Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Population Reduction And The :muslim-family.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Nonsense. If biomass were fixed, life would never have appeared in the first place.

The biotic assimilates from the abiotic and grows in the process.

Abiotic mass is also limited. The minerals mined on earth like iron, gold, silver, copper, zinc will run out eventually. The majority of biomass now has stabilized in nature (the factor of human population growth taken out) and most biomass is recycled through the soil. We do not eat iron bars or copper bars to get iron or copper, we don't eat graphite to get carbon, and as I just said, when availible biomass runs out, the abiotic mass will also run out until the earth is stripped of at least one of the essential elements needed for life.

The human body cannot digest raw iron, carbon or copper in their abiotic forms, when they are already in biomass (like iron in your vegetables and carbon making up most of the molecules of most life), then your body can digest and absorb them. The vegetables get iron from their soil and that will run out as you deplete the soil of nutrients,

Also bear in mind that when i say biomass will be gone, i mean the diversity of biomass (like the animals and plants you eat) will go extinct. The biomass will remain in the form of humans as more or more humans are born and eat up the other species. That means humans would shift to being 10% of the worlds biomass (i dont know the real number) to being 99% of all biomass, and when you eat the last cow, humans will be 100% (excluding bacteria and microorganisms)

Unless you can colonize other planets then unchecked population growth will destroy biological diversity on earth and people will have to cannibilize other humans.

Edited by Jiraffe
Link to post
Share on other sites

In current socio-economic circumstances of this world, 1-3 kids are ideal. If you disagree then please do let me know what would be your ideal quota?

Middle class and the rich not sharing their wealth is more of an economic problem. I highly doubt that we can accommodate a 100 billion people comfortably. I am sure we cannot.

Our healthcare system is pretty good, considering people in developed countries are living longer by the decade, so we are indeed progressing quite positively.

Also, we cannot live for an infinite time period. Not possible, at all. There has to be an end to our mortal selves.

At the beginning of mankind, our early Prophets like Prophet Nuh (as) lived long, but that was way, way back.

Since you are all learned, care to disclose on the 'surprises'?

Education is the key to success, and we can contain ourselves with education; but the 'surprizes' like: war/genocide/disease will not work on our numbers.

it's not what I think the ideal quota is dear bro , but what the :Quran and the :Hadiths say about such things .

How do you know this is a figure of 100 billion is incorrect , do you have any evidence ?

I have said this figure bases on some evidence I've seen not publicly available and again I ask do any of our learned leaders say anything to the contrary ?

After all we are infinite beings as created by :Allah (swt) , and as we also occupy this temporal plain a relative time constraints , there is no ageing and limit to life that we have not places to ourselves with the will of :Allah (swt) .

Our :Qaim (as) is a perfect example of longevity .

Education of the truth is real success , and there are not many places on :Earth does provides this bro.

Surprises , well let me tell you as I've told everyone here on SC for the last few months , best to get away from cities.

ws

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

In the 1800s, the population of Arabs were really low.

Eygpt and Iraq are really old civilizations with a rich history from over 2 millenniums.

But still, there were 2 million Iraqis only by 1880, and 10 million Egyptians in the 1900s

The Arab population has really increased given the low numbers of their ancestors.

This makes me think, what were their numbers during the height of different successful civilizations in the Islamic era be it: The Rashidun Caliphate, The Fatimids, Umayyads, Abbasids.

and thats despite the lack of any policy to control birth and lack of any policy for family planning, a family can have up to 20 member traditionally or 7-4 member in modern days

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Abiotic mass is also limited. The minerals mined on earth like iron, gold, silver, copper, zinc will run out eventually. The majority of biomass now has stabilized in nature (the factor of human population growth taken out) and most biomass is recycled through the soil. We do not eat iron bars or copper bars to get iron or copper, we don't eat graphite to get carbon, and as I just said, when availible biomass runs out, the abiotic mass will also run out until the earth is stripped of at least one of the essential elements needed for life.

The human body cannot digest raw iron, carbon or copper in their abiotic forms, when they are already in biomass (like iron in your vegetables and carbon making up most of the molecules of most life), then your body can digest and absorb them. The vegetables get iron from their soil and that will run out as you deplete the soil of nutrients,

Also bear in mind that when i say biomass will be gone, i mean the diversity of biomass (like the animals and plants you eat) will go extinct. The biomass will remain in the form of humans as more or more humans are born and eat up the other species. That means humans would shift to being 10% of the worlds biomass (i dont know the real number) to being 99% of all biomass, and when you eat the last cow, humans will be 100% (excluding bacteria and microorganisms)

Unless you can colonize other planets then unchecked population growth will destroy biological diversity on earth and people will have to cannibilize other humans.

Regarding biomass, I'm not really versed in ecology by any means, but a cursory initial glance at biomass figures is telling me out of a global biomass of ~560 billion tonnes of organically bound carbon, humans comprise ~100 million, or 0.1 billion tonnes, or 0.02% of the total.

http://en.wikipedia....iomass_(ecology)

The figure gets larger when you add in species that exist basically to serve or feed us, such as farm animals (~700 million tonnes) and crops (~2 billion tonnes). That makes 2.8 billion tonnes.

Suppose we count a large portion of the world's fish biomass of 1-2 billion tonnes, as well as trees cut down for firewood, lumber, and paper pulp (though modern forestry methods are generally sustainable, requiring replanting of trees or a cyclical harvesting that keeps the amount of trees replenished). We're still at maybe 1% of global biomass directly comprising or consumed by humans.

I'm reading about some concept called HANPP (Human Appropriated portion of Net Primary Production, which is percentage of overall production of biomass (carbon organically trapped through photosynthesis by plants minus carbon freed through respiration) diverted or appropriated or consumed by man. Estimates vary, but seem to be in the ballpark of about 20-25%.

http://www.eoearth.o...oduction_(HANPP)

That might be read as more concerning.

Then again, mankind is the only species that can consciously increase biomass locally, through irrigation, or through, say, agricultural biotechnology that allows us to get more crop yields without expanding the amount of land used for agriculture. Also, trends in urbanization may well lead to much more efficient spatial packing of human populations, potentially reducing the amount of land on which people actively live.

Thanks anyway for directing toward this topic. Interesting reading.

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

it's not what I think the ideal quota is dear bro , but what the :Quran and the :Hadiths say about such things .

How do you know this is a figure of 100 billion is incorrect , do you have any evidence ?

I have said this figure bases on some evidence I've seen not publicly available and again I ask do any of our learned leaders say anything to the contrary ?

After all we are infinite beings as created by :Allah (swt) , and as we also occupy this temporal plain a relative time constraints , there is no ageing and limit to life that we have not places to ourselves with the will of :Allah (swt) .

Our :Qaim (as) is a perfect example of longevity .

Education of the truth is real success , and there are not many places on :Earth does provides this bro.

Surprises , well let me tell you as I've told everyone here on SC for the last few months , best to get away from cities.

ws

Through Hadith, we have learnt that our Imams (as) and the Prophet (pbuh) had many children. But it was easy to do so in those times, it is not easy at all now. Times are now different to sustain that many kids with multiple wives. We should honor their teachings, and follow their social lives too but some variation will come due to the difference in time which is ~ 1000-1400 years.

I know we can easily fit 100 billion people into this world, I can quote studies done by the Natural Geographic as evidence.

But living with a 100 billion people comfortably is a challenge and I doubt we can.

I disagree that we are actually immortal. Our Last Imam (as) sure has a long-life, but not an infinite one.

Heck even Dajjal has a longer life than him (as), but not at all infinite.

We do age eventually, it is psychically not possible for our temporary selves of this world to sustain all the long, long wordy years and be alive till Qiyamah.

What will happen if I stay in the city?

I doubt our existence can be wiped out at such a massive scale.

The logistics of such a massacre is actually impossible to begin with.

Also, an event like this will not suit the elites, as then we the people won't side with them in their new worldly order.

They need numbers on their side through brainwashing/programming individuals, a massacre cant help them with their long-term plans that is for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Regarding biomass, I'm not really versed in ecology by any means, but a cursory initial glance at biomass figures is telling me out of a global biomass of ~560 billion tonnes of organically bound carbon, humans comprise ~100 million, or 0.1 billion tonnes, or 0.02% of the total.

http://en.wikipedia....iomass_(ecology)

The figure gets larger when you add in species that exist basically to serve or feed us, such as farm animals (~700 million tonnes) and crops (~2 billion tonnes). That makes 2.8 billion tonnes.

Suppose we count a large portion of the world's fish biomass of 1-2 billion tonnes, as well as trees cut down for firewood, lumber, and paper pulp (though modern forestry methods are generally sustainable, requiring replanting of trees or a cyclical harvesting that keeps the amount of trees replenished). We're still at maybe 1% of global biomass directly comprising or consumed by humans.

I'm reading about some concept called HANPP (Human Appropriated portion of Net Primary Production, which is percentage of overall production of biomass (carbon organically trapped through photosynthesis by plants minus carbon freed through respiration) diverted or appropriated or consumed by man. Estimates vary, but seem to be in the ballpark of about 20-25%.

http://www.eoearth.o...oduction_(HANPP)

That might be read as more concerning.

Then again, mankind is the only species that can consciously increase biomass locally, through irrigation, or through, say, agricultural biotechnology that allows us to get more crop yields without expanding the amount of land used for agriculture. Also, trends in urbanization may well lead to much more efficient spatial packing of human populations, potentially reducing the amount of land on which people actively live.

Thanks anyway for directing toward this topic. Interesting reading.

Heterotrophs (like cows) which feed on edible autotrophs (like corn or grain) are nothing but competitors to humans trying to produce more food, because ten pounds of corn going into feeding one cow only produces one pound of beef in that cow. Only when the heterotroph (cow) feeds on a non edible autotroph (grass, not edible to humans) is it serving a useful purpose, and only then if the grass is growing in an environment where we can't grow edible crops like wheat.

Unfortunately, due to the rising demand for meat, farmers especially in western countries have taken to feeding perfectly edible corn and wheat to cows purely for the demand of beef. People will have to sacrifice their taste for meat and eat more grains, fruits, and vegetables if we are to loosen population controls.

Since we humans are heterotrophs, we absolutely depend on autotrophs to survive. If all plants are to be wiped out, all heterotrophs will die. We need to maintain a big percentage of autotrphs like plants as part of the total biomass, because autotrophs like plants, bacteria, and protists convert abiotic elements (carbon, nitrogen, iron and copper), into biotic form (in themselves), and then we heterotrophs eat those plants to absorb those elements into ourselves, or eat other heterotrophs which have eaten the autotrophs.

Autotrophs are what turn abiotic mass into biotic mass, and must be safeguarded from environmental pollution, urban sprawl and humans should stop the wasteful practices of feeding edible autotrophs to non human heterotrophs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I live in Bangladesh - the most densely populated country on Earth. BD is also the most fertile land in the world, so food was cheap and people kept on having children. However, the fertility rate has stabilized to 2.2 now. I keep hearing from my elders how comfortable life was in their time, how everything was so cheap. I wish they didn't have so many children, there would be more for everyone then. But BD is more peaceful than many less densely populated countries in the world, so it isn't a fact that if population density increases there will be chaos and wars all around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Heterotrophs (like cows) which feed on edible autotrophs (like corn or grain) are nothing but competitors to humans trying to produce more food, because ten pounds of corn going into feeding one cow only produces one pound of beef in that cow. Only when the heterotroph (cow) feeds on a non edible autotroph (grass, not edible to humans) is it serving a useful purpose, and only then if the grass is growing in an environment where we can't grow edible crops like wheat.

Unfortunately, due to the rising demand for meat, farmers especially in western countries have taken to feeding perfectly edible corn and wheat to cows purely for the demand of beef. People will have to sacrifice their taste for meat and eat more grains, fruits, and vegetables if we are to loosen population controls.

Since we humans are heterotrophs, we absolutely depend on autotrophs to survive. If all plants are to be wiped out, all heterotrophs will die. We need to maintain a big percentage of autotrphs like plants as part of the total biomass, because autotrophs like plants, bacteria, and protists convert abiotic elements (carbon, nitrogen, iron and copper), into biotic form (in themselves), and then we heterotrophs eat those plants to absorb those elements into ourselves, or eat other heterotrophs which have eaten the autotrophs.

Autotrophs are what turn abiotic mass into biotic mass, and must be safeguarded from environmental pollution, urban sprawl and humans should stop the wasteful practices of feeding edible autotrophs to non human heterotrophs.

Yeah, I don't think plants are in any danger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

For those of you who think we can have an unlimited population, with the technology available now (you live in reality, not in some future fantasy), you are clearly mistaken.

We have enough trouble feeding most of the world it is. We still have children routinely dying from starvation.

Those of you who suggest this aren't even qualified to make statements like that. This might be a very surprising concept for some of you - https://en.wikipedia...rrying_capacity .

If there is more people but the same amount of resources, everyone gets a smaller share. Stretch this out, eventually, the share isnt sufficient for survival Simple really. That is the kind of analysis you'd do on animals as well. To maintain our comparatively luxurious level of consumption, we'd require far fewer people than we could feed on a minimum.

We only have so much land that's capable of growing food. We're rapidly burning through our phosphate supply (which is used to make fertiliser), which is one of the main reasons we can grow just as much as we can.

Worth a read --- > http://www.newyorker...co_talk_kolbert

This Sign is responsible for all the happening

Really?

This sign represent the medical association....They use medicines which do not repair the body mechanism at alll..they are inclined towards making money....

So, i guess the fact people get better after taking medicine is just a coincidence?

I'd like to see how closely you stick to these principals if a loved one was struck by cancer or you even got a simple bacterial infection and needed antibiotics.

For example Painkillers...like tramadol, cocdomol, paracetamol...you have pain...you start taking them, they just numb the part, and nerves,,,

I don't need a degree in pharmacology to tell you that this just might be the aim. Every random ache and pain or headache you have doesn't have a cause that requires treatment or is permanent. Period pain is an example. It's temporary. Pain killers provide that temporary relief. That's what they're designed for. If you've been out in the sun all day, been a bit dehydrated and have a headache, of course you'd drink some water but unless you want to put up with a pounding headache, some painkillers might give you the relief to get on with your day.

The doctors practice and write such prescription...The entire world is in danger coz of this....ways

If you think the world is in danger because medicine exists then boy, the alternative will really shock you...

Thanks to advances in medical science, we've been able to eradicate many diseases and greatly improve the human condition.

Smallpox is a prime example of a disease we've wiped out.

smallpox.png

Edited by Pascal
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Starvation today isn't from hard limits of available farmland or food or anything of the sort. It is economic/political.

I don't think anyone argues toward literally unlimited population.

Population at much higher levels would not be reached in some discontinuous, instantaneous jump. It would happen gradually, continuously, over a period of decades and centuries.

Over this same time, the amount of food and other needed supplies can also be gradually and continually increased to match needs. Technology plays a role in allowing us to be more efficient and productive in producing more food and supplies out of a smaller area. Agricultural biotechnology to increase yields and reduce loss and spoilage is one potential for improvement. Urban and vertical gardening is another.

We are nowhere near any sort of hard physical limit. 3/4 of the world's surface is covered in water we are not yet using, due to it being salty, but this could be tapped as a resource through desalination given energy inputs to power the process.

There is plenty of carbon available in the atmosphere for further growth of the biosphere.

There are plenty of energy sources available when you look at nuclear fuel, both fission and fusion.

Essential minerals are abundant in the earth's crust.

We are currently doing nothing to recycle certain tight minerals like phosphorus that is lost in our wastes, but in a pinch, we could recoup these. The technologies are already in development.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Starvation today isn't from hard limits of available farmland or food or anything of the sort. It is economic/political.

This is of course true, its why we get our rice shipped all the way from china or india even though there are still people starving. Even if it was perfectly equitable, i dont think we could still sufficiently feed everyone.

A lot of the things you say i agree with but they're the realm of the future. 50 years ago we thought we'd have jetpacks. We just can't be sure about the future. As it stands right now, the earth is most likely overpopulated.

Desalination for example requires a massive amount of energy. Right now, with our current energy mix, that would largely involve pumping out massive amounts of CO2, which is obviously not the greatest idea.

We're 50 if not 100 years off fusion,

In theory, in some future, we could have a larger population. We live in the present or at least the near future though.

Maybe i missed something earlier but why do we even want a very large population or what some people have termed "unlimited" (not in the literal sense of course)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who think we can have an unlimited population, with the technology available now (you live in reality, not in some future fantasy), you are clearly mistaken.

We have enough trouble feeding most of the world it is. We still have children routinely dying from starvation.

Those of you who suggest this aren't even qualified to make statements like that. This might be a very surprising concept for some of you - https://en.wikipedia...rrying_capacity .

If there is more people but the same amount of resources, everyone gets a smaller share. Stretch this out, eventually, the share isnt sufficient for survival Simple really. That is the kind of analysis you'd do on animals as well. To maintain our comparatively luxurious level of consumption, we'd require far fewer people than we could feed on a minimum.

We only have so much land that's capable of growing food. We're rapidly burning through our phosphate supply (which is used to make fertiliser), which is one of the main reasons we can grow just as much as we can.

Worth a read --- > http://www.newyorker...co_talk_kolbert

Really?

So, i guess the fact people get better after taking medicine is just a coincidence?

I'd like to see how closely you stick to these principals if a loved one was struck by cancer or you even got a simple bacterial infection and needed antibiotics.

I don't need a degree in pharmacology to tell you that this just might be the aim. Every random ache and pain or headache you have doesn't have a cause that requires treatment or is permanent. Period pain is an example. It's temporary. Pain killers provide that temporary relief. That's what they're designed for. If you've been out in the sun all day, been a bit dehydrated and have a headache, of course you'd drink some water but unless you want to put up with a pounding headache, some painkillers might give you the relief to get on with your day.

If you think the world is in danger because medicine exists then boy, the alternative will really shock you...

Thanks to advances in medical science, we've been able to eradicate many diseases and greatly improve the human condition.

Smallpox is a prime example of a disease we've wiped out.

smallpox.png

you must be joking , this is the biggest BS , I've seen here on SC .

hah medicine , I wonder have you met the these families that control the big Pharmas.

Obviously you never have .

It is businesses as usual for them .

the more disease , the more profit .

Has it never occurred to you that by creating these viruses , it is a great way to increase the bottom line .

Read the iron mountain report .

Most of these diseases and viruses are created in labs .

It serves two fold , population reduction and increase profit .

They have immersed many trillions , now it's time for the second phase , reduction.

Business as usual.

But then your sources are wiki-iie-pidia , figures .

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

you must be joking , this is the biggest BS , I've seen here on SC .

hah medicine , I wonder have you met the these families that control the big Pharmas.

Obviously you never have .

It is businesses as usual for them .

the more disease , the more profit .

Has it never occurred to you that by creating these viruses , it is a great way to increase the bottom line .

Read the iron mountain report .

Most of these diseases and viruses are created in labs .

It serves two fold , population reduction and increase profit .

They have immersed many trillions , now it's time for the second phase , reduction.

Business as usual.

But then your sources are wiki-iie-pidia , figures .

For reduction, wars are useless in the long run.

The only reliable option is what was shown in the movie: Contagoin.

It is a logistical nightmare, but possible with careful bio-engineering.

The antidote will surely come and it will be effective, but it will purposely come after a long time due to the 'complexity of the virus/disease'

This will automatically raise the demand and before you know it; the pharmaceutical companies will be making billions since the very people would give all they have for the much needed antidote.

Basically the 'Swine Flu Shot' sponsored by the governments was a test run to see how powerful the propaganda works among the masses. And boy it did.

This scenario is not ideal though, it would prove to be a nightmare for the elites too as the masses would be back-tracked for 50 or so years. The elites need progress which equals more money for them which they wont get, if they are effectively trying to reduce the population through these means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...