Dont get me wrong I’m not suggesting a cull. I’d like to see ioverpopulation adressed in an organised humane way but if not then let the new world order do what they like.

As much as I hate the oligarchy that in reality runs the world, I’d rather they were in charge and deal with population than we continue the way we are and wait for a virus or world war three to deal with the problem that is overpopulation.

Just because something doesn’t fit your world view or moral compass doesnt meen its not an issue. I appretiate most of the points and comments posted above but Dr. Eric Tangumonkem get real. If god existed would he be OK with the elimination of 99.99999999999% of his creation (and probably us too if we carry on this way). Even the bible states we are stewards and right now we are acting like butchers and yes we (I meen all of us, you me everybody, predominantly in the west) are responsible!

I would happilly defend my stance to anybody. Feal free to show me where im going wrong and enter into constructive debate. Stating your wrong or its all OK does not make it so. Oh and for religiouse people I use logic and rationality if thats too much for you sorry but thats how you find answers not through myth and superstition at best.

I am an atheist but am exceptionally moral because I view myself as human rather than this or that. All man is my neighbour and I would like to be able to treat them as such but the systems we live in do not allow this. Everything we live in is a human construct and we can change it. I think most of us are aware we need to! Any constructive suggestions or intelligent debate would be more than happilly received

aparently, these same people who think are defending the divine right of man to reproduce and subdue our planet do not have the slightest notion that already fourth of our population IS starving and do not even have drinkable water.

They do not have the notion that we must protect biodiversity which is threatened by our expansion not just because its beautiful, but ultimately because we as a species depends on these other species in order to survive.

and, again, they never give any solution or proof that there´s no problem, against every evidence is provided all they do is to just dismiss the problem

The core issue is this: are we as a species better off with a steady state world population of 1 GP (gigapersons), featuring large open natural spaces, or 100 GP, featuring mega-cities with large numbers of folks crammed in close proximity to each other, and driving species that get in our way extinct?

Questions: What is the advantage accrued to homo sapiens to having more than 1 GP? What is the advantage accrued to the elephant (pick your favorite non-human species) to having more than 1 GP?

Charlie G

First off, you say that there’s lots more space for people. 2 points: first of all a lot of the space on this planet is either ocean or marginal land, that people can’t even build on, much less farm. I don’t know exactly what land you think could actually be used for farming, but chances are it can’t be done in any sustainable manner – as it is a lot of the world’s farmland (e.g. most of the american midwest, as well as all the rainforest being cut down in the amazon to clear farmland) is completely unsustainable due to rapid topsoil depletion. Secondly, even if we could feed everyone (at the expense of every other living thing on the planet except the the things we eat), and even if we had infinite resources to just keep building and building, do you actually want to live in a world with billions more people? Take a moment and imagine what that would actually be like. With population doubling every 7 years, how long would it take before the whole planet looked like Soylent Green? Do you really want your children to have to live in that world?

And let me add, I’m not some academic leftist. Most leftists don’t want to talk about overpopulation because of its implications (i.e. that the 3rd world is the problem, or that it may imply limiting peoples “reproductive rights” – which of course would only piss off the feminists). Obviously you’ve never actually interacted with any of these people. Most of them are far more concerned with human welfare than the welfare of the biosphere – in fact they could care less unless it affects what they perceive as human well-being directly.

I really have no idea if really there is some new world order trying to reduce overpopulation or not. But frankly, if there is, I can imagine that they would be smart enough to be doing something about overpopulation simply because they would realize it would be a threat to their dominance (the people at the bilderberg conferences or whatever its called now aren’t dumb, anyway). Not because overpopulation and the environmental crisis is a good scare tactic, but because it is a threat that is all too real. Debate the ethics of their methods if you want, but denying that human beings, especially six billion human beings, have a negative impact on the rest of the planet is beyond ludicrous. And frankly, I don’t see you coming up with any better solutions.

I think people like you just don’t want to believe that human-beings aren’t the apex of creation or the center of the universe. Sorry, but whether you like it or not, its that view that is killing all other life on this planet. You can’t honestly believe that human beings dumping crap in the atmosphere and in the water for 200 years is not going to have an impact? Human beings aren’t a disease (we’re just a species among many), but when there’s far too many of us we sure seem like one, given what we’re doing to the planet.

And I’m sorry, but the earth for me is the ultimate good, because I happen to live on it, and my children are going to live on it, and I don’t want to see my home become a total hole because of some self-absorbed new agey punks who still think their species is the center of the universe.

And believe me. those of us, who actually love life and creation will fight with our lives to see it prevail.