Recent research supports the conclusions of a controversial environmental study released 40 years ago: The world is on track for disaster. So says Australian physicist Graham Turner, who revisited perhaps the most groundbreaking academic work of the 1970s,The Limits to Growth.

Written by MIT researchers for an international think tank, the Club of Rome, the study used computers to model several possible future scenarios. The business-as-usual scenario estimated that if human beings continued to consume more than nature was capable of providing, global economic collapse and precipitous population decline could occur by 2030.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.c...h.html#ixzz1rHsIyNT4

It makes sense.

Well, that shouid make all those "The world is over populated!!" fanatics happy.

(I don't believe it is, in fact I believe the following is more or less accurate)

quote If you gave each of the 6 billion people on the planet 9 square feet in which to stand then grouped them all together in a single location, they would fill an area a little smaller than the land area of Delaware. This would leave the rest of the planet completely unpopulated. Is the planet over populated? No. But Calcutta, Sao Paolo, and China certainly are.

And considering the Chinese land mass, I am not even convinced that particular nation is overpopulated. Just certain parts of it.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-06-2012).]

It's not about how many square feet each person literally takes to stand up right next to the other person.

It's about how much natural resources are being consumed, per capita.

It is common knowledge that the Club of Rome is one of numerous Illuminati front organizations with only one goal, to move us to a one world communist government.

It is to you and most informed people, but for the majority of those who claim "The world's overpopulated!!" it's about there simply being too many people regardless of the reason. We can also easily feed, clothe, and house the world's population and then some-we just choose not to--mostly because that would detract from our own little selfish wants and desires. You will note that I did not say "our own needs" .

We in this country, are probably the largest single usurperer of resources on the face of the Earth, and a lot of that--if not a majority of that--is used for OUR entertainment, leisure, and to maintain OUR so-called "high standard-of-living"--all the while calling for the rest of the world to cut back on their birth rates---------------just so we can be able to continue with our own excesses.

I've noted before, that not a single solitary one of those who rail on about overpopulation-- has stepped up to volunteer to "take one for the greater good" so to speak. Evidently, charity really doesn't begin at home--otherwise, those complaining the loudest would be leading by example.

i truthfully dont understand why some people think comunisim works and want it when it clearly doesnt work and has been proven time and time again.

[This message has been edited by Niterrorz (edited 04-06-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Gokart Mozart: . The business-as-usual scenario estimated that if human beings continued to consume more than nature was capable of providing, global economic collapse and precipitous population decline could occur by 2030.

I wonder how long after the ~2030 economic crash, it will be before they'll be blaming it on GW Bush?

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I wonder how long after the ~2030 economic crash, it will be before they'll be blaming it on GW Bush?

It won't happen. The world ends this year anyways...

quote Human beings have a tendency to believe that things will continue to go in the direction they are going, and are good at explaining why this must be so.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report (dissenting view) page 446.

"Next global depression on track by 2030"

Hell... We're not done with this one, yet.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 04-07-2012).]

quote Originally posted by heybjorn: It is common knowledge that the Club of Rome is one of numerous Illuminati front organizations with only one goal, to move us to a one world communist government.

I'm not sure their goal is communism, per se, but some form of centralized global control. And yes, it includes population reduction. BIGTIME.

quote Originally posted by Niterrorz: i truthfully dont understand why some people think comunisim works and want it when it clearly doesnt work and has been proven time and time again.

Because some people can't let go of their illusions, their ideas that Nirvana is achievable through political means.

coincidentally, there's a program on about easter island.
they used up their resources, food ran short, and exterminated themselves.

We need a good plague. Some of you will just have to go.

I think it is an interesting study on population vs. natural resources, which I believe is pretty accurate. The world will not be able to sustain 7-billion people even if only 5% were considered 1st-world class consumers.

A huge swath of the population aren't producers at all and are the parasites of our society.

εἴ τις οὐ θέλει ἐργάζεσθαι μηδὲ ἐσθιέτω

Translated: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Does that include global warming?

The same paragraph goes on to say:

"Blaming the crisis on the failure to foresee it is facile and of little value for policymakers, who cannot legislate prescience. The fact that virtually all participants in the financial system failed to foresee this crisis—as they failed to foresee every other crisis—does not tell us anything about why this crisis occurred or what we should do to prevent the next one."

We don't seem to be very good at predicting, at least not the financial future. Que será será.

quote Originally posted by lurker: coincidentally, there's a program on about easter island. they used up their resources, food ran short, and exterminated themselves.

The interesting thing is, the very same people who tend to believe in evolution - the survival of the fittest, and that species either survive or they don't based on the available resources - think that we should preserve human life despite our lack of concert with nature.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: The interesting thing is, the very same people who tend to believe in evolution - the survival of the fittest, and that species either survive or they don't based on the available resources - think that we should preserve human life despite our lack of concert with nature.

Not just human life, but all life hence endangered species.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: The interesting thing is, the very same people who tend to believe in evolution - the survival of the fittest, and that species either survive or they don't based on the available resources - think that we should preserve human life despite our lack of concert with nature.

this goes to the heart of what it is to be human. we've been dinking with "concert with nature" for millennia. at present, we in the "developed" world have the luxury of technologies which can promote and prolong life. we are animals ( just go to the inner city at midnight if you doubt) but we are the only animals who have the capacity to make the world into something better. better has many definitions, but there seems to be a consensus that it doesn't involve dying because of stupid things like cavities, broken legs, dirty water or fratricide. if we were to become less fortunate (and we may become so) we may again put our elderly out on ice floes and abandon excess babies on the hillside for the wolves.

personally, i'm all in favor of evolution as the mechanism of speciation, and accept it as fact. but i have no intention of letting the next germ or predator take me down because it's "better adapted". by extension, i see no reason to permit others to die needlessly or in pain. this is limited by my capacity to do something about it. we have to draw the line somewhere. the ability to reproduce has little to do with the capacity to contribute to the well-being of the human race, and humans are by no means an endangered species. at some point our own sheer numbers may become a major threat to our species' survival.

we can argue the merits of contraception, sex education, abortion, and eugenics in this context. personally i think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but others may draw their lines elsewhere. until it becomes a threat to me, i dont really have the right to impose my view on others.

[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 04-07-2012).]