Is the World Overcrowded?

by cameo-d 4 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cameo-d

  After playing on Google Earth today, I couldn't help but wonder if certain places on earth are considered "over crowded".

  Seems USA and UK are almost totally surveillance societies. I clicked on a camera and scrolled all over USA. There are many major cities and densly populated areas that are marked in blue camera surveillance. These areas do not have a camera icon on the map, but you can find them by scrolling. Does it seem to you that this surveillance is overkill?

  Even though the imagery appears static, what would happen if it were all suddenly to go live in real time? How would you feel about being "watched" in your own yard or if you were inside near a window?

  Also, I read recently that some day care centers will now require parents to be fingerprinted and will have to use a fingerprint check machine before they are allowed to pick up their children. All of these surveillance techniques are being promoted as safety items. Do you think it is necessary?

  If we had all this technology in a less crowded world, would surveillance still be necessary?

  Do you think Armageddon is the answer to an overcrowded world?
• 

  yknot

  I don't think the world is overcrowded

  Surveillance is a information control tatic

  Armageddon is the end of one system into another then after a thousand years, that system too ends and a final one begins.
• 

  excito-are

  The world is not over crowded, but merely under developed.

  For instance, there are growing myths about population that it lowers per capital economic growth! That is nonsense, only take a look at the UN data population and human development report from 2007 to see the amount of countries improving with population growth. Remember people are a resource too.

  The supply of natural resources are finite. Again Nonsense, Man always finds new resources. The romans used wood for heating and building, then we went onto coal,recently oil and gas and when they run out man being ingenuis as he is will find something else or use existing power, wind, sun e.c.t and develop that for energy.

  Countries are too cramped with people. Nonsense, foe example Hong Kong has a population densitie of 5,871 person per sq.km. But Canada has a population densitie of 3 per sq.km. China 128 persons per sq.km, Africa 48 persons per sq.km and the UK 241 persons per sq.km. I stay in scotland and the land mass is the same as England yet we have 5 million persons here while they have closer to 60 milion. Plenty of land left.

  If the world went vegetarian you could feed 80 billion people no problem every year. Which I would hate, how could anyone give up a bacon roll, I don't know?

  Any calculations of any future population celing must depend on simple speculation about - the future state of technology and the future state of the world economy.

  ~This has been a long running argument between the neo-Malthusians or Ecological pessimists vs The economic optimists.

  I have written a number of essays on the subject and my conclusions are that under current capitalism the gap between poor and rich nations has never been greater, For instance Nigeria is a oil rich country, but infant mortality has went slightly up and standard of living not moved up. Due to corruption it does not invest into their soco-economic infrastructure and with the world bank and IMF demanding money back from Countries in Africa when they experiance drought and famine it will only get worse. But with any doubt man has the answers to sort this out, but whether he has the desire is entirley another question.

  Excito
• 

  Anti-Christ

  Good question. I think the world is not overcrowded just not well managed. For example our homes and cities are very badly designed when it comes to space. For example 60% of a city's space is dedicated to the automobile. We waste a lot of space just to grow food for animals instead of using that space to grow food for us. Also the other point about being watched yes it can get worst but then again I think that the ones that should be watched are the ones that control us. Of course if we were able to watch the ones that have control we would be the ones in control.
• 

  PrimateDave

  Population: The wealthier 1 billion humans consume at least as much vital resources as the remaining 5 billion. Bringing the living standards of the whole world up to that of Japan, USA, Canada, and Western Europe would make for a severely overcrowded world. As Anti-Christ put it, the current problems can be put down to bad management. Changes in management are hindered by powerful vested interests.
  
  Resources: Planetary resources are finite. Under the current model wealthier nations support high density populations by exporting significant portions of their ecological footprint onto other parts of the planet. Although energy input from the sun is huge, it is not managed in an efficient way. Some energy resources are unique and practically irreplaceable like petroleum and natural gas. Biodiversity is absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. Again, the problem is bad management. We need a steady state economy where all costs, including environmental degradation, are factored into the equation. We need a monetary system that isn't designed to borrow wealth from future generations to support a disfunctional economy today. Changing to such a steady state economy would be hindered by powerful vested interests.
  
  Surveillance: This is a for profit industry just like the military industrial complex and the prison industrial complex. It is supported by media driven societies that are made to feel insecure based on the selective flow of information. It is also based on an aggressive legal system and the insurance industry which are tied into the finance industry. Obviously, powerful interests have a stake in seeing things continue heading in the direction that they are going.
  
  Of course, religions have a part in all of this, but for the most part they are not the separate entities that the propagandists at the WTS would have one believe. Frankly, as industrial societies gradually collapse during the next couple of centuries with their economies, governments, militaries, and surveillance states, religions will be the most likely to survive because they are institutions closest to the communities that they serve.
  
  Dave (a practical atheist)