There are too many people in the world.
This is a common statement I see on forums and comment pages, hear in conversions and pseudo-debates in bars and with friends. When I actually ask them to explain their position their logic reveals itself to be circular. That is, ‘it’s just obvious, isn’t it?’
Now I happen to know the majority of people do not actually think. They react to stimuli, like lab rats. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the majority of the position’s the unwashed masses have are actually imprinted by the State and Corporate Media, and at no point actually reflect conclusions brought by their own investigation and research.
Again, excuses spill forth. ‘I don’t have time for that’, ‘I’ve got better things to do’, ‘I’m not interested’.
(And people wonder why I am a misanthropist.)
So, in this little article I want to touch briefly on the subject of ‘overpopulation’. I’ve seen this come up on articles talking about the biofuels scam contributing to mass starvation in developing countries, and increasing wealth stripping from developed ones. But no matter, reducing C02 (that pesky gas responsible for enabling photosynthesis, and which constitutes about 35 parts in 100,000 of the atmosphere) is more important than millions of lives. Why? Because that box in your living room said so.
‘Yeah well there are too many people in the world anyway’.
The conversations I’ve experienced regarding population are generally based on emotions and imprinted statements, not logic, research and critical thinking. But television use destroys critical thinking, so I expect nothing less.
Why do people subscribe to the overpopulation position so easily? Apart from the issue of imprinting, there is the issue of location. Increasingly, more and more people are living in urban centres, which by definition are built up, densely populated areas.
These people look out of their windows and see nothing but flats, houses and more people. So they assume they are too many people. Because right in front of them, are a lot of people. Just look at this map of London.
Again, it shows lack of thinking. If they lived here, their initial opinion may be a bit different.
The final issue is based on the television again, and the images of poverty stricken third world nations. No food, no clean water, abject desolation. Somehow people assume that it is because of population. Third world birthrates are the highest in the world, but there is a reason for that I’ll get to later (and Neo-Malthusians ignore.)
Anyway, let’s look at the statement ‘the world is overpopulated’. First we need to get some numbers.
The current population is approx. 6.5 billion. The Earth’s land mass is approx. 148,940,000 sq km of which an estimate of one eighth is comfortably habitable, according to Wikipedia. I think that is a bit conservative, but whatever, lets go with it.
This leaves 18,617,500 sq km (148,940,000 / 8) that us horrible peasants can burden Gaia with.
We now need to come up with a general area which is comfortable, per home. We can start with average areas for urban living. That would be, in flats. Not quite like these, let’s pick something bigger. How about this place? Two bedrooms, two bathrooms. (£660,000 by the way) and about 896 sq ft (let’s say 900 sq ft, I’m feeling generous.) No garden or anything, so no growing your own produce. Leave that to the centralised corporations. Can’t have people independent of the Corporate State now can we.
Current avg. living space = 900 sq ft (for two people.) We should reduce it for an individual. So let’s say 650 sq ft per serf.
Now let’s look at an acre and connect it to a square kilometer. (You’ll see why in a minute.)
1 sq km = 247 acres.
1 acre = 43, 560 sq ft.
43, 650 / 650 = approx. 66 people per acre. We of course, are not considering multi-level complexes. In which case 650 sq ft could accommodate more. Two floors would of course, double the number of people per plot. But let’s keep this simple for now.
But seeing as I’m a nice Master of the World, let’s give people more space. 66 per acre is stingy. Let’s say 16 homes per acre. No, let’s make it 12. (More room to grow food, have cute little streets and the like.)
1 acre = 43, 560 sq ft / 12 = 3, 630 sq ft per person. Pretty generous I’d say. Less would enable more other spaces, parks, communal fields and whatnot.
So, 12 people per acre. 247 acres per sq km. 12 * 247 = 2,964 homes per sq km.
With 18,617,500 sq km of habitable area on this beautiful planet, multiplied by 2,964 (homes per square kilometer) = 55,182,270,000
What’s that? 55.1 billion homes? 55.1 billion big homes that is, not dingy little flats that the elites like to give us serfs in the
panopticons urban centres. If we were going to use those hive holes, the capacity would be more like:
50 flats per acre * 247 = 16,302 per sq km. * (again by lets say, 5 floors) = 81,510 flats. Let’s reduce that to 70,000 flats because I’m a nice guy.
We then multiply 70,000 by 18,617,500 to get the max capacity of flats on Earth.
That number is 1,303,225,000,000 flats. 1.3 trillion. Approximately 200 times the current level.
In reality of course, that would be impossible to sustain (or even reach). So let’s go back to the much lower capacity of 55.1 billion homes.
Remember, 55.1 billion plots of land at approx 3,000 sq ft each. Quite nice. Building smaller, (and upwards) results in more land to cultivate. It can also increase the capacity of people per household, something to be expected, considering the majority of homes are occupied by families. To say 70% of homes contain families is fair I think, considering data from UK National Statistics. Family would be three or four people. Let’s say three.
While we are at it, let’s reduce the number of available homes 75%. More space for the children to play in, play football, have picnics and stuff.)
55,100,000,000 – 41,325,000,000 = 13,775,000,000 homes.
Still twice the current population. Now let’s factor in families. 70% of the homes would contain families of three or four, as birthrates in developed nations drop as they industrialise, hence the current replacement of Western populations with immigrants by the State.
Underestimating again, we’ll stick with families of three. 70% of 13,7 billion is 9,642,500,000. Multiply that by three people per home and you arrive at 28,927,500,000 people in 70%. Add the singles (mostly feminists, probably) in;
28,927,500,000 + 4,132,500,000 = 33,060,000,000 people.
You can halve that again and still be at about twice current levels. Another way of looking at it is;
Thus, only about one eighth of each imaginary plot of land distributed to each person is land which is under cultivation. In effect, each person has a piece of land about 26,000 square feet (a square 161 feet on each side or just a bit more than ½ an acre) at his or her disposal on which to grow all that he or she needs. – Surface Area of the Earth
The reality is that there is plenty of space and the biosphere is more than capable of providing food for the world’s current population. The distribution of the world’s wealth and power is the real problem.
The report found the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total of global assets. Half the world’s adult population, however, owned barely 1% of global wealth. – The Guardian
It is in the interests of the global elite to keep the third world destitute. Allowing them to develop (to industrialise) would present competition to their global hegemony. Wiping out the ‘negro race’ is also part of their eugenics agenda, as stated by the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger;
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people – Quotes from Margaret Sanger.
While Planned Parenthood’s current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925), “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), and many others. – The Truth About Margaret Sanger.
Planned Parenthood of both Idaho and Ohio accepts money from a donor who openly shares his racist agenda to “lower the number of Blacks in America.”
Henry Kissingers’ NSSM 200 (1974) also had a fair bit to say about population control, the threat of developing nations and the need to control them;
NSSM 200 similarly concluded that the United States was threatened by population growth in the former colonial sector. It paid special attention to 13 “key countries” in which the United States had a “special political and strategic interest”: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. It claimed that population growth in those states was especially worrisome, since it would quickly increase their relative political, economic, and military strength.
A second measure was curtailing food supplies to targetted states, in part to force compliance with birth control policies: “There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID [U.S. Agency for International Development] and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.” NSSM 200 – SCHILLER INSTITUTE
Neo-Malthusians are an adjunct, a limb of the elites’ agenda for control over the human race. Population, like any chaotic system cannot be accurately modelled without using differential equations (as far as I know.) There are a huge number of variables that affect the outcome. As the initial values change (as a sum of the previous iteration of equations) all of the variables change again. That is why they use simplified computer models. (Difference equations, which use a quantised input.) These models which can be distorted with the greatest of ease.
Still, they churn out graphs and pie charts to convince the masses of whatever they want them to believe.
The myth of overpopulation represents merely another Dialectical Framework to convince the masses of greater State control over their lives, another myth would be anthropogenic global warming. In fact the two tie together quite nicely. The overpopulation scam being a foundational position for the C02 scam.
Carbon Cult sickos are under fire for an interactive website that tells children they should die because they emit CO2 – The Register.
Two birds with one stone, as they say. Remember, this article is not some peer-reviewed masterpiece, just a bit of simple maths exploring the subject of population.
For more information regarding the elites’ depopulation agenda (too big a subject for this article) I suggest watching Alex Jones’ Endgame. You can view it here.