(E minus 350) 6 April 2015 — #1 Over-Population

See  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Milestones

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Milestones

I am convinced that over-population lies at the heart of our problems here on Planet Earth. At the end of THE MESSAGE I’ve challenged us to look for and share ideas/thoughts about how we will fulfill Kiran’s vision (page 105).

In THE MESSAGE, which I hope you have read, in the blinking of an eye Earth’s population is reduced to one billion people.

In FUTURE CHRONICLES, THE FIRST FIVE HUNDRED YEARS OF THE AGE OF SPACE (future history, not science fiction), which I hope to publish in September of next year, in not much longer time the population of our home planet is brought to two billion people.

I maintain that three billion people will be optimum, but expect that we will stabilize Earth’s population at eight billion by the year 2030 and that we will reach an optimum population of three billion people by the end of the Fifth Century of The Age of Space—about four hundred fifty years from now.

Please let me know your thoughts on this—scroll down to Leave a Reply and enter your comment.

WarrenHall Crain, 6 April 2015

Please like & share:

12 Comments on “(E minus 350) 6 April 2015 — #1 Over-Population”

  1. Deborah

    How can we reduce the world’s population when some countries are urging people to have more babies?

    Why? Because a smaller population means reduced economic and international political power.

    Population = power.

    “Sex Education in Europe Turns to Urging More Births,” is a headline in The New York Times, April 9, 2015. In Denmark, it reports, sex education courses that used to teach how NOT to get pregnant, now emphasize how to GET pregnant. This is a change deliberately designed to encourage population growth.

    As populations age, with greater and greater percentages over age 65, population totals fall. The Italian health minister, in February, described Italy as a “dying country.”

    Instead of fostering the health of the whole planet (by reducing population), they protect the power of their own country (by increasing population).

    How will it be possible to overcome this trend?

  2. WarrenHall

    Deborah, I believe that Kiran has the answer to the thorny issues which you raise. Look at the last point of his vision.

    Though I expect that we will probably use more names than one for God, we will recognize the one-ness of all humanity. Then we will deal globally with the population (and all other) isssues.

    We will be concerned not so much about how many A——ans,It——ians, I——–ish, R——–ns there are but about how many people this planet can support in a healthy way.

    And for those countries which have too few people: the global world view which Kiran obviously has would suggest importing/adopting babies from countries which have too many.

  3. Kevin

    Over-population is a socially constructed problem defined by various metrics, including infant mortality, daily wages, and access to basic health care, among others. There are, in fact, more than enough resources to provide the earth’s population with these, and the reason why we have poverty is because of the high cost of distribution, corruption, lack of education, among others. Population levels are therefore already being controlled by limiting the distribution of social and economic resources by the industrialized nations and wealthy in the developing countries.

    If efforts to reduce population are put into effect, they serve only to reduce the population of the “poor”, and these poverty reduction strategies come with important “attachments” by the IMF and World Bank, among other sources of important financing. These attachments, such as structural adjustment policies and programmes, only serve to further indebt the recipient developing country and disrupt traditionally sustainable relationships between communities and their small-scale farming practices. Certainly, while these have their own problems, the alternatives imposed from industrialized countries seeking to extend their reach into developing countries (not because of good will, but because they want something from that recipient country) only benefit a very limited number of social actors in the recipient country.

    Reducing population, in my mind, is a misguided approach to development as the underlying and more systemic causes of poverty are not a population issue.

  4. David

    Hi, Warren!
    We are spirits. We have bodies for the purpose of spiritual evolution. This is primary. Would it be that we all could learn through the Light of consciousness, rather than through the pressure of suffering. Part of the pressure, the necessity, for our evolution comes from the mounting human density. I see as as necessary stage for the development of the kind of unified field of consciousness of which you speak.
    Light Peace Love,
    David

  5. Pingback: RICHARD HEIDER

  6. WarrenHall

    Kevin, David, Richard – each of you has pointed out that dealing with population is much more complex than simply reducing the numbers of people on Planet Earth. Kevin, you stress that “dealing with the underlying and systemic causes of poverty” is more crucial. I see dealing with poverty as one of the basic ways in which we will reach an optimum population.

    I note that Kiran makes “health care freely available to all” one of the ten points of his vision. This will go a very long way toward reducing poverty.

    David, thank you for giving us a bit more insight into THE COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS in your definition as “a kind of unified field of consciousness”. One of our most basic tasks as human beings is to seek to discern the will of this “unified field.”

    Richard, you maintain that “our goal should be to feed the 10 billion by 2040” and leave to “our children and grandchildren to take it from there”. I am a future historian – seeking to document the next 450 years from the point of view of my descendant in the fifth century of the Age of Space. Much of this book with the cumbersome title of FUTURE CHRONICLES: THE FIRST FIVE HUNDRED YEARS OF THE AGE OF SPACE is still to be written. I expect to publish it in September 2016. It may be that as I do the detailed work of chronicling these five centuries I will (that is, Earth will) reach a figure different than 3 billion.

    WarrenHall – 14 April 2015

  7. Seth

    About a year ago I saw an article that said that an analysis had been done on the impact of a global one child policy. The result was getting down to a sustainable level, I think 3 billion, in 100 years. That is surprisingly fast. And potentially doable if the crisis becomes comprehensible to everyone. Unfortunately very unlikely. Still the idea of a single policy having such an impact is impressive.

  8. WarrenHall

    Seth, first, this is evidence that bringing down the number of people living on this planet is eminently possible.
    Second, the challenge is, how will we ever get all governments to adopt a one child policy? Or will we have one world government which can impose such a policy. I will be dealing with these issues as I write FUTURE CHRONICLES.
    Third, when you read FUTURE CHRONICLES (target publication date: September 2016) you will find that we have reached a global population (not including Luna, theMars Colony or the colonies in low Earth orbit) of three billion in the year 354(S) – that’s the three hundred fiftyfourth year of the Age of Space.

    WarrenHall – 16 April 2015

  9. Nirmal Chand

    There are cities and neighborhoods that are over populated. Much of that is created by businesses which are not distributing the industries in a better way. There are places that do not have much human population. Better planning is required now….not wars!

  10. WarrenHall

    I quite agree, Nirmal. We MUST NOT have any more major wars as we did in the past century. And better distribution of industries is essential. I contend that this must be done globally, not only within nations. Though PM Modi is doing a good job of planning, the only way to establish new industrial areas in India, where you and I grew up, is to take land away from farmers.

    This brings me back to my contention, at the beginning of this dialogue on Kiran’s Symposium, that over-population of Planet Earth is the Number One issue with which we must deal.

    I was talking yesterday with a friend who maintains that the optimum population of our home planet is ONE billion – or perhaps less. We will surely deal with this issue often on Kiran’s Symposium.

    WarrenHall

  11. Pingback: TOO MANY PEOPLE ON PLANET EARTH? - WarrenHall Crain for Kiran Verma's Vision

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.