Population

robertdreed · Post by **robertdreed** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 5:34 am

Enjoy this site- I think it makes a neat Antithesis to the rank pessimism that I often see expressed on these topics <a href="http://www.econot.com/">www.econot.com/</a> It's Iconoclastic, Optimistic, pro-Development, pro-Capitalist... pro-Bush, even <a href="http://econot.com/page3.html">econot.com/page3.html</a> Have at it, kids. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 8/5/05 5:35 am

AnnaLivia · Post by **AnnaLivia** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:02 am

I lament that I can have made myself so difficult to decipher, for it has caused my post to be wildly misconstrued. let’s try this again. To quote Peg C: “but there is a huge problem here.” Well, by all means let’s focus on the huge problem. I keep trying to persuade people that that is exactly what we must do as a species, if we’d like to survive. I have long predicted that the epitaph of humanity will be “They thought they could choose which parts of reality to face”. So, I’m with you all the way; let’s face that huge problem. Peg again: “This thread is tipsy, if not insane,…” And it’s only 7am! “…from the intimation that population moderation equals eugenics…” where?? I did never intimate that population moderation equals eugenics. That wasn’t in my post, and I must have missed it in the others. what I said was that our population naturally moderates (I used the term “automatically corrects”) as opportunity and education increase, and will only go past sustainability if prevented from this natural moderation by preventing the economic justice that spawns it. That’s nothing at all to do with eugenics. That’s just what happens when prosperity and quality of life go up in any place: the birth rate goes down. Without nobody forcing nobody. Sweet how that works! “…to the totally irrational contention that the planet Earth could sustain five times its current population if money were redistributed!…” I don’t understand why you say this is a totally irrational contention. I have a thread lying dormant around here somewhere called “a plan for global happiness”, and in it you can read why/how creating economic justice would give us the opportunity to not only survive, but thrive. If you want more after that, i've got another 500 pages. I guess it’s hard for people to imagine how dramatically different would be life on earth, if economic justice were finally to be established and preserved. “…As if MONEY created fertile acreage, processed CO2, created energy out of whole cloth.” We don’t have any NEED to create fertile acreage. There are 10 hectares of arable land for every family on earth. The entire population of the globe today would fit in the state of Arkansas if all brought together. There is enough land, but misused and underused and much held by speculators so that the poor are shot when they try to light there…just as there is enough food harvested on this globe for everyone, yet people are continued to starve for lack of money to buy it. Too little land and food amongst us are DISTRIBUTION problems, not lack of supply. Now, about the CO2: when I said “read that part over again”, about the size of the footprint we leave, that was my special way of emphasizing that HOW we live on this earth is REAL important. Nothing in my post suggested that we could ignore the environment and continue the status quo. But, is it back to the caves eep eep, oop oop? Can we not use technology wisely? I think we are perfectly capable of it! If we don’t, it could lead us into overshoot, but we are NOT there NOW. And we are not doomed to overshoot. We have choices. To deny that would be silly. Global warming? I say there’s plenty enough indication it’s happening, even if science is still unable to be certain of every detail. And the stakes are so high, it’s a stupid bet to bet your only planet that it might not be as bad as some say. What made you think I had the opposite idea? “…Has the creator of this theory ever really analyzed what MONEY is?…” yes, she has. What is money? Money is shelter and food and clean water and clothing and healthcare and education, and yes, energy. Money is wonderful. Money is all your needs and most of your wants. It is precisely because money is so wonderful that the lack of money is so harmful, and we are all threatened by this human economics we play to the death everyday. “…MONEY is potential energy; and we are running out of it - so its currency is fast being devalued.”… Yes, fossil fuels are a finite resource, but we are not limited to fossil fuels….except by our insane economic masters. Just for starters (editing in: other posts came in while I was writing this), simply by cutting hugely wasteful ways we buy time for transition. As Richard Smalley from Rice University says (he’s a physicist/chemist/engineer and they gave him a Nobel Prize when he invented Buckminster Fullerenes…nano-technology breakthrough)… ”We need miracles, but I’ve already seen and made the kind of miracles we need”. He (and others) point out that the energy from the sun would fry us crisp, if more than 20% of it reached the earth. Ahem. Seems there is a lot more energy out there than we can ever use. Ain’t it too bad that we now have buckyballs and all that cool nano-technology, but it is absolutely impossible that we’ll ever figure out how to harness solar energy and make it affordable. ”…I happen to agree with the neccessity of redistribution of wealth…” I hope you are opposed to the direction in which it currently IS being redistributed, from poor to uber-wealthy, from earners to non-earners. “What is absolutely fabulous…” but appears nowhere in AnnaLivia’s post, ahem, “…is the idea that, if we all had an equal share of the pie …” The distinction between equal and equitable is quite important. I never think of spreading money equally. I always talk of spreading money equitably. Fair pay. Justice done. We have extreme inequity now, so we have a potential increase in our happiness coming, equal to that extreme. To see economic justice established in our societies, is to create/realize heaven-on-earth. I am not in favor of paying people for no-work. That’s precisely why I’m against paying billionaires millions of doles, when no one can contribute to society at that level. It is impossible. They are so obviously taking out more than they put in. They are receiving welfare, and every dime is coming out of the wallet (paycheck) of the poor and the working man….some so poor they work harder than anyone, just to stay alive. (50 million WORKING people dead of starvation every year, and economists still don’t get it!) (smoke rolls out ALP’s ears at this point) “…, we could continue eating it and the world would keep on supplying ad infinitem…” I find it puzzling indeed, that you don’t think the world will continue to supply what we need, ad infinitem. It certainly will. At least, it will until the sun burns up. But the descendents of everyone here today will have billions of years to figure that one out. There’s lots more fun to come at Finnegans Wake. “…That idea is even more deluded and dangerous than the eugenic paradigm. We need to practice intelligence and self-restraint, i.e. wisdom - if that word even enters our vocabulary any more.” Peg C badly misconstrued my post. No where did I suggest we can just continue the status quo. No where. But I strongly disagree that over-population is our huge problem. It isn’t even energy or global warming. These things are SYMPTOMS. The root cause of these troubles is the injustice of inequitable pay and the resulting huge chasm in wealthpower. Did we HAVE to threaten ourselves with global climate change? Was it INEVITABLE that we would face an energy crisis because we didn’t transition in time? Is war unavoidable? Is it impossible to organize ourselves into a society far more egalitarian than we have today? No, No, No, and No. There is a reason we have what we have. The stratospheric extremes of wealth-power are what is holding the human species back. Depriving the 90% of most of their rightful wages so the billionaires can stash it in their treasure chests, keeps us limping along at a tenth of TRUE progress. How many Einsteins and Mozarts and Smalleys have we starved to death before they were 5? If you are afraid of over-population at current numbers, I say you are better to be afraid of overpay/underpay, because it is killing us all. It is very very bad for individuals not to receive their rightful wages, and very very costly and dangerous for societies to tolerate this injustice. Wage justice (and sanely limiting inheritance) would bring a world that would HAVE the clean energy it needs, because wealthpower justice would transform this world. When wealth is spread equitably, power will be spread, too, and without giants to step on us, we will see the will of the people fulfilled. Talk to ANYBODY; they want peace and prosperity and security and an un-sick environment, not never-ending war and never-ending poverty and escalating pollution. It is the powers that be, who are in our way because they profit from the destructive behaviors and so foster them, and NOT 4 billion of your fellow human beings. We would probably level off at something like12 billion anyway, and even those “extra” 6 billion are not the problem. Not in a world where people rule themselves according to their own best interests, and act in accord with what they believe. The time to work on population (through education and prosperity for all), and the time to work on the energy transition, and the time to work on climate change, is NOW while we have time. And the one thing that stands in our way is….the economic status quo! We HAVE to murder the idea of having wealthpower giants! Having them is unnecessary, and it’s killing us all and our planet.

proldic · Post by **proldic** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:24 am

Hence the "dic" Morning loves ya AL... aye hmm hmm Enough for everyone for everyone Jah mek enough for everyone Jah mek enough for everyone... Little more food fe eat, Little more herb fe bun Mi chant down babylon can’t dun Blood sucka mosquito, I smoke them out fe fun Still ave them place which part them belong Jah mek enough for everyone... Little more food fe eat likle more herb fe bun Mi chant down babylon can’t dun Blood sucka mosquito I smoke them out fe fun Still them ave them place which part them belong Enough for everyone Jah mek enough for everyone... Ah hmm yeah hmm Is either ither them or I and I get strong... Jah mek enough for everyone... Him yeah ooo hm hm Aye thirty kind a stone corn flakes Scorn flakes starving the nation... Well since you is here is the culture shape our war for the youth them vision All the money move which part them youth ya tun Clothes and shoes and food and them set down the pattern And a just so the whole ghetto street and them run, yeah Jah mek enough for everyone... Finding ways fe knam things whey no really good to no body consumption... Boy baby no really share the mommy wid no not a one whole heap A crib blows from session crib from session... Jah mek enough for everyone... Jah mek enough A little more food fe eat... You know wreck age man you know scientific intervention If them coulda just see something and lef um You know narcissism side effects ina them central vision You know some man favor Bobo Shanti Taliban And we still ave enough for everyone Enough for everyone Jah mek enough for everyone... Enough Oh o, Poor people hurt for no reason Other than greed and self-hate denial Claim they rather rule in hell, than serve in heaven, Hmm Lucifer’s seed, vanity clouded needs, in earth the highest must ave within her the planets Seasons of magnets, magnets Seasons of magnets (Midnite - Nemozian 7/01)

Dreams End · Post by **Dreams End** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:52 am

Thanks for all the perspectives. I'm not ready to make a case for this point of view yet, as I mentioned, but I wanted to respond to Peg C: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>but there is a huge problem here. This thread is tipsy, if not insane, from the intimation that population moderation equals eugenics to the totally irrational contention that the planet Earth could sustain five times its current population if money were redistributed! As if MONEY created fertile acreage, processed CO2, created energy out of whole cloth. Has the creator of this theory ever really analyzed what MONEY is? MONEY is potential energy; and we are running out of it - so its currency is fast being devalued.<hr></blockquote> I'm not concerned about "population moderation" unless I don't understand what you mean by that. I'm concerned about using the ideas of "negative population growth" to promote other agendas. The first thing that caught my attention as I (barely scratched the surface, research wise) is that many rich countries are already at zero or negative population growth. So when a rich country tells the world that all countries need to have zero population growth, well, the implications are obvious. For example, you mention CO2 production. If you charted CO2 production alongside population growth rates, do you think you'd find that the countries with the highest population growths are the ones producing the most CO2. I highly doubt it. Same deal with use of oil and other natural resources. Also, another point I should have made clearer is that there are issues about philosophies about what causes "overpopulation." On the one hand, you have the idea that in very poor countries with high mortality rates and subsistance living, people simply more children. It's another cart/horse thing. Some look at economic and population data and say...look, "overpopulation" is causing poverty. Others say, poverty is causing "overpopulation". Obviously, your approach to the problem is very different depending on your take on this. And they go still further, as I mentioned. I've seen sites that suggest that providing food aid, for example, actually CAUSES overpopulation and that the only "sane" solution, since you like to use such adjectives, is to allow the poorer countries to simply starve if they "overproduce." Hey, if they can't feed their own.... And, as has been mentioned, I've yet to find a consensus that we are "overpopulated" and some data I've seen suggests that population will "peak" in a few decades and then begin a decline without intervention. So, when people in the "first world" which already has zero population growth or even negative population growth, suggest there are too many of "us" it's really hard for me not to hear this to mean there are too many of "them." (I don't mean you have such ideas, only that, in practice, that's what it amounts to. However, we can ALL agree, after a quick internet search, that there certainly ARE groups that state this "too many of THEM" idea explicitly." So even if population growth is the problem, we'd want to be very careful in discerning the motives of those proposing "solutions." Please note, I'm not suggesting that our current way of living as a planet is sustainable. But simply the fact that the US, for example, which is 5% of the population uses something like 20% of the world's resources, suggests that there may be other issues besides simply "too many people." So nothing in my line of thinking says "do nothing." That's silliness and the strawiest of straw men. That said, I'm looking for good demographic data sites. I'm also looking for a good book or site on the Rockefellers...not so much purely biographical, but on their foundations and agendas. In fact, a good book that gets into all the big foundations would be nice. I have no idea if this is true, but if the Rockefellers, say, were the major funding for much of the ZPG movement, that would suggest we ought to examine the data that much more carefully, especially in terms of how that data is interpreted. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Between 2000 and 2030, nearly 100 percent of this annual growth will occur in the less developed countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, whose population growth rates are much higher than those in more developed countries. Growth rates of 1.9 percent and higher mean that populations would double in about 36 years, if these rates continue. Demographers do not believe they will. Projections of growth rates are lower than 1.9 percent because birth rates are declining and are expected to continue to do so. The populations in the less developed regions will most likely continue to command a larger proportion of the world total. While Asia's share of world population may continue to hover around 55 percent through the next century, Europe's portion has declined sharply and could drop even more during the 21st century. Africa and Latin America each would gain part of Europe's portion. By 2100, Africa is expected to capture the greatest share (see chart, "World population distribution by region, 1800–2050", above). The more developed countries in Europe and North America, as well as Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, are growing by less than 1 percent annually. Population growth rates are negative in many European countries, including Russia (-0.6%), Estonia (-0.5%), Hungary (-0.4%), and Ukraine (-0.4%). If the growth rates in these countries continue to fall below zero, population size would slowly decline. As the chart "World population growth, 1750–2150" shows, population increase in more developed countries is already low and is expected to stabilize. <a href="http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm">www.prb.org/Content/Navig...Growth.htm</a> <hr></blockquote>

dagnabit · Post by **dagnabit** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 3:05 pm

"I'm not concerned about "population moderation" unless I don't understand what you mean by that. I'm concerned about using the ideas of "negative population growth" to promote other agendas. The first thing that caught my attention as I (barely scratched the surface, research wise) is that many rich countries are already at zero or negative population growth. So when a rich country tells the world that all countries need to have zero population growth, well, the implications are obvious." Some involved will have agendas. Others will simply see the negative effects of overpopulation--which will affect everyone, eventually, regardless of race, creed, or economic status. Extreme widening of the gulf between the few elite 'haves' and the many 'have-nots' has been a primary cause of revolutions and elites losing their heads. But maybe you have to go through a few heads before you get it. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Overpopulation IS a serious problem and from it stems many, if not most of the current problems we have here on terra firma. (I have seen 'ideal' limits placed at 2, 3, 31/2, 4, 41/2 billion--doesn't seem to be a firm consensus.) Just by acknowledging the existence of overpopulation & it's consequences starts the 'war of perspectives' from every nook and cranny, all the tribes lining up to fight for their perceived 'survival'. Most of the fundamentalists are 'us & them' folks and the greater numbers the tribe has, the better to wipe out the 'others'. Most of the materialists are afraid they won't get their's, so beating out the competition is a primary goal--lots of these folks are extremists too--if they don't have it all, they lose. So the fundamentalists target scapegoats, ie Sanger, create volumns of disinfo such as the debut post, tie her repeatedly to the modern-day PPorg, in an effort to define and demonize 'the enemy who seeks our downfall'. All the while providing cover for all the Bush and Rockefeller materialists who truly do seek to wipe out their perceived threats (ie potential beheaders) and have the means to do so. The means usually acquired by convincing their 'inferiors' that they need them for protection from the 'others'. And both groups take advantage of the race card if it can serve their agenda and obviously not out of true concern for the 'others'. The irony involved is palpable. If we can see it as a problem with logical roots & causes born of a constantly evolving eco-system we can focus on developing strategies to address the problem without the added extremist baggage. Problem is, the materialists are usually in charge because they have the means. Alleviating wealth concentration and removing it from the criteria for leadership positions may be good & necessary strategies but need to be combined with conservation and adopting more ecologically sound agricultural and other practices. A moratorium on warfare would go a long way as a beginning strategy. It's truly a shame that the truth of reincarnation has been so doggedly suppressed. But then, if that reality were widely acknowledged it would interfere so with all the wonderfully egregious games that earthlings revel in. People would have to accept that all earthly markers--race, sex, religion, ethnicity, social & economic status, and the truly comical 'royal bloodlines', etc--all are meaningless and only serve to keep the games going. Since we all started in Africa, it seems fitting that we may all end up there--why not? As for the Bushs, et al, do you think they would continue on their path of destruction if they realized they will have to be coming back here--many times--to live in the mess they are creating? To live--many times--as those they consider their inferiors? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Many animals have 'built-in' population regulation. It seems humans were given other tools--some say superior ones, --others wonder. We might end up destroying this world out of ignorance and greed. It will be a shame but you can bet we will learn what we need to learn from it. The earth, on the other hand, has it's own tools and may just decide to do a little species cleansing itself--

Dreams End · Post by **Dreams End** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 3:50 pm

Here's homework for anyone who wants to convince me that population growth is the problem. I haven't done my homework yet either, so we both have our work cut out for us. Provide sources, please. Phrases such as "of course population growth is a huge problem" is are not helpful. Here's what I'm looking for. 1. Show how the "carring capacity" of the earth is calculated. Is there some agreed upon system? 2. Show that this carrying capacity is not based simply on the extremely unfair system of resource distribution currently in place but is inherent in the earth itself. In other words, if we can't support our current population because 1% of the world owns half of everything, this, to me does not argue that population is the problem, but distribution of wealth is. 3. Explain how, given that the rich countries with little or no population growth use far more resources than poor countries with great population growth, reducing population is the correct solution. 4. Explain how this can be done, given number 3, without unfairly targeting poor nations. 5. Any notes on how you can get population down to 2 billion, or even 4 billion, VOLUNTARILY would be appreciated. If plans assume Involuntary measures (I believe Heinberg calls for authoritarian rule of some kind, but I heard that second hand.) justify this morally and also practically...i.e. how do you choose the authority? Good luck! some time in the next few days I'll start trying to post some hard data.

boogie · Post by **boogie** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 4:11 pm

The earth/nature has a tendancy to ballance itself out somehow when the strain on it become too great. There's a reason that there was an ice age after the dinosaur dieoff, there's a reason that one of the natural fixes for greenhouse effect/global warming is massive volcanic ash in the atmosphere, the black plauge didn't invent itself etc.. What people need to focus on is this - use birth control and stop having so many kids. Religion teaches anti condoms/birth control not because it believes they are wrong due to killing a life. Religion is anti birth control because every new kid is a new member of their religion that will spread their doctrine. The Catholic Church has admitted as much. Unfortunately their flocks buy it hook line and sinker. Then they each have 4 more kids.

Qutb · Post by **Qutb** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:23 pm

Interesting story from the link Robert posted above (there is an obvious anti-environmentalist and pro-business bias there, but there's no attempt to hide it, so it doesn't bother me): "Citigroup kowtows to the greens...and sacrifices the Third World poor--Ever hear of the term "greenwashing"? It's the pathetic effort by businesses to appease environmentalists by adopting environmentalist-approved policies of "social responsibility" in their investments, conduct, and products. Of course, appeasement doesn't work: it only encourages 'viro activists to demand even more drastic concessions. But many major corporations, having no clue about how to defend their moral right to exist as profit-making businesses, continue to cave in to their sworn enemies and would-be destroyers. Citigroup is among the most recent to take the green corporate shower. "On January 22, Citigroup directors and executives fell all over each other, rushing to claim their Ethical Oscar from the radical activist group, Rainforest Action Network," reports Paul Driessen, author of the devastating new book, Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death. "Henceforth, promised Citi, it would dramatically scale back investment in developing country projects that some might perceive as being socially or ecologically destructive. From now on, they would minimize investment in hydroelectric and fossil fuel projects, and focus instead on renewable energy, 'sustainable development,' climate change prevention, and preservation of habitats and indigenous cultures. "Residents of developing countries might be excused if they don't share the jubilation. They understand all too well that Citi's capitulation will further postpone the day when their destitute families will have electricity, safe running water, and a glimmer of hope for a better, healthier, more prosperous future." " I'm not suggesting that the good people of the Rainforest Action Network have sinister ulterior motives, or even that their wealthy backers have. I certainly hope they don't, because theirs is a cause that I generally support. I wouldn't be surprised if this site has distorted what will be the likely effects of Citibank's green promise (there may be no effect, even - it's not what you say, after all, but what you do). But the point remains that environmentalism, directed at developing countries, often involves a trade-off between development and nature, and that this is a field where the potential exists to promote and implement an agenda, under the cover of the best of intentions, that consists of preventing industrialization, development, and economic independence for the global South. About overpopulation - my take on this is that, to the extent that it is a problem, in and of itself, it's not a global, but rather a local problem. The problem is economical as well as ecological in nature. The world isn't overpopulated, but certain regions may be - places like Bangladesh, parts of Western Africa, the Gaza strip. It's not an issue of humans per square mile, but whether the economy, infrastructure and ecology of those particular regions can "sustain" the number of people living there (and there are degrees of "sustaining"). In other words - and that's crucial - the "limit to growth" in population of a region is a variable, not a constant, and it's a variable that can be influenced by human agency. An example of the fallacies in much of the Malthusian/scarcity line of thinking, which sees overpopulation as a global and not a local problem: some argue that since oil is a finite resource, and will peak at some point (soon), the present population of 6.5 billion people is unsustainable as oil will soon be scarcer. But the thing is, the majority of hydrocarbons are consumed by a rather small and priveleged elite of Northerners, living in countries which have had very low population growth for three decades or so (US population has grown more than Europe's, though, which has been close to ZPG and approaching negative in an increasing number of countries). If global population growth had been zero since the 60s, the volume of oil consumed each day would be somewhat lower, but not dramatically so. If oil scarcity is the problem, we should cull the population of the United States, while letting the current high-growth areas like India be (I'm not advocating "culling" of course, just trying to make a point). A country like Saudi Arabia has a relatively rapid growth, with a currently very young population and a moribund economy which has difficulties providing jobs for all those young men. That combination is social dynamite. Maybe it's overpopulation, but only in an economic and social sense, not in an ecological one. Certain places in the Middle East, however, have a scarcity of fresh drinking water, which is an ecological problem. While a country like Norway has an abundance of fresh water and is, in many ways, severly underpopulated with their 4.5 million inhabitants in a country larger than Italy.

Dreams End · Post by **Dreams End** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:41 pm

This from Henry Carey, economic advisor to Abraham Lincoln. From his The Slave Trade, Domestic and Foreign. 1853. This, you see, is an OLD argument we are having. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "The manufacturers of India have been ruined, and that great country is gradually and certainly deteriorating and becoming depopulated, to the surprise of those people of England who are familiar with its vast advantages, and who do not understand the destructive character of their own system. (p. 61) "We thus have here, first, a system that is unsound and unnatural, and second, a theory invented for the purpose of accounting for the poverty and wretchedness which are its necessary results. The miseries of Ireland are charged to over-population, although millions of acres of the richest soils of the kingdom are waiting drainage to take their place among the most productive in the world, and although the Irish are compelled to waste more labour than would pay, many times over, for all the cloth and iron they consume. The wretchedness of Scotland is charged to over-population when a large portion of the land is so tied up by entails as to forbid improvement, and almost forbid cultivation. The difficulty of obtaining food in England is ascribed to over-population, when throughout the kingdom a large portion of the land is occupied as pleasure grounds, by men whose fortunes are due to the system which has ruined Ireland and India. Over-population is the ready excuse for all the evils of a vicious system, and so will it continue to be until that system shall see its end..." (pp. 64-65) <hr></blockquote>

Qutb · Post by **Qutb** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:50 pm

Let me add that Japan's population is expected to peak soon and then gradually decrease (The Economist, November 18, 2004). This is one of the world's big oil consumers. It will continue to be, of course, even with 120 million inhabitants and not today's 127 or so. While the oil consumption of rapidly growing Nigeria remains a small drop in the hydrocarbon ocean (321,000 bbl/d) for a country of 137 million people. They produce 2.6 million b/d. <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nigeria.html">www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nigeria.html</a> Japan consumes 5.3 million barrels a day - 5 million more than Nigeria, and the Japanese are fewer. <a href="http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html">www.odci.gov/cia/publicat...os/ja.html</a>

griffy034 · Post by **griffy034** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:52 pm

"Here's homework for anyone who wants to convince me that population growth is the problem." hehe. maybe we can put splash or one of the other random standers on that.

Dreams End · Post by **Dreams End** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:13 pm

I hope people understood my "homework assignment" was tongue in cheek. I welcome contributions but don't assume I can tell other people what they need to do in their spare time... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/embarassed.gif ALT=":o">

Dreams End · Post by **Dreams End** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:20 pm

I'm starting to run down the establishment links to population organizations and would appreciate any help. Here's a quote to give you an example of what I'm looking for. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Osborn was among the founders of an effective organization called the Population Council. The Population Council was founded in 1952, the same year as IPPF, at a meeting in Williamsburg, Virginia. It was the brainchild of John D. Rockefeller III. Its purpose was to control population growth around the world. John D. Rockefeller's leadership in the Population Council was not the first Rockefeller foray into eugenics. When Alexis Carrel wrote his book advocating euthanasia institutions with a suitable gas for exterminating various people, he was on the staff of the Rockefeller Institute. The Rockefellers financed the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in the 1920s, and provided funds for Ernst R¸din for genetic research in the 1920s. The founding conference brought a very powerful group together in Williamsburg. Rockefeller brought with him several officers of the Rockefeller Institute, including Detlev W. Bronk, then president of both the Rockefeller Institute and the National Academy of Sciences. There was a representative from the Carnegie Institution. Two members of the wealthy Osborn family were there -- Fairfield Osborn, representing the Conservation Foundation, and Frederick Osborn, Secretary of the American Eugenics Society. Warren S. Thompson came, as director of the Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Problems. Thomas Parran, former Surgeon General during the Tuskegee syphilis study, was there. Pascal K. Whelpton from the Population Division at the United Nations came, and so did two men who ran the UN Population Division in later years, Frank Notestein and Kingsley Davis. The Population Council began its first years of operation with $2.6 million in capital contributions, primarily from John D. Rockefeller III and the Ford Foundation, along with an endowment of approximately $1.5 million. The Population Council put some funds into developing the contraceptive Pill, but was far more enthusiastic about the intrauterine device, or IUD. An IUD is a piece of metal or plastic inserted into a woman's uterus. It inflames the uterus, and prevents implantation of a newly conceived baby into the mother's uterus. A feminist author, Germaine Greer, commented on the post-war movement, saying: "It now seems strange that men who had been conspicuous in the eugenics movement were able to move quite painlessly into the population establishment at the highest level, but if we reflect that the paymasters were the same -- Ford, Mellon, Du Pont, Standard Oil, Rockefeller and Shell -- are still the same, we can only assume that people like Kingsley Davis, Frank W. Notestein, C. C. Little, E. A. Ross, the Osborns Frederick and Fairfield, Philip M. Hauser, Alan Guttmacher and Sheldon Segal were being rewarded for past services." In other words, the population control movement was the same as the old eugenics movement -- the same money, the same leaders, the same activities -- but with a new excuse. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap10.html">www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap10.html</a> This gives you an idea of my line of thinking on this...eugenics to Rockefeller to population control orgs. No conspiracy here. All out in the open.

Qutb · Post by **Qutb** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:27 pm

that so many newbie unregistered users should stop by and offer their insights in this thread; all of them firmly convinced that overpopulation is one of the most urgent problems facing humanity, to the point of considering other points of view to be pure and utter insanity. Welcome to RI y'all, and I'm looking forward to reading your insights on other topics as well. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

Dreams End · Post by **Dreams End** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:14 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>that so many newbie unregistered users should stop by and offer their insights in this thread; all of them firmly convinced that overpopulation is one of the most urgent problems facing humanity, to the point of considering other points of view to be pure and utter insanity.<hr></blockquote> Let's be nice, there Qutb...it's possible these folks just have been lurking and we "pushed their buttons" so to speak. If they provide links to hard data, I will actually be quite grateful, even if the point of view is different.

rigorousintuition.ca

Population

Fun with Dialectics

when will we GET it?

We HAVE to murder the idea of having wealthpower giants!

Keep up the interesting dialogue!

Population

how to calculate?

remember the dinosaurs

Re: Citibank chooses nature, screws brown people

old argument

Re: Citibank chooses nature, screws brown people

re: how to calculate?

tongue in cheek

Finding the establishment links

Re: Interesting

now now...