TED talk on population growth

[cherimoya_kid]

ANd who does anyone think they are to be controlling the population anyway. What makes them the deciders of who lives and dies? If there ever were too many people on the planet, people would die off until a balance was reached. No need to poison or sterilize anyone.

What a bunch of sick control freaks.

The Renaissance was brought about by the Black Plague.  So many peasants were killed by the plague that the ones that survived were able to negotiate better pay and working conditions ( because suddenly peasants were in short supply, and therefore more valuable to land-owning nobles), which then led to them becoming more educated, and the cycle continued. Voila!  Renaissance.

Do we really have to have a Plague to make things better for the poor?  Why can't we just teach people about birth control?

[goodsamaritan]

Check the fertility rates in your respective countries and post here the fertility rates in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010... From there you will know if your country is doing a good job educating people not to reproduce.

Go on... Post em and lets see.

[cherimoya_kid]

Of course the fertility rate in developed countries goes down over time. Once you start educating women and giving them freedom, they decide to have careers and maybe 1 or 2 children, instead of 4 or 5 children.  And that's a good thing.  Larger populations lead to wars, poverty, social unrest, and disease.

[svrn]

i almost forgot that theres no point in arguing with someone who swallows reality as its presented to them.

[sabertooth]

TED talks is such a joke. I dont think iv ever heard anything out of them other than leftist elitist propaganda.

Yes I agree, but if you look at it through the eyes of a skeptic then you can see through the propaganda and broaden your own point of view.
Many of the talks Ive seen are blatantly pretentiously leftist.

Malthusian rubbish that does little to explain anything, it more or less indoctrinates us with an extremely narrow point of view on a topic that involves the lives of 7 billion plus.

The whole idea that having only  two children per household makes for a healthier and more structured world is an assumption, that cant be made without grossly generalizing the multiplicity of factors involved.

It has a grain of truth which is appealing to academia types who have never experienced places in the world where extended family's are capable of producing and caring for large numbers of children who grow up to be productive and strong members of a caring community.

Of course the modern economic model has created a segment of the population who would find raising 12 children on a dairy farm in northern California, unappealing.

I may be dreaming again, but I feel that the real conflict is about values. If you value a ,modern consumerist culture over a rural and family centered life then TEDs ideals will appeal to you. Its hard not to see all the trends of urbanization and not view over population as a threat to quality of life. Crack hoods and welfare moms with absent fathers, a generation of children raised on the boob tube. A world full of "Those People" would suck.

Its easy for me to see where the fear of overpopulation is coming from. But one shouldn't be carried away by such fears to the point where you fail to see that out there in among the multitudes there are diamonds in the Rough. Its not about quantity , its about quality. Which is a touchy subject, since the aftermath of WW2 in which millions of the strongest and most capable men were taken out of the population.

 Instead of restricting the natural inclination to reproduce in everybody, there needs to be a more pragmatically holistic approach, that would encourage more intelligent and productive members of the population to have children, while discouraging those who would be neglectful parents from having children. 

Not an easy task for sure, but who said building a greater humanity was easy.

 If the great foundations that push the population control propaganda would spend an equal amount of resources in endeavors that encourage the better nature in people and promotes responsible population growth , with an emphasis on responsible resource management. Then overpopulation wouldn't be a problem at all. More people of better quality would be a blessing.

Instead there is a maniacal focus on vaccinations, food aid(gruel rations), educational indoctrination, and other such shenanigans which are sold as humanitarian aid, but only weaken a populations ability to sustain themselves in the long run.

But perhaps that's all a part of the 1%s evil plan.

[cherimoya_kid]

i almost forgot that theres no point in arguing with someone who swallows reality as its presented to them.

So personal insults count as arguments? 

[goodsamaritan]

Of course the fertility rate in developed countries goes down over time. Once you start educating women and giving them freedom, they decide to have careers and maybe 1 or 2 children, instead of 4 or 5 children.  And that's a good thing.  Larger populations lead to wars, poverty, social unrest, and disease.

Presentations of fertility rates graphs of 50 years from each of your countries is precisely what is needed in this forum.

I would personally like to quench each and every alarmist reflex from all of you to calm down and see how SUCCESSFUL population controllers ALREADY HAVE BEEN.

So there is no use kicking a dead horse.  It has been done in most of our respective countries.

The population controllers have already won.

The website Zero Population Growth has CHANGED its name to Population Connection.

That gives you a CLUE where we are right now in 2013.

I know raw paleo dieters are without dogma and will see the facts presented as is.

[van]

GS what is your point?  Do you think there should be unlimited population growth?

[goodsamaritan]

GS what is your point?  Do you think there should be unlimited population growth?

This was my entire point:

Presentations of fertility rates graphs of 50 years from each of your countries is precisely what is needed in this forum.

I would personally like to quench each and every alarmist reflex from all of you to calm down and see how SUCCESSFUL population controllers ALREADY HAVE BEEN.

So there is no use kicking a dead horse.  It has been done in most of our respective countries.

The population controllers have already won.

The website Zero Population Growth has CHANGED its name to Population Connection.

That gives you a CLUE where we are right now in 2013.

I know raw paleo dieters are without dogma and will see the facts presented as is.

-------------

As to far far future... we humans should be colonizing stars and planets.  We can and should do it eventually. 

-------------

van, I  think more personally than thinking of influencing the entire global policy of the elite... of which I am personally incapable of. 

I stick to what I can do for myself and my descendants.

------------

I have KNOWN that the population controllers had already won as far back as the 1990s.

This is what influenced me to strive to PERSONALLY make more babies for myself and work hard for my descendants to similarly strive to make more babies... for our PERSONAL SURVIVAL.  I know as hard as I try the depopulation hysteria is ingrained and the massive unhealthiness of the medical mafia will victimize my own descendants.  So I will just have to play probabilities and do my best so my blood line does not get liquidated.

It's just like doom preparedness.  You know doom is coming and my reaction is to prepare for it.

Some people have to inherit this earth.  Let my descendants be some of them.

Now most people willingly will sacrifice and allow the liquidation of their own personal bloodline for their depopulation beliefs.  I say good for you and let you guys liquidate your blood lines all you like. 

I would like to be respected just as well and let me do what I want to do with my personal life.

[svrn]

So personal insults count as arguments? 

I wasnt trying to be insulting only attempting to state my own personal experience.

Do you claim that you havent swallowed reality as it has been presented to you in this subject? If so how are your views on this subject any different from what is being promoted by the top propogandists of our era? Which mainstream organization is out there promoting an opposite view on this topic?

[cherimoya_kid]

I wasnt trying to be insulting only attempting to state my own personal experience.

Do you claim that you havent swallowed reality as it has been presented to you in this subject? If so how are your views on this subject any different from what is being promoted by the top propogandists of our era? Which mainstream organization is out there promoting an opposite view on this topic?

It's blood simple.  Things get better for the lower classes when population growth reverses.  When population increases, what you're mostly making is just more people who are poor, uneducated, and miserable.  They become disease-ridden (physically, emotionally, etc.), and serve only a negative function in society.

[goodsamaritan]

I have plotted this fertility rate graph of different countries of people I've seen here in rawpaleodietforum.com

See the live link http://www.google.com.ph/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:DEU:FRA:JPN:PHL:SGP:GBR:USA:CAN:RUS:BRA:ZAF:POL&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false

And the fertility rate graph generated and taken a screen shot off.

As all of you can all plainly see... POPULATION CONTROL for the past 50 years has been VERY SUCCESSFUL.

This is what I mean when I want all to see and learn and see the graphs... see the trend for 50 years.

Point every population explosion alarmist to this graph so that they may now CALM DOWN... and be happy with the successful population control efforts!

So there are a few outlying statistical blips like Sabertooth's ex-wife who wants 5+ children... let her be... do not condemn people like her.

So there are men who have lots more children with many women... hell it's because those women usually in the 21st century can't compare to a 1960s woman.  Yet the fertility rate stays the same because the demographers do not bother to count how many children men have.

And then there is the more common today childless zero children men and women... should they be given commendation medals for being outliers?

In the past, nation states gave medals to mothers who had lots of children.

It all depends on the mood of the current years. 

They give commendation medals to war monger nation states soldiers these days for the gratitude of killing people all over the world for the sake of population control.  Thank the medical mafia too... bullshit disease labeling... medical cures worse than the disease intentionally to kill people.

Raw paleo diet forum is doing a disservice to the population control empire by teaching people real health.  Making sick people immensely well, making women extremely fertile, easing birth and allowing women to make more children, and with children eventually reversing the destruction of their genetic code to better health.  Possibly the knowledge we gain here can be used for re-populating an eventually depopulated world!  And our forum can be publicly viewed!  Oh the horrors, the elite may take our knowledge away and lock it up for themselves.... the knowledge we spew out is dangerous.  It's too good.  It's all too healthy!

[svrn]

It's blood simple.  Things get better for the lower classes when population growth reverses.  When population increases, what you're mostly making is just more people who are poor, uneducated, and miserable.  They become disease-ridden (physically, emotionally, etc.), and serve only a negative function in society.

so exactly which part of your response had any relevance to any of the questions I asked you?
I dont see why you quoted me since everything you said was completely irrelevant to my post. Perhaps quoting me was just a mistake?

[cherimoya_kid]

so exactly which part of your response had any relevance to any of the questions I asked you?
I dont see why you quoted me since everything you said was completely irrelevant to my post. Perhaps quoting me was just a mistake?

I'm pointing out that an increase in population has negative side effects, whereas the opposite has positive side effects.

[svrn]

...this is so frustrating.....

please point to exactly which part of my statement which  you initially quoted has anything to do with your two responses to that quote. Exactly which question was any of that n answer to?

Its truly rediculous how many irrelevant responses I am constantly inundated with.

[cherimoya_kid]

...this is so frustrating.....

please point to exactly which part of my statement which  you initially quoted has anything to do with your two responses to that quote. Exactly which question was any of that n answer to?

Its truly rediculous how many irrelevant responses I am constantly inundated with.

We are talking about population growth, are we not?  At least I am.  If you're not, then you need to recognize that that is the topic at hand.

[Iguana]

Presentations of fertility rates graphs of 50 years from each of your countries is precisely what is needed in this forum.

As to far far future... we humans should be colonizing stars and planets.  We can and should do it eventually. 

Edwin, we agree that global fertility rates declines. But the point is that “at 2.52 children per woman, it is above the replacement fertility rate of approximately 2.1” and the population still grows annually at a rate of about 1.09 %, and at more than 7 billion it’s in no way sustainable: it’s a catastrophe.

Even if we were one day able to colonize planets of distant stars, it wouldn’t be a solution. Exporting annually 1% of a population of 7 billion would represent 70 million people leaving the Earth each year. A considerable fleet of huge and extremely fast space ships would be needed! 

Sebastian von Hoerner in “Population explosion and interstellar expansion”, shows that this could only solve the problem (at 1975 birth rate) for 500 years at most, the human bubble expanding faster and faster, this expansion reaching the speed of light after those mere 500 years… Thereafter, each colonized planet would gradually become more and more crowded and face the same problem we face now on Earth.

In addition, if we were ever able to reach some planets where conditions are more or less similar to Earth, chances are they would be already populated. Then, if the Galaxy is already colonized by non-destructive intelligent and technologically advanced beings, I doubt very much they would allow aggressive and destructive humans like us to wreak havoc all over the Galaxy.

Ah, yeah, perhaps they will allow our gentle paleo dieters offspring…     

[sabertooth]

Honestly, I think the time will come when it will be necessary for the preservation of life on earth, to cull off the overgrowth of human life. The end will come when its our time, its foolish to fight it.

I don't trust scientific interventionism to have anything to do with managing the human population. Population control "Experts" make such negative assumptions about the nature of humanity and project a cynical reality from the view point that humanity is a blight upon the planet. If enough people chose to go along with the belief and project these delusions onto the world then they take on the appearance of reality. The very act of thinking the world is overpopulated should be considered a symptom of a delusional mind. Its very apparent that there are areas of the world where far to many people inhabit and this does cause problems, but to assume that the local problems of overcrowding represent a global excess of humans is preposterous.

Then there is the whole argument of misuses of resources and environmental pollution due to overpopulation, which does have some validity. Though these problems should be worked out separately from population control. 7 billion people under the current industrial system are doing a good job of polluting the earth. If people would focus on living sustainbly instead of wanting to lower the population so they can continue to live in industral excess, then a doubling or tripling of the population could occur without any seriously catastrophic effects.

Of course this is merely dreaming, because those who have the Wealth and technology of the world will not give up their standards or modes of living Materialism isn't going away. The negative aspects of human population growth are primarily problems caused by the growth of materialistic populations in the world.

Propaganda showing the overcrowded places of the world, landfills, and smoke stacks has been shown to virtually every school child of my generation. The reality is that where I live there are millions of acres on rolling hills of green pasture and woodlands where there is more than enough land to sustain many times the number of people who inhabit it today.

Humanity is alive now and will only last for a short while. So let the people breed like locust, and die out in mass after they have consumed every morsel to be found. The following seasons would bring renewal and new life, there is no need for human intervention, nature will take her course.

[goodsamaritan]

Edwin, we agree that global fertility rates declines. But the point is that “at 2.52 children per woman, it is above the replacement fertility rate of approximately 2.1” and the population still grows annually at a rate of about 1.09 %, and at more than 7 billion it’s in no way sustainable: it’s a catastrophe.

THIS ^^^ attitude is EXACTLY what I am up in arms about.

You are NEVER satisfied. (From say a high Fertility Rate of 7 children per woman... COME ON!)
You CANNOT even APPRECIATE the DECLINE of fertility rates over 50 years.
You CANNOT even give a pat on the back to your fellow DEPOPULATIONISTS... for their efforts, for their accomplishments... tell them they did a GOOD JOB!
You have to have some PATIENCE... some sense of TIME... and see how much more FERTILITY DECLINE will happen in the NEXT 50 years... the next 100 years... the next 200 years.

This attitude is the attitude of I WANT IT NOW.  Now now now.
If you really want it NOW NOW NOW, then you would have to resort to dropping nuclear bombs all over the world for a mass die off.  But somehow NSSM 200 depopulation policy of the Imperial USA written by Henry Kissinger stated that the depopulation methods using contraceptives and abortion are preferred over overt warfare such as what happened in WW2.

More about NSSM 200 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200

But if you are HONEST with STATISTICS you would appreciate WHEN and how Fertility Rates relate to Population Pyramids and eventual Population Rate Decline and then ABSOLUTE POPULATION DECLINE.
All it takes is TIME TIME TIME.
Realistic demographic time.
Which happens not in the blink of an impatient person.

How about taking the case of the most ADVANCED country like JAPAN?
You know... conquered nation of WW2 so it paid the price of being depopulated?
See the STEEP fertility rate decline from 1950 to 1960... ultimate conquest of the USA over Japan.

The only problem with depopulating this country was they live to old ages.

According to the latest WHO data published in April 2011 life expectancy in Japan is: Male 79.5, female 85.8 and total life expectancy is 82.7 which gives Japan a World Life Expectancy ranking of 1.

Population actual and projections


Fertility rate actual and projections


See more Japan statistics here http://www9.ocn.ne.jp/~aslan/pfe/jpeak.htm

Animated Population Pyramid of Japan 1930-2055 (males on the left - females on the right)... only females give birth.



Japan population had peaked in 2008 at 128,083,960 and is already declining... Are you going to say HOORAY on this?

Japan fertility rate 1.39 last 2012... that is BELOW replacement... Are you going to say HOORAY on this?

So look at Japan.  It wants nothing to do with immigration.  Unlike Europe and the USA who welcome immigrants to keep their birth rates up.

Sex Crisis In Japan?

Japan's youngsters today, 60% of teenage women not interested in sex, 35% teenage boys not interested in sex, plus all the destruction that will be foisted upon all Japanese with the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Can I get a CHEER of a HOORAY from you now with the example of JAPAN?

When will it ever be ENOUGH for you depopulation alarmists to finally CALM DOWN?

----

P.S.  It took me an hour to assemble this educational presentation so if we had a thanks button, I'd appreciate it.

----

Ask yourself why professional DEMOGRAPHERS had to make a film called Demographic Winter?  See attached poster.

[van]

GS  I can appreciate the time it took for you to compile the above,,and thanks.  I still don't understand why this is so important to YOU.  And what are your thoughts that as the population increases especially as a resultant of large families that have little means to support themselves financially,  what about those children?   No health care, going hungry, little chance for an education.  It's one thing for a family or a single mother with little to no income to take care of one, two, maybe three children, but when there's six or eight children, how fare is that.  And what is wrong with educating the mothers on how to use contraception?   For the life of me, I can't see how in the world you would find fault with that. 

[Iguana]

Thanks GS, nice work. But I agree with Van, sorry.

You show the doomed case of Japan, certainly the most technologically and industrially advanced nation (as you note). In the video, they speak too fast for me to fully understand what they say: I would have to listen to it several times. Anyway, I’m curious what is meant there by “not interested in sex”. Do they mean “not interested in genital intercourse”?

Why do you write that I “CANNOT even APPRECIATE the DECLINE of fertility rates over 50 years.”? Sorry, I plainly appreciate it.

I don’t know anything about “fellows DEPOPULATIONISTS”.

About the next 50, 100, 200 years, I fear they’ll be bleak. I do not want anything “now, now, now.” I only reckon there has been a huge, explosive, population growth since the Neolithic era and since then, humans have profiteered out of control and  spread havoc on the planet at an alarming increasing rate,  leading to an imminent catastrophe with most likely no time left anymore to avoid it – whether each of us have 20 or zero offspring…

If there is some truth in the concept of “galactic selection” http://tinyurl.com/o6rx9ou, any destructive - Neolithic – modern - agrarian – industrial society will self-destroy (or if it fails to do so, it will be destroyed) before being able to export havoc everywhere in the Galaxy.   

[svrn]

We are talking about population growth, are we not?  At least I am.  If you're not, then you need to recognize that that is the topic at hand.

why did you quote my questions when you didnt answer any of them? I fail to understand this.

[goodsamaritan]

I think svrn and ck should just cool off. Your vibes are just clashing.

[Iguana]

The very act of thinking the world is overpopulated should be considered a symptom of a delusional mind. Its very apparent that there are areas of the world where far to many people inhabit and this does cause problems, but to assume that the local problems of overcrowding represent a global excess of humans is preposterous.
….
a doubling or tripling of the population could occur without any seriously catastrophic effects.
…
The reality is that where I live there are millions of acres on rolling hills of green pasture and woodlands where there is more than enough land to sustain many times the number of people who inhabit it today.

Can you imagine what will happen to your millions acres of rolling hills and woodlands once energy, drinking water and food will be lacking in big cities? What population density do you estimate possible for sustainable hunting-gathering? Do you think 130 - 260 people and their dogs would happily, peacefully and durably sustain on a sq. mile only, whatever the climate, flora and fauna on such a limited area?

I don’t think so. Even the (fire using and cooking) Maoris who landed in virgin New Zealand a few centuries ago quickly depleted some of the natural food resources there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density
The world's population is around 7 billion, and Earth's total area (including land and water) is 510 million square kilometers (197 million square miles). Therefore the worldwide human population density is around 7 billion ÷ 510 million = 13.7 per km2 (35 per sq. mile). If only the Earth's land area of 150 million km2 (58 million sq. miles) is taken into account, then human population density increases to 47 per km2 (120 per sq. mile). This includes all continental and island land area, including Antarctica. If Antarctica is also excluded, then population density rises to over 50 people per km2 (over 130 per sq. mile). However over half of the Earth's land mass consists of areas inhospitable to human habitation, such as deserts and high mountains, and population tends to cluster around seaports and fresh water sources. Thus this number by itself does not give any helpful measurement of human population density.

Humanity is alive now and will only last for a short while. So let the people breed like locust, and die out in mass after they have consumed every morsel to be found. The following seasons would bring renewal and new life, there is no need for human intervention, nature will take her course.

I more or less agree with that because I guess it’s late and the end of our civilization might well happen in a few decades.

BTW, did you receive the pdf of “Sex at Dawn” I sent you on Sept 18th?

[cherimoya_kid]

why did you quote my questions when you didnt answer any of them? I fail to understand this.

Are you pretending not to understand what I'm pointing out, or just not understanding?

You are saying that population decreases are a BAD thing.  I am saying that history shows that they, at least for poor people, are a very GOOD thing, as far as alleviating poverty, misery, ignorance, etc..

I can definitely provide links for that, if you'd like. It's a given among historians that the Black Plague was the main reason for the Renaissance, though.  In addition, Paul Colinvaux shows in his book The Fates of Nations that population increases always are followed by a war of conquest, because a larger population needs more food/land, so that larger population attacks a neighboring country to take their food/land. 

This is what happened in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.  They had a huge increase in population, followed by a war of conquest.  It happened many times in the steppes of Central Asia around Mongolia, where there would be a few good years of rainfall, which increased the amount of good green grass, which increased the number of animals born, which gave people more good food to eat, which allowed them to have more children.

Every time the Huns/Mongolians would attack China, Europe, etc., it was about 15-20 years after one of these periods of really good rainfall.  This is because it takes about 15-20 years for little boys to grow up into potential soldiers.  They had a bunch of extra boys (and girls), and not enough food for them, so...