Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

World Population To Surpass 7 Billion

August 22, 2011 by  

World Population To Surpass 7 Billion

Demographers at the National Institute for Demographic Studies (INED) predict the world population will surpass 7 billion people this year, with increased birth rates in Africa offsetting birth rate drops elsewhere. According to a recent study released by the INED, population growth worldwide will steadily increase until the total stabilizes between 9 billion and 10 billion by the end of the century.

“INED expects it to take a further 14 years to reach eight billion people before the figures start stabilising, according to the study which pulls together research carried out by the United Nations, the World Bank and several major national institutes,” read an Agence France-Presse article. “Just seven countries now account for half the world’s population, and therefore their demographic shifts have a major effect. China tops the list with over 1.33 billion people, with another 1.17 billion in India.”

In an analysis of population growth for Science, discussed by an NPR article, Demographer David Bloom of the Harvard School of Public Health agrees that the majority of the world’s population growth will come from developing countries in the coming decades, and that can have a negative impact on the rest of the world.

“Developing countries tend to be the most politically, economically, socially and environmentally fragile countries in the world,” Bloom said. “And the fallout of rapid population growth in those countries can spill over in many negative ways to other countries.”

According to the article, the Science editors “warn of ‘cluster bombs’ of demographic disaster in rapidly growing countries such as Nigeria and Pakistan that are already ‘hobbled by poor governance and… have huge numbers of poorly educated young adults without job prospects.’”

According to the article, this can be avoided, though: “But with wider access to contraception and concerted attention on infant and child health — basic vaccinations and primary health care — parents in developing countries will opt to have fewer children, who will have a better shot at a tolerable or even prosperous life.”

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “World Population To Surpass 7 Billion”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Doc Sarvis

    The high population and rapid growth in the third world countries are bad signs with dwindling resources (food, energy, clean water, etc.) that will cause enormous pressures/tensions on all countries.

    • Cliffystones

      You mean Sally Struthers didn’t solve all of that?

    • wandamurline

      Don’t worry, under Obamacare, they will be able to wipe out about 50% of the elderly population by withholding medical treatment and with all the radiation going on at the airports, women and men who fly frequently will find out in a few years that they are sterile. This corrupt government needs to be removed from office . . . most of them deserve to be hung on the cherry trees. But you will be safe as long as you stay young forever and never fly.

      • eddie47d

        The elderly will not be dying any faster under “Obamacare”. That is pure Right Wing propaganda to scare the begeebies out of everyone.

        • GregS

          So say the left wingers!

        • 45caliber

          eddie:

          Oblamacare is modelled after England’s system, including the panels. And those panels in England presently refuse treatment to retired people who cannot produce. What makes you believe those same panels won’t do the same thing here as money gets tighter? Recently, in England, a 15 year old girl died from swine flu because she wasn’t on the endangered list and therefore was refused a vaccination even though her mother offered to pay for it. That’s a death panel to me – and that wasn’t an elderly person.

      • GregS

        Well said, wandamurline!

      • Kate8

        wandamurline – I agree. The elderly and infirm are always among the first to go under communist regimes.

        Funny. The article mentions poor governance in Pakistan and Nigeria. I’d say that we aren’t far behind in the “poor governance” department. But then, we are now “ruled” by a Kenyan.

        Interesting, too, is that, in spite of the attempts at population reduction in Africa and other third-world countries, their numbers continue to escalate. What is happening is that OUR numbers are decreasing, and our population growth is from immigration from these third-world nations.

        Do you suppose that the idea is to wipe out those with higher intelligence and/or education? Third-world mentality is much easier to control. Plus, they are conditioned to dealing with death on a massive scale, so their numbers can be dealt with much more readily, with less backlash on the ruling class.

        • karel Eekels

          Yes Kate8, you are so right for those people who do not believe in that the elderly, sick and mentally ill will “go first” classified under the eugenic Hitler regime as “non-productive” were considered parasites.

          Hitler’s cash-strapped nation and his pundits were in need of all the resources they could put their hands on to fuel their war machine and only had use for healthy capable bodies that could be sent to the front lines. These “parasites” consumed food, fuel, electricity, and care they had no use for.

          So, they became creative by organizing day/field -trips (amusement parks-music festivals) where busses
          were pulled in front of the doors of these care centers to provide for a fun and nice day out for these subjects. What they did not know was they were in for a ONE-WAY trip. They did not know that they were entering a “mobile gas chamber”. These “parasites” were gazed during voyage not knowing that the exhaust pipes were directly channelled into the passenger compartment of the bus.

          Am not saying that these acts can be repeated today, but “we the people” should be on the alert of these specially appointed committees under the Obama regime, who decides on who is entitled to care, and how much resources should or can be allocated for the welfare of society. They cannot pull off ONE-WAY trips, but what scares me is that a special appointed government clerk will have the power and ability to
          determine the destiny of a US citizen. ” We the People” are well advised to be on high alert to see to that our current leadership is not becoming too creative!

          • Kate8

            karel – I’m sure they have even more creative ways to deal the “useless eaters” today. With technology the way it is, and the fiendish minds who are working with it…

          • Robert Smith

            Posted: “but “we the people” should be on the alert of these specially appointed committees ”

            Sure karel…

            And the insurance companies with a mandate to make money for the stockholders and overpaid executives aren’t ever going to withould any treatmennt (NOT).

            Rob

          • DanB

            “Do you suppose that the idea is to wipe out those with higher intelligence and/or education?”

            It isn’t the level of education, but rather the nature of the education that they seek to change here. Those of steeped in the principles of a Republic are the problem. They need to change saturation levels so that they have sufficient who are comfortable with a tyrannical government.

            Irony in all this debate about changing the environment in America is that the nation is founded on immigrants. How many of us natural born citizens know a legal immigrant? Sometimes it seems that they are more watchful, more interested, more involved in the cause of freedom in America then we are. I think this is the key for why our current immigration system is the way it is. By raising the bar on legal immigration (making it expensive and seeking only the “elites”) you then force the majority of immigrants to start breaking the law–to be illegal immigrants instead. You condition them to a state of fear and trepidation of the law of the land. They now fear the current government and you set them up to accept your vows of change in America, of revolution, even if it is the same tyranny many of them escaped. And since you’ve conditioned the majority of immigrants to break one law (immigration law), does this not then begin to alter how they perceive the laws of the land? You have broken that which would make them perhaps just as vigorous as defending freedom in America as those who have legally immigrated….

    • Dale on the left coast

      Didn’t Holdren and Ehrlick warn us back in the 60′s??? Remember “The Population Bomb”??? According to them we are not here now . . . LOL
      Everyone on the earth today would easily fit in Texas . . . while there are many inefficiencies as to distribution of food and water, especally in Africa . . . but, hasn’t the UN been working on that for about 65 years? It must be getting better . . . right???

  • Devasahayam

    The article quoted is way out-of-date already–as shown by the estimate of India’s population at 1.17 billion, I can guess it was done two years ago (the last census showed 1.21).

  • cerebus23

    7 8 9 10 billion

    anyone read daniel quin in the past? i guess we might ask when is the tipping point, global populations continue to swell, resources continue to shrink. when will the expansions and shrinking catch up to the entire world?

  • Mikey

    We are not the world’s babysitters. Maybe isolationism isn’t such a bad idea after all? If we would quit sending our hard-earned tax-dollars to these unappreciative 3rd world and Islamic countries they would think twice.

    • http://www.easyinvest.co.za peter

      Right Mikey – just one thing though, they do not think, they scheme….

    • wandamurline

      It would help if we offered them birth control pills and the men get tied, but then this would not be politically correct would it? These people and their kids starve…we send food…they get a little better and have more babies to feed…it is a vicious circle that never ends. The only way to stave off the growing population is to plan for children, but the uneducated in these third world countries do not know how to do this…so they will starve.

      • crystal

        I question that. Haven’t these civilizations been around long before the United States was ever even born? We’re the youngest nation on the planet. They can take care of themselves. Leave them alone.

        • Kate8

          crystal – Good point.

          Even the most primitive peoples have thrived until “civilized” man arrived and interfered, taking the land from the natives and relegating them to struggling for survival.

          And it’s all because of money. Prior to “civilization”, there is no need for money. People barter.

          I read somewhere that “civilization” is how the ruling elite organize us into slavery.

        • 45caliber

          crystal:

          We are not really the youngest nation on earth as you stated. There are several in South and Central Americas who are younger. And that doesn’t count the new governments that most have.

          Actually Israel is probably the youngest nation on earth right now. It was set up in 1947 or so.

      • eddie47d

        Wanda; Why do the Republicans/Libertarians discourage vaccinations too 3rd world countries? No vaccinations equal more deaths and fewer children surviving those early years.That would be a form of population control. Conservatives also stood fast against birth control and said nature should take it’s coarse. While most Americans are responsible about family planning it is almost non existent in some countries. Even newly arrived immigrants to America want several children or don’t know about means to control births. Education on family planning is a must for those entering the USA or the problems they came from will also be here.

        • Kate8

          eddie – That conservatives are against birth control is nonsense. We are, generally, opposed to abortion as a means of “family planning”.

          There are certain religious sects which are opposed to birth control.

          BTW, third-world immigrants have huge families because they want to dominate America, or whichever country they are in. It is the Left which has encouraged new arrivals to retain their own cultures rather than assimilate (but that’s a whole ‘nother story.

          As for vaccines…you need to update your education on that. They are now being used for much more sinister purposes than disease prevention. In fact, quite the opposite.

          But keep vaccinating yourselves and your own.

          • Emoke

            They make some interesting points here but do not address the why of poor governance. The facts that the two countries with the most population India and China do actively practice birth control and selective abortions will have no bearing on the population? We need to export birth control to developing nations since they are too stupid to look after themselves? Do we need more countries that selectively abort their girls once they are smart enough to do so?

            Maybe the US should stop supporting tin pot dictators and let the developing nations actually develop with private property rights and education.

        • Christin

          eddie47d,

          Go to http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=534

          Forced Vaccinations with Mercury preservative,
          Germ Warfare… HIV put into vaccinations given to unsuspecting Americans and Africans for population reduction and more…

          • Mikey

            I used to trust vaccines, but not any more. The government is now putting chemicals in them that causes brain cells to die and turns you into a liberal.

          • Kate8

            Mikey – :)

            Unfortunately, what you say is true!

          • 45caliber

            Mikey:

            So that is the reason we now have so many liberals, huh?

            Some years ago India, with one of the largest rising populations in the world, had a disease. The US provided the vaccinations (which worked). However, India’s government added to some of the vaccinations to sterilize any woman who had more than four children. The US had a fit when they heard about it so that hasn’t been done in most parts of the world since.

          • Kate8

            45 – Actually, vaccines are being used as a vector to disseminate sterilants. And much more, besides. They just don’t tell us that’s what they’re doing.

            When people have increasing degenerative diseases and earlier death rates, they just don’t think to trace back to childhood vaccines. They are meant to be slow acting, and some are activated by successive innoculations or other chemical/pathogenic exposure.

            Technology and medicine are very insidious today. There’s a reason why the top microbiologists are being killed off. Don’t forget, the people who own these systems are bent on massive reduction in population.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        If the third world countries are so poor why do their populations grow. You would think that if you are starving the first thing that would disappear from the body is the sex drive. It is only in developed countries that the populations’ sex drive is gone and few are reproducing.

      • 45caliber

        wanda:

        They do plan for children. They also plan for most of those children to die before they reach adulthood. Even when things change to more children live, they still have the fears of the past. How can they be SURE that they will have more children live? Particularly if the government is fairly new – and most are even if the countries are old.

        There was an island in the Pacific where the parents would have as many as 25 kids – but seldom more than two lived to be adults. (10% lived.) The US sent in people and that changed to about 95% living. The people still weren’t certain so they continued to have 25 kids. And the US couldn’t understand why they had a population explosion.

        We take it for granted that we will continue to have the same medical care, the same quality of doctors, the same amount of food each year available, etc. But most of those in other countries know that it is likely the new hospital will get blown up in the next uprising, that famine is likely within a couple of years at the most, that the uprising will result in a new government that may or may not be willing to protect them, etc.

    • Song

      Yeah, we really like to “babysit” apparently. That is what all of the government funded programs from food stamps to subsidized housing are all about. If you think for one minute, that all of this “aide for the needy” is about helping people, think again! It only oppresses the people that it is designed to “help” because nothing is required from the people who are on the receiving end (speaking of aide to Americans that is) and there is no motivational factor for most of the welfare class to actually improve their lives. To make matters even worse, the sense of entitlement is so inbred that many of Americans on government assistance believe that is what is “owed” to them and are not even grateful for the assistance they do get. I entered the world of social work as a kind-hearted, naive person wanting to “help” and after working everyday with families that are considered “needy” have found the opposite to be true. We are not helping with all of our “hand outs” to people who are considered “poor”. We merely aggravate the problem and create an even greater attitude of entitlement. It is sickening.

      • Emoke

        Well put. Having whole countries be welfare states only lets brutal dictators maintain power. Education is the key not support.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      They know our nature and they know we will not stop sending aid and the more they yowl about how poor they are, the more aid we will send.

  • Thor

    This is an important story, Marcy, one which people seem reluctant to think about.

    Given just a few of the simplest and most accessible facts, one must wonder what folks at the demographics institute are doing to the working algorithm—specifically the one that has been used for the last 60 years.

    Case in point: within the last fifty years, the world population has risen from 3.7 billion people to 6.9 billion–that is, it has doubled in less than one life span. That does not become an appalling figure until one considers the fact that it had not doubled in any previous 3 life spans (due in part to WWII), and that over half the people alive today were born after 1968. What is more, neither the deaths of an estimated 50 million people in World War II nor the deaths of some 75 million people (or between 1/4 and 1/3 of the total population as of 1954–within sixty years) in various wars since have caused even a slight hiccup in present population figures. If a million people can die within a few days, as in Rwanda, and population of the world does not even blink, what are the implications of such population growth? If these appalling figures, in addition to all the other statistics that depict other causes of death combined cannot significantly affect population growth–or, if they have, and yet the population has still doubled–then we had better be considering solutions for over-crowding, not just of individual countries, but of the entire planet.

    Now they are predicting only a 33% increase in the next 80 years. Exactly what kind of parameters are they figuring in now to inhibit the exponential rise in population we’ve witnessed in the last 50 years?

    Once again, it is what they are not telling us—or, what the press does not report—that is most telling.

    The article touts birth control and contraception as a remedy. The fact is the exponential increase in population has occurred since the various means of contraception were discovered. The fact is we abort over 4.2 million people per year in the US alone.

    Here are some other facts rarely, if ever, mentioned in news stories:

    Human beings are perhaps the most adaptive species on earth, yet they are constrained by physical limitations to less than 1/5 of the earth’s surface, to temperatures between freezing and 100 degrees Fahrenheit and to elevations from sea level to about one mile.

    The earth has 52,700,000 square miles of land surface. Scientists estimate that under pristine conditions (that’s without agriculture) it takes about five square miles per person to supply enough food for a year. Using the pristine existence of our hunter-gatherer days as a base line, to sustain today’s population without agriculture the land mass of the earth would have to be 34.5 trillion square miles. The volume of a planet that size would easily accommodate four solar systems out to and including the orbit of Pluto.

    Given today’s population and the amount of land mass available, the ratio is 131 people per square mile. But this figure does not account for the fact that much of the land mass is totally uninhabitable under reasonable conditions that is to say, without extraordinary effort. Best estimates put the amount of inhabitable land at 20% of the total, which comes to about 10.54 million square miles and 655 persons per square mile if spread out evenly over the inhabitable land. But, less than 2% of the available land mass is of arable quality. That is 1.054 million square miles. Although every square foot of arable land is not in use today, if it were, that would mean that every square mile of arable land would have to sustain the lives of 6,547 people.

    It is a simple matter to extrapolate these figures to a population of 9 billion and that is a ‘conservative’ figure. With 2% of the arable land unused and more than that being turned into neighborhoods every year, well, one does not really have to be a fan of global warming to see where this is going. Morality, politics, legal population controls, abortion, contraception, reproductive education, war, disease—none of these has put a damper on human population growth, which means either we try harder or nature will.

    By far, the most effective means of population control used by humankind thusfar is war—which leaves us with a frightening prospect.

    • crystal

      I prefer to let nature handle her business.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Nature is more cruel than men..

    • eddie47d

      Excellent Marcy and Thor and those are becoming the real “facts of life”

    • Daniel

      The reason the world’s population is still growing so fast is because of momentum. Quite a few of the more populous contries are already below replacement levels. Japan, with 128 million people, just within the last couple years became the first first-world country to actually start DROPPING in total population. Iran, with 75 million, is right at replacement level. Vietnam, with 87 million, is just above replacement level, but probably won’t be for long. It’s quite easy to find out this sort of thing with a little research.

      • Kate8

        Daniel – If populations are declining, how to you explain that we’ve now hit 7billion and climbing?

        BTW, I’ve read the reports you cite, but it is only the economically viable peoples who opt for fewer or no children. The third-world continues to explode. Now THAT is unsettling.

        Then again, it seems that the Earth moves in cycles, and at the end of the major cosmic ones the Earth is cleansed and returned to her pristine state to begin again. It would appear that we are rapidly approaching that time once more.

        Being that Earth has been spinning and sailing through the galaxy for billions of years (no, I don’t believe it was created 6,000 years ago. That was just the beginning of this cycle), we haven’t started trampling each other, yet. I think God took volume into consideration when he created this whole system, and if we’d stop trying to manipulate and engineer everything it would flow much more smoothly.

        But then again, maybe our interferrence is just another part of the plan for our lessons in faith, trust and reliance on the Supreme Being.

        • Kate8

          BTW – You’ve, no doubt, seen pictures of the “ghost cities” in China, built and awaiting for…(?)

          At any rate, it demonstrates that, even in China (with their billion + population) there is still a great deal of unused land, and it can’t all be uninhabitable. And, I understand, that Russia has tons of open space. Lots of folks have learned to live under 20′ of snow.

          Many of the northern peoples are also fleeing to South America, where there is still lots of beautiful open land, and much more freedom than here. (It is said that the Earth calamities to come will wipe out mainly the Northern Hemisphere.)

          It’s just that we try to cluster the population into “manageable” areas of density. I suppose it’s easier to get more rapid fatalities that way, should a super-bug (or something) strike.

          • 45caliber

            Kate8:

            I’ve seen a report on those ghost cities in China. Apparently China pays the various cities based on housing and not on the actual number of people. So the cities continually build buildings they don’t need to increase the amount of money given them by their national government. With their reducing population (and China is the ONLY country that wants that) they have huge areas that are empty now.

            Another good example of how some government rule can create things not needed and take away money from things that are needed.

          • Kate8

            45 – That is one theory.

            There is not only housing, but commercial space, as well.

            Seems strange to me.

            BTW, is their population actually declining?

      • 45caliber

        Daniel:

        Most developed countries of the world such as America and Europe already have reducing populations. That’s why they allow so much immigration – even illegal immigration. Their government costs depends on increasing taxes from an increasing population every year. With a reducing popultion, they can’t do that. Japan won’t be the first country with a reducing population – China is already, partly due to government laws. The reason Japan will likely reach that level is that the costs to live there are so high – people can’t afford a family so they wait until their early 40′s and have one child. Both Japan and China prevent immigration.

        However – and Sweden is a good example – most countries tend to encourage immigration through entitlement programs such as welfare, free medical care, etc. Most of those they have moving in are there for that and not for jobs. And as their own people see this, they get on those programs too. Why work hard when others, from other countries, don’t bother to work at all?

        One immigrant allowed into Sweden some years ago was an 86 year old woman. She came so she could get welfare and free medical care in her old years since she had little family and no care in her own country. Why on Earth would the government want to bring in an 86 year old? THere is absolutely no way they could collect any money from her. But – they wanted others and had to take her to encourage others to come.

        • Kate8

          45 – It makes sense when you realize that the NWO elite, who control most western governments, have planned the economic bankrupting and collapse of these systems, just as they are doing here.

          Offering entitlements to anyone and everyone is part of that, along with multiculturalizing, which divides and weakens national unity.

  • http://www.easyinvest.co.za peter

    Did you say stabilize? By the end of the century? Wow, if anybody thinks there will be that many folks around then and maybe even that anyone will still be around by then, they are hugely optimistic and probably need help.

  • crystal

    Well, there’s one place that doesn’t have to worry about over-population — CALIFORNIA. People are running out of here as fast as they can.

    • eddie47d

      California has a population of 37,254,000 and the highest in the nation. Those people are leaving to make more room for themselves in other states which will eventually over populate those states.Sometimes I think the USA is a nomadic nation but moving doesn’t cure the problems with over population. We are still lucky enough as a young nation to be able to handle it. Some of these other countries waited until it was too late and guess where their people want to come to?

      • Kate8

        crystal – As a life-long Californian, I can tell you that it’s the US citizens who are leaving this state.

        The third-world populations ae dominating us now. There are many cities where, if you dare enter them, you’d swear you were in Asia, the middle east or Latin-America. And Americans are not welcomed.

        And don’t expect to be able to communicate. They don’t speak English.

        Where I live, it was still an American stronghold until a few years ago. Now we are being inundated by foreigners, as well. Once they start, they quickly take over, by design. And they don’t respect our ways and they keep to themselves, squeezing us out.

        That, coupled with the devastating socialist economics, is why Americans are fleeing. And the state government is continuing to expand the policies that are destroying California.

        One might think they are doing it on purpose. Duh.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          It is Americans that cannot be controlled, any others can easily be controlled and manipulated.
          The answere to your speculation if this is done on purpose, of course it is.

          • Kate8

            Nadzieja – It wasn’t really a question. I was being facetious.

  • chuckb

    keep sending food to africa, the more you feed them, the more they breed, the more starvation. (an article from our local newspaper 1890′s) even then they knew the problem.

    if you think africa is a problem check out south america, the same is in the process there. the islands in the carribean, check out haiti.

    this is a problem that only population control can handle and it better be applied immediately.

    let nature take it’s course.

    • Kate8

      chuckb – Of course, in Africa, Islamic armies have been on the rampage for some time, and have gained much ground. We’ve certainly allowed them free reign there.

      It is said that only the strong survive, and the strong tend to prey upon the weak. Maybe that’s why the primitives keep up such high birth-rates. (You wouldn’t think they’d be so fertile, given their nutritional insufficiencies.)

      At any rate, it’s too bad peoples can’t be left to develop on their own. They’d probably do much better than being forced into modern civilization, not being allowed to innovate at their own pace.

  • chuckb

    kate8, you are right. those people in africa are no diff3erent than what we have here, once you get them on the welfare role, you can never get them off.

    it’s a matter of sink or swim, they either improve their status in this world or they don’t. if we continue to send food they will only reproduce and will make no effort to improve their lot. we should leave the african nations alone. haiti is a prime example, people should take note.

    welfare is a very generous thing most likely propagated by christianity, however, we have misused the intent’ people and politicians have taken advantage.

    • 45caliber

      chuckb:

      I have no problem with helping people help themselves in bad times. If there is a famine, I have no problem feeding them – as long as AT THE SAME TIME there is an effort to provide them with water from wells, train them, etc. In too many cases, we simply feed them. Sooner or later they get the idea that they no longer need to work and they are offended if somehow we can’t provide their meals on time.

  • 45caliber

    In the developed countries of the world, it costs too much to raise children without giving the children a worse live that you have yourself. Further, in the developed countries, it is possible to expect to see any child born reach maturity.

    In undeveloped countries, it still costs to have children but you can hope to put them to work. And when your living on the very bottom already, another child isn’t that much of a problem. And in many places in the world, even today, a child may or may not live long. But as the countries develop, they do have a greater life expectancy – but the parents still have this unconscious need to have a dozen or more kids, hoping at least a couple will live to be adults.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So are we rational human beings or just plain animals?

    • 45caliber

      When did rationale ever come into having children? We have them because we want them – or we don’t have them because we can’t afford them. Right now the developed countries have less than replacement births and would have a shrinking population if it wasn’t for immigration.

      And those in the developing countries don’t want to take a chance that their government is lying to them when it tells them they don’t need to have two dozen kids to have a couple grow up.

  • 45caliber

    There is one major problem with this number of people – food.

    It is possible for the US to grow enough food to feed the world even at today’s population levels – although it would have to be distributed. Many other places in the world can do the same thing. We can certainly feed ourselves. But the government puts too much emphasis on getting our food from other places in the world.

    At one time, our government would buy excess food and store it for five years. We had enough stored food to feed ourselves if every crop failed for at least five years. (The older grain would be given to countries like India for food instead of foreign aid dollars.) But they no longer do that. Instead they pay farmers to NOT grow food. As one man commented years ago, “They pay me to not grow cotton, to not grow peanuts, to not grow corn, to not grow rice, to not grow other things. Then I put my land in the Land Bank and they pay me to not grow anything. I get more money to not grow everything than if I grew everything. And it is a lot easier on the back!”

    You know how much food the government has saved back for emergencies now? Zero. Nothing.

    If we miss one crop anywhere in the world for any reason, people will starve – and they could easily starve here as well as anywhere else.

    We need to grow and start stockpiling food again. For I’m going to bet that sooner or later we will need that extra food to keep from starving. And if it isn’t there, you can expect to see not only starvation but war as those without try to take it from those who have it.

  • chuckb

    45, the african people reproduce faster than any race on earth. they have spread out over the african continent and overpopulated many areas.
    that is one of the reasons south africa fell to the communist, the immigration into south africa caused a huge problem, some what like we are facing with the illegal’s.
    you will also note, the environmentalist have shut down huge areas in the central valley agriculture land in california, shut off their water supply or to protect some varmint or bug. they have made us dependent on agriculture from outside the u.s.. is this intentional?

    • 45caliber

      chuckb:

      As a large group, they do. But there are many groups all over the world that have as many children. The only difference is that Africans have the aid from developed countries like the US to help keep those kids alive.

      But they still have the kids for basically the same reasons. They expect many of them to be killed or die.

      And as for your questions about the environmentalists shutting down areas of agriculture to protect some bug – yes, it is intentional. In many cases, those bugs or whatever else are not endangered, usually can be transplanted elsewhere if needed for preservation, and are basically useless even as food for the other critters. And most of those involved are hypocrits when it comes to themselves. Pelousy, for instance, shut down irrigation water to thousands of farmers to protect some fish – but she has an exception for her own vineyards so she can have as much water as she wants.

      • Kate8

        45, You are right. And they claim that a species in endangered in order to shut down a farm or industry when, in fact, the same species exists in other places.

  • chuckb

    45, i disagree, they have no purpose when having children, those people are high breeders and they are ignorant of the responsibility of having children. the same thing is taking place in south america, the blacks are breeding rampantly. check out rio de janeiro, brazil. this used to be one of the most beautiful and clean cities in so. america now it is a pit for drug dealers, the city is in shambles. the ghetto’s have overrun the city. years ago i spent two month’s there and i can speak from experience. unless we as a society can curb this population explosion we are all doomed, it will lead to war and total destruction of life as we know it.
    sending food to these people is like feeding a lion in your backyard, everything is fine until you run out of food. then guess what.

    • Kate8

      chuckb – You are probably right about that. They may not intentionally set out to have so many children. They just don’t practice any form of birth control.

      Considering that they have superstitions like having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS…, well, need I say more.

      They are just following their animal instincts.

  • chuckb

    kate8, you are right.

  • Simian Pete

    I hope before 2101 AD we have 40 BILLION people here one Earth with another 40 BILLION living, breathing and prospering people off planet – COLONIZING SPACE !!!!!!

    The ignorant Power Elites sure are going to try to slow everything down. The Resistance against the elites will someday develop the science and technology to thwart their evil plans. It’s happening right now !

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.