Obama's Science Czar believes in Mass Sterlizations and Forced Abortions

CouldntBeMeTho

Chairman Meow
Supporter
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
47,612
Reputation
20,473
Daps
270,813
Reppin
Dog Shooting Squad Of Islamabad
cuz ppl would naturally die off by the hundreds of millions. Death will become an epidemic.

its based on the WORLDWIDE fertility rate, if you average it out, the population will level off, and thats not based on any plague or mass extinction.

america has plenty of room and resources, if you live in america then overpopulation is nothing that really should concern you. it's a giant scare tactic, with giant scare tactics come agendas. the agenda is EUGENICS.

The world’s population is expected to hit seven billion this year.
By 2100, there will likely be more than 10 billion people living on Earth.
After 2100, the population level will probably plateau


Population to Bulge, But Will Hit Ceiling : Discovery News

how many articles do i have to post showing that population will level off??? there are more :stopitslime:
 

daze23

Siempre Fresco
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
31,965
Reputation
2,692
Daps
44,046
it explains that the world wide fertility rate is not high enough to keep the population growing and growing. eventually it will hit a peak... is the usatoday good enough?

Demographers created several scenarios, with the high and low versions reflecting uncontrolled and universally controlled growth rates respectively. Under the high-growth scenario, the world population could rise to 36.4 billion by 2300, or more than five times the number of people now. In the medium-growth scenario, the world population rises from 6.1 billion people in 2000 to 9 billion in 2300. Under the low-growth scenario, it would decline to 2.3 billion.

The medium-fertility scenario, based on each couple having two children, is the most likely one, Chamie said. For comparison, in 1900, the world population was 1.6 billion; in 2003, it is 6.3 billion.


USATODAY.com - World population to level off

it's just a misuse of the data to present it like "this is what's gonna happen". the actual data presents a wide range of probability:

4q7JG.jpg


here, I found my own slick youtube video:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

daze23

Siempre Fresco
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
31,965
Reputation
2,692
Daps
44,046
its based on the WORLDWIDE fertility rate, if you average it out, the population will level off, and thats not based on any plague or mass extinction.

america has plenty of room and resources, if you live in america then overpopulation is nothing that really should concern you. it's a giant scare tactic, with giant scare tactics come agendas. the agenda is EUGENICS.

The world’s population is expected to hit seven billion this year.
By 2100, there will likely be more than 10 billion people living on Earth.
After 2100, the population level will probably plateau


Population to Bulge, But Will Hit Ceiling : Discovery News

how many articles do i have to post showing that population will level off??? there are more :stopitslime:

POPULATION TO BULGE, BUT WILL HIT CEILING

Speculation on population numbers raise questions about whether the planet can sustain us all.

The world's population is on track to hit seven billion this year, which is double the number of people that lived on Earth in the 1960s, but far from what the future holds. By 2100, according to recent projections by the United Nations, we’ll hit the 10 billion mark.

Those numbers, which are drastically larger than anything the Earth has experienced before, have sparked concerns about how all of those people will impact the world. They have also raised questions about whether the planet can sustain us all in the first place.

There may, however, be at least some end in sight to the relentless swelling of population pressure. Around the end of the century, many demographers believe, the global population will gradually level off.

Researchers can't predict with certainty exactly when that will happen and at what level. Also up for debate is how the current level of population growth will impact the environment, the economy and quality of life.

Overall, though, the level of rapid population growth we are experiencing today cannot be considered a good thing, said John Bongaarts, a demographer at the Population Council, a research organization in New York City.

In some parts of Africa, for example, population is doubling every 20 years, making it impossible for communities there to keep up with the growing demand for housing, roads, schools and health clinics. To many experts, those kinds of issues highlight the need for a global-wide investment in family planning programs that provide women education and access to contraception.

"Every billion people we add to the planet makes life more difficult for everyone and will do more damage to the environment," Bongaarts said. "Can we support 10 billion people? Probably. But we would all be better off with a smaller population."

The multiplication of people on the planet wasn't always so explosive, according to a series of papers in this week's Science. Growth started to accelerate with industrialization around 1750, said Ron Lee, a demographer and economist at the University of California, Berkeley.

By 1800, global population reached one billion for the first time. It took another 125 years to reach two billion. After that, though, numbers rose from three to seven billion in just the last 50 years. The population growth rate reached a peak of two percent per year in the mid 1960s, before declining to today’s annual growth rate of 1.1 percent.

No one can predict the future, but the U.N. has done a good job in the past of estimating population sizes for several decades forward. By 2050, its predictions range from 8.1 billion to 10.6 billion. For 2100, projections range from 6.2 billion to 15.8 billion.

"
There's nothing magic about the 10 billion number," Lee said. "On the other hand, there's pretty good agreement to expect something like this leveling off."

Longer life spans and lower death rates help explain why population size is growing at its current pace. But the variable that will make the biggest difference in how many people will live on Earth 100 years from now is fertility rate, or the number of babies that women give birth to.

If every woman had two babies, the world's population would remain stable. Today, there is a global average of 2.5 births per woman -- down from five in 1950. That comes with huge geographical variation.

In Japan, China and Europe, women are having fewer than two babies, while women in many developing countries are still having five or more. Ninety-seven percent of the projected population increase over the next century is expected to happen in developing nations, according to a review article in Science by David Bloom, of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. Nearly half of the growth will be in Africa.

Women who matter more to society and are given access to education, according to previous research, end up having fewer children. Informing people about contraception and making it available also make a big difference, and not just in places like Africa, where a disproportionately large population of young people is exacerbating problems like school overcrowding and unemployment. In the United States, Bongaarts said, about 15 percent of births are unwanted.

Even as the global population begins to level off in the coming decades, experts are already expressing concern about the environmental and economic consequences of stuffing so many people onto the planet. Parts of the world are running out of water. Prices of food and energy continue to rise.

"It's not clear how this is going to sort out," Lee said. "That's what I'm worried about."
 

Rice N Beans

Junior Hayley Stan
Supporter
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
10,803
Reputation
1,447
Daps
22,396
Reppin
Chicago, IL

I do agree a large chunk of it would be uninhabitable, but it is just an idea of how small humans can take up with some thinking. Going green is the obvious solution, preferably energy like solar and wind power could pick up. We can stop deforesting and instead move to plans that grow fast in small areas like marijuana for papers and etc.

Water being a problem with the idea, most of humanity lies along water. I wonder if we could fit everyone along the Great Lakes... but it is definitely an issue with how we live our lives.

We can do it, unfortunately it messes up someone's profit margins so we can't have nice things. :beli:
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,641
Reppin
humans
I do agree a large chunk of it would be uninhabitable, but it is just an idea of how small humans can take up with some thinking. Going green is the obvious solution, preferably energy like solar and wind power could pick up. We can stop deforesting and instead move to plans that grow fast in small areas like marijuana for papers and etc.

Water being a problem with the idea, most of humanity lies along water. I wonder if we could fit everyone along the Great Lakes... but it is definitely an issue with how we live our lives.

We can do it, unfortunately it messes up someone's profit margins so we can't have nice things. :beli:

For sure.

And these people who push for these things seem to neglect that we can pursue engineering projects to get rid of the world's problems regarding resources and land.

Nanotechnolgy for one is in its "fetus" stage. That can open so many doors. Trans-humanism as well.
 

daze23

Siempre Fresco
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
31,965
Reputation
2,692
Daps
44,046
I do agree a large chunk of it would be uninhabitable, but it is just an idea of how small humans can take up with some thinking. Going green is the obvious solution, preferably energy like solar and wind power could pick up. We can stop deforesting and instead move to plans that grow fast in small areas like marijuana for papers and etc.

Water being a problem with the idea, most of humanity lies along water. I wonder if we could fit everyone along the Great Lakes... but it is definitely an issue with how we live our lives.

We can do it, unfortunately it messes up someone's profit margins so we can't have nice things. :beli:

as it is people mock solar/wind power, recycling, electric cars, public transportation, tree-huggers, etc

the ideas are there. getting people to make the necessary sacrifices is another story
 

daze23

Siempre Fresco
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
31,965
Reputation
2,692
Daps
44,046
of you concede that the population can be sustained with technology, then you're basically conceding that overpopulation is a problem that needs to be dealt with. it's also hard for me to separate this issue from climate change, as they are connected in many ways. so I think if you concede that climate change is a problem, then you also concede that overpopulation is a problem (given my view on those issues)
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
88,199
Reputation
3,616
Daps
157,245
Reppin
Brooklyn
as it is people mock solar/wind power, recycling, electric cars, public transportation, tree-huggers, etc

the ideas are there. getting people to make the necessary sacrifices is another story

You have a false consciousness
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-150
Daps
65,108
Reppin
NULL
of you concede that the population can be sustained with technology, then you're basically conceding that overpopulation is a problem that needs to be dealt with. it's also hard for me to separate this issue from climate change, as they are connected in many ways. so I think if you concede that climate change is a problem, then you also concede that overpopulation is a problem (given my view on those issues)

Having living quality, food and water abundance for everyone isn't a overpopulation issue. You don't have a stand in Major Corporations creating laws that prohibit people who live in the lands to flourish. You come in with your science report about what will happen in 87 years from now predicts your lack of comprehension of where the world is going in less than 10 years. That has nothing to do with population but control of land mass, food and water to a small few people.
 
Top