Excess population is an issue already much thought about by the globalist elite including Dr. Eric R. Pianka who proposed culling the world population by ebola. My reaction is that he should be the first to volunteer!

Other scary things include the shadowy Georgia Guide-stones and the massive stockpiles of FEMA plastic coffins also in Georgia.

I, myself, am more concerned about the NWO than excessive population. Recently, there has been much talk about weaponized flu virus development that is being done in level 2 labs (relatively poor security) and multiple locations--just a matter of time before it gets loose.

Regarding the future, its going to be a rough ride folks...

 

One thing that hasn't been addressed is history. We (the world) have had a Great Depression before. And for the most part survived pretty good. As a whole humanity is good at pulling together as a team.

To my way of thinking the 'ganstas' and drug dealers won't be as much of a problem as we give them credit for. They need people to be afraid of them to be in control. When the majority is more concerned of the day to day life, the bad guys won't look so bad and scary. The movies make them out to be more than they really are.

 

I hope it will come out that way, and I think in the end this comes down to learning to hang together, for fear that we might hang separately. Things will almost certainly have to change significantly before they get any better, but I don't think that should mean throwing the baby (civilisation) out with the bath water.

If on the other hand the world's advanced societies just disintegrated into a lot of little tribes, I am afraid that this would lead to them sinking into the sort of self-destructive chaos that is currently only seen in the most troubled parts of the world. Once this had happened, much of what had been learned could be lost in a few generations. On the other hand, any countries that managed to hang tough would be all set to move up in the world. Like China, maybe?

Some individuals and their immediate families might survive a bit longer in their bunkers, but to me the long-term outlook for this way of life looks terribly bleak. Essentially we would be trying to step back into prehistoric ways of running things, without the experience that the people of those days had in living that way.

Perhaps it may be healthier to get on with the business of daily life than dwelling too much on such things.

 

The main difference between the people of the great depression and the people of today, is that the people of the great depression were less removed from the land than we are. The world has become pear-shaped in relation to agriculture. There are a handful who know how to produce the food and everybody else knows only how to consume. back then more people lived in rural areas which are more likely to be mostly self-sustaining, and less likely to become a cesspool of debauchery.
The people of the great depression also held a different set of ideals. Without going political, I think we can agree that (factually) between then and now there has been a paradigm shift from honoring hard work & productivity to the "entitlement society". An overwhelming amount of people in society today don't know what a work ethic is, or where to find one. They would be ill equipped to carry themselves through such a catastrophe in comparison to your average able bodied individual of 1929.
Also, the world population at the time of the great depression was 2 billion; now it's 7 billion. In 1999 it was 6 billion. It took from the beginning of time until 1804 to reach 1 billion. Now we reach it most recently in 12 years. That in & of itself I supposed isn't really a contributing factor as shortages in food due to the population haven't really started yet; it's just a proportion. Be that as it may, if (proportionally) we lost a few percent of the population, we're talking about hundreds of millions of people, maybe billions depending. We stand to lose more bodies than what existed on the face of the planet during the great depression.

 

Excess population is an issue already much thought about by the globalist elite including Dr. Eric R. Pianka who proposed culling the world population by ebola. My reaction is that he should be the first to volunteer!

Other scary things include the shadowy Georgia Guide-stones and the massive stockpiles of FEMA plastic coffins also in Georgia.

I, myself, am more concerned about the NWO than excessive population. Recently, there has been much talk about weaponized flu virus development that is being done in level 2 labs (relatively poor security) and multiple locations--just a matter of time before it gets loose.

Regarding the future, its going to be a rough ride folks...

Chilling stuff.

It doesn't surprise me at all that there are some nutcases who think the death of 90% of the world's population is a good thing. How would that man feel if he had sit and watch his whole family die before him? Almost certain with killing 90%...

People today seem to always want to take the 'easy' route. If it can be done quicker, cheaper, bigger etc, then that's the way to do it. In this case, this person believes that to solve a near future problem we should turn to the 'easy' solution of killing 9 out of 10 people.

I believe that he is too big headed to believe that humans can destroy the planet. We are more than capable of destroying ourselves, but once we do that the planet will recover in a few thousand years. Even with nukes, I think some sort of life could survive - think microbes under the sea and cockroaches.

But to solve a real problem of food shortages, I believe in preparing and learning is the answer. How can we grow food in harsher environments? We should put money and time into learning how to save 90% of the population, not learning how to kill them.

Sorry to rant, but some people's view on life is so bleak it yanks my chain. If the earth can't support a 10 billion population, then the earth will see to it that it is balanced out. We don't need to do it ourselves. That is simple biology I learnt when I wad 14. Perhaps not with huma.s, but the idea still works. It makes me wonder how clever these 'proffessors' are... They've certainly got a good imagination...

Sparky

 

A major fallacy in the population argument is it assumes it is a homogeneous mix, and concentrated. The USA still has lots of room (thanks to the concentration in cities), and certain areas in the world are growing faster than others.

Fact is, if it weren't for immigration the USA has a negative growth rate, as do many industrial countries. If woman truly have a choice kids are not always their first priority. It is currently one of Japan's biggest problems.

Goes back to basic assumptions, of which there are a lot that are basically false in this thread. Given one wrong assumption you can literally prove anything (which still does not make it true). It is one of several reasons I don't have much use for philosophy.

 

The main difference between the people of the great depression and the people of today, is that the people of the great depression were less removed from the land than we are. The world has become pear-shaped in relation to agriculture. There are a handful who know how to produce the food and everybody else knows only how to consume. back then more people lived in rural areas which are more likely to be mostly self-sustaining, and less likely to become a cesspool of debauchery.
The people of the great depression also held a different set of ideals. Without going political, I think we can agree that (factually) between then and now there has been a paradigm shift from honoring hard work & productivity to the "entitlement society". An overwhelming amount of people in society today don't know what a work ethic is, or where to find one. They would be ill equipped to carry themselves through such a catastrophe in comparison to your average able bodied individual of 1929.
Also, the world population at the time of the great depression was 2 billion; now it's 7 billion. In 1999 it was 6 billion. It took from the beginning of time until 1804 to reach 1 billion. Now we reach it most recently in 12 years. That in & of itself I supposed isn't really a contributing factor as shortages in food due to the population haven't really started yet; it's just a proportion. Be that as it may, if (proportionally) we lost a few percent of the population, we're talking about hundreds of millions of people, maybe billions depending. We stand to lose more bodies than what existed on the face of the planet during the great depression.

I'm not sure that shortages of food will be a problem. Prices of commodities will swing, affecting our access to certain foodstuffs, but on the whole, intensive agriculture/horticulture is in it's infancy. Synthetics are now considered supplements, but will likely fullfill a larger roll going forward. Famine will continue to cycle in the marginal countries, as it has for all of history. I believe at some point, parenting offspring will have greater implications (resource access (financial)) and the choice will be put off for a larger sector of the population. I believe the need for mobility in regards to income generation will dictate this.

A problem that I see is not of whats to come, but our resistance to change. If our access to resources dictate we move to simplier times, is that a calamity? But that likely won't happen, as higher population requires higher densities and more efficient food production. Neither resemble the past.

Wars will likely continue, it appears to be a genetic makeup of man. Haven't been involved in one, but can imagine for a civilian, it would be all you describe and worse, and it could be the end of the world for many. Maybe that was your underlying considerations when you choose your cover image. Maybe we're talking about the wrong subject with population growth.

 

Ever see the movie "Children of Men"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men

or "Logan's Run"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan's_Run_(film)

Or for that matter "Soylent Green"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

 

One of the population issues is not sheer numbers but the level of education or skills of the masses. In other words is the individual contributing to society? But this thought also makes movies like the afore mentioned Soylent Green even more scarey