Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

John wrote: "Interesting points. I suppose I have been generally arguing the "establishment view", as you insultingly call it. I haven't done so consciously, but then I find that it is more often supported by s..."

John: I completely agree with what you have written! Is this Group perhaps a front to promote the Propaganda of Lyndon Laroche and his Schiller Institute, which used to thrive in the 1980's? Their basic arguments were that there was a world conspiracy of Illuminati many of whom but not all were Jews, whose evil plot it was to drastically reduce the world population. They shared the national socialist belief in a world conspiracy but differed signficantly from n.s. ideology in believing that most especially inhabitants of what was then called the Third World were victims of the Internationalist plot and that the plot's main purpose was not race mixing (the ns line) but depopulation. The comments here sound the same as the Lyndon Laroche stuff to me.

James Morcan wrote: "Luke wrote: "The tiny and very remote pacific island civilization of Tikopia, area 5 km^2, population 1200, is an instructive case study when looking at population. They live with extreme resource ..."

You are I hope joking but probably not. A significant part of the "empty" parts of the world are extremely hostile to living conditions and much of that was created hostile, notably the Sahara desert but human overexploitation of resources. There are no giants cedar trees in the Lebanon any more and no lions for Samson to bash either.

Esdaile wrote: "Apparently everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed by the media and some sinister elite (Bildebergers,? Royals? Jews?) who control said media and make us all parrot opinions we have learned from the global elite, for example that the word is over populated,this lie as you claim it is of overpopulation is apparently forstered for some extremely sinister reason of the global elites own devising, while you, oh enlightened and intelligent one, ..."

I have no idea what you are writing about in all these rants.
It's perfectly fine if you think the world is overpopulated - others agree with you in this group while others disagree. But personally I maintain an open mind and am open to being swayed. So why not present your arguments as to why you think the world is overpopulated instead of coming in with all these baseless and ridiculous allegations.

And one thing: I have repeatedly stood up against anti-Semites (and idiots who believe the "Jews run the world") as is evidenced by various threads in this group and in the material I write. So whilst I couldn't care less about all your other accusations, think twice before you imply let alone state that I am anti-Semitic. I am not Jewish but am very pro Jewish people and their community - that's on the record.

So do you have something to contribute to the debate here or not?

Esdaile wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "John wrote: "Interesting points. I suppose I have been generally arguing the "establishment view", as you insultingly call it. I haven't done so consciously, but then I find th..."


I find it more shocking that people can make speculative accusations such as: "Apparently everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed by the media and some sinister elite (Bildebergers,? Royals? Jews?)" Nothing like putting words into mouths. :)

James Morcan wrote: "However, the flip side is that tribal peoples have a fair distribution of resources. You may be aware that the number one argument put forward by those researchers who say the world is NOT overpopulated is that there is currently nowhere near a fair distribution of wealth/resources and this is the real problem that makes the world appear as if it is overpopulated ..."

It is important to separate the issues of overexploitation and overpopulation. Clearly the Earth could support a larger population than today if we all changed our lifestyles and lived like the Tikopians. However, this is very unlikely to come about and the global consumption trend points in the opposite direction. We already need around 1.5 Earths to sustain our current resource usage, and this is predicted under moderate UN scenarios to grow to 2 Earths by 2030 (see http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/in...). So, whether you believe the Earth to be overpopulated or not, it is pretty clear that it's overexploited.

Difficult for anyone to seriously dispute that I think.

Harry wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "John wrote: "Interesting points. I suppose I have been generally arguing the "establishment view", as you insultingly call it. I haven't done so consciously, bu..."

Not putting words into mouths at all. Here are his very own words for you:

"As we covered in "The price of a free media" section of this group, mainstream media is a big part of this grand deception. This should come as no surprise considering the bulk of the world’s news outlets are owned by only a handful of media tycoons who all belong to secretive, elitist and unaccountable organizations such as the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations.

It’s becoming obvious to most that mainstream media is nothing but a megaphone for the global elite to present biased news that’s designed to align the masses with their agenda.

Take the Overpopulation Theory – a pet hobbyhorse of virtually every powerful individual in the Establishment. The supposed need to depopulate the planet for the good of Mankind is a theory that has been peddled by every elitist from the Rockefellers, to Bill Gates and Ted Turner, to US Presidents like George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, to Prince Charles HRH the Prince of Wales and other British Royals. The latter includes the Queen’s husband Prince Philip who once infamously remarked, “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

James Morcan wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "Apparently everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed by the media and some sinister elite (Bildebergers,? Royals? Jews?) who control said media and make us all parrot opinions ..."

If you show an open mind about the world being overpopulated I must have missed all the times you considered the arguments for the claim that the world is overpopulated. Silly me.

I am sorry that you consider what I wrote a rant-you certainly do understand it- but you do believe that there is a world conspiracy, do you not? I was just wondering who you thought is practising what you choose to call "the grand deception". Your ideas seem to echo 100% those of Lyndon Larouche-are you aware of his theories? Here follows what you wrote, stylistically and in Terms of Content it could have been written by Larouche himself-I used to read his stuff quite a lot. I do not really want to get bogged down in polemic either but you yourself are the person harping on a conspiracy, on a debate about whether there is overpopualtion inthe world or not.
Now your own words:

As we covered in "The price of a free media" section of this group, mainstream media is a big part of this grand deception. This should come as no surprise considering the bulk of the world’s news outlets are owned by only a handful of media tycoons who all belong to secretive, elitist and unaccountable organizations such as the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations.

It’s becoming obvious to most that mainstream media is nothing but a megaphone for the global elite to present biased news that’s designed to align the masses with their agenda.

Take the Overpopulation Theory – a pet hobbyhorse of virtually every powerful individual in the Establishment. The supposed need to depopulate the planet for the good of Mankind is a theory that has been peddled by every elitist from the Rockefellers, to Bill Gates and Ted Turner, to US Presidents like George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, to Prince Charles HRH the Prince of Wales and other British Royals. The latter includes the Queen’s husband Prince Philip who once infamously remarked, “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

Esdaile wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "Apparently everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed by the media and some sinister elite (Bildebergers,? Royals? Jews?) who control said media and make us..."

And which of those statements you quoted do you specifically disagree with Esdaile? And why?

If it's the media references...
As a former journo who has spent a lifetime working in all media (print, electronic etc.) I can assure you the media has its own agenda - and like it or not that agenda ain't always about delivering unbiased news.

If it's about overpopulation...
Do you disagree with our statement that "The supposed need to depopulate the planet for the good of Mankind is a theory that has been peddled by every elitist from the Rockefellers, to Bill Gates etc..." ???

The excerpts you quote are from our book The Orphan Conspiracies, which is the inspiration for this group. Seems like you've skimmed those excerpts at least. You evidently missed our statement at the back of the book, which reads: "Everything we say in this book may be wrong."

We present arguments for and against, and we invite readers to draw their own conclusions. We certainly don't pretend to be right or to know all the answers.

If you have more powerful arguments to present on any of the topics raised in our book(s), or indeed in this group, let's hear them...

Esdaile wrote: "Harry wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "John wrote: "Interesting points. I suppose I have been generally arguing the "establishment view", as you insultingly call it. I haven't done so c..."

It was the inclusion of 'Jew' in your list that got my goat Esdaile, that's all.

And what's wrong with believing that such organisations as the Bilderbergers do contribute to pulling the strings anyway? You obviously believe such things are a a throwback to Laroche, (and Laroche only?!) when I thought everyone had moved on and was starting to take so called conspiracy theories seriously. 1% rule no matter how you look at it. So let's see who makes that 1% up- well, my, my- it's often people in pies such as the Bilderbergers, Skull and Bones and Haliburton to just get started (I'm sure you know the rest).

There's nothing wrong with being a seeker of truth. C'mon- you must know the wool's been pulled over our eyes!

You are over-sensitive. I did not say there was anything wrong with believing "that such organizations as the Bildebergers etc "pull the strings". Why do you assume I would think there was something wrong with thinking that? But you are setting things up too nicely if you claim to be offended if one mentions Jews since Jews have been one of the commonest components of conspiracy theories down the ages, in additon to which talking about some groups such as the Illuminati,Dave Icke's lizards, etc is often seen as cover for the, in connection with "conspiracy", very "politically incorrect" word "Jewish". You obviously do not think the wool has been pulled over your eyes. One thing does worry me a bit though: you claim to be searching for the truth, yet you think you have already found the truth. this strikes me as being a contradiction´. You maintain, despite all evidence to the contrary, that overpopulation is a hoax, that human beings can go on breeding as much as they want and there is no over-population crisis at all, over-population being an invention of the global elite. Have I understood your thesis correctly, (which is certainly echoes Larouche)?

Lance Morcan wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "Apparently everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed by the media and some sinister elite (Bildebergers,? Royals? Jews?) who control said m..."

Esdaile - We all keenly await your responses to my message #60 (above)...

Esdaile wrote: "You are over-sensitive. I did not say there was anything wrong with believing "that such organizations as the Bildebergers etc "pull the strings". Why do you assume I would think there was somethin..."

Yes, sorry but you have misunderstood me Esdaile- which could well be my own fault.

I'm only too aware of the Priory of Sion and all other dangerous tenets of proclaiming Jews are behind these conspiracies, and I'm not saying you meant it in any particular way- but it's exactly for those reasons of people in conspiracy/alternative media circles often being accused as anti-semite, as to why it got my goat that it was specifically mentioned, in what was actually a pretty full on dismissal of James' comments in that he was in the realm of conspiracies. (To which I thought, 'Er... you do know what this group's all about right?)
I don't think Judaism itself is something that's been connected to conspiracy theories down the ages, more I see it as they've always been the propaganda target.
(Such things as Icke being labelled anti-semite are simply ridiculous).

Obviously, as you say, I don't feel as though the wool has been pulled over my eyes. Yes, yes, I was of course intending to paint myself in some sort of grandeur and not simply on the side of attempting to tell people how it is: 1% rule.

Shit, I know what I know after twenty years of research and I don't know what I don't know. Nothing more. And nothing more than anyone else can claim.

By the way, I don't really see how we're even disagreeing over the overpopulation analysis in terms of us both agreeing that our current system of resources can't sustain us. I'm just saying it could.

Never have I said that overpopulation is a hoax invention of the global elite. Y'see- it's that words in mouth thing that bugs me... but we all have our own personal gripes.

Can't follow your reply very well. Icke is not an anti-semite. I did not suggest that I thought so. He believes that there was an international consipracy not of Jews but of lizards. Is that more sensible? If I have misunderstood him perhaps you can correct me.
Let's leave lizard conspiracies et al and get down to basics with a few questions:
1) Do you believe that overpopulation of the world by humans is a deliberately concocted myth, and if so, by whom and why?
2) Do you believe there is an optimal human population for the world?
3) What is the optimal standard of living for the people of the world in your opinion and how many people could live at one time in the world and this level sustained?
I should like to know where you stand on these points.

Lance Morcan wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "Apparently everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed by the media and some sinister elite (Bildebergers,? Royals? Jews?) who control said m..."

A small grammatical quibble first: the media "are", not the media "is". "Media" is the plural of "medium" and perhaps this is not just a quibble because making media a singular noun tends to stress the view that "the media" is and not are one voice and one power. I do not believe that there is one elite and one media peddling a belief in overpopulation. The world is more complicated than that. I should like to know what the "we" is who are running this group. So far as overpopulation by humans is concerned, it is necessary perhaps to first agree by what criteria optimal under and over population is to be measured. It is a big topic but here our a few of my thoughts on it
1) Overpopulation by humans is taking place when other species of plant and animal are being crowded out of existence because of the living space demands and food demands of humans. By that criterion alone there is dramatic human overpopulation of the globe.
Since I seem to be the only person mentioning this, I suspect that other persons here do not care about the effect of human population growth on non human species.
2) Overpopulation occurs when cities grow at a rate which negatively affects the standard of living previously existing in those cities. I believe that is happening. The huge conurbations of the world are not desirable places to live in for the great majority of the city dwellers-Rio, Istambul, Cairo, Shanghai, Delhi, Calcutta-all would have become much pleasanter places to live and work in had they not been overwhelmed by a human tidal wave in a short period of time. The human tidal wave was itself partly the result of persons being driven off the land because the economies of scale had resulted in the economic collapse of small farmers and small homesteads.
3 Overpopulation is indicated when there is evidence that wars occur for resources, when those wars are wars which would not have otherwise occured. Several African wars can be attributed to this, also China's sabre rattling in Asia and "grab for Africa" since China is now completely incapable of feeding itsself for the first time in its history.
4 Overpopulation occurs when housing prices rocket despite other circumstances not accounting for real estate rise. Negative effects being unaffordable housing, greater pressure on agricultural land, more intensive agriculture-yes its happening in the UK and other countries
5 Overpopulation occurs when congestion and traffic and transport problems icnrease despite improved technology. Defintitely the case in UK, and Germany, where the technology and efficicnecy has improved but traffic is getting worse, public transport less reliable. There are FAR more people on the road (and in the trains!) in the industrialised world today than a few decades ago, a fact to which anyone over the age of about 35 will testify, and this is a result of overpopulation and absolutely nothing else.
6 Overpopulation occurs when the capitalist economies of scale favour increasingly mass production at the expense of the small producer. This is obviously true in agriculture-neither the European Common Aghricultural Policy nor its equivalent in the USA which guarantee food prices to the farmer but which subsidise more the more is produced, would have been feasible without huge population increases and especially urban population increases in Europe and the USA.
7) The (in my opinion fatal) decision by many nations to opt for nuclear power in the deecades after the last world war would not have made any economic sense and would not have been undertaken without a spiralling popualtion iincrease and resulting energy demand

That will do for starters

Esdaile wrote: "Can't follow your reply very well. Icke is not an anti-semite. I did not suggest that I thought so. He believes that there was an international consipracy not of Jews but of lizards. Is that more s..."

To be honest I didn't articulate myself very well.

In short, and in response:

1) No, but it's possible. But it is being blurred with eugenics in political circles.

2) Well if the time came when we really were approaching not being able to move an inch over the whole of the earth, (whatever number that might be), then yep, I'd most certainly be thinking, "We have a problem!" It's just we're not there yet- and a long way off, if we use our resources differently. Plenty of people can see this is really about redistribution of resources. Change that and you solve anything one may claim as being 'overpopulated', which in itself is a term I do find gets misunderstood (yes, including by myself!)
Plenty of respected voices, including a mainstream programme by the BBC, have declared overpopulation is a myth. I'm not fixed in my stance with regards to the topic however.

3) In an ideal world I believe everyone should get basics first: (free/tax paid) energy, housing, water, basic food, health care. Then people can go after whatever dream they want.

One point that nobody has yet mentioned: The current global population level is only viable thanks to the so-called "Green Revolution" of the 1950's, led by the Nobel prize winner Norman Borlaug ("The Man Who Saved a Billion Lives"). This revolution in agricultural methods increased crop yields and staved off mass starvation for significant chunks of the growing world populace. In practice, while it led to existing land being able to support a greater number of people, it also meant greatly increased industrialization of agriculture and associated reliance on chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, many of which are now known to be carcinogens. The results, that can be readily observed today, are the gargantuan, depressing swathes of chemically contrived, sterile monoculture found in virtually all of the world's arable farming regions. Any semblance of man's living in harmony with nature is gone: Where this kind of agriculture occurs ecosystems are destroyed, endemic plant, animal and insect populations are decimated, and any pollinators that cling to existence are sick. The "Green Revolution" was and is a misnomer.

Global population has now reached a point that, even with this revolutionary higher-yielding system of agriculture in place, world food production capacity is being strained. Add in the effects of climate change, which continues to reduce crop yields and lead to failed harvests in many parts of the world (see http://www.theguardian.com/environmen...), and the upshot is that a "Second Green Revolution", along similar lines to the first, will be required in the near future if serious food shortages are to be prevented. Cue the Big Ag corporations. They will be pushing hard for a GMO "solution" (which will also conveniently allow them to effectively own the intellectual property keys to world food production), claiming that they are saving humanity while they wipe out the last vestiges of the natural world, force developing countries further into their debt, and boost their revenue growth. Maybe that will buy us another few decades, until our population reaches the point where a "Third Green Revolution" is required ... :P

Esdaile wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "Apparently everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed by the media and some sinister elite (Bildebergers,? Royals? Jews..."

I don’t wanna get all nitpicky. However, you started it…
According to Oxford Dictionaries, “It is now acceptable in standard English for it (the word "media") to take either singular or plural verb.”

I myself use both (singular and plural) depending on how I feel at the time. (I do hope that’s okay with you).

Mate I can’t believe that with everything going on in the world right now (ebola, ISIS, wars, refugees, starvation etc. etc.) we’ve been reduced to quibbling over grammar. Let’s agree to rise above that eh?

Your faith in the world’s media to do the right thing and not mislead consumers is admirable though misplaced. I think Jim summed it up best in our ‘The price of a free media’ discussion thread when he said:

“I think the real problem is we want and expect a disinterested media but there ain't no such animal. Newspapers, radio/TV stations, blogs, etc. are run by people with a point of view. That point of view may or may not be in alignment with what is good for us. The fact that the CIA infiltrated many media outlets during the cold war almost doesn't matter. We need to treat the media with the same skepticism we wish they would apply to announcements from government folks…”

Incidentally, that ‘Price of a free media' discussion thread is worth checking out for anyone (like yourself Esdaile) not familiar with the ways of the world’s media and the select few media barons who control it.

We've stated our case clearly on the overpopulation myth so I see no point in regurgitating that, preferring to let others including yourself have their say.

Harry wrote: "1) No, but it's possible. But it is being blurred with eugenics in political circles.

2) Well if the time came when we really were approaching not being able to move an inch over the whole of the earth, (whatever number that might be), then yep, I'd most certainly be thinking, "We have a problem!" It's just we're not there yet- and a long way off, if we use our resources differently. Plenty of people can see this is really about redistribution of resources. Change that and you solve anything one may claim as being 'overpopulated', which in itself is a term I do find gets misunderstood (yes, including by myself!)
Plenty of respected voices, including a mainstream programme by the BBC, have declared overpopulation is a myth...."

Well summarized.

Lance Morcan wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "Apparently everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed by the media and some sinister elite (Bildeberger..."

I should be grateful if you would refrain from patronising me. You wrote: "Incidentally, that ‘Price of a free media' discussion thread is worth checking out for anyone (like yourself Esdaile) not familiar with the ways of the world’s media" Considering that my father worked in Fleet Street for 30 years, that I grew up among writers and journalists and I edited a publication myself for ten years myself I dare say I have a good idea as anyone as to the machinations of the media. You say reamarkably that you use the word media as singular or plural depending on "how you feel". I submit that you feel like using the singular to convey your belief more strongly that there is one medium with one biased agenda. Media as a word is the plural form of medium (whatever the Oxford dictionary says is acceptable or not acceptable) and it is NOT in this context "nitpicking" to point that out because there are different media, not one and using media as a singular serves the purpose of stressing that there is only one body called "the media".

You probably have it written up somewhere, but who exactly is the "we" to which you keep referring?
Another patronising comment, that I have faith in the world's media, which you with your superior wisdom, can smile indulgently upon. For your information and contrary to what you assume, I have little faith in most of what I read and hear in media including the communications of the monitors of this discussion group! Again, there is not just one "media", there are many and "The Economist" for example, which is a pretty influential publication, is part of publication media, seems to agree with you that overpopulation is some kind of myth.

James Morcan wrote: "Harry wrote: "1) No, but it's possible. But it is being blurred with eugenics in political circles.

2) Well if the time came when we really were approaching not being able to move an inch over the..."

It is standard that when someone wants to push an agenda they cite "respected" sources. That word to cowe and awe "respected". Respected professor, respected sources, respected publication. "Respected" is the standard word to awe the doubters, the other standard one is "expert". I bet that people who do believe there is an overpopulation issue will not be described by you as "respected" or revered as experts! Who is the "we" who should be using "our" resources differently? You? It is always the same with the peddlars of the fashionable "its all about resources, stupid" line, they do not like to go into detail about whose resources and how whose resources are to be redistributed to whom. A hike in VAT? A luxury tax on more than x amount of square feet per person? A tax on meat? Increasing international aid? Presumably financed by tax hikes? Spell it out please, what concrete measures will this "different" use of resources take, this wonderul and longed for and just "redistribution" which will solve so many ills of the world?

Luke wrote: "One point that nobody has yet mentioned: The current global population level is only viable thanks to the so-called "Green Revolution" of the 1950's, led by the Nobel prize winner Norman Borlaug ("..."

You are absolutely right. It is standard to mock Karl Marx and Thomas Malthus for the failure of their prognoses (practically everything about the hapless Malthus on the internet explains how he was "wrong") , in the one case that capitalism would collapse under the weight of its own contradictions and the other that humanity would not be able to feed itself as populations soared. What both Marx and Malthus failed to take into account was technical advance, the ability to more efficiently exploit nature as you say the "Green revolution" (very important point, yes) and so far as Marx is concrned, the advances in mechanisation which swifly reduced much of the need for cheap proletarian labour. The theories are still valid as paradigms but are constantly "postponed" so to speak by technical advance. Many doomsters of the fifties and sixties came a cropper (notably the Club of Rome) by vastly underestimating how many natural resoruces were still available and the skill of mankind of adapting and extracting, leading them to make exaggeratedly gloomy prognoses about global hunger, with the deleterious result that people became sceptical about the seriousness of the situation, a sort of Peter and the Wolf situation. Even so, the price paid by the planet for feeding the swarming billiosn of humans is so high and that is still questionable if the planet will really survive in recognisable thriving form for another hundred years. Since so many people bury their heads in the sand about overpopulatiuon I rather doubt it; nevertheless, the ingenuity of mankind to get out of a tight corner is astonishing. One thing is for sure, if humanity does get out of this corner, it won't be thanks to those who claim that we have misunderstood the facts staring mankind in the face, and who, all evidence to the contrary, maintain there is not a population problem at all but what they call a "problem of the distribution of resources".

Harry wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "Can't follow your reply very well. Icke is not an anti-semite. I did not suggest that I thought so. He believes that there was an international consipracy not of Jews but of lizards..."

Thank you for your answers, answer one I don't understand, answer three says effectively nothing but answer two is highly revealing.
1) What is being "blurred by eugenics" in political circles? Eugenics is a subject for itself very unpopular and frowned upon and seldom discussed. I do not know who you think is blurring what with the issue of eugenics.
2) That is clear enough-overpopulation for you is when "when we really were approaching not being able to move an inch over the whole of the earth, (whatever number that might be)," Well that says a lot because it means you cannot take overpopulation seriously, saying then and only then is there an overpopualtion problem when people cannot move is as good as saying that however many people there are its ok -obviously everyone would long be dead before the state you describe. This point is crucial because it means that you dont consider there CAN be a population problem. The more I consider this answer, the more I see that it effectively loads any debate. So England could have a population of 500 million a billion 2 billionm you would still not see a population problem. Core.
3) Well meaning but vacuous, the sort of stuff politicians like to offer because it offends no one and sounds very nice, for the good reason is says nothing about who has to support and finance all these cute things.

Lance Morcan wrote: "human beings are delightful animals who bring nothing but joy to the world"

Isn't there a theory somewhere that suggests that the reason we have not found intelligent extra-terrestrial life is that most intelligent species invent the means of their own destruction before gaining the intelligence not to use it?

Harry wrote: "So let's see who makes that 1% up- well, my, my- it's often people in pies such as the Bilderbergers, Skull and Bones and Haliburton to just get started"

I suspect that is a non sequitur. The 1% (more like 0.1%) become rich and powerful and then get invited to the likes of Bilderberg, not t'other way round chuck. :-)

Esdaile wrote: "...if humanity does get out of this corner, it won't be thanks to those who claim that we have misunderstood the facts staring mankind in the face, and who, all evidence to the contrary, maintain there is not a population problem at all but what they call a "problem of the distribution of resources". "

Agreed. I think sometimes that people forget that it is not 'man against nature' - it can't be; we are part of nature. So a war on nature is a war on ourselves. Thinking of it purely as a technological problem of 'distribution' is itself a symptom of a sort of ideological scientism - in a post-modern world where all values seem to be relative, recourse to statistics and behaviouralism gives a nice, comfy illusion of 'hard science'.

In this sense, the argument over whether the world is over-populated or not is not really relevant to anything very much, is it? The question is - what sort of world do we want to live in? What sort of a world do we want to be?
:-)

Diz wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote: "human beings are delightful animals who bring nothing but joy to the world"

Isn't there a theory somewhere that suggests that the reason we have not found intelligent extra-te..."

That quote you attribute to me was someone else's (borrowed from Post #50). Not sure why you'd attribute it to me...

Esdaile wrote: "Harry wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "Can't follow your reply very well. Icke is not an anti-semite. I did not suggest that I thought so. He believes that there was an international consipracy not of Jews ..."

Simple premises are so often misunderstood by people who don't realise that everything happens out of imagination. (I thought I'd give you another meaningless- in your eyes- snippet to drool over every last noun and verb.)

In response to the question “Do you believe the world as a whole is overpopulated and therefore at or close to the absolute limit of what it can support?” in our latest Underground Knowledge group poll, interim results are:

56% say NO the world ain’t overpopulated.
38% say YES it is.
6% are unsure.

Poll closes June 29. If you haven’t cast your vote yet, please do. And feel free to comment. As always, all viewpoints welcome!

As per the group poll, here are some other recent articles on the subject:

Mawuna Koutonin On The Myth Of “Overpopulated” Africa http://www.naij.com/461600-mawuna-kou...

Population myth: http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/...

Is Overpopulation a Legitimate Threat to Humanity and the Planet? (NY Times): http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/...

The Myth of Overpopulation http://www.americanthinker.com/articl...

Taking on the Overpopulation Myth (The Washington Times) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...

Overpopulation Is Not the Problem (NY Times) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opi...

These MAINSTREAM media articles prove it ain't just this group or conspiracy theorists or those with some hidden agenda that are debating whether the Malthusian theory of Overpopulation is true or not.

Lance Morcan wrote: "Diz wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote:"Diz wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote:"Diz wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote:"Diz wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote:"Diz wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote:" etc. etc. all the way back to the Big Bang.

Sorry Lance :-)

Diz wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote: "Diz wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote:"Diz wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote:"Diz wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote:"Diz wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote:"Diz wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote:" etc. etc. all t..."

No worries Diz. I'm thick-skinned.

I sort of joked about it in the poll, but isn't it possble we'd have a whole new continent in years to come if Antartica 'thaws'? (Not to mention possible new islands arriving).

Diz wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "...if humanity does get out of this corner, it won't be thanks to those who claim that we have misunderstood the facts staring mankind in the face, and who, all evidence to the cont..."

Yes, I would add two points-one which I have already stressed, humans should consider all the other species of flora and fauna with which they share this planet and the planet itself with respect and awe. (Who was it who said that we treat the world as though we had a spare one in the cuboard?) Secondly, debate on overpopulation would be most fruitful if there was General concensus on optimal ecological circumstances for human beings and how those circumstances are affected or not affected by human population levels.

"(It) would be most fruitful if there was General concensus (sic)..."

What? A consensus of Generals? :)

haha!There is a technical glitch involved here. When I type comments in Goodreads, for some reason, a lot of words are put in upper case and I have to reverse them to lower case, which isa nnoying and time-consuming and I miss some words. No General Consensus then, but general consensus. Facetiousness aside, I mean all debate would be more fruitful if people broadly agreed on what an optimal population level in given circumstances would be. James Morcan has written that he would concede that there was an overpopulation problem when people did not have more than an inch to turn round in! That is tantamount to saying that there cannot be an overpopulation problem where the sky or if you will, the inch, is the limit; mindbogglingly fatuous if he means it but most probably he doesn't mean it. The point is that some kind of consensus on what optimal population would looks like is the common ground for debate to become fruitful. Antartica sounds great but I wouln't hold your breath and if you have read Lovecraft you might find the idea unsettling:)

Again: is anyone answering to the "we" Monitoring this discussion group going to state whether non-human species of Fauna (and Flora) are of any account at all in considering whether human overpopulation exists?

Harry wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "Harry wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "Can't follow your reply very well. Icke is not an anti-semite. I did not suggest that I thought so. He believes that there was an international consipr..."

I do not understand this comment.

James Morcan wrote: "As per the group poll, here are some other recent articles on the subject:

Mawuna Koutonin On The Myth Of “Overpopulated” Africa http://www.naij.com/461600-mawuna-kou......"

Thoeries work and are applicable and have flaws. Statements are true or false. I do not think a theory can be "true" or "untrue" as such, valid and non valid perhaps. Facts which go towards building the theory may be true or untrue but to state a theory is true or not is close to meaningless. Malthus's theory is I believe valid if extraneous factors, notably scientific Innovation, does not take place, but it does take place. The logic of his theory has not been disproved only its non applicability, owing to extraneous events/developments. A very simple example: mashed potato is lumpy if you do not make it with warm milk and butter. If you remember to add warm milk and butter it does not get lumpy. If you run out of butter the mashed potato will be lumpy next time you make it, a goofy example but it hopefully illustrates the point.

Just stumbled on this thread and have been blown away by the arguments.

Not sure what to really believe, but since I work in a Foodbank in the UK it amazes me that even in a "richer" country poverty and desperation is rife.

I think the issue is not overpopulation, but whether some people should be allowed to have kids they are going to abuse, etc... But, then what gives us the right to dictate who should and shouldn't have children? Eugenics is a dangerous game.

Ultimately, better education EVERYWHERE would not go amiss. So, I agree, it's not an issue of overpopulation yet. But, if people are given more land to work they need to be prepared to do something, and not just expect others to provide.

The issue of Israel is an interesting one, having just read a book about it. From what I know, they worked together as a team and solved the problem. They made the land work for them? I may be wrong...

It's easy to point across the wall and say, "this is the problem."

Like a lot of you seem to suggest, if we really wanted to make it better for others we would. Greed and selfishness are rife!

Hope my thoughts add to the discussion :)

Vanessa wrote: "I think the issue is not overpopulation, but whether some people should be allowed to have kids they are going to abuse, etc... But, then what gives us the right to dictate who should and shouldn't have children? Eugenics is a dangerous game. ..."

I agree with all your thoughts, Vanessa, and given you work in a Foodbank you probably have better first-hand experience in the matter than most of us.

"A scientific model has suggested that society will collapse in less than three decades due to catastrophic food shortages if policies do not change.

The model, developed by a team at Anglia Ruskin University’s Global Sustainability Institute, does not account for society reacting to escalating crises by changing global behaviour and policies.

However the model does show that our current way of life appears to be unsustainable and could have dramatic worldwide consequences."

http://www.independent.co.uk/environm...

I agree... The future is a scary place. I wonder what will happen to my children, and their children, etc...

We have a responsibility to consider the options for them. The question is how?

Interesting that many couples are unable to have children and them struggle to adopt due to the legal system & red tape.

There is a lot to be done, but who should do it? :)

James Morcan wrote: "Vanessa wrote: "I think the issue is not overpopulation, but whether some people should be allowed to have kids they are going to abuse, etc... But, then what gives us the right to dictate who shou..."
The issue of allowing people to have or not to have children is closely connected to demographic policies (or lack thereof). The state, which is so keen to control and tax its citizens and legislates on just about everything under the sun, baulks at having any say about which of its citizens may have how many children, although this is one of the most socially influential and weighty decisions anyone can take (have children)with extensive ramifications for the future.
I cannot for the life of me see how working in a bank, food bank, Pizza takeaway, coalmine, university, parliament, pork factory or anywhere else makes anyone more or less qualified to comment on human demographics.

Vanessa wrote: "Just stumbled on this thread and have been blown away by the arguments.

Not sure what to really believe, but since I work in a Foodbank in the UK it amazes me that even in a "richer" country pover..."

What issue is "not overpopulation"? The question is rather whether human population growth is creating problems and is itself a problem. To discuss that one must first decide what overpopualtion would be if it existed. I would argue that human overpopulation is already a problem when it is driving non human species to extinction. Human population growth is overpopulation sofar as many animal species in the world are concerned. One has to speak for them since being animals they are unable to speak for themselves. Overpopulation is an immense challenge for everyone striving to increase food productzion maintain water supplies and work towards everyone having a well what exactly standard of living? Next question of course what is the relevant standard of living by which a "problem" or "no problem" of human Population can be measured. Greed and sefishness are rife perhaps-can that ever change? Is it greedy and selfish for a person to want to own car for example? a house? a Holiday abroad? a garden? an electric toothbrush? a dishwasher? good health care? Everyone talks about greed and selfishness but always want to point the finger at someone else. Am I greedy and selfish if I want a house and garden? Then I plead guilty! Most people in the world fo not own a house and garden and I find it difficult to see how they good given the billions of humans in the world. I wonder what China would look like if each family had a house and garden and how big might the garden be? These are the nitty gritty questions which matter. Highfalutin calls to combatting greed has been preached since Jesus Christ and before and got nowehere.

The group poll which asked members 'Do you believe the world as a whole is overpopulated and therefore at or close to the absolute limit of what it can support?' is now complete.

Here are the results:

56.5% voted NO
36.2% voted YES
7.2% voted UNSURE

Check out the lively debate in the comments section beneath the poll that occurred during the voting period: https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/1...

I'm gonna get myself in trouble here but, take out the racism, and the classism, I'm not so sure that eugenics is such a bad thing.

Fahmi wrote: "I'm gonna get myself in trouble here but, take out the racism, and the classism, I'm not so sure that eugenics is such a bad thing."

You willing to lay down your life first then are ya Fahmi?

So... this whole question of are we overpopulated. I've briefly mentioned before that it's a topic I think gets misunderstood. I'm less than a layman on the subject, but here's what I reckon.

Here's the dictionary definition of it, just to clarify: to fill with an excessive number of people, straining available resources and facilities.

And so we find ourselves having debates about statistics and percentages as we have been; forecasting into possible futures.

Why I believe we can be misguided in our thoughts about the subject is because the question of: 'are we overpopulated?' almost becomes a misnomer, because the claims for us being overpopulated are based only on our current distribution and sharing of resources.

Not only that, but there are of course so many other reasons for resources not getting to people- from an incredible amount of war to numerous natural disasters and so many other factors.

WE HAVE THE HIGHEST POPULATION OF REFUGEES THAN EVER BEFORE! (Hm? We'll shrug and turn over the headline to American Idol.)

Take into factor things like crops being purposely destroyed in South America or Afghanistan, UnFairTrade for most people in developing countries, children having no choice but to put their lives in danger for panning gold or finding blood diamonds and... well, you know the rest.

These are just some of a plethora of factors that create poverty, which equals: not sufficient resources to live on. I mean, we all know how much poverty's in the world, right? My point is that we are already living in an unacceptable world of poverty in which resources are not used appropriately and people are dying of starvation, lack of water and medical care, and all the rest- so why evens say: Are there too many people to sustain? when that's exactly the world we're living in. ONLY- it's not to do with overpopulation. It is a lot to do with 1% fat cat greed though.

Do we have enough resources if we shared it all differently? You bet yer ass!

If we let all the homeless people shelter in all those big empty warehouses and abodes of every city, it'd be start.

"Do we have enough resources if we shared it all differently? You bet yer ass!" Wow, how confident you are! With Zero statistics to suppoort the Argument, just "bet your ass" (no I wouldn't). Nobody has yet answered my question (any of my questions really but this one here)-what would be a satisfactory standard of living to which apprently everyone could attain if resources would be distributed "fairly"? I mean would everybody be able to have a house, fridge, car and Swimming pool and be able to travel by Jet around the world? Or would you say this is an example of "greed"? The entire population of the world? Are you claiming that this is possible?