more of us there are the quicker we use it all up. if we dont want to control our population but want to be here for a while it simply means that more of us means a lower standard of living. so yeah, theres room for 20 billion if you dont care about when the party ends.

the planet is finite. end of.

question: why do so many people think we need to have more people? what does that accomplish in a positive way that can possibly counter the argument of finite resources on a finite planet?
The earth will eventually control those who are controlling us.

What is rapidly happening today is the elite or those clever enough to will begin cutting back everything once we reach the tipping point, the final conflict towards equilibrium with our immediate environment is already under way, it cannot be stopped.

Grab the skills to last a lifetime and pass them and the tech onto those who truly make things happen, this is the best move we can make right now.

The parsimonious of this model is simply not going to reward those who ignore it.
the apprentice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2017, 12:36 PM   #43
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
Food is the easiest to produce ...hydroponic production doesn't waste any nutrients ...aquaponics (fish and plants together)....

..."Most Americans think that miles of machine-planted row crops and crowded feedlots are required to feed everyone—that without large-scale, industrial agriculture, with its chemical inputs and GMOs, we would all starve to death.
Even people who know that organic agriculture is just as productive as industrial agriculture often think you need to have acres of land to grow all your own food. Here’s why this is totally false...."

https://www.smallfootprintfamily.com...elf-sufficient
yes, food is easy. but do you want to maintain a technological society or do you want to go back to an agricultural model? hydroponics? excellent idea. a few people can efficiently produce a lot of food for a lot of other people who are involved in other technological pursuits.
if you want a technological society those people will be involved in those pursuits. they wont have the time or inclination to go off grid and spend their time growing food.
yes, industrial farming is not necessary and the way its done has more to do with big money than efficiency. it needs to change. but a world model based on tom dick and harry spending all their time on being self sufficient just doens't jive with tom dick and harry getting advanced health care and taking advantage of higher technologies. now if we got rid of money....but thats another story.

fish farming...i dove for sea urchins commercially for quite a number of years. during that time i took work on the side doing maintenance on several fish farms. they pollute. too many fish in one place. disease problems etc...end of. better we save our oceans and our fish stocks. they are finite. how did they get in that way of needing to be saved? too many people demanding fish coupled with destructive harvesting techniques and brain dead stock management. solution? nondestructive harvesting techniques, thoughtful management and less people eating fish. i was a commercial fisherman before i got into diving so i know something about it. to expound on management...well, i think you'd shiver on just how brain dead the management of fish stocks was. the quota system and the way it was implemented was simply stupid and wasteful.

humanity needs to become more efficient at what they do and lessen their foot print on the planet. yes, it only takes a few square meters to grow food for one person. but thats not our whole footprint is it? no its not. theres the mining, the forestry and all the rest. i dont really want to go back to the caves. the fewer of us there are the better we can live here and the longer we can do it. don't forget, we have to leave room for the rest of the residents.

Last edited by reverendjim; 22-04-2017 at 12:48 PM.
Likes: (1)
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2017, 12:46 PM   #44
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the apprentice View Post
The earth will eventually control those who are controlling us.

What is rapidly happening today is the elite or those clever enough to will begin cutting back everything once we reach the tipping point, the final conflict towards equilibrium with our immediate environment is already under way, it cannot be stopped.

Grab the skills to last a lifetime and pass them and the tech onto those who truly make things happen, this is the best move we can make right now.

The parsimonious of this model is simply not going to reward those who ignore it.
lol, we have no choice in it. and i agree, thats the best we can do. actually, its all we can do.

as to the earth controlling them, well, the earth will control our mass numbers. as far as which individuals succeed or fail, that, i think, is sort of left up to the individuals in a happenstance sort of way....whether elite or otherwise. some will know how to get out of the way. some of them may be lucky enough to pull it off. same goes with those who have the skills to survive after getting out of the way. some will manage to pull it off...some will succumb to the vagaries of nature...
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2017, 02:45 PM   #45
fudgetusk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,291
Likes: 922 (644 Posts)
Default

There are enough people already. STOP BREEDING YOU SICK BUNNIES.
__________________
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=317483

The connection between Icke and 9/11
fudgetusk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2017, 02:56 PM   #46
the apprentice
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,637
Likes: 2,987 (2,092 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
lol, we have no choice in it. and i agree, thats the best we can do. actually, its all we can do.

as to the earth controlling them, well, the earth will control our mass numbers. as far as which individuals succeed or fail, that, i think, is sort of left up to the individuals in a happenstance sort of way....whether elite or otherwise.

Some will know how to get out of the way. Some of them may be lucky enough to pull it off.

Same goes with those who have the skills to survive after getting out of the way. Some will manage to pull it off...some will succumb to the vagaries of nature...
We do have a choice who we help and who we leave behind for the good of those already with us Rev, and who might care for us in our old age.

Just imagine if we had a gay Adam an Eve.

Nature/Mankind 2.0.
the apprentice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-04-2017, 12:24 AM   #47
mranderson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: best planet in the Solar System
Posts: 3,742
Likes: 3,830 (1,980 Posts)
Default

Source materials :

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_up...l_snapshot.jpg

http://www.curiousmeerkat.co.uk/ques...rth-inhabited/


According to research available today we inhabit less than 1% of the Earth

I do not think we should or can sustain current standards of living using the current techniques we use.

Example : Concrete utilises certain types of sand , it's getting harder and harder to source and so eventually we need a different building material. This shouldn't be a problem if we put minds to it. Or go back to natural building materials , there are many examples of beautiful homes built into the side of hills.

Another example of how techniques will have to change is things like out of season food products available all year round. This will stop it is not sustainable and frankly a massive waste of energy.

Research how much water is needed to grow a Cashew Nut. It's a tragic example of decadence.

Do our living standards have to decrease ? Not necessarily , but what standards are we used to anyway ? Only recently in history do we have the access we have now to sanitary practices and clean water.

I think our techniques for providing what we need and not just what we want has to be changed.

There is no point making single serving green bean packages shipped from Africa to the UK to be sold out of season. No point , massive waste of resources.

We will most likely have to adjust where we populate the Earth. Example being L.A which essentially has most of it's water pumped in from somewhere else. It isn't going to work in the long run and honestly what would be the point in trying ?

Think about this too , in more advanced secular societies infant mortality has plummeted , life expectancy and health care has greatly improved.

Not long ago you had 10 kids because 6 of them were likely to die before adult hood and you maybe had 4 left who could look after you when you reach old age.

But in advanced societies we live longer and longer and can live an entire life of 85 years with no children because society is advanced enough to tend to your basic needs when you need it.

If development happened in a similar rate across the planet, people would not need to have 10 kids any more but old habits die hard.

Also have to factor in the less than 1% of the Earth landmass we inhabit.

To summarise I think if we improve living conditions across the globe the population will naturally reduce just as it has in advanced secular societies.

The idea we should all just stop having children because we are scared of the future is madness IMO.

There have been far worse conditions on the Earth in the past and if people had been frightened of the maybes back then we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
__________________
music sound and movement

They might drain the swamp but the snakes are still in the grass


It's symbolic of his struggle against reality
mranderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-04-2017, 12:53 PM   #48
the apprentice
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,637
Likes: 2,987 (2,092 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mranderson View Post
Source materials :

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_up...l_snapshot.jpg

http://www.curiousmeerkat.co.uk/ques...rth-inhabited/


According to research available today we inhabit less than 1% of the Earth

I do not think we should or can sustain current standards of living using the current techniques we use.

Example : Concrete utilises certain types of sand , it's getting harder and harder to source and so eventually we need a different building material. This shouldn't be a problem if we put minds to it. Or go back to natural building materials , there are many examples of beautiful homes built into the side of hills.

Another example of how techniques will have to change is things like out of season food products available all year round. This will stop it is not sustainable and frankly a massive waste of energy.

Research how much water is needed to grow a Cashew Nut. It's a tragic example of decadence.

Do our living standards have to decrease ? Not necessarily , but what standards are we used to anyway ? Only recently in history do we have the access we have now to sanitary practices and clean water.

I think our techniques for providing what we need and not just what we want has to be changed.

There is no point making single serving green bean packages shipped from Africa to the UK to be sold out of season. No point , massive waste of resources.

We will most likely have to adjust where we populate the Earth. Example being L.A which essentially has most of it's water pumped in from somewhere else. It isn't going to work in the long run and honestly what would be the point in trying ?

Think about this too , in more advanced secular societies infant mortality has plummeted , life expectancy and health care has greatly improved.

Not long ago you had 10 kids because 6 of them were likely to die before adult hood and you maybe had 4 left who could look after you when you reach old age.

But in advanced societies we live longer and longer and can live an entire life of 85 years with no children because society is advanced enough to tend to your basic needs when you need it.

If development happened in a similar rate across the planet, people would not need to have 10 kids any more but old habits die hard.

Also have to factor in the less than 1% of the Earth landmass we inhabit.

To summarise I think if we improve living conditions across the globe the population will naturally reduce just as it has in advanced secular societies.

The idea we should all just stop having children because we are scared of the future is madness IMO.

There have been far worse conditions on the Earth in the past and if people had been frightened of the maybes back then we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
If you see how all of our medieval building were made you see how we can still make them to last a couple of thousand years, do this Amish style and we ALL gain exponentially.

Wood is sustainable if we circular plant it.

Stone is readily available and recyclable.

The way we live here has enabled us to do so without much money, the labour we would normally expell in exchange for money has been redirected to us using skills that benefit us and those who we care to share freely. I gave away one of my wheelbarrows to someone I know pro bono and one day they might return the honour some other wayou that eases our plight.

I agree the better quality lives we create the nearer to equilibrium with our immediate environment will be and the smaller the global population would automatically adjust to naturally.

But we need to become multi tankers and helpers of the less fortunate and weak amongst society, many of which are still useful to their given society some other way.

Everyone has their place in utopia.
Likes: (1)
the apprentice is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:36 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.