Slashdot Mirror

The third world will carry on starving until they have enough education to limit the number of children they have

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, theocractic Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 :

FWIW, Tokelau is on the US Department of State's list of "Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty", as well as the United Nations' list of "Non-Self-Governing Territories", the latter because it is considered to be a colony of New Zealand.

Only those countries deserve the stewardship of what is arguably on the greatest inventions of mankind.

And when you consider who is really running the UN (permanent members only please) you learn rapidly that the UN does not deserve that stewardship.

And not a single link to back up your claims.

http://peakoil.com/publicpolicy/record-number-of-coal-fired-generators-to-be-shut-down-in-2012/

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

Apologies for not including links. I know that doing a simple Google search is beyond many people's intellectual capabilities thanks to teacher's unions' grip on US schools.

Obama has expanded gun rights since going in to office.

Now that's just a bad joke.

Strat

The UN boogeyman is just that..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml

You were saying?

Look, I know it makes people uncomfortable, and that it's easy to allow normalcy bias to convince you to dismiss it out of hand, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. It's being implemented at the local level in many hundreds of towns and cities across the US.

Strat

The Chinese had it right with their limit on family size

Shame on you. The forced abortions, forced sterilizations and other extremely authoritarian methods used by the Chinese government are crimes against humanity.

Plus, there is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 :

The Chinese had it right with their limit on family size

Shame on you. The forced abortions, forced sterilizations and other extremely authoritarian methods used by the Chinese government are crimes against humanity.

Plus, there is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 :

The Chinese had it right with their limit on family size

Shame on you. The forced abortions, forced sterilizations and other extremely authoritarian methods used by the Chinese government are crimes against humanity.

Plus, there is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 :

The Chinese had it right with their limit on family size

Shame on you. The forced abortions, forced sterilizations and other extremely authoritarian methods used by the Chinese government are crimes against humanity.

Plus, there is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 :

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates; their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will grow from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, theocratic Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by billionaire individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates; their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will grow from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, theocratic Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by billionaire individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates; their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will grow from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, theocratic Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by billionaire individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates; their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will grow from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, theocratic Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by billionaire individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa

Sorry, that information has been overcome by events - as if anyone had any doubts it would be, given that it showed a virtual tie. I was waiting for someone to complacently fall for the trap.

China and the US changed places in 2010.

Look at the comparative graphs.

Doesn't lead to much complacency on the part of rational people in the US, and if you separate out the "defense" manufacturing, the gap is FAR wider.

Here is the authoritative statistical data.

Except that forests in Europe, North America, the Caucasus and Central Asia , are expanding; in fact Net Primary Production is up 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years).

Actually, once the Security Council has unanimously agreed on something, the UN can most definitely become a body of power.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/issues/military.shtml

Not enough to take on a country like Syria, of course. That's when the unofficial UN enforcer (NATO) steps in... (still usually only with UN SC approval, which means "Russia and China are ok with it").

Ever read the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights? It's a joke.
Everything's a basic right according to these people, from the right to not be held in slavery, to freedom of expression, to paid time off and the right "to enjoy the arts".

US government is against terrorism.

I realise you are being sarcastic, but some other people probably think this is true. I would like to state for the record that the US has been convicted in international court of supporting terrorists and ordered to pay reparations, which are still unpaid to date. In addition the US and Israel were the only two countries to vote against a UN resolution to combat terrorism in the 80s when the whole war on terror thing was getting started.

The US is resolutely pro terrorism in policy and has been for a long time, they are only anti terrorism in their PR and propaganda branches.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is INTERNATIONAL LAW, and which the UK is a signatory of, states it crystal clear in Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or CORRESPONDENCE, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." ---------- URL here for those who want to check the validity of this claim: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a12 ------ So UK Home Office, how the hell are you going to explain to the UNITED NATIONS that your little mail-snooping project violates ARTICLE 12 of the UDHR? -------- If you were going to pull shit like this, why did your government sign and rattify the UDHR to begin with? Why can't you just leave your citizens alone, like other civilized countries. And, finally, have you learned nothing from George Orwell's '1984'? It was published back in 1949, so you have had OVER 60 YEARS to learn something from that brilliant, brilliant piece of work, which was written by someone who was your countryman no less, who was British. ------ I give up. The more I look at the UK from a privacy perspective, the more I feel that that particular country has really gone down the drain, and perhaps irreversibly so.

Article 29 Section 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by all western countries, states:

"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

I don't know if you read that far, but it is a useless document - it declares you have no rights.

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by all western countries, states:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

I don't know if you have a Court of Human Rights in Northern America, but that's the final instance that should grant you your human right for privacy.

I am a believer that the more competition a business receives, the better it is for the customer (versus a monopoly or near-monopoly).

Sure, that makes sense for businesses, but since when is primary education a business? A lot of people would agree that a primary education is a human right: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a26 Unfortunately for many families a more economically competitive option would be to send kids to work at age 14 rather than to school. Allowing them to do that wouldn't improve schools either.

How is one culture supposed to judge another culture? Everything is relative...

Until you actually get told otherwise by your conscience.

Well, from my philosophy courses in college (as financially useless as they may have been) there's actually been a lot of study and attempts to codify what should be regarded as Universal rights. There's no need for us to rely on our "conscious" or someone else's conscious nor should we sit back if we feel that human rights are being abused in another nation that is sovereign. I'm a very liberal open minded person. If you want to worship some stupid magic person in the sky, go to town. If they start to infringe upon others' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then we have issues that must be remedied.

To recap, Universal Human Rights transcend your suggestion of relativity. I'm not sure but if you're attempting to make fun of people who tolerate other cultures by saying it's relative, there's no place for that when you're dealing with a child's life and their attempt to be educated.

So where does denying education sit in your mind?
Is it wrong to use force to prevent people from getting educated?

Is it okay to do so if it is a form of political protest?
For example there is currently a protest in Quebec where they are keeping people from class to protest a tuition hike (of $250/yr).
Is denying education for financial gain ok?

How is one culture supposed to judge another culture? Everything is relative...

Until you actually get told otherwise by your conscience.

Well, from my philosophy courses in college (as financially useless as they may have been) there's actually been a lot of study and attempts to codify what should be regarded as Universal rights. There's no need for us to rely on our "conscious" or someone else's conscious nor should we sit back if we feel that human rights are being abused in another nation that is sovereign. I'm a very liberal open minded person. If you want to worship some stupid magic person in the sky, go to town. If they start to infringe upon others' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then we have issues that must be remedied.

Your lax definition of a 'Conscious' be damned, begin the escalation of political pressure then economic pressure then physical pressure.

Sort of on topic, from your signature:

Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.

The Nazis were stopped because they blatantly violated (nearly) everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights -- so much so that many of their own detested it. And we should not allow something like the Holocaust to happen again. Communism, on the other hand, is a counter case. We went into Vietnam under the laughable pretenses that a Universal Human Right is capitalism in place of communism (with obvious self interests). Believe it or not, communism does not blatantly violate everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights and so we were kind of lacking on the support and moral high ground for that war. If you think communism has been "ended" and that it has been "ended" by war and not inherent corruption that it can't seem to shake -- you and I must be reading different books by very different authors.

To recap, Universal Human Rights transcend your suggestion of relativity. I'm not sure but if you're attempting to make fun of people who tolerate other cultures by saying it's relative, there's no place for that when you're dealing with a child's life and their attempt to be educated.

Dude, I don't have any opinion on US immigration. I haven't claimed anything about it. I'm simply pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of of pulling hypotheticals out of your ass in order to justify accusing someone of making things up.

And your response to that is a tirade of empty assertions and the claim that you "don't need any survey" to know something that you just tried to back up with a hypothetical survey.

Also, if you're going cite Wikipedia, you might want to check if it backs up your claims first. Your attitude is one of arrogant assumption that you somehow "know" what the facts are, and don't need any scientific studies to inform your opinion. Where do you think the facts in the wikipedia article come from? They come from the very studies and surveys that you seem to think you're too omniscient to bother reading.

This is the UN survey that's used as the first citation in the wikipedia article. Page 16, table 1, The North America is 3rd of 6 continents behind both Europe and Asia as "the destination of choice", Page 17, paragraph 8, the U.S. is 5th out of 8 countries.

But of course "by almost anyone who can get here" perhaps you mean mexicans. Oops.

Well, as I said I don't really have an opinion on US immigration, but it's amazing how informed you can become with an open mind and 20 minutes of reading isn't it? As opposed to assuming your opinions are "fact", trying to shout everyone down and blithely tossing around admonitions to "read wikipedia", when you clearly haven't done it yourself.

Most of the water usage is not generated from household use, but from agriculture. As a result, the food you eat has much more to do with water usage than anything else (a good reason to be vegetarian): http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2008/080514_Water.doc.htm

international law does not provide for the existence of individuals without a citizenship.

That's completely and utterly false. Look up stateless person. International law has recognized this situation since the time of the League of Nations, long before the existence of the UN. There are a number of UN conventions that deal with stateless persons - see this one, from 1954, or the more specific one, dated 1961 here.

I stand corrected... one cannot usually WILLINGLY become a stateless person. And the international community has been working hard to eradicate the situation.

international law does not provide for the existence of individuals without a citizenship.

That's completely and utterly false. Look up stateless person. International law has recognized this situation since the time of the League of Nations, long before the existence of the UN. There are a number of UN conventions that deal with stateless persons - see this one, from 1954, or the more specific one, dated 1961 here.

We're talking about the same United Nations that has Libya on its Human Rights Council. What do you think is going to happen?

How are we supposed to take your post seriously on a geek discussion site if you cant even post a link properly?

The link you wanted to post was here:

Libya

And btw, why should they not be on the council again in 2013? They are no longer a dictatorship and are making great strives towards democracy now that Gadafi is gone.

You did realise that was what it said on the link you posted didn't you? Here is the story stating they will be re-admitted:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40438&Cr=libya&Cr1

They were kicked off the council for clamping down on their own citizens at the start of the arab spring.

I was going to post a comment that included much of this so I'll just add a couple things here.

People's interests differ. Some people like to tinker and/or express themselves in ways that are often rather incompatible with dense urban living. Obviously the GP doesn't have such interests and likes dense urban living which is fine, but imposing that on others with broader or different interests via public policy is arrogant, bigoted, and narrow minded.

In dense housing, there are usually many more rules (either your landlord's rules or your condo/town house association rules) than in more suburban or rural settings. These include what you can have outside your unit, what time you must turn your music down/off, when you can do your laundry or even run your dishwasher (or, even requirements that you have rugs on your floors instead of bare hardwood - seriously). These rules interfere, for example, with one's desire/tendency to work eclectic and irregular hours (and therefore to do non-work activities at similarly eclectic hours).

In dense housing, there's no place to have a substantial garden and/or orchard if you like to grow food. Maintaining your own compost heap on your high rise balcony just isn't very practical. Sure, community gardens exist in some areas, but they are generally inconvenient compared to going out your back door to tend your garden when you have 15 minutes to spare or when the rain let up for a few minutes. And, of course, community gardens are not suitable for growing your own long lived plants like fruit, nut, and citrus trees.

In dense housing, there's little place for making stuff of any size and/or have multiple maker projects active (some of which are eventually abandoned after sitting and taking space up for months). It's impractical to, on an impulse, buy a mini-lathe (and perhaps mod it) and then a couple days later wake up with a neat idea and wander down to your workshop for thirty minutes before breakfast to make a prototype of your idea.

Raising kids in a high density urban environment is quite a bit different as well. In suburban and rural settings, you can usually (unless you have Chester The Molester living next door) send your five and six year old into your (possibly fenced) back yard to safely play with minimal supervision for short periods when they need to "burn off some energy". In dense urban settings where one has to rely on communal outdoor play areas, one has to monitor the kids more closely (if, nothing else, to make sure a random eight year old who you've never seen isn't beating up your five year old) and has to escort them through public spaces on the way to the play area that they are not yet competent to safely navigate independently.

So, yes, for some people who are happy with a structured lifestyle, dense urban living is fine -- indeed, likely preferable as it provides some of that structure they crave in their life. But it's not everyone's goal.

Ultimately we will need to limit, either explicitly or via evolving of cultural attitudes, world population. There is some limit to our resources and the only answer to the "population problem" can't be to keep packing people closer and closer together and reducing the resources they can use. In reality, the world would be better off with a couple billion well educated and prosperous humans using resources fairly freely (although, intelligently) than with the seven billion we have now (let alone the 9.22 billion in 2075 as projected by the UN).

I should've linked to the Blueseed FAQ in my original post. It answers a lot of the silly counter-arguments (though not those as silly as "Pirates!!!" - When has anyone last seen pirates near California?). To sum up:

• * why not telework/conference call all the time: because that doesn't work for startups in their early stage, and because no investor will invest in a startup without meeting the team in person; also because you can't go to startup events via Skype
• * the whole libertarian red herring - Blueseed has nothing to do with a political system or another. It's an entrepreneurial solution to a very clear problem: the lack of visas for foreign entrepreneurs. AILA (the Association of Immigration Lawyer of America) explains it very clearly in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLCYfhZEFb8#t=3m15s: "There are simply no US visas available for immigrant entrepreneurs"
• * the whole tax haven or lawlessness red herring: Blueseed is JUST LIKE Vancouver, in the sense that Microsoft employees come to Silicon Valley all the time from Vancouver to conduct business, then they fly back. There's nothing radical about Blueseed, other than it being much closer than Vancouver. Also, the entire cruise ship industry has been functioning for years and is a clear precedent that laws do apply on cruise ships, and people don't just go murder each other.
• * International waters are 12, not 200 miles from shore. See UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, article 3.
• * the exploitation red herring: how in the world would you think that Blueseed will be on anything BUT best behavior when everybody on board is online pretty much 24/7, and the entire ship will be in the brightest press spotlight?

"That education is favor they do for their parents and a favor that society gives to them. Sure, it is cheaper than jail, but we are more than willing to pay for and put them in jail."

Some might consider education a right (see article 26).

What was that mention of putting kids in jail all about?

1 - Privacy is a right. Yes, that's right - a Human Right. Quite a lot of expensive people sat around a large table for quite some time working this stuff out, and if they didn't think it was important I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be in their list.

2 - Laws are made to be followed. Excuses such as "too big to comply", "we're from abroad" or "too costly to comply" (Google Streetview) are not acceptable.

3 - Law enforcement gets a privilege to break the laws to fight crime. It has to be kept VERY clear, that this is a PRIVILEGE, and absolutely NOT a right.

Now, was that so hard?

1 - Privacy is a right. Yes, that's right - a Human Right. Quite a lot of expensive people sat around a large table for quite some time working this stuff out, and if they didn't think it was important I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be in their list.

2 - Laws are made to be followed. Excuses such as "too big to comply", "we're from abroad" or "too costly to comply" (Google Streetview) are not acceptable.

3 - Law enforcement gets a privilege to break the laws to fight crime. It has to be kept VERY clear, that this is a PRIVILEGE, and absolutely NOT a right.

Now, was that so hard?

To be fair, world population growth is expected to level off in the next hundred years or so. See the UN's take on it; according to their "medium variant" we'll only have about 10 billion people by 2100 (though of course these numbers have a very high error margin). Population growth in most of the developed world is near 0 (except for immigration) and a few European countries have negative population growth. But yeah, the real issue is getting 3rd world women to have fewer children.

Iran has not signed any anti-proliferation treaties,

Sure they have, they signed it in 1968, and ratified it in 1970. You can see that here: http://unhq-appspub-01.un.org/UNODA/TreatyStatus.nsf

They claim to be abiding by it, because it does allow peaceful nuclear development and research.

And your own technique is a very common one, where you dismiss arguments by claiming it's all "conspiracy theory" and claiming any sources are not credible through ad hominems and guilt by association ("exclusively on crackpot websites").

Well, why would anyone but those you can label as "crackpots" point out that statement by Ted Turner anyway. And of course any other propagation of ideas for depopulating the planet - seen so far by most as very extremist - is going to be downplayed by those promoting the idea to avoid being discredited themselves for promoting extremist ideas. None of that supports your outrageous claim of "fraud, plain and simple." To the contrary, your own dismissal of my assertion and defense of the very groups and powerful, wealthy people advocating depopulation makes your own agenda questionable to an objective observer.

I've actually downloaded the 2009 UNFPA report and guess what, your alleged quote doesn't appear in it.

Not sure what you are talking about, specifically. You can find the UN Population Division Policy Brief right here, and the quote is actually the very first header on the first page. If you're referring to the quotes from the "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate" report, the first quote starts on the bottom of page 21, and the second on page 25. It's all right there.

As for Ted Turner's quote, it (along with the entire context and his views) was first published in an interview given in 1996 to the magazine of the American conservation organisation The Audubon Society, hardly a publication many would consider "crackpot". I'm sure you can find the whole thing if you actually want to.

Since you asked, most Americans don't grasp it yet, but the truth is that the global elite are absolutely obsessed with population control. In fact, there is a growing consensus among the global elite that they need to get rid of 80 to 90 percent of us. The number one commandment of the infamous Georgia Guidestones is this: "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." Unfortunately, a very high percentage of our global leaders actually believe in this stuff.

OK, I'm no American, but I'll play...

First, let's keep the anonymous polemics out of this, eh?

This philosophy is now regularly being reflected in official UN documents. For example, the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief begins with the following statement:

What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?

Not related to climate change, but let's read the report:

Fast population growth, fueled by high fertility, hinders the reduction of poverty and the achievement of other internationally agreed development goals. While fertility has declined throughout the developing world since the 1970s, most of the least developed countries still have total fertility levels above 5 children per woman.

5 children per women is definitely a fertility level that's unsustainable in Nigeria. Or even here in India. This is nothing new - those countries with stable governments have been more or less going in the direction of lower fertility rates for decades. See this Gapminder plot, for example. In any case, the report says nothing about global warming. It's about health and happiness, not warming.

This agenda showed up again when the United Nations Population Fund released its annual State of the World Population Report for 2009 entitled Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate".

1. 
   1) "Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time."
2. 2) "No human is genuinely "carbon neutral," especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way."
3. 3) "Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns."

That would be this one

The interesting thing is, this isn't really talking about eliminating 80% of the population of the world. Both reports talk about fertility rates, family planning and improved health. The second one is a little hyperbolic about climate change, but nevertheless, it's not a call to cull 80% of the world's population.

The population control agenda is also regularly showing up in our newspapers now. In a recent editorial for the New York Times entitled "The Earth Is Full", Thomas L. Friedman made the following statement:

You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look back at the first decade of the 21st century

United Declaration on Human Rights is silent on the issue of travel.

Um...

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Article 13.

        (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
        (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

a. a "human right" must be universal and unalienable

Never heard of such a thing.

Therefore it does not exists, right? How stupid of them to declare otherwise (please note: it is the declaration of human rights, not the grant/bill/law).

b. you can discriminate between a natural right and legal right by applying the criterion: if you deny the right to all the humanity, will the human race continue to exist?

Please elaborate on how a law's inconvenience proves that natural rights exist.

Why should I? It's a matter of defining a concept, not a proof.

It is only because the government allowed you to share information with your girl/boy-friend that you are able to say "I love you". If the government would not exist or would not allow you to, you will surely die, because you couldn't ask for food.

Except that I don't think that rights are merely the ability to do something.

Indeed, they are not. So...?

Now, no matter what magical entity you think is working behind the scenes, I simply don't see evidence that has proven otherwise.

Right! Evidence for the definition of philosophical concepts... Would you like some fries with that?

According to the article, the tweet in question was a reference to the Prophet Muhammud. In some parts of the word, disavowing the religion of the majority (apostasy) can be punishable by death. Interpol's compliance in this act violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Interpol itself is tasked with upholding by its constitution.

You may be right, given all that is going on. I'd like to point out, however, that under article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

Source: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

(Offtopic: Thailand's MICT is doing something that is seriously breaking Slashdot at the moment.)

Oh look, the paid shills are out in full force. Freedom of speech is an internationally recognized human right:

https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

...and what happens when the rest of the world ignores human rights violations? Things like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide

IRAN HAS EVERY RIGHT TO NUCLEAR POWER AND TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

While they have every right to nuclear power, they signed away the right to nuclear weapons - from Article II of the NPT:

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Pretty tired of seeing this nonsense that the U.S. is the only country on the planet that helps other people being repeated.

Firstly, I do hope you realize that very rarely does the U.S. get engaged in something unilaterally. They are usually part of an international force, with many other nations participating.

Look up places like Timor, MINURSO in the Western Sahara, MONUSCO in the Congo, etc., etc. Read the history of WWII. Look up the number of times other countries have offered to help the U.S. and either been refused (goodness knows why - because the U.S. didn't want to look weak?) or their help has been accepted but you never hear about it.

Remember the oil spill off the coast of Louisiana a year ago? 17 countries offered assistance, including several that could've really helped as they had a lot of experience. BP accepted help from Mexico and Norway. The Biscuit fire in Oregon had firefighters helping out from Mexico, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Did you know about these examples and just choose to ignore them because they don't help your case, or had you never heard of them because, well, for whatever reason?

Saying something like this not only betrays your ignorance/xenophobia but is pretty insulting to the millions of brave non-Americans who continue to fight wars, engage in peace keeping missions, and offer assistance to Americans. They may not worry as much about self-publicizing, but it doesn't mean nobody else does it. I'm not bashing the bravery of American peacekeepers, firefighters, what-have-you by any means. But please don't be so insulting to the rest of the world.

Pretty tired of seeing this nonsense that the U.S. is the only country on the planet that helps other people being repeated.

Firstly, I do hope you realize that very rarely does the U.S. get engaged in something unilaterally. They are usually part of an international force, with many other nations participating.

Look up places like Timor, MINURSO in the Western Sahara, MONUSCO in the Congo, etc., etc. Read the history of WWII. Look up the number of times other countries have offered to help the U.S. and either been refused (goodness knows why - because the U.S. didn't want to look weak?) or their help has been accepted but you never hear about it.

Remember the oil spill off the coast of Louisiana a year ago? 17 countries offered assistance, including several that could've really helped as they had a lot of experience. BP accepted help from Mexico and Norway. The Biscuit fire in Oregon had firefighters helping out from Mexico, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Did you know about these examples and just choose to ignore them because they don't help your case, or had you never heard of them because, well, for whatever reason?

Saying something like this not only betrays your ignorance/xenophobia but is pretty insulting to the millions of brave non-Americans who continue to fight wars, engage in peace keeping missions, and offer assistance to Americans. They may not worry as much about self-publicizing, but it doesn't mean nobody else does it. I'm not bashing the bravery of American peacekeepers, firefighters, what-have-you by any means. But please don't be so insulting to the rest of the world.

the correct answer is to move to the city.

You're somewhat out of touch with reality. Half the world's population lives in rural areas[1]. Moving 3.5 trillion people to cities is not a realistic solution.

Cites also have the problem that, if infrastructure fails, everybody dies. They're not "survivable", in military terms.

And some of us just like the country.

[1] http://esa.un.org/unup/p2k0data.asp

Primary source:
http://www.un.org/millennium/law/xxvi-18-19.htm

And, links to the wikipedia articles (if that's not considered too circular):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons

I'm still wondering how you think we manage that rapid population decline.

Nearly all projections agree on this. For example look at page 2 (page 8 in acrobat count) in the the UN population report. For the case of the UN, the low scenario is usually the one that comes to pass: it predicts a population of 2 billion by 2300.

Also which economists are you exactly talking about.

More the other way around: which ones are you talking about? Almost all serious economist are non-Malthusian,