Topic: POPULATION - page 2. (Read 3269 times)
Even in highly populted nations there will be more bare lands. If those were used effective automatically the issues faced out of population can be sought. In specific when a separate region is allocated for industrial development a mass population gets dumped over that region. If the same is diversified to different localities more people will get job and more relocation gets stopped.
How to live comfortable in an over populated environment?
become the capitalist let the lazy skumbacks work for you,
you have to tell them somehow that thats good for them,
or better, that god told them to do that and you are some kind of a religious nobility
Its simple,all you need is money for comfortable life.You have to be richer than 70% of people in that country to call yourself rich and can use that money to get some attention for yourself and make your life better.
But making money is not that much simple.
But making money is not that much simple.
In a practical way, yes money plays an important role to have a comfortable life. But it is not money alone if you are having a happy family and producing your own food etc you can have a comfortable life, an abundant life best describes this. If those basic needs are sustained like food, shelter, clothing, etc, you have quite comfortable life IMHO.
The only thing you need was the satisfaction about everything and also hard work. You'll become comfortable when you already claim all the hierarchy needs of the person because from that situation, you can live at the higher degree.
How to live comfortable in an over populated environment?
IMHO the way you live your life (comfortably or uncomfortably) mostly depends on internal factors such as feeling of freedom, content, self-esteem, etc. External factors (overpopulation is just one of them) play the secondary role. I think that we should focus more on our own inner world which we can influence at least partially than on the outer world that lives by itself. 
Its simple,all you need is money for comfortable life.You have to be richer than 70% of people in that country to call yourself rich and can use that money to get some attention for yourself and make your life better.
But making money is not that much simple.
But making money is not that much simple.
In a practical way, yes money plays an important role to have a comfortable life. But it is not money alone if you are having a happy family and producing your own food etc you can have a comfortable life, an abundant life best describes this. If those basic needs are sustained like food, shelter, clothing, etc, you have quite comfortable life IMHO.
Its simple,all you need is money for comfortable life.You have to be richer than 70% of people in that country to call yourself rich and can use that money to get some attention for yourself and make your life better.
But making money is not that much simple.
But making money is not that much simple.
In a practical way, yes money plays an important role to have a comfortable life. But it is not money alone if you are having a happy family and producing your own food etc you can have a comfortable life, an abundant life best describes this. If those basic needs are sustained like food, shelter, clothing, etc, you have quite comfortable life IMHO.
Its simple,all you need is money for comfortable life.You have to be richer than 70% of people in that country to call yourself rich and can use that money to get some attention for yourself and make your life better.
But making money is not that much simple.
But making money is not that much simple.
How to live comfortable in an over populated environment?
Living comportable in this world even if it's over populated is easy. You must be use to it. In my country. The population is so huge year by year over 100m+ with only 300km island.World is so over populated, i can't imagine in future that we can feed all of the people in this world. I can't imagine where the other people live.
I'll bet that there are plenty of astrophysysicists who are mathematicians who could calculate a very different distance by calculating a gradual change in math and physics into it. But why do this when it is so much easier to use all kinds of constants that we don't for-a-fact know existed more than a million years ago?
I'll concede that scientific understanding of the distant past is a projection, and that the universe changes over time. You're not talking differences of degree though, about whether the universe is 10 or 15 billion years old - you're saying (in the religion thread) a few thousand or (here) a million, which is simply not true. That can and has been easily tested right here on Earth. Isotope analysis such as radio-carbon dating has proven far beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is over 4 billion years old.
If a person said, "It looks like the universe is 13.5 billion years old according to this evidence or that," he would be okay. But since our pottery only goes back about 5,000 years, and since radioactive dating has its anomalies and flaws, we don't know even close to for sure. All our evidence for the universe age of 13.5 billion could be evidence that has been affected by any number of things that could be causing false readings in the way we interpret them.
On the other hand, if God created the universe about 7,500 years ago, and placed into the creation all kinds of things that could be interpreted scientifically to show that the universe might be older, how would we know?
There is absolutely no proof that the universe is much older than 5,000 years... about how old we can date the oldest pottery and "statues." So, be honest, and say it the way it is... not the way you would like it to be.
We don't know that the earth didn't have a population in the past, that was twice the size of today. And that most of them were destroyed in some apocalypse. The Bible shows that this is possible in Noah's Flood, and Sumerian writings in the Epic of Gilgamesh more or less agree that it could have been that way.
I'll bet that there are plenty of astrophysysicists who are mathematicians who could calculate a very different distance by calculating a gradual change in math and physics into it. But why do this when it is so much easier to use all kinds of constants that we don't for-a-fact know existed more than a million years ago?
I'll concede that scientific understanding of the distant past is a projection, and that the universe changes over time. You're not talking differences of degree though, about whether the universe is 10 or 15 billion years old - you're saying (in the religion thread) a few thousand or (here) a million, which is simply not true. That can and has been easily tested right here on Earth. Isotope analysis such as radio-carbon dating has proven far beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is over 4 billion years old.Basically, comfort begins with our feelings and thoughts. If you can control it, you will most likely feel comfortable wherever you want to stay. I mean, it doesn't really matter whether there are a lot of residents or even a little as long as you feel comfortable with yourself, it will make you comfortable too with your environment. But if you are a sensitive person, chances are it will be difficult for you to feel comfortable in a lot of places the person. It's better you look for a place that is rather less populous in my opinion
The problem with your kind of thinking about the age of the earth and universe is, there is all kinds of evidence that the universe is much shorter. Some of the evidence points at 10,000 years. Since you can do Internet searches that show this, and since you can get deeper by studying the young-earth evidence with those who explain it, believing in a old-universe view is a choice... not reality of an old-universe.
In other words, whatever looks good, and however you want to apply the evidence, is like making a choice to believe whatever you want.
The only way to know how old the universe is, is to believe the witnesses who were there, and recorded their witnessing.
The first two chapters of the Bible were witness records copied by Moses from text in Egyptian libraries about 3,500 years ago. These texts probably have crumbled away with age long ago. But they might still be hidden in some lost Egytian library somewhere... hidden under the desert sands of Egypt.
You can't apply today's evidence without knowing the past parameters that the evidence needs to be applied by. Maybe they are applying the evidence in a wrong way. We won't know until we have witnesses or a time viewer/machine.
You have such a machine, its called a telescope. Yes, indeed, whatever you see in the sky is already very. very old, much older than 10 thousand years. And the more you "zoom" in, the farther in the past you pry (not just further away).
Time and Space is relative. You think you could make things simple for you to understand it, but the universe does not care, it simply is.
Time and space are relative. But why does anyone think that the relativeness hasn't necessarily changed over the ages?
For example, you have some cookies. Obviously they were baked. How do you know if they were baked in an electric oven, a gas oven, or in a closed frying pan on on top of the range? You might be able to chemically test some samples. But if they are out of reach, and you test with a spectrometer, how do you know that you aren't missing some variables in the whole test method?
All we are seeing is light through the telescope. We can understand that light from near objects (in out solar system) has been operated upon by the same physics that we use right here on Earth. But what about the light that came over distances that might be millions of light years? How do we know that the physics of the past wasn't different, and only makes the light appear to be millions of light years away.
I'll bet that there are plenty of astrophysysicists who are mathematicians who could calculate a very different distance by calculating a gradual change in math and physics into it. But why do this when it is so much easier to use all kinds of constants that we don't for-a-fact know existed more than a million years ago?
In Big bang theory, we aren't missing variables. BBT says 3 things:
1. Here's the way BB was;
2. We used math, physics, astronomy, etc., to extrapolate backwards to get BB;
3. BB was different than what we have today.
What was different about BB? Well, the stars, the operations of forces, mechanics, math, physics, time. We don't have any frame of reference to tell what the differences were, or when they arose, or if they somehow acted with something like punctuated-equilibrium, or if they entirely smooth changes.
Essentially, BBT has destroyed the BB it created. The best we have is records of the ancient peoples of the world in their pottery, writings, and "sculptures." We don't know how far back (years) beyond these we can go with the same math and physics that we use today. Even now, science is showing with Gobekli Tepe and other places that our calculations of time are way off base.
you think that the complex machines of nature that are far more complex than the ones intelligent mankind makes, are made by "blind unthinking evolution."
Yes. Evolution. The thing that often throws people is the timescale involved. The evidence is that life on Earth started at least 3.7 billion years ago. And it has been subject to natural selection (plus countless random, mostly negative but occasionally positive) mutations since then. It's not as if, as someone stated on one of these threads 'man came out of a monkey's ass'.
The problem with your kind of thinking about the age of the earth and universe is, there is all kinds of evidence that the universe is much shorter. Some of the evidence points at 10,000 years. Since you can do Internet searches that show this, and since you can get deeper by studying the young-earth evidence with those who explain it, believing in a old-universe view is a choice... not reality of an old-universe.
In other words, whatever looks good, and however you want to apply the evidence, is like making a choice to believe whatever you want.
The only way to know how old the universe is, is to believe the witnesses who were there, and recorded their witnessing.
The first two chapters of the Bible were witness records copied by Moses from text in Egyptian libraries about 3,500 years ago. These texts probably have crumbled away with age long ago. But they might still be hidden in some lost Egytian library somewhere... hidden under the desert sands of Egypt.
You can't apply today's evidence without knowing the past parameters that the evidence needs to be applied by. Maybe they are applying the evidence in a wrong way. We won't know until we have witnesses or a time viewer/machine.
You have such a machine, its called a telescope. Yes, indeed, whatever you see in the sky is already very. very old, much older than 10 thousand years. And the more you "zoom" in, the farther in the past you pry (not just further away).
Time and Space is relative. You think you could make things simple for you to understand it, but the universe does not care, it simply is.
Humans have this bad habit of destroying written history, from the old Chinese emperors, and the typical invasion armies, they can't simply stand seeing thousand years old stuff. Even modern Americans destroyed humanity's oldest writings when they ransacked and destroyed Baghdad's library "for lulz" (and some profit), just like the medievals, and the barbarians, or the romans of the past. It is a miracle "something" remains, as distorted as it may be, from impulsive selection, and several mistranslations (and even oral tradition).
What little remains is because it got buried before conflagration, such as Pompei, which unfortunately was uncovered and is quickly disappearing.
10 thousand years is nonsense. The Earth alone may be 20 million years old, of course most of its history it has been a barren lifeless planet incapable of sustaining life. Formation of this "Solar" system is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old, and where and when was this system formed?
Humanity existence is but a glimpse in the history of "this" universe. We could again ask the question of, where and when this universe got formed... And it doesn't matter what you believe in, those things won't be changing, at least not "here" on this "Universe".
Besides watching, there is also a proven method of time travel, you can travel to the future, but there is no returning. Simply travel to speeds close to the speed of light. Its already known and documented, Einstein's theory worked, as alien as it sounded.
Do you think reality starts with humans and ends with humans? Yours maybe (in your lifetime for that matter), but not the Universe's.
We know Earth is going to be destroyed about 2 billion years from now. I doubt there will be any "humans" left to witness it, either we would have evolved or most likely gone extinct. Dinosaurs lived on this planet, probably much longer than humans ever will. They lived around 200 MILLION years, where puny "humans" have barely been existing for 200 THOUSAND years at most, but you say its just 10, so i guess the other 190 thousand years they were too busy throwing sticks and stones at each other and living in caves etc. The nearest predecessor to humans took a couple of MILLION years to evolve into "human".
We don't know why things work the way they do in this plane existence, but they do.
10 thousand years of recorded history, but only because the Jews were more zealous to keep their oral tradition going, AND escaped being wiped by others. A sect from them ended funding Christianity, which in turn compiled (the parts they liked) into that book already coming from oral tradition from different languages than the ones used by whoever wrote them, and then again translated, and translated, and translated... and re-translated...
Did you ever stopped to ask what language that Moses actually spoke? If you want to get a bit closer, get to the source, the jews, don't be dismayed by the contradictions you may uncover. Remember this, the bible is not the source, its the copy, a really, really bad copy. Its valuable, but to a limited extent. Even the jew scripture is already altered, by their oral tradition since the times of Moses to the times of "Jesus", AND language changes (or do you think thousands of years would preserve the language intact?). And what language you think the contemporaries of Jesus were speaking? and their followers? Which was the official language (roman empire, remember?) Greek? Latin? Aremaic? a mixture? What about Hebrew?
Read this:
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
The name Jesus is derived from the Latin Iesus, a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησoῦς (Iesous). The Greek form is a rendering of the Hebrew ישוע (Yeshua), a variant of the earlier name יהושע (Yehoshua), or in English, "Joshua", meaning "Yah saves". This was also the name of Moses' successor and of a Jewish high priest in the Old Testament.
If they made this giant mess with just THE name (everyone calling him Jesus is misnaming him) imagine what they did with the rest...Have you ever tried reading the other books that were taken out from the bible, written by the same authors? Have you ever read Jesus "Lord's prayer" translated from Aramaic? You are in for a shock, given that Christianity is supposed to be based on it... But what's written (current) bibles, is VERY distorted. Jesus gave good teachings, and once you read a more faithful translation, you can understand how Christianity came to be. But the Christians that came after, well, history repeats.., just a century or two later whey were feuding over their founder coming in the flesh or in the spirit. That pissed the roman emperor, the "trinity" was born and that schism was solved...
How to live comfortable in an over populated environment?
Over populated areas lead to scarcity of resources at different levels if not dealt properly. There is fight and increase in prices of land, food and water. Also, healthcare and employment is difficult to serve as demand is high and capital can be less. But there can be some positive outcomes for overpopulated areas like diversity in culture and if we consider a marketplace, more players lead to more competition which leads to competitive pricing and eventually benefits the people.
There are advantage and disadvantage of over population, it creates scarcity yes but it also creates opportunity for most people as you can sell any kinds of staff, good and services as there's a lot demand, just like here in our country wherein it is over populated but created a lot of demand.
It has advantage but there are some supply on the world that are limited because there are some people who destroy the world. I think it will be a nightmare if the population can't stop from multiplying soon by the billion population but the land doesn't increase and we know that it also cause a unemployment which causes some criminal case.
you think that the complex machines of nature that are far more complex than the ones intelligent mankind makes, are made by "blind unthinking evolution."
Yes. Evolution. The thing that often throws people is the timescale involved. The evidence is that life on Earth started at least 3.7 billion years ago. And it has been subject to natural selection (plus countless random, mostly negative but occasionally positive) mutations since then. It's not as if, as someone stated on one of these threads 'man came out of a monkey's ass'.
The problem with your kind of thinking about the age of the earth and universe is, there is all kinds of evidence that the universe is much shorter. Some of the evidence points at 10,000 years. Since you can do Internet searches that show this, and since you can get deeper by studying the young-earth evidence with those who explain it, believing in a old-universe view is a choice... not reality of an old-universe.
In other words, whatever looks good, and however you want to apply the evidence, is like making a choice to believe whatever you want.
The only way to know how old the universe is, is to believe the witnesses who were there, and recorded their witnessing.
The first two chapters of the Bible were witness records copied by Moses from text in Egyptian libraries about 3,500 years ago. These texts probably have crumbled away with age long ago. But they might still be hidden in some lost Egytian library somewhere... hidden under the desert sands of Egypt.
You can't apply today's evidence without knowing the past parameters that the evidence needs to be applied by. Maybe they are applying the evidence in a wrong way. We won't know until we have witnesses or a time viewer/machine.
you think that the complex machines of nature that are far more complex than the ones intelligent mankind makes, are made by "blind unthinking evolution."
Yes. Evolution. The thing that often throws people is the timescale involved. The evidence is that life on Earth started at least 3.7 billion years ago. And it has been subject to natural selection (plus countless random, mostly negative but occasionally positive) mutations since then. It's not as if, as someone stated on one of these threads 'man came out of a monkey's ass'.
The fact that all of nature acts as a machine full of machines shows God. Machines have makers.
Humans are machines. Made by blind unthinking evolution.
But we're conflating half a dozen discussions here - see you back on the Religion and Evolution threads.
How in the world silly can you get? People working with all their best intelligence have difficult times making complex machines. And you think that the complex machines of nature that are far more complex than the ones intelligent mankind makes, are made by "blind unthinking evolution." Quit copying blind unthinking nature."
How to live comfortable in an over populated environment?
Stay humble and kind to all around you is what i feel will let you survive in over crowded environment. Live with necessary resources, dont cover much space and desire what you can sustain. Over crowded can be useful if you use it in right way , there is ore competition and knowledge sharing through diversity in culture and ethnicity.
The fact that all of nature acts as a machine full of machines shows God. Machines have makers.
Humans are machines. Made by blind unthinking evolution.
But we're conflating half a dozen discussions here - see you back on the Religion and Evolution threads.
An argument isn't necessarily a quarrel. To argue means to bring up points. [...] that is what talking about religion and politics does. It clarifies things
Absolutely. I may disagree with you on everything else, but I agree on this.Getting back to the debate - ignoring the cultural side, I still think 'God' is just the collective term for the science we haven't yet uncovered. If you accept some scientific findings, any of them, then you're accepting something that used to be considered the province of God. Science grows from generation to generation, as more of what was once considered God becomes simple explicable fact. God shrinks as science grows, and God will eventually disappear.
The existence of God has not been proven wrong. As science grows, God may be proven to exist. So far, nobody has checked throughout the universe to prove that God doesn't exist. And, see my post at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53020554.
The fact that all of nature acts as a machine full of machines shows God. Machines have makers.
Jump to: