Overpopulation of Planet Earth
- Thread starter duendy
- Start date
I Think It's Really Very Important To Fight Against The Overpopulation.yes Because Many People Produce Children When They're Not Able To Raise The Children.thi Leads To Famine,shortage Of Life Resources And Alwatnot.i Mean It Wil Be Better Not To Have A Child Than To Produce Large Amount More Than We're Able To Bring Up.we Need To Abolish All These Sufferings In Ths World, It's Painful To See Children Suffering.just Yesterday, A Mexican Had To Throw Her 6month Old Child In The Sea Because She Said She Was Unable To Raise The Child. Is That Fair?not Atall. We Need To Do Something About It.i Have Many Sugestions,wat Do U Think?
I say kill em all and leave me the white women.
I dont really know, with so many people comes sooo much diversity. There is so much potential for _______ right now. Yeah were fuckin the earth, but i love to fuck. If the ships goin down, then im shootin bullets in the floorboards
I dont really know, with so many people comes sooo much diversity. There is so much potential for _______ right now. Yeah were fuckin the earth, but i love to fuck. If the ships goin down, then im shootin bullets in the floorboards
This might have been mentioned already as i couldnt be bothered reading the whole thread but the population of the world needs to increase massively. If you take how big the universe is you need to have as many people as possible. We are a planet destined to go out into the stars and colonize. The universe is huge so the population needs to be huge to combat the size of the universe. Everyone who says were overpopulated is short sighted and thinking short term and is not considering the size of the universe. Get rid of the one child policy in china now.
Last edited:
I do not think our planet is over populated.
Only the distribution of population over the earth is not uniform.
Further some people will bound to remain poor and some will be rich irrespective of total population.
Only we shoud try to maintain certain standard of living for poor people.
Serving the poor can be considered as big service to humanity.
P.J.LAKHAPATE
plakhapate@rediffmail.com
Only the distribution of population over the earth is not uniform.
Further some people will bound to remain poor and some will be rich irrespective of total population.
Only we shoud try to maintain certain standard of living for poor people.
Serving the poor can be considered as big service to humanity.
P.J.LAKHAPATE
plakhapate@rediffmail.com
Facial
Valued Senior Member
I am in no position to say that the planet is overpopulated.
I advocate the equitable distribution of resources, but at what level? At what standard of living? If it is the US' standard of living, then yes, the planet is definitely too overpopulated. But that's a selfish standpoint, and most likely unsound.
I advocate the equitable distribution of resources, but at what level? At what standard of living? If it is the US' standard of living, then yes, the planet is definitely too overpopulated. But that's a selfish standpoint, and most likely unsound.
It looks like people who are concerned about overpopulation won't have to worry. Within a decade or two, irreversable climate changes will kill off much of the planet and change life from a consumer-based model to a functional one. It might not fix the source of the problem, but it will at least provide a wakeup call.
If you are refering to a deep cold New Little Ice Age, then there are chances that most people will survive as they survived between 1640-1716 during the total absence of sunspots while Earth plunged into the Little ice Age when the Thames river froze up beyond London.firecross said:
But if you mean a warming as predicted by Hansen and colleagues, then mankind will surely suvive in a much better condition than today. We haven't yet reached temperatures seen during the Medieval Warm Period, or the Roman Warm Period, which were about 2º C higher than today.
Climate has been changing since Earth was formed. The Earth has been in an "Icy State" for about 80% of the time, while warm periods (interglacials) have been much shorter (8000 to 15000 years).
Sometimes, climate change has been abrupt, and ice age conditions have developed in just a few decades. (Older and Younger Dryas are recent examples in our Holocen period), and cooling and warming events have been shown to be of a cyclical nature, as Dansagaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events (warm and cold ones)
Actually, it looks like we have entered into the downward slope leading to a new Little Ice Age (predicted by Theodor Landscheidt, the late solar physicist) when the sun will develop what is known as the Gleissberg Double Solar Minimum (of the same importance as the Maunder Minimum of the 15th century).
This terribly cold winter and so many Mobile Polar Highs coming down from the North Pole are simply a confirmation of such predictions. Landscheidt predicted that by 2006 we'd be seeing the cold effects of the incoming Gleissberg Minimum. He was right.
Sometimes, climate change has been abrupt, and ice age conditions have developed in just a few decades. (Older and Younger Dryas are recent examples in our Holocen period), and cooling and warming events have been shown to be of a cyclical nature, as Dansagaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events (warm and cold ones)
Actually, it looks like we have entered into the downward slope leading to a new Little Ice Age (predicted by Theodor Landscheidt, the late solar physicist) when the sun will develop what is known as the Gleissberg Double Solar Minimum (of the same importance as the Maunder Minimum of the 15th century).
This terribly cold winter and so many Mobile Polar Highs coming down from the North Pole are simply a confirmation of such predictions. Landscheidt predicted that by 2006 we'd be seeing the cold effects of the incoming Gleissberg Minimum. He was right.
draqon said:
The hell?
Duendy,
I thought you might find this article interesting. It's about the exploitation of certain animal species by Native Americans.
Laika, i have never romanticised about our past. i am saying on tw whole many Indigenous poeples had more respect for Planet Earth manly because of a totally different worldview where they saw it as ALIVE, not dead as our current oppresive materialist philosophy dictates itLaika said:
notice in your hand-picked article how it says 'significant [mammal] population declines'...it doesn't talk about EXTINCTION of entire species as has happened since modern man got a foot hold ad is escalatelingly happening now as i type.
ook Laika, our shit is wayout of hand. dont look and ig to slag off some forms of Indigenous ways as a JUSTIFICATION for our rape of Earth. rather try and understand NEW ways of learning to live sustainably with the land. we HAVE to or we is dead, and/or living in more hell, and fuk knows about your kids and future generations
and also note.that artilce. weees listnn to mr white man agin aint we?