Saturday, December 01, 2012


Website for this image

If you are an Orang Utan, whose land is being taken over by humans, you may think that there are just too many people in the world.

The world's population has been growing rather rapidly in recent years and this has caused some problems.

The population of the United States is expected to increase by 44% from 2008 to 2050.[52]

Overpopulation - Wikipedia

The current population of the USA is 312.8 million people.

In a study entitled Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, Professor David Pimentel, estimated the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million. [73]

Sustainable economy?

We are thinking about traffic jams, air pollution, farmland concreted over, endless wars to seize valuable resources...

"The technological optimists are probably correct in claiming that overall world food production can be increased substantially over the next few decades...

"However, the environmental cost of what Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich describe as 'turning the Earth into a giant human feedlot' could be severe.

"A large expansion of agriculture to provide growing populations with improved diets is likely to lead to further deforestation, loss of speciessoil erosion, and pollution from pesticides and fertilizer runoff as farming intensifies and new land is brought into production."[117]

Overpopulation - Wikipedia

The fertility rate is going up. The best of all possible worlds? - The Economist...

The 'theory of demographic transition' held that, after the standard of living and life expectancy increase, family sizes and birth rates decline.

However, as new data has become available, it has been observed that after a certain level of development the fertility increases again.[66]

My friend Mardi was living in a village in West Java. 

The surrounding area is fertile and good for growing rice.

But, as the population rose, there was no longer enough land for everyone.

Mardi could have moved his family to a remote part of the island of Kalimantan. 

But he would have arrived in an area with poor soils and lots of hostile Dayaks.

Life would have been no easier.


Instead, Mardi moved his family to a heavily polluted slum in Jakarta, a city of 25 million people and heavy traffic jams..

The floods in the slum worsened each year, partly because so many trees in the region have been cut down and so much land has been concreted over.

Eventually the city authorities demolished the slum and Mardi had to return to his overcrowded village.

Mardi does use birth control and has only two children.

His sister has five children.

Worldwide, nearly 40% of pregnancies are unintended (some 80 million unintended pregnancies each year).[225]

One suggested solution is for population growth to be slowed quickly by investing heavily in female literacy and family planning services.[188]

Even very sparsely populated areas can be overpopulated if the area has a meager or non-existent capability to sustain life (e.g. a desert)

Overpopulation - Wikipedia

Estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet vary between 4 billion and 16 billion.

You will read below why the 16 billion figure is nonsense.

The population is expected to reach between 8 and 10.5 billion between the year 2040[7][8] and 2050.[9] 

Steve Jones, head of the biology department at University College London, has said, "Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be".[11] 

The InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth has stated that many environmental problems, such as pollution, are aggravated by the population expansion.[12] 

Other problems associated with overpopulation include consumption of natural resources faster than the rate of regeneration.

A poor neighbourhood in Cairo.

The good news is that, in some parts of the world, the rate of population growth has been declining since the 1980s.

But, the world's population is still rising, even if not quite so fast.

And the 'theory of demographic transition' may have to be adjusted.

As new data has become available, it has been observed that after a certain level of development the fertility increases again.[66]

Some people who have become richer are now producing larger families!

Indonesia's population grew from 97 million in 1961 to 237.6 million in 2010,[38][39] a 145% increase in 49 years.

In India, the population grew from 361.1 million people in 1951 to just over 1.2 billion by 2011,[40][41] a 235% increase in 60 years.

The population of Chad grew from 6,279,921 in 1993 to 10,329,208 in 2009.[42]

According to the United Nations' World Population Prospects report:[49] the world population is currently growing by approximately 74 million people per year.

During 2005–2050, the net number of international migrants to more developed regions is projected to be 98 million.

Urban areas with at least one million inhabitants in 2006. 

If current trends continue, the world's urban population will double every 38 years, according to researchers. The UN forecasts that today's urban population of 3.2 billion will rise to nearly 5 billion by 2030, when three out of five people will live in cities.[55]

One billion people, one-sixth of the world's population, or one-third of urban population, now live in shanty towns,[57] which are seen as "breeding grounds" for social problems such as crime, drug addiction, alcoholism, poverty and unemployment.

In 2000, there were 18 megacities-conurbations such as Tokyo, Seoul, Mexico City, Mumbai, São Paulo and New York City – that have populations in excess of 10 million inhabitants. Greater Tokyo already has 35 million.[59]

Jakarta (24.9 million people), Dhaka (25 million), Karachi (26.5 million), Shanghai (27 million) and Mumbai (33 million).[60] Lagos 15 million.

Overpopulation - Wikipedia

United Nation's population projections by location

Does it help if women have more power?

One version of 'demographic transition' is proposed by anthropologist Virginia Abernethy in her book Population Politics.

She claims that population rises decrease primarily in nations where women enjoy a higher status (see Fertility-opportunity theory).

In strongly patriarchal nations, where she claims women enjoy few special rights, a high standard of living tends to result in population growth.

"Demographic entrapment" is an idea developed by Maurice King, Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Leeds.

He writes that that this phenomenon occurs when a country has a population larger than its carrying capacity, no possibility of migration, and exports too little to be able to import food. This will cause starvation.

He claims that for example many sub-Saharan nations are or will become stuck in demographic entrapment, instead of having a demographic transition.[67]

Overpopulation - Wikipedia

World energy consumption & predictions, 1970–2025.

Problems associated with over-population include:

Deforestation, loss of ecosystems, increased noise air and water pollution, soil exhaustion, desertification, antibiotic resistant diseases, increased crime, starvation...

India, 1972

"Virgin stocks of several metals appear inadequate to sustain the modern 'developed world' quality of life for all of Earth's people under contemporary technology".[115]

A study by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) called the Global Environment Outlook[125] "found that human consumption had far outstripped available resources. Each person on Earth now requires a third more land to supply his or her needs than the planet can supply."

Fresh water supplies, on which agriculture depends, are running low worldwide.[128][129]

"Desalinated water may be a solution for some water-stress regions, but not for places that are poor, deep in the interior of a continent, or at high elevation. Unfortunately, that includes some of the places with biggest water problems."[137]

Food per person increased during the 1961–2005 period.

Some scientists argue that there is enough food to support the world population,[143][144] but critics dispute this, particularly if sustainability is taken into account.[145]

However, the figures for 2007 show an actual increase in absolute numbers of undernourished people in the world, 923 million in 2007 versus 832 million in 1995.[149].

The more recent FAO estimates point to an even more dramatic increase, to 1.02 billion in 2009.[150]

The proportion of the world's population living on less than $1 per day has gone down, but the figures have not been adjusted for inflation, and are thus misleading.[204]

A working class American may now have a higher wage than in the 1980s, but he is not necessarily better off, because prices have risen.

Percentage of population suffering from malnutrition by country, according to United Nations statistics. Red = most malnourished. Green = least malnourished.

Food riots have recently taken place in many countries across the world.[166][167][168]

Growing populations, falling energy sources and food shortages will create the "perfect storm" by 2030, according to the UK government chief scientist.

He said food reserves are at a 50-year low but the world requires 50% more energy, food and water by 2030.[172][173]

The world will have to produce 70% more food by 2050 to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) warned.[174]

In Africa, if current trends of soil degradation and population growth continue, the continent might be able to feed just 25% of its population by 2025, according to UNU's Ghana-based Institute for Natural Resources in Africa.[175]

In sub-Saharan Africa, the number of malnourished people grew to 203.5 million people in 2000–02 from 170.4 million 10 years earlier says The State of Food Insecurity in the World report.

In 2001, 46.4% of people in sub-Saharan Africa were living in extreme poverty.[176]


Recent data indicate China's grain production peaked in the mid 1990s, due to over-extraction of groundwater in the North China plain.[178]

Japan may face a food crisis, believes a senior government adviser.[179]

The water tables are falling in scores of countries (including Northern China, the US, and India).

Even with the over-pumping of its aquifers, China has developed a grain deficit.  Desalination is also considered a viable and effective solution to the problem of water shortages.[134][135]

After China and India, there is a second tier of smaller countries with large water deficits – Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Mexico, and Pakistan.

The World Resources Institute states that "Agriculture has displaced one-third of temperate and tropical forests and one-quarter of natural grasslands."[189][190]

"Usable land may become less useful through salinizationdeforestationdesertificationerosion, and urban sprawl."

The United Nations indicates that about 850 million people are malnourished or starving,[100] and 1.1 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water.[82]

Some argue that the Earth may support 6 billion people, but, only if many live in misery.

The proportion of the world's population living on less than $1 per day has gone down, but the figures have not been adjusted for inflation, and are thus misleading.[204]

The UN Human Development Report of 1997 states: "During the last 15–20 years, in more than 100 developing countries... the reductions in standard of living have been deeper and more long-lasting than what was seen in the industrialised countries during the depression in the 1930s."

Wealth per capita graphed against fertility rate.

Environmental author Jeremy Rifkin has said that "our burgeoning population and urban way of life have been purchased at the expense of vast ecosystems and habitats. ... It's no accident that as we celebrate the urbanization of the world, we are quickly approaching another historic watershed: the disappearance of the wild."[208]

Says Peter Raven, in AAAS Atlas of Population and Environment, " During a remarkably short period of time, we have lost a quarter of the world's topsoil and a fifth of its agricultural land, altered the composition of the atmosphere profoundly, and destroyed a major proportion of our forests and other natural habitats without replacing them.

"Worst of all, we have driven the rate of biological extinction, the permanent loss of species, up several hundred times beyond its historical levels, and are threatened with the loss of a majority of all species by the end of the 21st century."

The Worldwatch Institute said: The world's ecological capacity is simply insufficient to satisfy the ambitions of China, India, Japan, Europe and the United States as well as the aspirations of the rest of the world in a sustainable way [209]

It said that if China and India were to consume as much resources per capita as the United States or Japan in 2030 together they would require a full planet Earth to meet their needs.[210]

In the long term these effects can lead to increased conflict.

The last Bali 'big cat'.

Worldwide, nearly 40% of pregnancies are unintended (some 80 million unintended pregnancies each year).[225]

An estimated 350 million women in the poorest countries of the world either did not want their last child, do not want another child or want to space their pregnancies, but they lack access to information, affordable means and services to determine the size and spacing of their families.

One option is to focus on education about overpopulation, family planning, and birth control methods, and to make birth-control devices like male/female condomspills and intrauterine devices easily available.




Anonymous said...

Any attempt to cull the population will result in war and total anarchy.

Well, you're not going to just sit there and take it, are you? Why should YOU pay, and not THEM?

It's far too late to do anything, we're on a freight-train to hell - one way trip.

I give us 50 years, max. We'll be feeling the pinch in 10 years.

I'm ok, I'm 66 and lucky to see another 10 years.
(smug-looking smiley ;-) )

I really hoped we would have begun colonising space by now, but it's never going to happen. It was the only way we were going to survive. If it wasn't for the idiots ruling us, wasting time on petty squabbles, allowing people in poor countries to breed uncontrollably, we might have made it.

Anonymous said...

Wendy said...

it is time to think about !

hi ! Anon ! kisses

A. Peasant said...

Some other pieces of the puzzle: planned obsolescence which has resulted in much more consumption than needed. Wasting resources and draining people of their incomes.

Social engineering causing people to fight each other and do many other things non conducive to their health and security.

Hidden technologies that could provide clean water, free energy and other things that would take stress off of resources. Suppressed.

All the wealth stolen from people for example the people of the african continent, whose natural resources have been stolen by mining corporations and oil companies in league with bankers. In nigeria the oil companies have destroyed parts of the environment and do not provide even the simplest services like clean water for the populations living in the area.

In other words, it is not possible to talk sensibly about population and what the planet can sustain when there are all these other things going on, complicating the situation and making life harder for humans. Scarcity is used as a primary social engineering tool. Important resources for survival are controlled by giant corporations, and parsed out as they see fit or not, thus driving a lot of problematic behavior by humans, which is then used as evidence that humans are wasteful and dirty and violent.

What about all the radiation polluting the world from fukushima etc.? Which humans are really the problem here on earth?

What about weather mod technology creating droughts and floods and causing displacement and death? Immigration policies displacing people? Jobs outsourced? Etc.

There are many problems for human beings being created every day by powerful people. Then the authorities very solemnly issue dire reports but they do nothing to stop the problem. They just blame humans.

Which ones?

This planet has been horribly mismanaged for a very long time. It is time to get the creeps out of the corner offices.

Hu Bris said...

Dear Aangirfan,
had to break this into several sections in order to bypass the post-size limits.

before I get to the point I want to make (and right now I only have a vague idea of what that point is, but I'm pretty sure it will involve me using the word "Bullshit" several times - don't take it personally, it's aimed at Wikipedia not you.) let me first say that I am very grateful for the work you do (and your associates should there be more than one of you)

While at times I may disagree with some of what you say, or some of the conclusions you arrive at, I am convinced that you're "one of the good guys/gals"

However . . . . .

I really must take issue with this post on several grounds.

before I list them, let me say that I have no major disagreement with certain assumptions made by you (or more correctly by Wikipedians) in the process of putting this post together.

For example : I have no problem with the notion that there may be something called a "carrying capacity" of the Earth.

Obviously there IS some sort of "Carrying capacity", though I have to say that IMHO even slight changes in living habits and technology would have a substantial impact on error-margins related to whatever figure one decided to choose.

I also seriously disagree with the notion that anyone can as yet quantify, with any reasonable degree accuracy, what that "Carrying Capacity" might be, and I strongly suspect that one's preferred answer as to what that "Carrying Capacity" might be would be heavily influenced by one's preferred political ideology.

One of my major concerns is that the vast majority of this post seems to be mainly a c&p of Wikipedia Content.

In my experience Wikipedia is one of the WORST sources to use when it comes to anything related to Environment, Climate, or related subjects such as Population Rise Predictions.

Such subjects on Wikipedia are heavily policed by what I can only describe as a gang of liars with what is essentially, when you strip away all the jargon and bullshit, clearly a Eugenicist agenda (though none of them would admit this and many of them do not even realise it)

Hu Bris said...

Part 2:

So anyway now that I got that out of the way let me actually deal with a few assertions made by these Wikipedians in your post.

I noticed that your post was riddled with Wiki-cites/footnotes.

One thing I have learned about Wiki-cites/footnotes, in any article related to any subject that might be called "controversial", is that one must take great care to actually double-check the cite itself.

One must check the source to confirm that the source says what the Wikipedian Liar-eugenicists claim it says. Failure to double-check what these Liar-Eugenicists say will lead one to accept as "true" many many things which on closer examination turn out to be at best based on erroneous assumptions and often use very dubious sources to back up those assumptions.

At worst much of what these people claim often turns out to be nothing but complete bullshit.

This comment of mine is not intended as a criticism of yourself, nor is it an exhaustive debunking of your post btw - I merely scanned the post from top to bottom and selected several assertions/claims to discuss/check out, in a semi-random fashion, to see if the cited footnotes ACTUALLY confirm what the Wiki-Liar-Eugenicists claim they do.

One glaring aspect of your post is that many of the included graphs date from several years in the past, decades in some cases. And the several of them seem to be primarily, or mostly, "projections" rather than actual graphs of actual real data. This to me is a sure sign that the Wiki-Liar-Eugenicists are up to their usual tricks of lying and misrepresentation. It's something this lot seem addicted to from what I can see.

1) Let's start with two named individuals - Steve Jones and Paul Erlich.

Hu Bris said...


Erlich is quoted as saying something along the lines of ""However, the environmental cost of 'turning the Earth into a giant human feedlot' could be severe." - I'm sure it could, but equally it may not - People like Erlich ALWAYS forget to mention that second part.

IMHO it would be hard to honestly describe both Jones and Erlich as anything other than eugenicists, though both present themselves as environmentalists/"concerned scientists". Again IMHO great caution should be applied when reading anything produced by either of these 2 individuals.

Erlich is in my opinion an arrogant idiot who, like most Envirotard-Eugenicists, hasn't got the sense to stfu when he is clearly out of his depth. Erlich is most famous for his Chicken-licken predictions of catastrophic famines which, according to the time frame he himself set when he started making these "predictions", should have wiped out a large part of humanity somewhere between 1980 and 1990 (approx 20/30 years ago)

Clearly that didn't happen, and in a sane world anything Erlich said after that point should have been treated as the rantings of an clueless idiotic fantasist.

Unfortunately Erlich is still quoted as if he were something other than a Self-aggrandising alarmist idiot.

Erlich is such an arrogant clueless idiot that in 1980 he made a wager with an opponent, Julian Simon, regarding future metal prices

Simon asked Ehrlich choose five metals and then predict the price 10 years down the line. Simon bet that their prices would fall, while Ehrlich bet they would rise. Ehrlich rather spectacularly lost the bet, but still to this day refuses to admit that he is clueless on the subject, and has made many excuse for why he got it so spectacularly wrong. Such is the nature of Enviro-Eugenicists.

Jones is quoted as saying ""Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be" - which if you actually stop and think about it is an exceptionally misleading/stupid statement to make - we are what we are - there is no "should" in this context. To pretend that there is, is nothing but a lie,well either that or a fine example of the stupidity of the so-called "experts".

2) Most of the problems listed regarding food, malnutrition, poverty etc are in reality caused by the predominant Economic/Political system in place on this planet. They are mainly problems of distribution NOT problems of Supply. None of that would change in any essential way were we to substantially reduce the population. The rich elite would still oppress and steal from the poor. Elites need the poor in order to feel superior.

Hu Bris said...

Part 5:

3) here's a sentence that caught my eye - "Virgin stocks of several metals appear inadequate to sustain the modern 'developed world' quality of life for all of Earth's people under contemporary technology".[115]" - this is the sort of bullshit that Enviro-Eugenicists excel at. That sentence is so full of vague undefined phrases I hardly know where to begin with it.
For example: "appear inadequate"? . . . . hmmmm.

Or " sustain the modern 'developed world' quality of life for all"? since when has the "Modern 'developed world' quality of life" EVER been a reality "for all"? Clearly it never has, and the elites of this world never intended for it to be, so why frame the statement in this fashion? scare tactics?

And "contemporary technology"? The second those words were typed they were out of date. Technology is ALWAYS changing, and we are always doing more with less and less, something the Enviro-Eugenicists never seem to factor in to their calculations

The whole sentence is nonsense, cobbled together to appear like it's actually based on something other than usual enviro-Eugenicist alarmist bullshit.

4) "A study by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) called the Global Environment Outlook[125] "found that human consumption had far outstripped available resources. Each person on Earth now requires a third more land to supply his or her needs than the planet can supply.""

more nonsense - "Each person on Earth now requires a third more land to supply his or her needs than the planet can supply" - if that were the case we would already have run out of land to supply our needs - clearly we haven't - this is really stupidity-squared.

5) The graph relating to "food production per capita" -

Here's what Wiki lists as sources for this graph - "Data source: World Resources Institute. 2006. Available at Washington DC: World Resources Institute. Menu "Agriculture and Food", submenu "Searchable Database".
"Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2006. FAOSTAT Online Statistical Service. Rome: FAO. Available online at:"

Anon said...

Very many thanks for all those wise and learned comments.

They fill in the gaps in my knowledge.

- Aangirfan

Nixon Scraypes said...

I've got a really good idea, it's called eugenics and it's guaranteed to save the world.May I recommend a world government run by bankers and an intellectual elite,what? oh sorry, someone's already come up with the idea,I'll shut up now.

Hu Bris said...

Part 6 (again)

I decided to check the sources listed in Wikipedia. So I went but found no "Menu 'Agriculture and Food', submenu 'Searchable Database'" listed there. Possibly the site has been redesinged since the graph appeared on Wikipedia? So I tried searching the site using several different phrases, in the hope that I could track down the data on which it claims to be based but could find nothing that confirmed what is in the graph - I'm not saying it doesn't exist btw, but after 10 mins searching I gave up.

So I tried the second site listed,, and got this message "No web site is configured at this address."

So much for Wikipedia and it's sources, then. As far as I could see the sources were basically non-existent at the links given for that graph as far as I could ascertain, using both of the links given, and after more than 10 mins searching WRI site.

6)"The proportion of the world's population living on less than $1 per day has gone down, but the figures have not been adjusted for inflation, and are thus misleading.[204]" - the source given is ""The World Bank Group". 22 July 2004. Retrieved 2011-11-30. - which links to this page.

There one will find 3 different documents, and you can note that Wiki conveniently does not specify which document is the actual source doc used to make that claim. Again this sort of tactic is a well-worn obfuscation trick the Wiki-Liars frequently use to mislead people. they're hoping people won't actually go and check out this stuff.

So I downloaded all 3 and did a quick search using the word "inflation".

The only reference to inflation I could find in all 3 documents is this: "one cannot simply adjust for inflation in the US between 1985 and 1993 to update the poverty line; indeed, that gives a line that is well above those found in low-income countries (Chen and Ravallion, 2001). To be consistent with the original aim of using a poverty
line that can be considered representative of the lines actually found in poor countries, we
recalculated the $ value of the original set of poverty lines using the new PPPs, and compared
this to mean consumption, also calculated by the new PPPs. Following Chen and Ravallion
(2001), the resulting poverty line is $1.08 per day ($32.74 per month) in 1993 PPP prices"

so technically the Wiki-Eugenicists are correct and basically what the WRI are saying is that the usual $1 a day poverty line is now $1.08 dollars a day, for the purposes of this calculation. Fair enough but IMHO the WIKI link could have stated exactly that, but didn't because a change of .08 dollars per day is just not scary enough. Whereas "the figures have not been adjusted for inflation, and are thus misleading" is conveniently much more vague and scary sounding, and IMHO likely to mislead people into thinking that the inflation-adjustment they refer to is far greater than it actually is. So the cited source REALLY does not say what the Wiki-Eugenicists imply it does - this is, as I stated, something these liars are quite adept at

Hu Bris said...

Part 7 (Final part!! - again) sorry if these end up being double posts

7) This graph - - I didn't even look the sources. I will just note that with the exception of Madagascar, ALL the countries in RED are currently experiencing, or have recently experienced, some form of violent conflict, for which Western companies and Gov'ts are almost exclusively to blame. These countries have extremely corrupt gov'ts, backed in the main by Western nations/Companies, and are being heavily exploited for their natural resources.

This is not really a food issue at all - it's a political/economic one. One that COULD be changed if our Gov'ts and Theirs were not so astoundingly corrupt.

8)"The United Nations indicates that about 850 million people are malnourished or starving,[100] and 1.1 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water.[82]"

Again the result of economic/political decisions taken by the local elites or by outside forces, (Western Gov't and Companies again)

In the majority of cases supplying these people with enough safe food and water is more than possible. In fact the reality is that the elites actually make decisions NOT to supply these people with enough food and safe water. Makes them easier to exploit.

9) "The UN Human Development Report of 1997 states: "During the last 15–20 years, in more than 100 developing countries... the reductions in standard of living been deeper and more long-lasting than what was seen in the industrialised countries during the depression in the 1930s.""

That may be true, but if it is those reductions are again mainly as a result of decisions by the elite to deliberately reduce those standards. None of this is accidental or random. Our Elites have clearly decided to make life harder for the majority of people on this planet, so as to maximise their profits/political-control. This point is not even debatable - you yourself have in the past frequently been documenting just that.

The UN claiming that this is somehow an issue with supply is just dishonest. It's clearly a distribution issue, not a supply issue per se.

10),_1970-2025,_EIA.png - NOTE that from 2001 onward everything in that graph is a 'prediction/projection'. It's important to remember that. Source listed: - so off I went and checked it out - couldn't find an exact match for the graph itself, but I found something similar (ish) - this graph,, looks like a more up-to-date version, it uses real data up to 2008.

Almost all the figures for 2008 are significantly different from the "projected/predicted" ones in the original graph. And this is a mere 7 years later, not 40 or 50. See "Renewables" for example - almost 50% higher than the prediciton.

These idiots can't even forecast 7 years ahead but they want us to accept that they can predict events/figures 20/30/100 years into the future? Really?

I'm going to stop there. There are numerous other things I could take issue with but I hope by now that people get the idea.

When more people start to double-check things they find on Wikipedia, they'll find that when it comes to environmentalism, climate etc Wikipedia is little more than a propaganda platform for Eugenicists disguised as Environmentalists

For example the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) is a good of Eugenicists disguising themselves as Environmentalists. It was was founded by Julian Huxley, a committed Eugenicist, and Phil the Greek, consort of her Maj of the UK, is a patron. Phil the Greek is also known for his Eugenicist leanings.

Anonymous said...


Have you ever heard that "you should not trust blindly what wikipedia claims"?

This planet can easily sustain the amount of people living here now and more, but the problem is that the "elitists" do not want to make it work.

Just fixing waste of big-industry would fix this "over population" problem quite abit, but the "elitists" rather throw the food in a garbage bin or let it rot in the harbor.
But then there is the TECHNOLOGY that would fix all this in a second.

Nikola Tesla invented many "free energy" solutions over hundred years ago, but the people who financed and/or surrounded Tesla hid these inventions from the public.

The people who say that "Tesla's free energy technology is a myth" have no idea what they are talking about, and probably haven't read even one page of what Tesla himself said about all this.

In few words, the "Tesla's free energy" comes from Ether (light bearing aether) and the so called "zero point radiation".

Ether is formed of tiny particles that react with the highest forms of "cosmic electricity", and which then transform this "cosmic energy" to frequencies that eventually affects atomic matter under normal conditions.
..meaning, that the highest forms of cosmic radiation "step down to lower frequencies" via ether-particles.
In their "raw form" ether and highest forms of cosmic radiation pass through atomic matter, including our bodies, without us never knowing anything about it.

In terms of modern science, 'neutrinos' are one type of "ether particles"

So, in another words over population-statement; that planet Earth cannot support 7-10 billion people, is sort of a "hoax" and a false statement

Anonymous said...

The argument is mute; Global Extinction within one Human Lifetime as a Result of a Spreading Atmospheric Arctic Methane Heat wave and Surface Firestorm, from Just try to enjoy what time you have left.

Anonymous said...

"Global Extinction within one Human Lifetime as a Result of a Spreading Atmospheric Arctic Methane Heat wave and Surface Firestorm, from,

Oh NOES!!! We's all gonna DIE in a mass extinction event!!!!!!!!!

More of the usual Scientifically illiterate Envirotard-Eugenicist alarmist claptrap.

These guys never know when to give it rest.

Anonymous said...

Scientific experiments and hypothesis are all subject to variables. The more variables, the less certainty regarding the issue.

The science of world population sustainability/capacity etc. is complex to the point where I would have doubts over projections done by sincere good people.
In the case of establishment academia, think tanks and the lot cited in this article..........not credible IMO.

The issues raised by APeasant are ones I agree with.
Assumptions in any hypothesis must reflect reality.......otherwise we are nothing but a bunch of god damned economists. Perish the thought.

Our reality on this planet is that the 1% hog everything and the 99% 'share' what is left. Included in this mix are lots of "dumb people" of many colors. Made dumb by poverty and the diabolical policies of 1%. Population boom bust cycles reflect the planned chaos that our masters create. They control the big events, create famines & other 'natural' disasters, and the poverty zones that impact population.
Most control factors (assumptions) are in the hands of our leaders, so any speculation by us is lacking right out of the gate.

Maybe the Angmeister is just in a playful mood looking to stir up a little shit with this population article?
For maximum effect I would suggest a post entitled 'We need gay people to curb overpopulation, and because they are smarter than dumb white people'
A bit wordy, but should generate some lively discussion?

For me, the big news issues of today are Palestine and Canadian shame, the BBC backtrack on the Savile investigation, Syria and the blackout, and anything Lady Gaga might be doing.

Anonymous said...

Lierre Keith has a book "The Vegetarian Myth" that has some amazing ideas regarding locally grown polyculture farms combined with good old fashioned grassfed ruminants for sustainable food. Seems both these techniques build topsoil rather than destroy it. We've gone from aprox. 1 foot of topsoil to less than 1 inch today. (Sorry, Im american) No topsoil means no life. WARNING: she's a lesbian.

Anonymous said...

Loren Cordan

Cereal Grains: Humanities Double Edged Sword

"We have wandered down a path towards absolute dependence on cereal grains. A path for which there is no return".

80% of the calories used to support the worlds large population come from cereal grains.

These are produced by annual monocropping that has destroyed 98% of the prairies and 99% of the topsoil in grain growing regions. If people even unwilling to admitt these simple truths, then an uncontrolled huge die off through starvations seems to be the ultimate inevitability.

Anonymous said...

Loren Cordain

Cereal Grains: Humanities Double-Edged Sword

"We have wandered down a path towards absolute dependance on cereal grains. A path from which there is no return."

80% of the calories used to sustain the already large population is aquired through annual monocropping which has already destroyed 98% of the prairies and 99% of the topsoil in grain growing regions. No will to accept this simple fact, that agriculture in its current form is basically biocide will lead to global die offs due to starvation.

CanSpeccy said...

Malthus got it right: population increases until limited by food supply unless people limit their fertility by indulgence in "vice."

The green revolution vastly increased the World's food supply, hence a doubling in Africa's population in the last 40 years with massive increases elsewhere too.

But the story is different in the West, where wholesale indulgence in "vice" has driven the fertility rate well below the replacement rate.

So in fact there are several big stories here. One is the population explosion in Africa and the Islamic World. Another is the collapse in the population of the European peoples (preceded by aging of the population and a collapse in the breeding population).

Most Europeans appear to be too brainwashed to see that their anxiety about the population explosion is one of the factors driving their own extinction, an anxiety deliberately fostered by the political lackeys and dupes of a plutocratic elite that seeks the annihilation of the most powerful nation states through a program of genocide against the people of those nations.

The carrying capacity of the globe has been estimated at about 1 person to 27 square meters. My own calculation suggests 80 square meters is more reasonable, i.e., a global population of one trillion!

So we are not actually near a physical population limit. But very rapid population growth inevitably means a declining quality of life for everyone. Doubling the population every thirty or forty years means doubling your infrastructure every thirty or forty years. Yet it can take generations to create great institutions.

You cannot turn out extra copies of Oxford University or Trinity College Cambridge at will. And you cannot simply enlarge the institutions you've got without changing them and quite likely destroying their effectiveness in the process, as has happened to most Western Universities that have now become giant bureaucracies loathsome to any genuine scholar.

The West World should leave the Third World to care for itself, while attending to the survival of its own peoples.

Anonymous said...

Some estimate that with polycultue and grassfed food sources the earth could sustain tens of billions of people, but convincing that cultural transformation should about as easy as convincing americans to drive small cars.......

Paul said...

Yes, we need tens of billions of people to mollify the big scary gods we populate our minds with. otherwise they get mad. We don't know why, they just do.

A. Peasant said...

"They fill in the gaps in my knowledge." - aan

I do love your dry sense of humor aan.

And anonymous at 5:42, on the new post suggestion. I very rarely actually, you know, LOL. But that did the trick.

A. Peasant said...

Someone has helpfullycollected paul erlich quotes.

arthur zbygniew said...

Lots of great comments Aan.

Anonymous said...

I love the stimulation of Aangirfan's classy presentations, and the conversations which follow.

Thank you and God bless you all, as we confront and stand up for a more balanced Life on Planet Earth, knowing full well what happens to those who stand against obscene deceptions, greed and pride

Anonymous said...

"Overpopulation" is a lie, as most of the world is empty, and the issue of starvation is caused by corruption among those in power positions.

Anonymous said...

What aangirfan posted is a very interesting article.

Unfortunately, the comments section is marred with all manner of Insane Troll Logic. Case in point, moronic rants by Hu Bris about "Eugenics." I bet that Mr. "Hu Bris" does not know what the fuck eugenics even means.

Then there is the usual, "over population is a myth" hysteria. That sort of idiocy is usually espoused by people lacking the intellectual faculty to comprehend exponential growth. Yes, the entire world population can be crammed into a U.S. state (provided that the entire population lives at downtown density for some major city/metropolis). The trouble is feeding this super-city. We would need multiple Earth-like planets to provide a first-world livelihood for the entire world population.

And of course I see a lot of conspiracy theory comments to the effect that "there is more than enough resources to adequately feed the entirety of the world population, it's just the powers that be are either unwilling or incompetent to do so."

[Ironically, such sentiment is expressed by these right-wing, religious, John Bircher types (with their UN/NWO conspiracist mindset), yet they sound an awful lot like a bunch of socialists blaming the evil elites and their authorities. The contradiction seems lost on them.]

Points I'd like to add:

1. The good news, most of the first world population is declining. [USA being the key exception.] While overpopulation is still a problem, it is mostly a problem for the "pre-industrial" world, so its effects will be more ecologically threatening locally rather than globally. Sadly, this does not ameliorate the human costs of overpopulation.

2. Interestingly the UN Population projections predict that the human population will stabilize at around ten billion by the end of this century, and accordingly, total fertility rate (TFR) will land at around a comfortable 2.1 for virtually every country. Personally, I think those hyper-optimistic predictions are nothing more than fantasy or wishful thinking. True, fertility rates in Northern and Western Europe appear to be steadily increasing, approaching replacement level, but rather slowly. This is NOT happening in Germany or Japan. Likewise, some developing nations, such as India or those in Latin America appear to be declining and approaching fertility level (and this has been happening in Turkey), but I do not foresee this happening in Africa or the conservative Muslim countries.

Anonymous said...

it is extremely alarming to see the globalist's agenda has worked so well on the average person's knowledge of world population.
having just found this most delightful of sites in recent days, i was enjoying combing through it's informative articles. how the more upsetting to come across an article that's main point of reference is wikipedia, a known globalist controlled (dis)information site
please, i beg you, research this subject matter more thoroughly. the globalists will soon have us ALL convinced of their orchestrated lies concerning world population. find out about weather manipulation and orchestrated drought. world population and the myths surrounding it have many tentacles entangling us all in the mistaken belief WE are the problem

thank you for the site, by the way

Shayari said...

I belong to India.Here still there is a long way to go to educate people regarding the problems of over population. This is due to poor literacy rate, following old traditions and weak government pilocies.

Site Meter