Solution to world overpopulation problem?

[Winston]

I have a question. Why can't the world overpopulation problem just be solved with this simple solution, rather than killing off 85 percent of the world population as the Illuminati and NWO allegedly want to do?

Just enact a 2 child policy per couple. This will mathematically guarantee population reduction, because there will always be a portion of people who die before having kids, or decide not to have any. Simple isn't it?

You don't even need a one child policy like in China. A two child policy would be enough. So why doesn't China just adopt a two child policy instead?

So why would the Illuminati or NWO need to try to kill off 85 percent of the world population, when there is a simple solution like this?

Also, is the overpopulation issue really a crisis? I heard that you can fit the population of the whole world just in the state of Texas with a square mile between everyone. Is that really true? Is it still true? If so, then the world is pretty sparsely populated in that most of the land is unpopulated right?

[abcdavid01]

Overpopulation is only a problem in homogenous economies like agrarian based ones. Now it is better to have an increase in population because it allows for the division of labor.

[Renata]

The problem of overpopulation isn't a matter of space, it's resources. There's still lots of people in poverty, due to lack of food. I believe governments are just negligent towards people & could do more to at least get them above the poverty line.

The issue of the Illuminati and NWO allegedly ploting to kill off 85% of the world population, again I think it's about Natural Resources & Reserves. They're just plain greedy; it's easy to wipe out populations so they could take wahtever they like.

[Excalibur]

Overpopulation is only a growing problem in most 3rd world countries. For industrialized and civilized countries, you don't need any kind of child policy, because the birth rate in these countries is already far below the replacement level of 2.0.

And even if you enacted child policy, how would you enforce it, especially in many African countries (that are growing in population) where infrastructure is poor and the government has a limited power?

[Winston]

Check out the same topic about overpopulation in fschmidt's CoAlpha Forum. Some of the solutions proposed are downright cruel.

http://www.coalpha.org/What-to-do-about ... 75230.html

Why not just have a two child policy? That would work.

When will China's one child policy end? Why doesn't it just have a two child policy? That would work too. A one child policy seems too extreme.

[Teal Lantern]

Also, is the overpopulation issue really a crisis?

No.

I heard that you can fit the population of the whole world just in the state of Texas with a square mile between everyone. Is that really true? Is it still true? If so, then the world is pretty sparsely populated in that most of the land is unpopulated right?

Texas is big, but not that big.
Land Area of Texas = 261,232 sq. miles
World Population = ~7.13 billion people
=~1021 sq. feet / person

A bad-at-math AZN?

[onethousandknives]

Better management of resources.

For example, food. Right now most grain is used to feed animals. Numbers anywhere from 3-12lbs of grain are needed for one pound of beef. So logically, for efficiency, you're better off feeding said grains to humans. Note, I'm not a vegetarian, just saying from a mathematical perspective.

Other ideas of better management of resources include utilizing different plants. For example, kudzu, the invasive species that's taking over the Southern USA, is very good animal feed. And it's free, except for the manpower or machine power needed to harvest it. But, we've not figured out the logistics to get it harvested for whatever reasons. So we have, I dunno, enough food for a lot of animals just being wasted that the US government throws herbicide on every year. So Monsanto/etc is saying you need GMO food to feed the overpopulated planet or whatever, but we're just wasting resources like that. In the case of kudzu, nobody can really make a ton of money off it, that's probably why it's not used. Nobody's farming it specifically, it grows everywhere. Monsanto can't patent it and sue people for their GMO kudzu pollinating their non-GMO kudzu, etc. And there's many things in the world like this.

That's talking just companies, but other people's personal habits too do need to change to make things less wasteful. IE, the trend of giant SUVs to hold giant (in waist girth) Americans and their giant families. Especially nowadays that car safety standards have gotten better, there's no reason the average family of 2-3 kids can't fit in something like a Volkswagen diesel Golf or Polo like in Europe that gets 40-60mpg. It'd just be "annoying." The kids would poke each other and not have a captain's seat to themselves. Or even better, why don't more people have lower displacement motorbikes for their general transportation? Or even bicycles not meant for recreation but for transportation?

Lastly, with regard to killing people. China has entirely abandoned cities. They've also aborted many many people. China is a centrally planned economy. So now these abandoned cities are built and there are no people to fill them. If the government has the power to basically declare life and death, I'm sure they could declare some people to live in those cities, but they killed them.

So the solution to overpopulation isn't killing anyone. It's simply just being a better manager of resources.

[starchild5]

Its all Illuminati, NWO , Dark Forces propaganda....They are brainwashing us with BS all the time.

I'm from India, 1.2 billion take that NWO

and I have been to China

I may have seen more people in the world than most here.... ..If you are American ...300 million...multiply by 4 plus some more....to get to Indian population figure for a perspective.

And we have this huge gigantic festivals like Maha Kumbh Mela which is officially the highest gathering of humanity on earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbh_Mela

It is considered to be the largest peaceful gathering in the world where around 100 million people were expected to visit during the Maha Kumbh Mela in 2013 in Allahabad.[5

Yes. You read that right 100 million people at one place. That's like 30% of US population at one place, and yet barring few incidences it was peaceful.

-----

Even though I had a shity dating life...India is very peaceful country, there are far less crime than in western world, even China is also very peaceful.

Human being in general wants to live peacefully and co-exist but this sinister manipulation behind the scenes is the route cause of all our misery not Over Population. Anyways, Who decides when is the perfect time for humanity to stop?

The Illuminati cabal should stop printing more money and manipulating currency to make the world a worse place to live and then blame all there sins on humanity and call it Karma and then blame some more on over population.

Earth is Huge, it can easily support 1 trillion humans But it cannot support manipulation like suppressing free energy, political boundaries, currency manipulation etc.

The problem is not us BUT THEM...Why is this so hard for all of us to understand? Why are we still blaming humanity for our misery....haven't we all suffered enough?

The inbreds should stop making their evil on earth first. We are really really going to their way of thinking. WE NEED TO BE CLEAR IN OUR MINDS.

THERE IS NO OVER POPULATION. NO UNDER POPULATION. NO STABLE POPULATION ETC. ITS ALL FREAKING MANIPULATION.

We are all natural beings, evolving to a far higher place in the universe. There is no mathematical number on us to how much we produce and how much we cannot.

[MrPeabody]

Overpopulation has always been a problem. The hunter-gatherers during the good years would increase their populations and then they would collapse by starvation during the droughts. So, they invented agriculture to make the food supply more reliable. But, then agriculture made the populations explode and enabled cities, i.e. civilization. Civilizations would periodically collapse as they increased in numbers and used up their resources. For example, there is strong evidence that Easter Island and the Mayans collapsed due to overuse of resources. Antibiotics, sanitation, and the industrial revolution made the population explode. So now the new barrier appears to be an upper limit on the amount of carbon dioxide we can produce and release into the atmosphere. The demographers claim that the population is going to slowly decrease again as the world becomes more industrialized because middle class people hooked into the system have less children.

[pete98146]

I think the answer is print billions of Hillary Clinton posters. Any country with population problems passes a rule that you must hang a Hillary Clinton poster above the bed of said husband and wife.

Don't know about you guys but I could be in bed with Brooklyn Decker and if I looked up and saw Hillary's face my erection would fade fast. Yup, Hillary Clinton, the anti Viagra. Guaranteed to turn any steamy bedroom into a Frigidare.

[Taco]

Only 3% of the land in America has people living on it, there's not enough people.

The argument that high population causes poverty is a lie. Hong Kong and Singapore have high population densities but have tremendous wealth because there's no taxes. Third world countries have high inflation which is just another tax.

[ntm1972]

The argument that high population causes poverty is a lie. Hong Kong and Singapore have high population densities but have tremendous wealth because there's no taxes.

The tax argument is the wrong one to make here, because it comes from a Western-style, individualistic mentality in which the concepts of wealth and taxation are adversarial.

The economic models of both HK and Singapore are much more communitarian in nature. They are corporate socialist models - meaning that big business and government work together, openly and inextricably, to maximize economic productivity within the context of a paternalistic framework in which all citizens are taken care of, however minimally.

In other words, when you make a purchase from a corporation based out of HK or Singapore, some portion of the funds you spend likely constitutes a direct contribution to the social welfare of the inhabitants of said region.

Take housing, for example. More than eighty percent of Singapore's population lives in public housing [1], while nearly half of HK's residents do the same [2].

[1] http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_ ... 7Ae03.html

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_hou ... _Hong_Kong

[Taco]

The argument that high population causes poverty is a lie. Hong Kong and Singapore have high population densities but have tremendous wealth because there's no taxes.

The tax argument is the wrong one to make here, because it comes from a Western-style, individualistic mentality in which the concepts of wealth and taxation are adversarial.

The economic models of both HK and Singapore are much more communitarian in nature. They are corporate socialist models - meaning that big business and government work together, openly and inextricably, to maximize economic productivity within the context of a paternalistic framework in which all citizens are taken care of, however minimally.

In other words, when you make a purchase from a corporation based out of HK or Singapore, some portion of the funds you spend likely constitutes a direct contribution to the social welfare of the inhabitants of said region.

Take housing, for example. More than eighty percent of Singapore's population lives in public housing [1], while nearly half of HK's residents do the same [2].

[1] http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_ ... 7Ae03.html

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_hou ... _Hong_Kong

I was wrong. However, the tax rate in HK is very low.

HK Tax Guide
http://gohongkong.about.com/od/business ... ongTax.htm

[ntm1972]

However, the tax rate in HK is very low.

HK Tax Guide
http://gohongkong.about.com/od/business ... ongTax.htm

Good point. HK and Singapore are more business-friendly than the U.S., but they're also more people-friendly. Many would argue that this combination makes their economic models superior to those of the West, and I'm not inclined to disagree.

[Wolfeye]

As I understand, the whole overpopulation myth is bullshit. Supposedly, it's something that was started by people that just don't like people in general & see them as a drain on things they want to have for themselves.

There isn't enough resources if destroying those resources is a model of behavior. There isn't enough if the style is to have double & throw half out, or to erode the means to survive as a method of providing for it. This "woodchipper mentality" is debilitating & not sustainable. It's like a point system based on how much is destroyed.

It seems that everything to provide for the precious economy is something corrosive to people, the environment, or life in general. It doesn't make sense that there's this constructed conditional that poses an extra hurdle and/or a counterfactor to survival. In order to pay for things, the point to those things is cancelled out?