Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Myth of Overpopulation
Christian Post ^ | Jun. 13 2011 | S. Michael Craven

Posted on 06/14/2011 10:44:04 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby

Perhaps one of the most persistent and pervasive myths that have shaped the thinking of many people and, subsequently, public policy is the myth that the world’s population is spiraling out of control and that it will ultimately lead to catastrophic shortages of the essential resources necessary to sustain life.

This whole concept of “overpopulation” can be traced to Thomas Malthus, the British scholar and Anglican clergyman (albeit a very misguided one) who, without any specific knowledge other than his own speculations, predicted in 1789 that the planet’s rapid increase in population would soon outstrip the planet’s ability to produce food, resulting in massive worldwide starvation.

Malthus’s predicted famine never materialized, of course; he could not have predicted the industrial revolution or the enormous impact subsequent technological innovations would have on our ability to produce food. Recall that today our federal government actually pays farmers not to grow crops due to the abundance of food produced on considerably less farmland than existed just a century ago.

Even the United Nations, historically a rabid advocate of population control, has conceded that the world’s current infrastructure is capable of supporting a worldwide population of more than 9 billion people.

Furthermore, according to the most recent estimates, the planet’s population will most likely continue to climb from its current level until 2050, when it will peak at 9 billion; other predictions have the world’s population peaking at 7.5 billion in 2040. In either case, global population levels will begin a sharp decline sometime during the middle of the twenty-first century. Present fertility rates actually indicate a massive underpopulation crisis is coming, particularly among Western nations.

The question of overpopulation is not merely a topic for conversation; it is a burning matter of policy and action at the local, national, and international levels. Our national government is actually committed by law and by international agreement to reducing the worldwide rate of population growth.

Government officials, such as former Assistant Secretary of State for Global Affairs in the Clinton administration, Timothy Wirth, insist that this effort must also apply to the population of the United States. Wirth, as you may recall, was at the center of controversy when the Clinton administration decided to deport 13 Chinese women who sought asylum in the United States to avoid forced abortion under communist China’s notorious one-child policy.

By offering asylum to these women, Wirth explained, “we could potentially open ourselves up to just about everybody in the world saying ‘I don't want to plan my family, therefore I deserve political asylum.’” Apparently, Wirth believes government-forced abortions and sterilization constitutes “family planning.”

Today, there are governments that compel their citizens to undergo sterilization and abortions, often with financial help from the United Nations and U.S. government-supported private agencies such as Planned Parenthood.

Motivated in part by the overpopulation myth coupled with Darwinism, Margaret Sanger, who in 1934 was the founder of the American Birth Control League (which later became Planned Parenthood), advocated contraception and abortion as means of “negative eugenics” in order to limit the population of what she termed “the lower races.” (Positive eugenics was the form employed by the Nazis in their attempt to eradicate the Jewish people.)

For this reason Sanger opposed helping the poor. Humanitarianism and philanthropy, she wrote merely “perpetuate constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents.… These dangers are inherent in the very idea of humanitarianism and altruism, dangers which have today produced their full harvest of human waste.” This same sentiment was common to Darwin and his early advocates, who saw Christian compassion as counterproductive to “natural selection” and human evolution. Recall the original full title of Darwin’s now-famous work, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Frankly, if one wants to be consistent with evolutionary theory, one is compelled to think this same way and not borrow from Christian morality and ethics, as these have no logical place in the naturalistic worldview. Darwin very clearly understood this fact.

Ironically it was Thomas Malthus’s An Essay on the Principle of Population that had a profound impact on Charles Darwin and proved instrumental in the development of his theory of evolution. Darwin attests to this in his autobiography:

In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work.

The myth of overpopulation first put forth by Malthus, coupled with Darwinian theories that promote propagation of the “fit” and reduction of the “unfit,” has been instrumental in legitimizing abortion, forced sterilization, government subsidized contraception, and, in the most extreme cases, eugenics as practiced by the Nazis and others. (The term eugenics-meaning “good births”-was coined by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. Eugenics, he believed, would encourage more children from the fit, and fewer or no children from the unfit, with the ultimate goal of engineering the evolutionary ascent of man.)

In every case these false notions undermine God’s commandment to “multiply” and further serve to undermine the intrinsic value of every human as being made in the image of God.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Religion; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: demographics; eugenics; moralabsolutes; overpopulation; population; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

1 posted on 06/14/2011 10:44:09 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby; Amityschild; Captain Beyond; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; GiovannaNicoletta; ...

An important set of facts to know IN THE FACE OF the globalist commie’s depopulation goals and efforts.

Thx thx.

END TIMES PING.

BTW, What ever happened in that most famous Aussie case of “The Dingo Ate My Baby” claim?


2 posted on 06/14/2011 10:55:34 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby; Amityschild; Captain Beyond; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; GiovannaNicoletta; ...

Actually, a partial small group of the

END TIMES PING.


3 posted on 06/14/2011 10:56:14 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azaria_Chamberlain_disappearance

Or rent “A Cry in the Dark.”


4 posted on 06/14/2011 11:02:41 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby
Perhaps one of the most persistent and pervasive myths that have shaped the thinking of many people and, subsequently, public policy is the myth that the world’s population is spiraling out of control and that it will ultimately lead to catastrophic shortages of the essential resources necessary to sustain life.

I don’t believe that “the world’s population is spiraling out of control and that it will will ultimately lead to catastrophic shortages of the essential resources necessary to sustain life.”

I do believe that out of control Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Progressive, Communist policies will ultimately lead to catastrophic shortages of the essential resources necessary to sustain life because of their proclivity to discourage entrepreneurship, work and creativity.

The desire and the will to improve one’s lot in life is what spurs on civilization and continuous improvement of the human condition (I hate the Libs for making ‘Progressive’ a word non-grata).

When government becomes the expected engine of the improvement of people’s day to day existence that progress of improvement will slow to a crawl. It will slow to the pace of bureaucracy.

5 posted on 06/14/2011 11:12:27 PM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

bttt


6 posted on 06/14/2011 11:17:45 PM PDT by TEXOKIE (Anarchy IS the strategy of the forces of darkness!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

Judging by what this last 100 million people have done to the quality of life in the United States, I prefer less population, and a better life, to learning to adjust to an ever growing, never ending, crush of humanity.

We aren’t farm animals that merely need food, water and shelter, we want to breathe, we want our children to be able to fish, hunt, camp and play within a bicycle ride or short drive of their city home.

Going outdoors shouldn’t be a travel trip. I grew up in a big city, Houston, and now I think of that childhood as almost like living in the country compared to today. Now even traveling from city to city is like commuting on a long urban route of non stop humanity and development.


7 posted on 06/14/2011 11:27:42 PM PDT by ansel12 (Bachmann/Rollins/Romney=destruction for Bachmann, but it sure helps Romney. WHY?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

Thanks thanks.

Will check it out.

What is your connection to such cases?


8 posted on 06/14/2011 11:35:57 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding !


9 posted on 06/15/2011 12:09:54 AM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

If Wirth & Co. are so worried about overpopulation, why are our borders open to all and sundry? Why are we forced to accept 1 million legal immigrants a year? This story doesn’t compute.


10 posted on 06/15/2011 12:25:03 AM PDT by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Now even traveling from city to city is like commuting on a long urban route of non stop humanity and development.

Try driving from Ft. Worth, Texas to Las Vegas, New Mexico. Lots of open country on that trip. Lots of abandoned towns, as well.

I understand your point, but if you live along one of the coasts, and never travel inland, you have a perverted view of the world.

One that the 'population zero' crowd would like for everyone to have.

Comfortable carrying capacity for the land area on this planet is 25-60 Billion. Don't whine because the east coast is packed within 100 miles of the coast. Move somewhere where your nearest neighbor is a half-mile away. Still lots of those places left.

/johnny

11 posted on 06/15/2011 1:06:19 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby
Malthus' work should be part of a course on critical thinking. Here's how you get sucked in: impressed by his math skills, going "gosh-wow" over the fact that an exponential curve increases much more quickly than a linear curve as time goes on, and lulled by the correct assumption that population (if unchecked) grows at an exponential rate, you take his assumption that food production increases linerarly for granted. The reason why his grand comparison continues to fail in the real world is because food production did not increase linerarly.

Of course, there's only a limited supply of land so the dubious assumption does seem to be common-sensical. But, increases in wealth provide the capital base for improved food production due to technical advances.

If we wanted to, anyone with a house could have a backyard fish farm and eat the fish; agricultural technology has gone that far. Prey animals grow at an exponential rate too.

12 posted on 06/15/2011 1:29:13 AM PDT by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

Soylent Green is people!


13 posted on 06/15/2011 1:48:47 AM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore (If leftist legislation that's already in place really can't be ended by non-leftists, then what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Great post!


14 posted on 06/15/2011 2:47:27 AM PDT by scan59 (Markets always regulate better than government can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: scan59
Thanks.

I promise not to let the flattery go to my head. (At least until I can get some sleep)

15 posted on 06/15/2011 2:52:25 AM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

If my math is correct:
The world’s population could fit in the state of Rhode Island giving each person a 2 foot square to stand in.
The world’s population could live in the state of Texas if you grouped everyone in families of 4, with 75 acres, and a 1500 square foot house.
You could feed the world with produce grown in the valleys of California. (If you grew the right kind of produce.)

Overpopulation of the world is a lie too often propagated by those with ulterior motives.


16 posted on 06/15/2011 3:57:22 AM PDT by PastorJimCM (truth matters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby
Anybody remember the book "Famine 1975!"? I read it in '72 and was filled with anxiety about the U. S. until 1976 proved the author was full of sheet.
That experience instilled in me a deep, healthy skepticism of prognosticators of all stripes.
17 posted on 06/15/2011 4:05:47 AM PDT by phredo53 (Caution: This post does not comply with White House standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

****Present fertility rates actually indicate a massive underpopulation crisis is coming, particularly among Western nations.****

Not sure ‘fertility’ rates can be quantified - but contraception, abortion and copulation between same-sex species has got to reduce offspring.


18 posted on 06/15/2011 4:09:58 AM PDT by sodpoodle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

The truth is Welfare Queens are over-populating the Earth. They typically have anywhere from 3-11 children we get stuck paying for.


19 posted on 06/15/2011 4:26:28 AM PDT by MissEdie (America went to the polls on 11-4-08 and all we got was a socialist thug and a dottering old fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PastorJimCM
The world’s population could fit in the state of Rhode Island giving each person a 2 foot square to stand in.

I get 4.89 square feet.

The world’s population could live in the state of Texas if you grouped everyone in families of 4, with 75 acres, and a 1500 square foot house.

6.92 billion people in 268581 square miles is over 40 per acre, so if they were grouped in families of 4, every family would have 1/10 of an acre.

Overpopulation of the world is a lie ...

In my lifetime I have seen many negative effects of the increase in population. I'm surprised that you haven't noticed any.

20 posted on 06/15/2011 4:31:59 AM PDT by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PastorJimCM
The world’s population could fit in the state of Rhode Island giving each person a 2 foot square to stand in.

I get 4.89 square feet.

The world’s population could live in the state of Texas if you grouped everyone in families of 4, with 75 acres, and a 1500 square foot house.

6.92 billion people in 268581 square miles is over 40 per acre, so if they were grouped in families of 4, every family would have 1/10 of an acre.

Overpopulation of the world is a lie ...

In my lifetime I have seen many negative effects of the increase in population. I'm surprised that you haven't noticed any.

21 posted on 06/15/2011 4:31:59 AM PDT by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wideminded

So each person gets an area approximately 33 feet by 33 feet to live on. Plenty of room!


22 posted on 06/15/2011 5:12:16 AM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wideminded

My bad.
The square foot space is right for 4 square feet is less than 4.89 square feet.
You are right on the acreage. 1/10 of an acre would be about right.
When I was a teen 84% of Maine was woods. Now it is about 86% thus the impact of population ‘growth’ has been miniscule here - although I have lived in Boston, Manila and on Oahu where it seemed crowded.
While living in the city I would dream of the Maine woods.
From what I have seen the negative effects of ‘growth’ has not been from overpopulation as much as misuse.


23 posted on 06/15/2011 5:27:02 AM PDT by PastorJimCM (truth matters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby

I would be happier if we had fewer people and less crowding.


24 posted on 06/15/2011 5:28:29 AM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


25 posted on 06/15/2011 5:32:40 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
If you want less population I would recommend moving to North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Northern Idaho, the UP of Michigan, Maine... All of the world's population, all 7 billion, could be accommodated in 1400 sq ft per person in Texas.

Going outdoors shouldn’t be a travel trip.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. You expect to open your front door and see wilderness? You don't want to walk/drive to a park/green space in your town? Move to the Arizona desert area if you like the heat. People tend to clump. There were ancient cities that had as many people as some of our largest cities. If you really want to get away from it all, when President Palin reinstates NASA's real mission, there will be a moon or Mars colony. You can live in the pristine lunar landscape with out being bothered by the rest of us.

26 posted on 06/15/2011 5:47:57 AM PDT by Vor Lady (The Lord will turn the arena of suffering into a platform of opportunity. R. Zacharias)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MissEdie
"The truth is Welfare Queens are over-populating the Earth. They typically have anywhere from 3-11 children we get stuck paying for."

Prophetic words. We opened the door and... “The thief comes inside. The Bandits raid outside. Now their exploits surround and encircle them.” (Hosea 7:1-2)

27 posted on 06/15/2011 5:48:16 AM PDT by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle
What this is talking about is that in the West people are having less children resulting in underpopulation of native groups. In Spain, the dominant group in another generation (about 30 years) will be immigrant Muslims. The same is happening in Germany, France and England but at slightly different rates. Read Mark Steyn's book America Alone; he lays it out perfectly.
28 posted on 06/15/2011 5:53:53 AM PDT by Vor Lady (The Lord will turn the arena of suffering into a platform of opportunity. R. Zacharias)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Now even traveling from city to city is like commuting on a long urban route of non stop humanity and development.

You realize why that is, I hope.

Most people, rationally, travel from city to city along the interstate highways.

For equally logical reasons businesses tend to cluster along those highways, while towns and roads away from them tend to stagnate or fall back in population.

Even in our most populous states, such as CA or FL, there are still large areas that are almost deserted. For instance, take the Florida Turnpike north from the coast to Orlando. Almost nothing along the entire 100+ miles but cows.

Similarly I-5 in CA from Stockton to Bakersfield, not even in the real desert, is very much like driving across Wyoming.

If you fly from coast to coast, long stretches across the western US there is nothing to see below except an occasional road. No houses, no towns.

IOW, you choose to live and drive where everybody else chooses to live and drive, then complain that it's too crowded. I agree with you, BTW, but I at least recognize that it's my choice to go where all the people are. You or I have the choice to go where there are very few other people.

Freepmail me and I'll be glad to send you some suggestions.

29 posted on 06/15/2011 6:07:46 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

marker


30 posted on 06/15/2011 6:14:43 AM PDT by prairiebreeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
I do believe that out of control Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Progressive, Communist policies will ultimately lead to catastrophic shortages of the essential resources necessary to sustain life because of their proclivity to discourage entrepreneurship, work and creativity.
Cases in point:

Nearly all the famines in Africa are the direct result of government policy, even those that are touched off by drought.

31 posted on 06/15/2011 6:17:46 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

The federal government buying up land, then limiting usage and denying human access also increases the “overpopulation” feel. Around a quarter of the country is no-go, no-graze, no-farm, no-mine. It makes the rest of the land feel over-crowded.


32 posted on 06/15/2011 6:46:32 AM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Vor Lady

You should try reading my post for your answers.


33 posted on 06/15/2011 8:25:46 AM PDT by ansel12 (Bachmann/Rollins/Romney=destruction for Bachmann, but it sure helps Romney. WHY?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; JRandomFreeper

You are talking to one of the best travelled in America people that you could know, I have been travelling this country in every mode of transportation for 55 years, I have lived in many, many states, I was what used to be called a drifter for much of my life, I even lived for years as the classic drifter as a hitchhiking traveler with no destination, living on odd jobs and such, all the time seeing the nation from close up, back roads, Interstates, and everything in between. The majority of my life has been spent in the west and southwest, I am well aware that from a plane, there is vast amounts of empty space.

The reason America appears overcrowded to me is that it is, more than doubling our population in my life time has been a setback for the quality of life here.

When I was a youth and our schools taught American, they taught us about the over populated hell holes of the world, like India and China, (The United States was a distant third in population at the time) now we are approaching what those nations populations were at that time.

Personally I liked America better a 100 or even a 150 million people ago.


34 posted on 06/15/2011 8:40:52 AM PDT by ansel12 (Bachmann/Rollins/Romney=destruction for Bachmann, but it sure helps Romney. WHY?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Don’t disagree. Merely pointing out that much of the perception of population density is because those who decry it choose to hang out where everybody else chooses to hang out.

A great deal of the country is less densely populated than 50 or 100 years ago. I have backpacked through areas of Utah and Colorado where miner’s and homesteader’s abandoned cabins are common. Nobody lives there anymore. Same for the Ozarks of MO and AR, only more so.

My parents both grew up in Kansas. Their hometowns are today more or less ghost towns. Nobody wants to live there anymore.

The country has become at the same time both more densely populated and the population more concentrated than it used to be.


35 posted on 06/15/2011 8:57:57 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Overpopulation is not really about empty space versus open spaces, there will always be vast open spaces, even if we have 50 billion people in the world.

Using very rough, very general numbers, we can say that the American population stabilized at about 200 million in 1970 or so, the 1965 Immigration Act destroyed that stability that our native population had reached.

To me 150, or even 200 million people was all that we ever needed, yet with all those people we still could maintain a high quality of life in our cities and in the resources close to our cities, back then we did not have to travel for hours to reach the outdoor activities. As I said earlier, even in big cities we knew each other, didn’t need keys and locks and our communities were manageable, today most Americans lives more resemble organized farm production type lives.

In 1970 I thought that we were headed to be something like I imagine Switzerland is, a clean, peaceful combination of city and country, a population that is calm, united, that rather than being forced to constantly focus on survival and keeping the machine from collapsing, that we would actually become more advanced and futuristic, and advanced. I saw more refinement of our urban public space, urban forests, the conquest of outer space and the oceans, not that we would be crushed as bureaucrats struggled to manage an ever growing mass of humanity and the paving over of massive regions to accommodate them, and the necessity of the state having to takeover regional resources to deal with the water and sewage needs of the people farms to keep production humming and riots from breaking out.

There will always be enough land, food and water, but that doesn’t mean that there are not too many people.


36 posted on 06/15/2011 9:34:46 AM PDT by ansel12 (Bachmann/Rollins/Romney=destruction for Bachmann, but it sure helps Romney. WHY?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Get to the proper southwest. There’s tons of room. I’ve never lived anywhere in Tucson that was more than a mile from a park. Fishing might be a bit tough to find this being the desert and all, hunting and camping aren’t tough at all. Lots of room to breath.

Most of the folks who think there’s no room to breath in this country are stuck in the corridors. If you travel from Tucson to any other city except Marana or ail (which are suburbs of ours) you’ll find yourself quite literally in the middle of no where in short order. The hundred miles from Tucson to Phoenix is about 80 miles of pure dull empty desert.


37 posted on 06/15/2011 9:39:49 AM PDT by discostu (Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: discostu

I’m from Texas, live in Southern California now, own a house in New Mexico where much of half my family lives, my dad lived in Arizona off and on as an older man and as a young ranch hand, my mother and father met when they lived in New Mexico where they spent much of their youth, my uncles owned ranches and businesses in New Mexico, I have lived in Arizona, and New Mexico, I have spent much of 55 years living, working, and travelling in the region, I even used to cut timber close to 4 corners, I know the Southwest, I remember the Southwest and the Indians of the 1950s, something that most Americans never got to see. I know about open spaces, how many times do I need to post that?


38 posted on 06/15/2011 9:55:22 AM PDT by ansel12 (Bachmann/Rollins/Romney=destruction for Bachmann, but it sure helps Romney. WHY?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

The post I replied to made it sound like you don’t think there is any open space. if you don’t want people thinking that then don’t say it.


39 posted on 06/15/2011 11:36:10 AM PDT by discostu (Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: wideminded

Following up on this, and to clear up some things.

Texas has 261,797 square miles of land area

1 square mile = 27,878,400 square feet, so

Texas has 7,298,481,484,800 square feet of land area.

Divide this by 3000 ft lots,

This gives us:

2,432,827,161 1500 sqft homes on 3000 sqft lots with 756,078,873 houses still empty

The world population is 6,775,235,700 / 4 = 1,693,808,925 households of 4 people each

So this gives us:

2,432,827,161
1500 sqft homes on 3000 sqft lots with 756,078,873 houses still empty

or 81,361 sq miles of open land for streets

So we can put the entire world’s population in the state of Texas with 4 people in a 1500 sqft home on a 3000 sqft lot.

And that leaves over 81,000 sq miles still open.

And of course, the entire rest of the world is free to grow food, have industries, etc.


40 posted on 06/15/2011 11:50:58 AM PDT by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: discostu

No, even in that post I told you that I am a Texan, you just haven’t read the thread and you jumped up with the first silly cliche that people grab when confronted with an opponent of non ending population growth for America, the cliche is to that those people for some strange reason must to have never left the city during their lives and seen the countryside.

If you don’t want to look like a fool then look at the thread before you post.


41 posted on 06/15/2011 11:57:00 AM PDT by ansel12 (Bachmann/Rollins/Romney=destruction for Bachmann, but it sure helps Romney. WHY?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: chaosagent

What is the use of that useless and meaningless information?

That with proper technology and government control of our lives, and being assigned where we live, that we can survive as a species? I like my idea better, end immigration, and try and stabilize our population explosion, and work on our quality of life and nation.


42 posted on 06/15/2011 12:03:22 PM PDT by ansel12 (Bachmann/Rollins/Romney=destruction for Bachmann, but it sure helps Romney. WHY?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

It’s not useless and meaningless. It reinforces the title of the thread.

From your post 36.

“There will always be enough land, food and water, but that doesn’t mean that there are not too many people.”

Talk about a useless and meaningless statement.

And I supposed you will want to be in charge of who lives and who dies, in your BRAVE NEW WORLD.


43 posted on 06/15/2011 1:08:51 PM PDT by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Quix

I don’t have any connection to the case, I just like the movie.


44 posted on 06/15/2011 1:09:11 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: chaosagent

What does that mean?

It is you that wants a scientifically arranged, crowded, human farming, like world. I don’t know if you have noticed, but the more over populated we become, the more powerful our government grows, and the more control it takes over our lives, and even personal habits and activities.

Why would people choose to live like crowded lab rats merely because science and government can crunch the numbers and prove that we can survive that way.


45 posted on 06/15/2011 1:19:53 PM PDT by ansel12 (Bachmann/Rollins/Romney=destruction for Bachmann, but it sure helps Romney. WHY?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

That post closed with this:
Now even traveling from city to city is like commuting on a long urban route of non stop humanity and development.

Which says there’s no open space, at least in your opinion. If you don’t want people thinking you think there’s no open space then don’t include sentences that say you think there’s no open space. If there’s somebody here that looks like a fool it’s the one that said there’s no open space then got huffy with people for pointing out there is.


46 posted on 06/15/2011 1:23:29 PM PDT by discostu (Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: discostu

By not reading the thread and also jumping to conclusions, you were totally off base in your post to me, now you want to double down and fight reality, just read my posts.


47 posted on 06/15/2011 1:27:17 PM PDT by ansel12 (Bachmann/Rollins/Romney=destruction for Bachmann, but it sure helps Romney. WHY?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I didn’t jump to conclusion, I reacted to EXACTLY what you wrote. I’m not fighting reality, you’re fighting reality. You said there was no open space and now you’re pissed that so many people pointed out to you there’s plenty of open space. When multiple people “misread” what you wrote it’s not them it’s you. That’s reality. I have read your posts, every one of them is complaining about the person you’re replying to. Talk about wanting to fight reality.


48 posted on 06/15/2011 1:35:06 PM PDT by discostu (Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: discostu

LOL, read my posts, evidently you were incredibly wrong, and you still can’t seem to understand them.


49 posted on 06/15/2011 1:41:06 PM PDT by ansel12 (Bachmann/Rollins/Romney=destruction for Bachmann, but it sure helps Romney. WHY?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Is it your opinion that there are too many immigrants, or too many human beings regardless of origin?


50 posted on 06/15/2011 1:53:43 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson