S
Sam_777
Guest
Don’t you think that this earth is so saturated and there is no more resources for more people, therefore Jesus second coming could be very near…
- Status
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
I can’t prove it, but I think the earth was designed to be able to support 40 billion people, provided we don’ t waste resources and share equitably. On the other hand, I’m no admirer of the church’s position on artificial contraception.
Apparently according to the link - dieoff.org/page99.htm
You probably won’t believe me but I had a quick vision quite some time ago where somebody said the earth was designed to support 40 billion people, provided we shared and didn’t waste resources. Take it or leave it.
Anyway … I don’t think Christ’s Second Coming is going to depend on population statistics, even if in Revelation, John stated that (Rev. 7:9) that “… there was an enormous crowd—no one could count all the people! They were from every race, tribe, nation, and language, …”
So clearly there will be a lot of people at the Last Judgement.
My own little peccadillo is that God intends to push us off the planet, and He has already provided the means for us to begin doing so - the space race, space medicine, artificial intelligence, robots, quantum physics etc. All that’s lacking at the moment is the motivation, and the means of transport in sufficient speed and quantity.
I’ll take a punt at quantum teleportation, which we’re just starting to much around with. Not many people in 1923 would have guessed that Robert Goddard’s small liquid fuelled rockets would one day land man on the moon just 46 years later, or push an the Voyager probes outside the solar system, such that in “June 2011 they were on course to exit the solar system.” (WIkipedia) Ih the same way, we may find our progress in quantum teleporting goes a lot further than most of would even guess at this stage.
I also believe it will prove living beings have a spirit, since I suspect that it will take quite some time to learn how to teleport living things, which will invariably arrived at their destination dead as a doornail, since we can’t quantify the soul. I suppose we’ll get around it eventually, but the hiatus will be sufficiently long that it will put beyond all doubt that life has a spiritual component. One advantage - it will be a good quarantine measure, since bacterial, viruses, insects and vermin will be killed as well in transit.
If that’s part of His plan, then not only will there be the earthly population to take into consideration, but also the galactic or intergalactic populations in time to come.
I said I don’t have much time for the argument against artificial contraception. But I’m not much of an admirer of the Rapture either. I think Christ’s return is a bit further off than some might expect. But I do think that we’re heading for massive trouble.
That’s my take on it. We’ll just have to sit around for half a century or so to see if it happens.
F
followingtheway
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
There are plenty of resources and potential resources on this planet but greed, waste, mismanagement and unfair distribution have resulted in needless poverty, disease, malnutrition and suffering. People have thought the second coming of Jesus is imminent for over two thousand years!
S
Saburo
Guest
The entire population of the world can fit into Texas with about 30 SF per person, or at least it could the last time I did the calculation. Of course, that doesn’t leave room for farmland, water resources and treatment, mining, shelter, energy production, and all the other infrastructure that supports civilization. Also, it would smell pretty badly, and everyone would drive everyone crazy, so let’s not all move to Texas.
The world really isn’t that crowded. It’s just crowded in places where people like to live. Some of that is inexplicable. Chicago, for example, comes to mind. There are buses leaving every day, and yet…and yet…why???
The world really isn’t that crowded. It’s just crowded in places where people like to live. Some of that is inexplicable. Chicago, for example, comes to mind. There are buses leaving every day, and yet…and yet…why???
T
tonyrey
Guest
They prefer the comforts and facilities of the city to a park bench in Hawaii - although I know which I would prefer!
A
ANNE_2
Guest
J
JDaniel
Guest
Tony:
I’m not sure it’s that simple. There is an interesting website that looks at population expansion and what’s being done to help. See below:
youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
We know that immigration won’t help. And, we can be pretty sure that there’s not enough money to help. So, what’s left?
Personally I do not believe that the Earth can support 40 billion people, even though that would be only 20 billion adults and 20 billion, 17 yo’s and below. If it can, this planet is not far from the precipice of doom.
Above someone mentioned “pushing people off the planet,” as an alternative. Then mentioned that we’re may not be achieving the space race fast enough. I contend that the space race is not what’s important. I contend that billions of people are going to require planets that are nearly as anthropic as ours. In the absence of such, can you imagine the bio-domes that would have to be built to house millions-to-billions of people? Can you imagine how strong such a dome would have to be? Inside it would have to be pressurized to not much greater than 9 to 10 thousand feet, so that the people could be comfortable and maximally productive. Consider the generation of atmospheric conditions that would keep them from requiring special (space-) suits and oxygen tanks. And, these are but a few considerations!
By the way, at the rate of population growth, it will only take about 300 years to reach 40 billion. Granted that’s a long time and we’ll be dead, but, that’s only 4 generations away! So, our grand-children’s grand-children will witness it.
The assumption is that we’ll find planets that will not have problems that we cannot overcome. Problems such as high levels of radiation leakage; problems of planet ground density; gravitational problems; problems of local temperatures that are either so high, or so low, that they can effectively and efficiently be overcome.
I could go on, but that would only make me depressed!
God bless,
jd
You could easily squeeze more people in North America and look at the size of Australia with its small population.
I’ll only worry about population being too high when we need ration books like we did during the war but in peacetime due to the lack of basic food due to population.
I think USA alone could house 900 million people quite easily.
I’ll only worry about population being too high when we need ration books like we did during the war but in peacetime due to the lack of basic food due to population.
I think USA alone could house 900 million people quite easily.
T
tonyrey
Guest
There is an interesting article entitled “The population timebomb is a myth!”
independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-the-population-timebomb-is-a-myth-2186968.html
God bless
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
As an Australian I agree we could support more people. But bear in mind that at least half of Australia is desert, with a lot more being marginal farming land at best.You could easily squeeze more people in North America and look at the size of Australia with its small population.
I’ll only worry about population being too high when we need ration books like we did during the war but in peacetime due to the lack of basic food due to population.
I think USA alone could house 900 million people quite easily.
From Wikipedia -
We can’t support the sort of population densities that more verdant European countries can. Even now we’re having problems with the Murray-Darling system which is our main water supply for much of our most fertile agricultural region. Water has always been a problem in Australia once you get away from the coastal areas.
It’s all very well quoting these figures like everybody can fit into Texas, but it takes (From Wikipedia) “…it takes 1,300 cubic meters of water on average to produce one metric tonne of wheat.”
There’s a lot more to take into account than just rubbing shoulders together.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
A means of transportation entails a lot of other needs, including maintaining one’s life for years (which include thermal regulation, atmospheric regulation, addressing food needs, , protection from cosmic radiation, impacts of solar flares, and other things the earths atmosphere and magnetosphere protects us from). Not to mention if something goes wrong you are on your own, there’s no asking for road side assistance.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
I’m aware of all that. I assume there’d be the same sort of planning that goes into sending astronauts to a space station now. No doubt there’d be a high fatality rate, but if Revelation (and Mary’s warnings at Akita) are correct, the “living will envy the dead” even on earth, so whatever God’s got planned for us, it can’t be very pleasant. He didn’t baulk even when Hitler was putting his Chosen People through the concentration camps.
I sometimes think that if you juxtapose an image of the holocaust survivors staring through the wire against the mushroom clouds of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there is an indication of what Mary was trying to warn us about at Akita.
michaeljournal.org/akita.htm
J
JDaniel
Guest
Tony:
I am aware of those forecasts. However, assume, for a minute, that 7 billion reproduce at the rate of 1%, as the article stated. What’s 1% of 7 billion? It’s 70 million, close to what the gum-ball forecast was saying for current population growth. So, in that case let’s say that instead of reaching 40 billion (not 9 billion) in 4 generations, let’s say it will take 6 - 8 generations. That’s 450 - 600 years, using 75 years as a generation.
We can clearly see and feel the effects of huge populations in the major cities. California is 31 million people. Multiply that times 6 and you have 186 million. I believe that it is true that we have many years to go before we reach 40 billion, but the fact is, it’s coming. Also, it may be that we can grow, or otherwise produce, all the food we need to sustain 40 million, but who wants to live in a large, global city.
Take a look at the population growth just since 1 AD, on the web. Anyway, it would be interesting to know just what we are doing to get us there gracefully. By the way, I am in agreement that annihilation is not the answer either.
God bless,
jd
S
Sam_777
Guest
Interesting contributions… 
.
However, I think sharing resources equally between each others will not solve the problem, look at the rapid environmental changes happening nowadays worldwide (tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, etc), we are polluting the environment with our machines and stuff, so as much as we grow, as much as we will make it worst for the environment…
.However, I think sharing resources equally between each others will not solve the problem, look at the rapid environmental changes happening nowadays worldwide (tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, etc), we are polluting the environment with our machines and stuff, so as much as we grow, as much as we will make it worst for the environment…
T
tonyrey
Guest
jd,
I think any assumption about the future size of the world’s population in the remote future is speculative because there are so many factors to be considered: pollution, infertility, disease, deaths from malnutritition and starvation, natural disasters, nuclear warfare, nuclear catastrophes, unnatural lifestyles, individual decisions, governmental policies, emigration to satellites…
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I agree with you. On that note I had a friend that started to IM me something from a book she was reading that she thought to be enlightening. Some of the things the book was saying was that cries about eroding resources and environmental impacts were unjustified and have never been proven true because humans are still around and alive. It then supported its claims with appeals to ignorance and some other fallacious word patterns. I was disappointed to see it sway the friend and was wondering how many other people it swayed.Interesting contributions…
However, I think sharing resources equally between each others will not solve the problem, look at the rapid environmental changes happening nowadays worldwide (tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, etc), we are polluting the environment with our machines and stuff, so as much as we grow, as much as we will make it worst for the environment…
I think the book was either “The 48 Laws of Power” or something inspired by the book.
J
Jonatello
Guest
The entire Global population could fit in Texas at a Brooklyn-based density.
Plenty of room.
More than enough space and resources for everyone, the trick is better management/distribution/arrangment/etc of those resources.
Not having the vast majority of them hoarded by the vast minority would be a great start.
Better urban planning/arranging of livable human space (development patterns, etc) would be a HUGE step.
J
JDaniel
Guest
But, my good friend, all of these things are what? They are the direct, and indirect, results of what is called, “overcrowding.” If one takes a closed system, say a fifty gallon glass tank and allows mice to breed freely for a number of generations, well before the tank can possibly be full to the brim, overcrowding difficulties will arise.jd,
I think any assumption about the future size of the world’s population in the remote future is speculative because there are so many factors to be considered: pollution, infertility, disease, deaths from malnutritition and starvation, natural disasters, nuclear warfare, nuclear catastrophes, unnatural lifestyles, individual decisions, governmental policies, emigration to satellites…
I know what you’re telling me. And you are right: anything can happen. Humans, with God’s help, are resourceful. It is said that about 90% of what we use today was invented within the past 10 - 15 years. I don’t know if that’s true; I haven’t had time to make an accurate count! But, until that time when we do develop some alternatives, we are moving steadily in the direction of a maximum sustainable level of life, IMHO.
All the while we are supposedly preparing for the potentiality of an alien invasion! Senseless.
God bless,
jd
T
Trevor_Stamm
Guest
I wouldn’t buy into the Malthusian Dilemma argument prompt up by eugenics so easily. They have a goal, reduce population by any and all means, even creating erroneous and fallacious theories about population and local resource consumption limits.
An intellectual debate can be opened about this when farmers are no long subsidized to not grow more and things like what happened in Fresno two years ago when the drought hit and 40% of the farms went out of business because environ-maniacs had the government not allow our water reverses to be opened because of a single sea life creature. . . Cali = looney toon land. Where was the bailout for people that actually needed it like the farmers? Oh wait; the bankers got it who strangulated the farmers in the first place and the very same people who support the Malthusian Dilemma.
The problem is not food consumption and localized resources drying up, it’s manipulation and suppression of food production. If California was running at 100% efficiency and production, food prices would be halved and there wouldn’t be a starving class of people. No reason in talking about it though since no one is doing anything about it.
- Status