| Author | Message | ||
    Jonzie Member Post Number: 37 Registered: 04-2009 |
I take everything that anyone says as their own thoughts which they have every right to express. It is unimaginable to me that someone thinks various humans hit puberty stages differently, depending on what they find attractive. Puberty is a chemical, physical progression of cell development. The barer of puberty gets no choice but the one fact that can be counted on is: everyone who matures into adulthood must pass through it. The human body sets itself up to pro-create; there's no conscious say about it. This is my only meaning. There is, however, a conscious choice to create or not. I've sometimes wondered if homosexuality is nature's way of slowing Man down, but that is just my thought and has no place here. I am not trying to correct/change anyones' personal believe of cause or effect on homosexuality; just on puberty itself. Peace to All, Mate. No apology needed but I thank you the same. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." | ||
Darren Member Post Number: 136 Registered: 07-2009 |
Hi Robyn, Thx for sharing that. I myself love all sorts of online games and never heard of Superstruct game. It must be new. Is it any good or haven't you played that one yet? | ||
Techieatwork Member Post Number: 25 Registered: 08-2008 |
They word it as if this is bad news, but, it's just fantastic self-control: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/305065,germanys-population-keeps-on-declining-another-city-gone.html congrats to that city's inhabitants!! one town at the time, we need to tell this story, it's not that one city has "gone" it's that their people have grown smarter. -- Salome Carlos | ||
Techieatwork Member Post Number: 27 Registered: 08-2008 |
...I meant, congrats to Germany! What a great example. You can tell there are great thinkers amongst Germans. I wish we all follow suit. -- Salome Carlos | ||
Getknowledge Member Post Number: 104 Registered: 04-2008 |
Please post this message mods, sorry. i wanted to ask Billy, but maybe someone here has read something from the Notes i havent. Maybe the Ps dont give this information on purpose. They dont give dates but, the Notes always talk about over pop, even in the far future when we reunite with the creator overlords. It seems like earth will always be plagued by this problem. Will there ever be a time on earth when there is no over pop, by choice, not by some catastrophe or war, and maintained because its recognized as an issue? Any insights or foresights? Tien | ||
Redbeard Member Post Number: 167 Registered: 04-2006 |
After all the recent activities how about a little comic relief about Overpopulation by Bill Burr. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNF7UXr159I&feature=related Peace, Matt | ||
Schantz Member Post Number: 98 Registered: 03-2007 |
New article and translation from FIGU Special Bulletin 51. http://www.figu.org/ch/verein/periodika/sonder-bulletin/2010/nr-51/population-time-bomb | ||
Gaiaguysnet Member Post Number: 844 Registered: 03-2004 |
Dear Bianca, I’m addressing your question on the Global Warming thread about Australian overpopulation here on the Overpopulation thread. You wrote, “ …I would like to ask if you would be willing to do some real ratio calculations of population to land mass formulas, etc.” My short answer is: no. This sounds like an enormous exercise, requiring a huge amount of data-mining. I simply lack the time, (if I am to continue to work for Billy’s mission) resources and motivation to even begin to come up with any reasonable figures. Think of all the variables and all the different potential futures. Both of the below are feasible. Only one is sustainable. Is it 1.) a fossil fuel economy where everybody lives in insane energy-inefficient houses in capital city suburbs and drives huge air-conditioned 4wds to the supermarket? (as it is now.) Or is it 2.) a free-energy (grid-less) economy where people are spread out in solar/underground houses with home veggie gardens above them, and fly around in magnetogravitic craft? One child per family? You take my point. Whatever the figure is, it would have to be a LOT less than 17, 000,000 people. Have you driven along the tail end of the Murrey River? Devastation from rising salt far and wide. See much of South Australia? The whole country’s been almost totally raped. Tassie has similar looking places too. Forest dieback and human-caused deforestation, loss of rainforests, coral reef death, species extinction. Don’t make me cry. It’s an ongoing catastrophe. “a Bio-Dynamic Fuji apple”? I’ve not knowingly eaten one. Sounds yummy. But I’ll remain skeptical about the bio-dynamic movement until someone can successfully explain the science (if any) behind it for me. Salome, Dyson | ||
Stephen_moore Member Post Number: 215 Registered: 01-2009 |
Hi Bianca, Dyson and all I worked on a 2009 population table with land mass, arable land and pasture land values. These values/figures was supplied to me by Christian Frehner. All thought on the table at futureofmankind it says the figures came from another source, I don't know if James was advised not to mention FIGU or FIGU used the same source as James has mentioned. Nether the less the figures was accurate at the time and Christian re-affirmed the accuracy to me. The calculations for 'current population' and 'times overpopulated' took me about 4 - 5 days to do and working many hours a day. This includes checking/going through the calculations I had done and correcting any mistakes. There is also a document that I have started to write which you will find at the bottom of the population table. I have yet to finish the document due to not having time just yet. But I will work on it again very soon. The population table can be found at - http://futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Population_Table_2009 BTW, Australia is not overpopulated ....... So far. Salome Website addresses - www.ufofacts.co.cc - www.thecircleforhumanity.net | ||
Darren Member Post Number: 139 Registered: 07-2009 |
Dear Dyson, Regarding your number 2. But that won't happen for many decades or centuries away? Another thing is why should we have to live in underground houses when the P's don't on their home world? | ||
Gaiaguysnet Member Post Number: 848 Registered: 03-2004 |
Hi Darren, I was active in an official capacity in the Disclosure Project. I know that a lot of these technologies are NOW sitting, finished, ready to be mass-produced, gathering dust on "the black shelf". Underground? Who said anything about HAVING to live underground? I was just using that as a hypothetical alternative to what Australians do now. Sorry to have misled you. Dear Stephan, It is certainly overpopulated by the people who live the way they do here NOW. That was the point I was trying to make to our friend Bianca. But if we lived more in tune with nature here, instead of being the worst per capita CO2 polluters on the whole planet, as we are now, we could happily have a bigger population. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll check out the chart. Cheers! Dyson | ||
Mahigitam Member Post Number: 77 Registered: 02-2009 |
Billy says people of earth will turn to truth after 800 years & that his Goblet of Truth will help them in their search for truth... my question is, Humans turning to truth comes after recognizing their mistakes through science & consciousness evolution(that earth is a living organism & we are all interconnected) or through catastrophes that causes depopulation which in turn reduces all evil? or a bit of both ? Fear not what is not real,never was and never will be.What is real,always was and cannot be destroyed. | ||
Smukhuti Member Post Number: 182 Registered: 06-2009 |
I am seeing letters being sent by various members of the forum to U.S. administrators warnings about the Red Meteor in the Asteroids and Comets thread. I hope these letters does not fall into deaf ears like I have experienced. On 25/07/2009 I shot a long e-mail to my country's (INDIA) Minister of Health and Family Welfare regarding overpopulation and explaining how overpopulation is the mother of all problems that India faces. But I got in return - STUNNING SILENCE. Not even an acknowledgement mail! Salome. Suv | ||
Gaiaguysnet Member Post Number: 861 Registered: 03-2004 |
Dear Stephen (et al), The population chart you were kind enough to draw my attention to states: (Australia is) "54% permanent pasture". Does this include places which are currently forested, which would then be cleared for agriculture? I ask because this figure seems very very liberal. Thanks. Cheers! Dyson | ||
Edward Member Post Number: 1639 Registered: 05-2002 |
Hi Mahigitam.... I would also say a bit of Both! 'Depopulation', is indeed just plain old Consequences: Cause and Effect! WE, are now...learning The Hard way, so to speak. Like they say: "Who does not want to listen....will have to experience!" Edward. | ||
Stephen_moore Member Post Number: 216 Registered: 01-2009 |
Hi Dyson. To my knowledge this figure does not include forested areas. The 54% permanent pasture is what is available now to use without clearing forests. Here is an excerpt from 'Overpopulation Bomb' http://us.figu.org/portal/SocialIssues/OverpopulationBomb/tabid/105/Default.aspx "A few words must be directed toward food production. A mere 12% of the entire Earth's landmass surface is entirely arable for agricultural and horticultural purposes. The remainder of the planet's surface consists of areas that cannot be cultivated, such as mountains, rocky terrains, tundras, arid regions, forests and deserts. However, the 12% arable land is not proportional to the mass of humanity, because one single human being requires by nature a living space of 83,333 square meters (99,665 sq. yds.), and 4000 square meters, or 63.245 x 63.245 meters (4784 sq. yds. or 69.166 x 69.166 yards) of fertile ground or garden soil is required to feed him- or herself. Calculated for 6 billion people, this amounts to a total arable landmass requirement of approximately 24 million square kilometers (9.3 million square miles). Such an expanse is not available, however, because the entire planet's 12% arable land amounts to 18 million square kilometers (7.0 million square miles) – 6 million square kilometers (2.3 million sq. mi.) less than the 6 billion-strong humanity requires for adequate food production." It does seem logical to me that FIGU or Billy would not include the destruction of forested areas into a calculation for the available permanent pasture land. I can see that the figures for pasture land could create confusion. I also was confused trying to get my head around the information myself. I think I will explain this on the Population Table 2009 on James site. Hopefully it will shed some light on this subject and also might ask for clarification from Christian. Thanks for bringing this up, Dyson I will look into this and let you all know Cheers Website addresses - www.ufofacts.co.cc - www.thecircleforhumanity.net | ||
Gaiaguysnet Member Post Number: 865 Registered: 03-2004 |
Dear Stephen! Thanks for all that. :-) One of the reasons that I declined Bianca's invitation to do this work is because it is SUCH a can of worms. As you can imagine, each country has very different situations to do with long-term weather, access to irrigation and the long-term viability of same, and, of course, the nature of the fauna which live of that region. For instance, here in Australia, stupid people (by far the ruling majority here on Planet Suicide) prefer to eat beef, and grow wool, but these exotic animals eventually ruin the delicate soil structure with their hard hooves, creating permanent, sterile clay-pans. People don't like to eat the great mobs of indigenous kangaroos and wallabies, although they can survive SUSTAINABLY in places where other grazing animals cannot, and are quite nice eating! The operative word is "sustainably". Arable means: land where crops can be raised. But raised fro how long? Lots of the world, not just Australia, once had crops being raised, where now there is only wasteland. Clearing forests' deep-rooted trees lets the water table rise, bringing salt to the surface, killing everything in the resulting salt-pans. So how many people can live on the planet FOR HOW LONG? Forever? For a few more generations? Those are the big questions, in my view. Can we really sustain it for all eternity, or are we in Australia going to keep mining fossil water as we spread our species like locusts and use up the land like a disposable commodity? Salome, Dyson | ||
Darren Member Post Number: 141 Registered: 07-2009 |
Dyson, Its only a matter of time before technology allows cheap desalination conversion of our Great Artesian Basin water or fossil water as you call it. That will open up huge areas for farming. They say theres so much water there that no threat of it EVER running out but never is a long time. How long do you think it could last decades, centuries or millenia?  | ||
Gaiaguysnet Member Post Number: 870 Registered: 03-2004 |
Hi Darren! Which technology exactly? The Disclosure Project stuff? Who is "They" who say this? "They say theres so much water there that no threat of it EVER running out" That's what "they" said about oil once - and that was before "they" knew that removing it caused devastating earthquakes. The artesian water had its isotope ratios measured and was found to be thousands of years old. (But my research is not up to date. Perhaps that's changed?) Let's leave it. We don't need it. I still strongly agree with Billy and the Plejaren that, instead of trying to make our dying planet (our mass is killing it already) cope with yet more people, we should reduce our population to no more than 529m. One thing that I know is that there are usually unexpected climatic consequences to changing huge areas of the planetary surface drastically, and these changes are unpredictable. Please do have a read about the history of scientific knowledge. It's quite embarrassing. Salome, Dyson | ||
Stephen_moore Member Post Number: 217 Registered: 01-2009 |
Just to follow up here briefly, Arable land (Arable or Pasture land) which is to be used as food should be areas which have a lot of rain and rivers. Areas which can only sustain a few wild animals etc cannot be counted as arable or pasture land that can be used for the production of food. So mountains, rocky terrains, tundras, arid regions, forests and deserts in no way should be counted as useful for food production. However this has been broken by us humans due to our overpopulation and huge demand for food. Mass land is being artificially irrigated to cope with the demand for food. Thus using more and more water. Also land that was once good for food production has deteriorated through climate change, soil erosion, lack of water and drought and so on. Regarding fossil water. I personal have not looked into this much, But what I have read is that this source of water is being pumped out at an alarming rate in some countries, USA is one that I have read about. From my own thinking isnt pumping out vast amounts of fossil water another exploitation of earth. What happens to the soil/dirt once the water has gone. It will dry up. condense and crack. This could lead to land collapse and land slides. I dont know for sure but from my own thinking this is a possibility and/or other problems could arise. Regarding how long we have. Well going by how much the large and small rivers are getting shallower and shallower and the increasing demand for water I would say this century we would be seeing some drastic problems. This is my own opinion. In 50 years time there could possibly be over 10 billion humans on earth (thats if we stop the Red Meteor, thats another story !!) We cannot sustain 7.7 billion humans now and we are drastically "screwing up" the planet. We are on a down hill slope and at the bottom of the hill is a big hole. Salome Website addresses - www.ufofacts.co.cc - www.thecircleforhumanity.net | ||
Darren Member Post Number: 142 Registered: 07-2009 |
"Which technology exactly? The Disclosure Project stuff? Who is "They" who say this?" Hi Dyson, Its partly because on new material (some sort of fabric) used that allows far greater/faster filtration of water. And partly on machinery used, new designs ect. I heard about it on a present/future science technology show on cable called "ECO-TECH" and the episode i think was "Future Cities". It was showing one of the major cities in south america (can't remember which one) that had just acquired a new 100 million dollar desalination plant that converts salty ground water to clean. They said that the city couldn't afford to get it a decade or so ago because it (the old design) would have cost around 300 million and also that the speed at which it converts is far slower too. They went on to say that theres new technology in the wings that would soon allow plants to be made cheaper as well as converts faster too. They didn't talk about personal home/farm plants but I think its only matter of time before people would be able to afford it on their private farms/land. A little bit like solar energy went here in Oz. A Solar energy system was incrediably expensive to get at first then as time went on technology kept getting better and cheaper. | ||
Darren Member Post Number: 143 Registered: 07-2009 |
sorry, one thing i forgot to say before was that this new plant design/system was that it uses about a fifth of the energy that the old plant design (s) used. | ||
Techieatwork Member Post Number: 42 Registered: 08-2008 |
Darren: A new desalination plant came life in Sydney 15% of the city water comes now from the sea Monthly bills will increase AUD $2 The cost was I think 2Million AUD What I don't understand why after cleaning the water so much, with reverse osmosis and many other filters, they dump chloride and fluoride to the water, before going to the "public" water system Is Fluoride really needed to keep teeth and bones strong? Some say is for mind control (dumb-ing or brain numb-ing down), so people say "yes yes, ok" every time they raise the taxes and the price of petrol. may-be false, or may-be true sorry I digressed -- Salome Carlos |
