It is very plausible that the Earth is capable to support the current human population level. BUT, not while utilizing our current methods of social order and existence. This is not to say we shouldn’t be mindful of the possibility that we do need to reverse the population growth rate until we have a sustainable level. Before we attempt to have such a large population, we first need to establish an appropriate way of supporting such numbers. Chemical fertilizers, pesticides, industrial pollution, wasteful usage of our limited resources, our entire human operational system is faulty and heading towards cataclysm.
Some people may get upset and say, “Who is anyone else to decide how many children someone can have?!" The following quoted argument does raise some solid points...
"On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries (see endnote 2).
In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts. ...
... NSSM-200 also specifically declared that the United States was to cover up its population control activities and avoid charges of imperialism by inducing the United Nations and various non-governmental organizations to do its dirty work. ...
... The citizens of the developed nations of the West treasure their right to privacy. It is hypocritical for these countries to routinely violate the right to privacy of the citizens of LDCs by telling families how many children they should or should not have. No nation has the right to invade the bedrooms of the citizens of another nation. NSSM-200 represents the epitome of interference in a family's most intimate decisions.
NSSM-200 does not emphasize the rights or welfare of individuals or of nations, just the "right" of the United States to have unfettered access to the natural resources of developing nations."
-Quote taken from HERE.
Although given the issues we will face when oil starts running out, we can arrive at the following conclusion: we better figure out and plan our population and food production concerns ourselves before nature makes the decision for us. As one biologist put it, "...We don't need humans trying to regulate the global human population. Nature will step in with war, disease, and food shortages."
Nature is cruel. It has no compassion, it cannot be bartered with. There is no escape from answering to nature and the answering will always be on natures terms. We are bound by its laws, not the reciprocal. If nature decides to demand the day of reckoning, it is dreadful to think of the mass suffering and perishing that will occur. It will be survival of the fittest in the most barbaric terms. It would be a more sensible choice to deal with the former rather than the latter method of having our population balanced.
Eric Laithwaite told of an interesting example in his book, Inventor in the Garden of Eden. He discussed an experiment done with rats. The rat population was increased, but the area for the rats to live was not increased. There came a point where there were so many rats per area, they started fighting and killing each other. The invisible, commanding force of nature was subjecting the rats to commit self genocide as a means of population regulation. We might imagine the rats would have preferred not to have engaged in such self destructive behavior and would have chosen to expand their living area; should they not have been limited in their environment. Mr. Laithwaite's pondering was the overpopulated rat situation to the situation of people crammed in cities. Observing normal animal behavior in nature, we see them engage in territorial claims and battles, regulating the population of species per area. Is the rise of violence in cities partly correlated to nature working to balance an overpopulated condition? Are we fighting a losing battle with the forces of nature in this aspect as well?
There are several causes to the current and inevitable failures of societies on Earth. We can find the prime contributors are improper and lack of planning, misuse of technology, cyclical consumption and waste, the degradation of societal and individual values and behaviors, the top people in ruling power- the rulers of the rulers, and the outdated monetary system.
Machines have replaced people in the work force. As a result, there are not enough jobs to go around. Our failing economy has many households with both parents working and struggling to provide a comfortable living. A portion of people work long hours or two jobs. There are many people working and struggling in dire poverty.
I grew up poor. I put immense effort into education and work to get where I am now in life. I have a good job, benefits, and a descent income. There are times I work upwards of 84 hours in a single week and I still expand my education part time. Looking towards the town where I work, I think of the many able bodied people without jobs. Many people whom receive help to survive from the welfare program, funded by those of us who do have jobs. Personally, I have no qualms in being neighborly and helping others in need; as long it is to help someone trying to help themselves and in the form of a hand up, not a continual hand out.
I question why it is that we work and what are the main purposes? Essentially, we work to meet the basic needs for survival; food, water, and shelter. Our way of survival is based on the labor and monetary system we have been born into and have learned as being the way. The ability to afford “possessions” and “entertainment” are other factors why humans work, but we don’t need them to go on breathing; although there is a difference between "merely existing” and "radiantly living”.
The oilfield workers pump oil for use as an energy source. The refinery workers produce fuel for internal combustion engines, such as tractors and large trucks. The farmers grow crops for our food. The ranchers raise animals for our food. The truck drivers deliver food to the grocery stores. The loggers and saw mill workers make lumber to build homes, businesses, and hospitals. The construction workers build houses for shelter and hospitals to care for those in need of medical attention. The Doctors and medical staff provide services that heal and promote longer lives. Other jobs in society provide various goods or services that fit as pieces in the big picture. People who do these jobs basically do them so they can afford to satisfy their needs for survival. By doing them, they are also providing the means for other peoples’ survival.
But one must ask, is there a better way than for many to spend most of their life unhappily working? Shouldn't we be able to enjoy a greater portion of our short life cycle? For those who have jobs, what can we do to eliminate the repetitive motion injuries (cumulative trauma disorder- CTD) brought on from long hours and production line type work? What is the solution for those who are left out due to lack of jobs or lack of a good paying job, that struggle with so little? Can we find something productive to do for those who sit around doing nothing, because there are no jobs for them? What can we do as a society improve life for those without and take some burden off of those who spend too much time at work? How can we become the advanced civilization we search for in other places of the universe?
The following pages shall address some of the core issues that need changed and present the ground work ideas for how we can work towards creating that advanced civilization. The idea will not work for all people. The fact is, no solution will ever please everyone and there are nay-sayers who will be negative towards any solution. Additionally, there are the portion of people who are too lazy to make it happen and those who don't like change. But the solution offered would be voluntary for those people who choose to be there and do their part.
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 2 3 4 5