discussion about: “Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say”

[Hotspring 44]

This discussion about: “Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say” is from the original thread on “WaccoReader” but I thought that the actual discussion may go into different tangents. That is why O posted here on WaccoTalk.
It is my first reply to someguy on this (and the other) thread topic.
The post that this reply is to someguy and can be found there> https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...133#post130133

...I'd like you all to take ten minutes and watch this video. Maybe we could have a discussion about it afterward.

The host stated at the beginning of his report that: ..."with the last word on overpopulation".
First of all, when somebody states that what you're about to say, is the last word that raises red flags.
That gives me the impression that they have their mind already made up. Therefore I am judging this report as somebody’s opinion and not as scientific data.

He first mentioned is the natural self-preservation instinct that all animals on the planet have including humans regarding external environment then, he uses the cult of Ra Sun-warship in ancient Egypt , and also the “Red Scare” that Western Europeans and Americans had in the 1900s as an example of politics and the use of scare tactics is emphasized with the background video.

He then mentions an 18th century priest named Thomas Malthus, showing a graph in the background, with human population growth curve, and the food production curve as compared to each other. The food production curve was terse rithemicicle (or whatever word I can't seem to spell correctly or find in the word processor that he used) {but the "curve on the chart is less than a 45° going up} and the population curve was more like a J.

Stating such at the time in the 18th century saying that (according to Thomas Malthus) it was “mathematically certain” that the population would outgrow the food supply.

If I remember history lessons correctly, there were famines between now and then. I'm not saying that that Thomas Malthus or his chart was correct. But there has been in history and likely always will be at some point in the future famine somewhere in the world.

Then he goes on about Thomas Malthus and his disdain for the poor and actual intent towards socioeconomic genocide.

This reminds me of the political wrangling, we have in Washington DC today regarding the “budget”, and also state and local planning commissions and where they decide to put so-called affordable housing; only today it's not so overtly genocidal as Thomas Malthus was suggesting then, but it's there (the disdain for the poor on mostly one side of the political aisle), I have absolutely no doubt about that.

His mentioning the endocrine disruptors is interesting.
His mentioning about Ted Turner said is also disturbing, but proves what I said above in other discussions, that, certain people from certain positions of wealth/power/inheritance etc. whom have power in world politics and Washington DC by way of their money,power, and control of resources, and their disdain for the poor and their desire to control and/or have as much as they possibly can in the whole world have in history; in short; have committed heinous crimes against humanity, to maintain the kingdom's and or power structure/s, whatever it/they may be.


It is also more evidence but not absolute proof of my theory that we in America are more like slaves today, right now than we wish to believe ourselves to being.

I think the common people in Egypt today have a better idea of where they were with their government yesterday than we in America do today.

I think he is correct about one thing and that is reducing the population size does not in any way guarantee changing the social structures to having more equality amongst the people and the so-called ruling class.

If everybody (or a least most everybody) was a farmer and was able to share the excess with everybody else, that's one thing. But considering the energy consumption and resource extracting that is being done on the planetary basis at this point in time, feeding the foreseen increase in population still has its issues, because of land-use and resource allocation etc. etc..

My personal opinion about what he has to say is, I understand what he is trying to get at, but I sure as hell do not want to live shoulder to shoulder with vast amounts of people in urbanized, skyscraper, people farms, simply because we (can) have the ability to feed everybody living shoulder to shoulder like some kind of algae bloom on the planet surface.


There really are limitations that are within reason. But I sure would not like to have people like Ted Turner or Thomas Malthus or their hired and paid for politician puppets making decisions on such matters either. That's for sure!

That being said Corbett said nothing whatsoever about the degradation of the Earth's ecosystem.
Maybe he believes that also is a scare tactic and doesn't really exist either.

Obviously, I believe that a rearrangement of the wealth in the world if done properly would be far better than what we have now.
But to wrench that out of the control of the people that have the control now, would most definitely have the consequence of lowering the population.

There is no doubt that because of the political situation worldwide coupled with virtually exponential population expansion of humans really do add to the major survival issues; population being a major contributing factor.


To label people that are honestly concerned about overpopulation as baby haters, and comparing them to the few people he mentioned in his article is playing into the very ignorance of what he espouses to be against. It's abhorrent, and disgusting to me to hear somebody make such comparisons and innuendos!

There really are population problems in certain geographical areas of the world because people in those areas at this moment in time, do not have the independent ability to feed themselves.
They are dependent on food producers and shippers from faraway places.

As a matter of fact many of them don't even have enough drinking water.


Also it is a fact that many of them will probably die or have to move somewhere else to survive.


Unfortunately it is a fact that there are people that live in other places that physically in space and in wealth and food, could handle the “refugees” but socially and politically speaking, that's extremely unlikely to happen.

Yes those facts I mentioned above are at this point in time, in large part politically designed-in, but it is now and also has been throughout history; a fact that everybody has to live and or die with.


So bottom line: regardless of the rhetoric Corbett has... ...So-called human overpopulation is a major issue.

Yes it is scientifically possible to feed everybody now. But then what about the future 50, 100, 150 years into the future?


How do we decide what the “sustainable” limit in population numbers actually is?


Are certain class populations willing to give up their "luxuries" so other classes of population can have 20 kids per couple?


What about reserves? What would we have in reserve? How much food? How much fuel? How much shelter? Where would all that be banked? who would control the bank?


All of those questions have been asked throughout history and answered with armies and violence for the most part.



to make real changes we have to have a real worldwide discussion and I don't think human kind is ready for that yet.


There may be, in fact too many people to come up with a consensus. Has anybody considered that?
Do we really need a consensus? It's obvious what happens without a consensus isn't it?


Politicians, the upper class and dictators seem to use graft, corruption armies and ultimately resort to violence etc. more often than not, to preserve their position and wealth within society. they stay pretty powerful throughout history is long as they share enough with the common worker and Armed Forces of their subjects/citizenry.

Even though science has a lot to offer in the form of information about likely trends regarding whether and the ability to produce food, the shifting weather patterns and all that, which are all crucial to survival; seems all too often at best to be falling upon deaf government officials ears.

Yet when certain government officials hear all those things they try to destroy and obfuscate the evidence that they don't want to become common knowledge because they have some sort of a personal interest situation happening.

P.S. hopefully there are not any gross typos. (Woops! there were a couple, but I corrected those I could find)