Activist Post
The Tellus Institute, a non-profit sustainability research organization, created “sophisticated human population models” with their PoleStar project (PSP). Using data provided to them by the United Nations (UN) and the World Bank (WB), they analyzed parameters such as energy consumption, land use and pollution.
The PSP predicts simulated outcomes that are being used to shape international policy. Richard Rosen, executive vice president of Tellus claims that if we are to make this world a pleasant place to live, we should “get going immediately. There’s no leisurely way.”
Geophysicists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research states that only 282 billion people could be “packed onto the planet” with all other land reserved for food cultivation only.
The PSP infers 4 possible scenarios that will come to pass because of the growing human population.
Market Forces
If we continue “business as usual”, by the year 2100, we will see the poorer regions suffer from the growth of industry. Environmental problems abound and become more acute.
We can expect family planning policies that restrict the right to have children. The expectation of population growth would be pushing the boundaries of sustainability; being 9.3 billion.
With more humans on the planet will come income disparity. The average take home pay could be as low as 5 cents per dollar earned.
Water securitization would be implemented to ensure water stress is reduced to an acceptable minimum. However by 2100, water shortages could reach as high as 50%.
Under strict food securitization policies, less than 6% of the world’s population could be affected by starvation.
Policy Reform
In this scenario, by 2100, governments have adhered to the UN’s climate change targets and sustainability goals; however economic growth is hindered and stronger policies must be put in place to curb the effects.
With family planning services enforced onto the population, only 8.4 billion people would be straining natural resources.
The average income would only be worth 11 cents on the dollar.
Expected water shortages would force 23% of the world’s water resources to be controlled by governmental policies.
International mandates controlling food would result in only 3% of the world’s population to suffer from hunger.
Fortress WorldBy 2100 this global society would be controlled by an authoritarian government in order to control distribution of resources. Economic, social and environmental downgrades would cause the wealthy to retreat to protected areas; leaving the masses to fend for themselves in the wastelands.
Implementing family planning services would be near impossible, leaving the global population to rise to 10.2 billion.
The average income would be reduced to 2 cents on the dollar.
Water securitization would control 46% of the world’s water supplies.
Global hunger could soar to nearly 15% of the entire population.
The Great Transition
By 2100, if the world’s societies were to radically alter their environmental preservation policies and prioritize social memes to reflect those of the UN, the planet could live in a world of social equality and cooperation.
Family planning would have successfully controlled population growth to a stable 7.3 billion worldwide.
Take home income could be raised to 36 cents on the dollar.
With less people, water securitization could be kept to a minimum of 21%.
The incidents of global hunger would be negligible.
Regardless of global population decline, the UN’s Populations Fund (UNFPA) is calling for more family planning services in order to further decrease fertility rates worldwide.
The UNFPA released a report in 2011 that erroneously claimed that the world’s population will rise to 9.15 billion by 2050. In response, the UNFPA has focused efforts on STD immunizations, abortion and contraception more readily available under the non-discriminant term, "family planning".
Their concept for the future appears to be miserable without the submission of all humans on planet Earth to their globalist Elite schemes. They are quite good at using fear to justify their policies to elected officials, governments and average citizens. Their continued success will surely lead to the worst of possible futures.
BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW
22 comments:
If the planet is in fact overpopulated, let's by all means address the situation by culling the herd, starting with the UN and the Tellus Institute (whatever that is).
I don't know how many people live on the planet but a goodly portion now live in Britain.
It is becoming a crammed overpopulated grid locked hell.
Can some of the rest of the planet start offering free houses and generous benefits as well.
The British taxpayer is collapsing under the strain and the British increasingly becoming homeless in their own country.
Activist Post is always concerning itself with human population topics, an important issue to be sure, but what seems to come across in many of the articles is that HUMAN population is the primary, or only province of the planet. I read an article just yesterday about some common species of birds that I grew up seeing and hearing regularly that are now endangered. It saddened me greatly but did not surprise me. Most people are crammed into places of hard, paved surface made of materials excavated from the places before and after wars are fought where these birds and other creatures had refuge and have no idea what's beyond it, or, if they do, feel powerless to stop it. Many more just don't care. Well, for those who do, a few ways might be: Stop having so many kids, stop using fossil fuel, increase recycling of trash to near full reuse and relearn the nature of things.
And orthodox military science, as important as it is, is another example of disassociation from free life; doing it because we can, like: Nuclear bomb testing in beautiful tropical places which harbor some of the more beautiful life forms; really, what's a coral atoll or a few thousand sea turtles? We love blowing shit up. Or, building nuclear power plants (and other facilities) wherever it's convenient, GMOs, vaccines, weather control, warfare, government/ corporate control and all the rest. All this could be used for the betterment and progress of humanity AND other life, but when is enough enough? With our current logic, we'd see it all destroyed before then for reasons which don't add up. I want to live as much as the next guy, but not without a sense of wonder and reverence, which, sadly, seem to be fading from the human point of view. So far as I can tell, the continuing dissonance of awareness of other life forms living free on this rock other than our personal pets or a trip to the zoo gets as much attention as the destruction of this ecosystem through arrogance and recklessness. AP isn't the only editorial to do this, but since I get a lot out of AP, just thought it'd do to maybe point it out.
With all the wars and droughts, food shrotages, and pestilences, and even abortions, not to mention murders, do you think there are 7 billion pop. & gorwing?
I DON'T THINK SO!
I think the UN, et al, is/are lying.
"[W]ars and droughts, food shrotages, and pestilences, and even abortions, not to mention murders": So you favor population control "on the natch." Right, who needs the UN, et al, when you've got those?
The author of this post, and her intentions, may not be as they seem.
Her two facebook profiles:
https://www.facebook.com/susanne.posel
https://www.facebook.com/susanne.posel.1
A discussion from someone else who has had some suspicions (please look past the condiscending tone and use of the whole "Tin-Foil-Hat" thing):
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=182509375115045&story_fbid=417067348325912
This just wreaks of Agenda 21.
The Chosen 13,500,000 people.
You can take all the people of the world and comfortabley fit them in the State of Texas!
How about a Resource Based Economy? Problem solved.
I believe the 'over-population' theory to be sinister propaganda which uses overcrowding in cities as a false premise. In Britain vast tracts of land are in private hands but the land-management subsidies from Europe are hugely profitable, and much of the third world is starving because their land is owned by western corporations to produce cash crops. (You can't eat cotton.)
There is plenty of land to produce enough food for us all and a few billion more, though while water is privately owned we cannot irrigate it properly.
It is profits the earth cannot maintain, not populations. Mick McNulty. England.
More fear mongering. There's room for twice the population if you get rid of the government and all the corporate cronies. Give us Tesla technology and we will leave you all in the dust. Your world is a phony with no back bone and if I had to live like that in hiding and hording, Lying and cheating I know it would bight me on the ass before too long. So you have a choice and you will have to live with it. Your either with us or your with the terrorists!!!!!!
The Globalist have a population limit of 6.66 Billion people, to be maintained by wars, disease and famine. Numbers are important to the Cabalists, they know that 7 billion would cause a paradigm shift in conciousness that would not permit one banking family to own 500 Trillion dollars while the people starve.
"The Globalists have a population limit of 6.66 Billion people..."
As symbolically appropriate as it may be I would be really interested in your source for this figure.
All of the U.N population control and reduction policies I've seen call for between 500 million and 3 billion people to be 'sustainable' within Earth's biosphere.
So I'd certainly prefer 6.66 billion living people over 500 million to 3 billion.
But it seems more like someonebody just pulled that number of the Air to go with the 'devilish' image of the Globalists...
Overshoot and die-off. Do you think H. sapiens doesn't have limits as a species? "Yes, but we have technology!" No, that's not technology, that's religious belief in a Messiah.
Soon most will die, yet all will burn.
The way our Elite Greedy Ones would have to be first ones to go if more human life can be substained on Earth. Their system of Grids would need to be eliminated & energy would have to be Free electro-magnetic like how our universe is suppose to run but, your corporate structure can't make any money if we use cosmic energy. Our banking system & pay structure would have to be a bartering system & land owership for all. Everyone needs a stake in ownership to make it work. We would have to manufacture everything we need locally & only import & export RAW materials. Farming would be local & on greenhouses above dwellings to save space & we would have to be leaner society relying less on animal protein other then dairy. We would have to implement one basic law so we don't kill each other, "LOVE thy NEIGHBOR"
As I think about it, that is what we should be doing now....we need to re-train the 1%, not the 99%, the barbaric Fear based world of Pisces is ending anyway. The Aquarius Age is upon us & that is too leave barbaric tactics of Greed & Power to be forgotten about & move into the 5th. dimension of Love of our fellow man.
The Earth is now overpopulated now, but with so much corruption, it will never change, we are on the oad to destruction. The cause is......
Money !!!
sure less people are less of a strain on resources and the environment......but who is trustworthy enough to control human reproduction?......the only honest non-totalarian way is for govts to stop rewarding parents w/ benefits and tax breaks for having more children ..and then reward people who never have kids w. same tax breaks and increased benefits.....govts must at the very least stop rewarding citizens for having children....no one wants a chinese style approach..but if things go far enough it will be as bad as the chinese child policies or worse......the time is now to stop rewarding reproduction by govts......let those w/ no children stop paying school tax in america...why should the childless pay for others children ?
"why should the childless pay for others children ?"
Because those children take a lot of effort to raise. When you are older, someone will need to take your garbage, clean your roads, bring the food to your store etc. That's why.
Early 1970's saw the zero population growth movement. remember it? Many family's had only 1 or 2 children. Now in America we don't have enough American workers to replace the last generation. Unknown to most Americans is why borders are open to Mexicans.
Thought we have forgot about the zero growth movement, people in power have not.
Its not just food and water needed to support modern population. Technology required too.
With the limiting of production to achive "sustainability" . You will need a global authority to decide who works, eats and who dose not.
I would rather go Mad Max than allow some wealthy elite group to tell me how many kids I can have or how much water I'm allotted where I can live how much education I'm allowed, really live or die...
I'm a problem for the global governance planed. There are a few million like me who think I have some kind of "natural rights" on this earth. Most of us are Americans who believe this nonsense about freedom natural rights etc.
Knowing this who do you think is in the gun sights of the globalist ilk? Not natives in the bush hunting and gathering I'll tell you that. It guys like me Americans who believe we have some kind of "Rights". Guys use to driving a car taking a vacation, leaving their kids better off than they were. Working to supply American the higest standard of loving in the world and never being satisfied no mater how high the standard always working to better Americans! Yes even at the expense of others! Americans 1st... Always striving to be self sufficient. Not interdependent!!!
When the culling begins it will be the group that's the biggest threat to their plans...THINK who that going to be and they don't have to be obvious ... bird flew, vaccination's?
These people want clean air fresh water etc. all that anyone wants. They want to see Indians hunting buffalo as they drive interstate 80. They want you dead or living in a small cube next to a train rail to get you to work supporting THEIR elite life styles they let you watch and dream of Thursday night on celebrity TV..
They already insult us every day calling us CONSUMERS this implies you contribute nothing to society you just consume! useless feeder!!! better wake up!!!
Hey, I have a novel idea: Why don't we stop subsidizing stupid people's babies. If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. Stop being a sanctuary country where anchor babies and their parasite parents get food stamps, healthcare and education at the expense of everyone else trying to make a living? How about we not give fucking amnesty for illegals and allow them to pay LESS in college tuition than an American who lives in another state. Stop giving people incentives is, well, a good incentive to not breed like cockroaches.
Whether people want to face it or not, the fat inevitably remains that we live on a planet with finite resources -- and unless or until we reach a point in our technological development which enables us to move out into space on a large scale (which ain't happening anytime soon), this means that infinite growth is not only not sustainable but simply not possible. Like it or not, what this also means is that the number of people who can be ethically supported on this planet -- preferably, a manner which does not depend on large numbers of people dying of hunger, or polluting the planet so that future generations are unable to obtain the resources they need to survive -- is also finite.
The current paradigm is certainly neither an ethical one nor a particularly sustainable one, when it's estimated that as many as fifteen million children die each year from hunger alone while hundreds if not thousands of pounds of food go to waste during the same period in more technologically advanced societies. How an anyone call this a good thing?
Just as one example, turning to more creative methods of plant cultivation such as hydroponics (which conserves water as well as soil) or aquaponics (in which fish and plants are cultivated side-by-side and benefit each other) would increase carrying capacity since it would enable us to supply more people with enough food and water for survival. Increased reliance on solar power is another. It's not as if the resource is in short supply, so we might as well take advantage of it. As I see it, two of the biggest problems we face as a species are 1) resistance to change, and 2) an unwillingness to compromise (refusing to be satisfied with anything less than a wasteful and extravagant lifestyle, refusing to explore alternative sources of energy because they are too abundant and can't justify huge profits, etc.) It's not as if we lack ability, ambition, ingenuity, or imagination...what we lack is proper motivation and willingness.
Post a Comment