StarGateWars Forums

Read the book of Revelation, its all there.

I dont care when or where Eugenics began, it's a fundamentally flawed concept and can never work long term.


@ KMA,

The UN you quote has itself this year admitted/reported that population growth is unsustainable, you can read it in detail direct from the UN or a summarised view from the BBC

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/pop990.doc.htm

Current Demographic Trends Leading to Excessive Population Growth

Current population dynamics would produce excessive population growth if maintained over the long run, says the report of the United Nations Secretary-General on world demographic trends (document E/CN.9/2011/6). Through a series of projections, the report highlights the importance of declining fertility for attaining a population that is sustainable. The high scenario, which produces a world population of nearly 30 billion in 2300, even though its fertility remains mostly between 2.2 and 2.3 children per woman, validates the imperative of continuing to reduce fertility to replacement level or below in all countries whose fertility is still above replacement level. Efforts to reduce fertility rapidly are especially needed in the fast-growing countries of Africa and Asia. In both major areas, but particularly in Africa, current fertility levels, if maintained, would lead to unsustainable numbers of people in the long run. Even countries with intermediate fertility need to reduce it to replacement level or below if they wish to avert continuous population increases to unsustainable levels, and low fertility countries need to achieve comparatively small increases in fertility to avert rapid reductions of the population.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12338901

The world population growth rate must slow down significantly to avoid reaching unsustainable levels, says a new UN report.

I already posted links to the ever increasing population numbers and accelerating growth rate in my first post.

Your example of land in Texas is absurd, for a start a large portion is desert or to arid for people to farm or live on, even if the land could support the people, even if someone was willing and able to pay for the land and to build the infrastructure, and even it you were physically able to move the people from the countries that are at the highest risk of famine from overpopulation, do you really think the USA will accept in 10s of millions of refugees from these countries ???

You cant just take land mass and divide by the number of people because not all land can support human life/civilisation, you cant even take the land that can support people and divide it by number of people for obvious issues of nationalism, politics, money, movement etc.

But even if you could measure in these simplistic ways a continuous and accelerating population growth would still be unsustainable, it would simply push the point of reaching critical further into the future.







As for climate change, are you insane ? Really, of course the climate is changing, it's been changing since the planet was born and will continue to change even if all people were removed tomorrow. Man-made climate change is another matter, personally I believe we contribute to it but are not the primary cause and could not stop it happening even if we wanted to.

Climate change is a linked subject, the current trend is one of global warming but TBH it would be just as bad if it was cooling, either way means changes to the weather, some area's where people currently live will be made uninhabitable, other area's might become habitable, but you cant just pick up people from one place and put them in ready made civilisations elsewhere.

MEZZANINE wrote:I dont care when or where Eugenics began, it's a fundamentally flawed concept and can never work long term

I have to disagree, it's been working out quite nicely for the bankers for the past few hundred years.

MEZZANINE wrote:@ KMA,

The UN you quote has itself this year admitted/reported that population growth is unsustainable, you can read it in detail direct from the UN or a summarised view from the BBC

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/pop990.doc.htm

Current Demographic Trends Leading to Excessive Population Growth

Current population dynamics would produce excessive population growth if maintained over the long run, says the report of the United Nations Secretary-General on world demographic trends (document E/CN.9/2011/6). Through a series of projections, the report highlights the importance of declining fertility for attaining a population that is sustainable. The high scenario, which produces a world population of nearly 30 billion in 2300, even though its fertility remains mostly between 2.2 and 2.3 children per woman, validates the imperative of continuing to reduce fertility to replacement level or below in all countries whose fertility is still above replacement level. Efforts to reduce fertility rapidly are especially needed in the fast-growing countries of Africa and Asia. In both major areas, but particularly in Africa, current fertility levels, if maintained, would lead to unsustainable numbers of people in the long run. Even countries with intermediate fertility need to reduce it to replacement level or below if they wish to avert continuous population increases to unsustainable levels, and low fertility countries need to achieve comparatively small increases in fertility to avert rapid reductions of the population.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12338901

The world population growth rate must slow down significantly to avoid reaching unsustainable levels, says a new UN report.

I already posted links to the ever increasing population numbers and accelerating growth rate in my first post.

Your example of land in Texas is absurd, for a start a large portion is desert or to arid for people to farm or live on, even if the land could support the people, even if someone was willing and able to pay for the land and to build the infrastructure, and even it you were physically able to move the people from the countries that are at the highest risk of famine from overpopulation, do you really think the USA will accept in 10s of millions of refugees from these countries ???

You cant just take land mass and divide by the number of people because not all land can support human life/civilisation, you cant even take the land that can support people and divide it by number of people for obvious issues of nationalism, politics, money, movement etc.

But even if you could measure in these simplistic ways a continuous and accelerating population growth would still be unsustainable, it would simply push the point of reaching critical further into the future.

This reply will address the overpop UN propaganda, as well as the Texas landmass statement. now keep in mind we currently output enough food to feed 14 billion people a day, and also keep in mind western fertility rates is in drastic decline (which relates to my eugenics reply above), the UN itself admits that the population will level out (and will not reach anywhere near 14 billion) and will then be in decline...where's the problem???
As for Texas, the point wasn't a question of "would it be feasible to put the whole planets population in Texas", but that Texas is 1 small corner of the globe and if the worlds population could theoretically all fit in a landmass the size of Texas, then how can you justify the idea that we have no room? if you remove the uninhabitable regions of the globe (that includes farm, frozen, forest, mountainous, bogs/swamps and desert lands, etc), there is still PLENTY of landmass, IF land management was handled properly instead of herding people into ever expanding city limits where there is indeed a problem of concentrated-overpopulation.

MEZZANINE wrote:As for climate change, are you insane ? Really, of course the climate is changing, it's been changing since the planet was born and will continue to change even if all people were removed tomorrow. Man-made climate change is another matter, personally I believe we contribute to it but are not the primary cause and could not stop it happening even if we wanted to.

Climate change is a linked subject, the current trend is one of global warming but TBH it would be just as bad if it was cooling, either way means changes to the weather, some area's where people currently live will be made uninhabitable, other area's might become habitable, but you cant just pick up people from one place and put them in ready made civilisations elsewhere.

I think you misunderstood my climate comment, so i'll clarify my thinking in that area...I couldn't agree more (and this part of my response is not directed at you, i am simply backing you up), especially the 1st paragraph, the idea that the climate is changing because of human activity is....well, i don't even have words to describe the lunacy and pure madness of the idea, and i am by no means a climate expert.

What this planet has is norms, by that i mean, for X amount of years it is normal for both the climate and atmosphere content to be hot, cold, moderate, whatever. to contain whatever gases, be it CO2 or anything else. then after that "norm is finished, another norm (which might be a polar opposite of the previous norm, as you well know) will then be dominant for another X amount of years. and as you know, "X amount of years" could be decades centuries, or as is the case of when the planet first formed and the ice ages of the past...even millennia.
So the idea that humans who have been on the planet for just a fraction of time in this planets history, are now the cause of all the change we see is just an insane idea. insane is the only word i can think of that comes close to defining the shear idiocy of the concept.

What's even worse than the idea, is the fact that AGW has been proven to be nothing short of fraud (as was proved at the Copenhagen climate summit of late 09), by the leaked/release of all the internal emails of the UK climate experts who feed all the climate crap to the UN's IPCC who in turn dictate climate policy to the worlds Govts...what's worse than all that, is that Billions has been spent to prove climate change/global warming and has managed to prove the opposite. Billions that could have been better spent on cleaning up the planet of all the corporate and industrial accidents of the past 60/70+ years. including all the damage being caused by the use of DU. Billions that could have been better spent on new and cleaner technologies. Billions that could have been spent on helping the poor to help themselves, etc etc etc....


SICK!