Overpopulation: Who is to blame?

[cynatnite]

Poll question: Overpopulation: Who is to blame?

This seems to be an issue for some who feel that having a baby or babies is irresponsible and contributes to overpopulation. It seems to me that it's short-sighted and narrow of vision to blame those who exercise their right to choose by having a baby.

But what about technology today? We live longer and are able to survive much more due to technology and science. Many people are making choices to extend their lives for as long as possible even to the point of straining resources that could be otherwise put to better use.

Who is to blame? What is the outcome and what can we do about it?

[Kenroy]

1. I had to vote Other

because I'm pretty sure these women aren't having babies all by themselves.

[cynatnite]

6. Women are the ones making the choice for the most part...

They're the ones carrying and delivering. They usually wind up giving majority of the care afterwards, too. That's why I didn't put parents or mothers and fathers.

[bloom]

34. I don't agree with that.

It may fall into the religious issue or the disempowerment of women that some have mentioned - but some women have as many kids as their husband wants and consider it to be his decision.

Yes - even today.

[cynatnite]

46. I do agree...

but, women still do the carrying, delivering and caring afterwards for the most part.

[bloom]

13. That's what I was thinking... eom

[etherealtruth]

37. I chose other as well ...

I believe it comes down to societies not education women or providing opportunities for women outside the family.

As education rates for women increase birth rates decrease.

[MissB]

2. You missed a category.

The Duggars.

[etherealtruth]

43. .

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[cynatnite]

65. Come to think of it...that may fall under the religion option...

She's having babies 'cause gawd keeps letting her.

[SammyWinstonJack]

71. That should have been a category all on it's own.

Sixteen kids, is she insane? Never mind, that's obvious.

[ewagner]

3. Ignorance is the blame

along with sexism
poverty
criminals

[sundog]

4. me

put the blame on me

i can handle it

[MissB]

8. You can't

handle the truth. Or something like that.

I still say it is the Duggars' fault.

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. Here's a question for you:

does the greater good trump the rights of the individual? If not, why not? If your answer to this is "no", I invite you to consider the implications.

[cynatnite]

12. Are you saying that we should force women to have abortions...

in order to keep a handle on the population? Should we tell women how many children they are allowed to have?

Those are the implications I am considering.

[Spider Jerusalem]

28. No...

but we shouldn't encourage irresponsibility, either. Excessive breeding should be discouraged; making it socially unacceptable to have 17 children would probably work better than attempting to enforce draconian population-control measures.

[cynatnite]

39. The woman with 16 children isn't that common these days...

I'd say it already is socially discouraged, but we shouldn't force our views on someone else who makes the choice to have more kids than we would.

I have ancestors who had 15 and more kids. Others here at DU talked about family members and parents who had a lot of kids, but these days having a large family isn't as common as it used to be.

This woman made the news because she had so many children. Fifty years ago no one would have thought twice or paid any attention.

[serryjw]

84. Time marches on

We were an agricultural country and many children helped. People grew there own food so they never starved. We had neighborhoods/communities where everyone watched out for each other. How do you get 17 kids in a car?,,,,,,,she needs a BUS. This is socially irresponsible. There is no way that she can be a good mother to 17 kids.This planet is being stretched to its limits and mostly with working poor un/under educated. The MOST any couple should have is the two that duplicates themselves.

[MADem]

40. Mandatory vasectomies would have the same effect!!!

Fix those fuckers, but good!!!

Please, no flames, just snarking...

[Megahurtz]

67. Lol!

Not bad!:D

[rinsd]

16. Without individuals rights to reproduction.....

...the "greater good" doesn't really mean much.

[Spider Jerusalem]

33. Well, you know...

without a sustainable future for humanity, it won't really mean that much, either; increasing overpopulation makes sustainability less and less likely. Considering that an ever-increasing global population uses ever-increasinhg quantities of dwindling unrenewable resources, how is the greater good of the future generations who shall be our inheritors being served?

[rinsd]

57. So your recommendations?

Because sacrficing the freedom to procreate is so basic, I am curious to hear how you think that would work out.

[serryjw]

85. Lets start with

a tax deduction for only 2 kids! Please no flame..The poster before you was correct. We are facing dwindling resources and we can not sustain people having more kids. I think we all agree; the way out of poverty is an education or a trade. How are you going to educate a baseball team?

[Jara sang]

7. That woman in Arkansas

[LissaM]

11. LoL!

That was good.

[edbermac]

15. And the Osmonds...

[Endangered Specie]

9. "Nature for not killing enough humans"... give it time.

Nature will indeed work out the overpopulation problem the same way it has always done in the past with other species.

[cynatnite]

17. I'm more likely to agree nature will decide for us n/t

[CrispyQ]

30. And it will be so much more harsh than any voluntary restrictions

we might place on ourselves!

[0rganism]

35. Well, that's nature *solving* the problem, not creating it

I do think pinning the "who's to blame" tag on nature for not fixing things earlier is passing the buck.

[Jack_DeLeon]

10. Politicans for passing too many laws to protect us from ourselves...

[TahitiNut]

14. Food production and distribution.

It's the same now as ever. :shrug:

[DebJ]

18. How much of an issue is overpopulation in the USA and Europe

today? When I was a child (born in 1955), and went to Catholic school, a small family was like ours, with four children. The largest families had 14 children, with the mothers still having children while their eldest daughters were doing the same thing.

Today, I see many people who do not want children at all, and many more who postpone childbearing until so late in life they might not even be able to have children at all without medical intervention. Substantially more than half of all people under age 25 have never even been married once. If fuel costs do what the scare stories are saying they will do, many people in poverty are going to die this winter, not just the homeless. Lower middle class families are going to be so squeezed that they will continue to postpone childbearing.

Seriously, how much of an issue is this? I am uniformed.

If a couple has only one child, doesn't that mean LESS people in the future, as they have not even replaced themselves? I thought I had read that the birth rate per family in the US was down to 1.5

As for countries like India, what is there to say?

[kenny blankenship]

26. Europe is very densely populated, the US has plenty of people in it

AFAIAC, (edited to amend acronym) we have too many ppl already. Of course it's true (or used to be not long ago) that without immigration the population levels of the US would be flat, and EU would even be in a decline.

"What you can say about countries like India?" What you can say about countries like India is, what more proof do we need that overpopulation is a disease spreader, a resource destroyer, a river choker, a crime fomenter, a city killer.

Unlike most of Eu, the US still has some beautiful wilderness areas available for its indigenous animals and to citizens of the country on a public access basis. Let's keep it that way.

[bloom]

48. Americans use way more than their share of resources

and pollute way more than their share of pollutants.


And even as the Chinese are adding 600 tons of mercury into the atmosphere per year - they mention that most of that is about making stuff for us.

[bloom]

69. more examples...

It's not just the numbers of people - it's how we are living and what it's doing to the planet:

Rise in asthma may be due to fetal exposure to toxins

"Exposure of developing fetuses and newborns to low levels of environmental toxins such as lead, mercury and dioxin, as well as nicotine and ethanol, could be behind the recent sharp rises in asthma, allergies and autoimmune disorders like lupus, says a Cornell University researcher."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x32704

----
EPA mercury limit exceeded in 21 % of women of childbearing age tested

EPA's limit of 1 microgram of mercury per gram of hair was exceeded in 21 percent (126 out of 597) of women of childbearing age tested (US).

Coal burning power plants are the nation's biggest mercury polluter, releasing 41 percent of the country's industrial mercury pollution. Mercury from these dirty power plants and other sources falls into lakes, streams and oceans, concentrating in fish and shellfish, which are then consumed by people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x32656

----
Seas Growing Acidity May Soften, Destroy Shells Of Marine Life - Guardian

Rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is threatening to make oceans too corrosive for marine organisms to grow protective shells, according to researchers. If emissions continue unabated, the entire Southern Ocean, which stretches north from the Antarctic coastline, and subarctic regions of the Pacific Ocean will soon become so acidic that the shells of marine creatures will soften and dissolve making them easy targets for predators. Others will not be able to grow sufficient shells to survive.

The loss of shelled creatures at the lower end of the food chain could have disastrous consequences for larger marine animals. North pacific salmon, mackerel, herring, cod and baleen whales all feed on pteropods or sea butterflies, one of the species under imminent threat. "These are extremely important in the food chain and what happens if they start to disappear is a great unknown," said Jim Orr, lead scientist on the study at the Laboratory for Science of the Climate and Environment in Gif-sur-Yvette, near Paris.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x32650

---

[yurbud]

19. Is this really a problem? We have more than enough food

most of the things that look like overpopulation problems are usually the result of political corruption or incompetence.

[bloom]

60. If that food were made in a sustainable way

it might be different.

The way it is now - we have all of the pesticides and such going into oceans - ocean life is being killed off by that and mercury pollution and other things (90% of large ocean life has been killed off recently).

The food production is also dependant on oil - from the fertilizers to the machines that do the farming and the transport. 10 calories of fuel are burned for every 1 calorie of food produced - and it's even less when you consider processed food.

What will happen when oil peaks and the means of food production are severely reduced?

Interesting show - the "End of Suburbia".

[yurbud]

73. it would take 6% of our crops to make fuel

the ag companies are onto this, but oil companies are still trying to keep a lid on it.

I for one would not care if they did their gmo crap on stuff I'm just going to burn in my engine instead of my colon.

[bloom]

77. Even if they did

figure out a way to keep up the food production to match or exceed the poplulation - there is still the problem of the toxins we are adding to the environment and to ourselves that are catching up with us.

The standard American lifestyle is not sustainable.


POLLUTION AND WASTES

"In the mid-1990s the rich countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development produced 1.5 billion tons of industrial waste and 579 million tons of municipal waste -- an annual total of almost 2 tons of waste for every person. The United States alone produced 214 million tons of hazardous waste -- almost half a kilo for every dollar of GDP29.

Perhaps the most intractable threats to the globe today relate as much to what we waste as to what we consume. Pollution places a mounting burden on local and planetary ecosystems. Ultimately it is exported to the global commons: the oceans and atmosphere, where our understanding of interactions is still inadequate. Sustainable management strategies are complex to devise and politically difficult to introduce.

In the process of making the end products we actually use, our machines dig up, churn over, swallow up and spew out gigatons of material. One study found that some 93 percent of materials used in production do not end up in saleable products but in waste, while 80 percent of products are discarded after a single use.

The result is a veritable avalanche of materials. In 1995, for example, the world produced 1.42 billion tons of cement -- about a quarter of a ton for every man, woman and child on Earth. Some 2.57 billion tons of sand and gravel were produced in the 52 countries for which data are available.

Figures on carbon dioxide (CO2) illustrate how the waste deluge has grown. Back in 1750, the human race produced only 11 million tons of CO2 from fossil-fuel burning and cement production. A century later this had grown 18-fold to 198 million tons, and in another century a further 30-fold to around 6 billion tons. By 1995 our annual CO2 output had multiplied by another four times to reach almost 24 billion tons.

These material flows have left deepening scars on the planet. The solid wastes that are not incinerated deface or pollute localized areas and water courses. Liquid and gaseous pollutants are more insidious and spread invisibly across the whole globe.

Humans raised the level of CO2 in the air from 280 parts per million in pre-industrial times to 363 parts per million in 1996. Over this same period we raised methane concentrations by 145 percent. There were no gaseous chlorines in the atmosphere before industrial times. By 1996 there were 2 731 parts per trillion, most of these produced in the 20th century.

Significant traces of organic and metallic pollutants are now found in the deepest marine sediments, in the remotest glaciers and icecaps, and in the fat of arctic mammals. Studies of human breast milk have found traces of more than 350 contaminants, including 87 dioxin and dioxin-like compounds and 190 volatile compounds."

http://atlas.aaas.org/index.php?part=1&sec=waste

[kenny blankenship]

20. You might want to save some of that blame for religions

which continue to foist an ideology of endless population increase on their flocks, without regard for any earthly consequences now crashing in around us.

[cynatnite]

21. I added that to the list of choices...

Good one I hadn't thought of. Thanks :)

[xchrom]

22. it's the fault of our culture, society.

we in the west live beyond what we need -- that's in direct opposition for how lived for much of our history.

in africa or india we live in mostly agrarian societies -- and bodies are continuously needed for production -- but regardless of poverty -- people are still living beyond need.

we can change these crcumstances -- but it isn't the fault of women or men but all of us and how we view wealth and need.

[jwirr]

23. While we women do have the babies it cannot be laid at our

feet totally - aren't you men in there somewhere? Seriously, the age of oil has allowed us to expand the capacity of the world for the last few generations BUT when peak hits and things start heading the other way then the extent of overpopulation will truly be seen. All the things that make life so easy now will be threatened and it will not be like it is today. Unless we wake up and begin making some alternative changes now we could end up like many third world nations are now.

[Chan790]

24. religion (edited headline to reflect poll editing)

I put the blame on religious conservatives for opposing birth control, abortion and comprehensive sexual education.

You'll notice that educated liberal nations have lower birth rates, the downside is those of us who actually care about overpopulation are (not) breeding ourselves to an extreme statistical minority while the morans are growing in number.

[eallen]

25. We know what causes overpopulation: lack of opportunity for women....

There is a pretty clear understanding of what causes high birth rates in the modern world. Where women have small educational, social, and professional opportunity, the fertility rate is high. This includes nations like Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan, etc. Go to the CIA World Factbook, and note the nations with high fertility rate, and the nations with low literacy for women. See the correlation?

In the first world, the fertility rate is below replacement. Europe and Japan face the opposite problem: an aging and shrinking population.

[gizmo1979]

27. Catholics

They are the no birth control religion.

[bloom]

29. I would say anyone who has more than 2 kids

I think just a family should take into account their own resources, people should consider the resources of the world as a whole and impact of people on it.

[cynatnite]

41. So it's my fault since I have three kids? n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

49. you OVERPOPULATING DEMON!!!!

:grouphug:

That is the closest smiley I could find for 'overhumping'... ;-)

subjectProoodigal

[cynatnite]

55. I'm passing the buck to my hubby...the horny devil ;)

:rofl:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

56. i am sure he will GLADLY accept blame...

but only YOU can prevent forest fires...or something like that ;-)

subjectProdigal

[arwalden]

31. Any Religion That Prohibits Birth Control Pills Or Condoms.

[ultraist]

81. Religion yes, but also governments that fail to distribute birth control

Our country could easily provide birth control (and sex edu) for not only our own citizens, but for people around the globe. But, the money is spent elsewhere, like on tax cuts for the wealthy and big corps.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

32. Read this and feel better From MIT

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/05/issue/feature_earth.asp

"Take population growth. For 50 years, the demographers in charge of human population projections for the United Nations released hard numbers that substantiated environmentalists’ greatest fears about indefinite exponential population increase. For a while, those projections proved fairly accurate. However, in the 1990s, the U.N. started taking a closer look at fertility patterns, and in 2002, it adopted a new theory that shocked many demographers: human population is leveling off rapidly, even precipitously, in developed countries, with the rest of the world soon to follow. Most environmentalists still haven't got the word. Worldwide, birthrates are in free fall. Around one-third of countries now have birthrates below replacement level (2.1 children per woman) and sinking. Nowhere does the downward trend show signs of leveling off. Nations already in a birth dearth crisis include Japan, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Russia—whose population is now in absolute decline and is expected to be 30 percent lower by 2050. On every part of every continent and in every culture (even Mormon), birthrates are headed down. They reach replacement level and keep on dropping. It turns out that population decrease accelerates downward just as fiercely as population increase accelerated upward, for the same reason. Any variation from the 2.1 rate compounds over time."

[MADem]

36. Yet our government gets shirty with the UN when they support

planned parenthood efforts in underdeveloped nations....

[cynatnite]

44. Interesting trend...

I'll read the entire article later.

Thanks :)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

45. the 2002 US fertility rate was below replacement

and is showing strong signs of continuing to drop in all of the sites I have looked over since this popped up. The West is not to blame for overpopulation by any stretch of the imagination. While the human population has grown from about 2 billion in the 1920's to nearly 6.5 billion today, the population of Western nations has only grown from about 650million to just over a billion (and is now falling)...

subjectProdigal

[cynatnite]

47. It's interesting this news isn't being widely reported...I had no idea. n/

[TallahasseeGrannie]

53. I am a teacher

and was at a "teaching the future" workshop and this was an article.

I figure being MIT it is reliable. A lot of things that scared the willies out of us don't appear to be happening. BUT they do give a lot of credence to global warming, so it is not all good news.

[bloom]

63. There is some holdout at MIT

that, as far I know, is still insisting that there is no global warming or something like that. ( don't remember his name).

So being at MIT isn't everything.

[serryjw]

87. If all was equal I would agree

I have not had childreen so I am being 'replaced' by those who had 3. As I have stated before there is a reverse stat to consider. The LESS educated you are the MORE children you have. I am on the bus in Denver all day long. I see the 20 year olds with 3 kids under 5 and s a minority. I would be suprised if she graduated HS.

[Gronk Groks]

59. Trouble is that Earth is overpopulated now...

...the downward correction that is happening in developing countries are a reaction to that. Until the vastly overpopulated third world actually starts the downward trend, the net effect is still a skyrocketing population.

Which is bad for us, however...

Nature does seem like it is trying to reign in overpopulation!

Now mind you I think the Gaia principle is a load of bunk; but you have got to admit it seems eerily prophetic that all these natural disasters are happening recently....

[TallahasseeGrannie]

61. Downright creepy, actually.

[bee]

66. excellent news TG! Thanks for posting! :-) n/t

[NickB79]

83. That still doesn't make me feel better

Even with a downward trend over the next 50 yrs, the world's population is expected to peak at 8-9 billion people, 2-3 billion more than are on the planet now. The Earth's natural carrying capacity for humanity is only ~2 billion people. The only reason we've been able to reach 6.5 billion today is through our massive reliance on fossil fuels to produce fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides to grow more bushels per acre on farmland, and to clearcut and plow under forests and grasslands to expand cultivated areas.

The side-effects of all this progress are global warming and the dwindling of stocks of oil and natural gas. It's small comfort to know that the world's population is levelling off at "only" 8 billion. That means "only" 3-5 billion will die off when the #@%& hits the fan in the next few decades as it becomes too expensive to flood farm fields with fertilizers and global warming changes weather patterns in the world's breadbaskets.

[Rabrrrrrr]

38. It's a mix of all of that

It's not any one person's, or group's, fault.

But we haven't quite yet adjusted our breeding pattern to the new realities of our longer lives and medical breakthroughs. Many in the first world have, but not all.

It's a very complex mix of factors. Pointing blaming fingers will not help at all; all we can do is work together. THough I decided many years ago that for ethical reasons, I would not bring more people into the world than I and my partner are: which is to say, I will limit my reproduction to two. Though more than likely, my reproduction will be zero, since neither of us really wants a child anyway.

[El Supremo]

42. NASA

We should be colonizing Mars by now.

[porphyrian]

50. You're oversimplifying the issue at your peril.

There is no one cause of overpopulation and it is dishonest to claim that there is. Likewise, there is no simple solution to the problem, if we have even defined it correctly yet. Humans only inhabit a small percentage of the Earth's surface, and our wasteful use of finite resources is not necessarily a terminal situation when alternatives are considered. When necessity and/or humanism preclude profit and materialism, we may find that we are not overpopulated at all, just crowded too closely together.

[cynatnite]

58. I wasn't claiming there is one cause...

And I do agree. A better utilization of what we do have with responsibility and common sense would make a difference.

[porphyrian]

79. Well, the poll narrowed the options unless we chose "other..."

That did sort of imply that we were supposed to choose a single cause.

[0rganism]

51. fundamentally unsustainable agriculture mixed with toxic religious credos

In order to support a growing population, more and more land must be put under cultivation -- i.e., reserved for humans-only use.

In order to put additional land under cultivation, a growing population is required to acquire, clear, and cultivate this land, as well as exterminate the competition.

In order to provide the stimulus for this endeavor, culture provides and supports those religions which encourage irresponsible breeding practices and hostility towards those who live outside modern agriculture, per se.

The system is ultimately self-limiting. Eventually we will run out of arable land to cultivate and the burden we transfer to the oceans will prove to be unsupportable as well. We are very close to that limit now. The danger is that we'll drag every other life form on the planet down with us when our society collapses.

[Lorien]

52. Other: ego, poverty,the media, and self delusion

ego for driving some to believe that their DNA is so special that it needs to live on in as many children as possible, poverty because in some cultures children are seen as a form of cheap labor that can help one's family to survive (a man from Bangladesh explained this to me, adding that poor education only made matters worse in his country. He said that parents simply couldn't see a correlation between increased poverty and large families, and that the men of his country viewed "many sons" as a great accomplishment). The media, because it glorifies families (especially large ones) and condemns single people for being "selfish" and pathetic. And self delusion, because humanity won't face up to the fact that eventually our sheer numbers will cause us all to suffer and die if climate change-due in part to overpopulation-doesn't kill us first. Resources are finite and quickly disappearing.

[dchill]

54. Other... but it's still religion...

For trying to do away with birth control and educational efforts re: the same around the world. Their rationale: the more of us poor folk there are, the sooner we can start starving to death, or dying of related, untreated diseases.

Religion - the opiate of the masses - and the poison.

[cascadiance]

62. Another missing option is tax breaks...

for more than two dependents per family. Each person should be given a tax break to help them raise a replacement for themselves. If they start having 5-12 kids because "they like having kids", they are putting a burden on society if they are depending on society to help them out with more tax breaks, not only for income tax breaks, but college loans, food stamps, etc. and basically growing our population that much more.

I'm all for getting more tax *general* tax relief for everyone except the rich now, but I don't think that people should have to have more kids to get it!

[donheld]

64. This woman's --- Arkansas Mother Gives Birth to 16th Child

Arkansas Mother Gives Birth to 16th Child

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Michelle Duggar just delivered her 16th child, and she's already thinking about doing it again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051012/ap_on_re_us/sixteen_kids

Johannah Faith Duggar was born at 6:30 a.m. Tuesday and weighed 7 pounds, 6.5 ounces.

The baby's father, Jim Bob Duggar, a former state representative, said Wednesday that mother and child were doing well.

He said Johannah's birth was especially exciting because it was the first time in eight years the family has had a girl.

Jim Bob Duggar, 40, said he and Michelle, 39, want more children.

"We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them," he said.

[Megahurtz]

68. Those people are Fucking Insane.

:crazy:

[Matariki]

70. you forgot high infant mortality

that's a major reason in developing countries. which goes hand in hand with poverty and lack of education for women.

also there's a difference within the option 'women having babies'. Two children (i.e. zero population growth) vs. large families. Having lots of kids seems selfish to me considering the rapid population growth in the last century.

[Nia Zuri]

72. Three children are the new status symbol among my set

Sick as it seems, some middle/upper middle class stay at home moms who can afford it are having third children as a status symbol. If a couple can afford for the woman to stay at home with three children (and have the big house, cars, etc.) they are considered to have really made it. Not to mention extended job security for the stay at home mom (okay that was nasty). There is a kind of "arms race" going on...

[Ioo]

74. I don't think we are, you should spend some time in India...

[Beware the Beast Man]

75. I blame overt flamebait. That is the source of all the world's problems.

[DistressedAmerican]

76. Evolution Made Us Like Fucking...

[bigwillq]

78. I feel the baby makers (male and female)

Yes, medicine and science have extended life but if people weren't born in the first place there wouldn't be a need to extend their life. Get it.

Now, I'm all for people being born heck I wouldn't be here if I wasn't created by mommy and daddy. It's the way things are.

[mitchum]

80. Those fuckers!

[sakabatou]

82. Lack of education

[laureloak]

86. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar?

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20051012/D8D6KS7O1.html

[Busshianic]

88. I think were underpopulated

The problem is not population, we have tons of space and resources on this planet. The problem is that 6 billion people are enslaved by a tiny ultra wealthy elite who horde all the resources of the world to make profit off of their percieved scarcity.

The perfect example is Diamonds. They're everywhere in africa but the trade is controlled by a tiny group of elite gangs. If some joe schmoe african tries to sell diamonds, especially in large amounts, they will come and chop your head off. Additionally nowadays you can make a synthetic diamond for extremely cheap and its just as strong and has a higher purity than a natural diamond. Do the diamond cartels care? No, they make money off the so called scarcity. Their only care is killing the people who challenge their monopoly.

Nowadays the same thing is being done with oil. Saudi Arabia just discovered they have double the oil reserves they previously thought. Canada recently discovered one of the biggest oil reserves in Alberta as well. The monopoly oil cartel, of course, could care less about refining it. They make money and get control off of us "barbarians" fighting amongst ourselves over the "last remaining resources". I for one am sick of it. We need to unite against these control freaks and stop being distracted by this divide and conquer imperialist agenda.

The Grand Chess Board - By Zbigniew Brzezinksi (an excerpt)
To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."

[Terry in Austin]

89. Other: Population a function of food supply

Population behavior can't be well understood at the micro level of "who" -- i.e. individuals. It's a macro phenomenon best observed at its own level.

Here's a very good analysis:

HUMAN POPULATION NUMBERS AS A FUNCTION OF FOOD SUPPLY
Hopfenberg and Pimentel

www.sacredlands.org/food_and_population.htm
also: http://www.mnforsustain.org/pimentel_hopfenberg_human_population_food_supply.htm">www.mnforsustain.org/pimentel_hopfenberg_human_population_food_supply.htm

"Contrary to the widely held belief that food production must be increased to feed the growing population, experimental and correlational data indicate that human population growth varies as a function of food availability."

It's especially interesting to note that the world population spike pretty well correlates with the cheap-oil energy spike. Given that much of our food supply is due to oil, it starts to make a lot of sense. In short, "more calories, more population."

More on that here:
www.alternet.org/story/26703
"...without the use of industrially produced nitrogen fertilizer, about 2.5 billion people out of today's world population of 6.2 billion simply could never have existed."