Proof That All Humans Can Comfortably live In America

The Reason For My Faith ^ | 3/4/21 | Chuck Ness

[jmacusa]

The current population of the US is 330 million. FAIR.org, the Federation For American Immigration Reform is one source of the number and NumbersUSA is another.

It isn’t just the illiterate and unskilled that are the problem It’s ALL of them, even educated immigrants.

Not to belabor a point but for God’s sake enough! As I said we’re not Motel 6 for the whole freakin’ world.

[Paul R.]

Yes, and if you’ve been to Vegas in the last 10 years, they have a serious water supply problem. Much more growth there is going to take incredible water infrastructure projects to sustain.

I’d also point out that using up choice US agricultural lands for “city” would greatly affect the world’s food supply, and most arable areas of the planet are already in heavy agricultural use. So, then we are looking at even more mostly dry areas to convert to high yield ag, and one runs into the water supply problem again. That “can” be solved, but at tremendous cost.

Additionally, the water tables in much of our plains states are already in trouble. Converted to city, the problem gets much worse. Again, that “could” be solved, but at enormous cost.

Now, I actually do think the Earth can sustain the 10.87 million people cited, but, that UN projection shows a lot of self-limiting (note the decrease in growth rate), and I think that projection takes into account both declining birth rates in developed countries, and the inability of many undeveloped countries to support a whole lot more people. That leads me to believe the Earth cannot sustain 10 or 11 billion people all in a Tokyo type (quality) lifestyle, without very, very good planning, and tremendous efforts, neither of which seem to be in the cards.

I’d also note that other estimates forecast global population growth to go negative well before 2100 — an interesting forecast (and reasons for it) to consider...

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/the-world-population-in-2100-by-country/

[Paul R.]

Truth is, those who live in a megalopolis, hate living in the country.

Actually, no, depending on what you mean by "country". Suburbs are an attempt to at least partially get away from cities, and city folk generally move out (at least to suburbs) if they can afford it. But they don't move too far, because cities are where most of the money is.

[Paul R.]

The Great Lakes alone won’t do it. The flow out is not enough. We’d have to also collect, store, and then redistribute the spring floods’ waters, primarily in the Mississippi / Missouri / Ohio River system. Talk about a mind-boggling project!

As for FL, the Miami / Ft. Lauderdale area basically still stops at the Everglades. That boundary has not moved much for quite some time. From Orlando north, not that much of FL is (or was) swampland. Long stretches along I-95 through there are just... scrub type lands.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Most of your conclusions about Gov’t are correct. And, I suspect the “population problem” will mostly solve itself. Except... maybe not in places like Nigeria. I truly can’t imagine Nigeria with a population (projected) of nearly 800 million people.

[Paul R.]

I tend to simplify and make the observation that most animals packed too tightly become neurotic.

[nathanbedford]

Well put.

[BDParrish]

The article misses some very important aspects of this question. I am very interested, primarily as a follower of the “end-times ping list” here on this wonderful forum. There is some kind of an upper limit, and I would like to know what that is. A couple of issues have been addressed by others on the thread namely food and water. But don’t forget that there is another VERY important issue...all those folks gotta poop somewhere! Without ruining your drinking water. And how do they all live so close to each other without killin’ each other?

[OneVike]

First off, this is all a blueprint of how to prove to the left we can survive, and that we are hundreds of years away from worrying. Hell, all we need is another World war and the planet will be reduced back to a billion people, especially with modern advanced,emt in weapons that Destry and kill.

As to waist and water, in space, they are limited in resources, but seem to regenerate their water and dispose of their waist fairly simply. Can it be done on a massive scale, probably. With men working together as they did for the space station, but for some reason men fail to work together for the good of mankind because someone has the desire to be the friggin King of it all, and thus dissension begins.

Yet we are always limited by idiots who muck up the machinery of a smooth society. It’s not the petty street criminals, nor even the serial murders running around we have yet to realize live next door. Nope, it’s the idiots in power. The type of degenerates who always gravitate to power for the single purpose to run the lives of others while screwing things up.

So I give my opinion on how it could work, did I give every little solution all the way down to the minutia of the workings? Hell no, but its the best plan I have ever seen that can debunk the anti-Christian idea that God is too stupid to create men who would stop obeying His command to be fruitful and multiply before too many humans are on a planet He created for us too live in.

See, those very same people who claim we are overpopulated are the one’s who are the reason it’s a problem. They are the one’s who create wars by limiting peoples freedoms. Wars happen when humans interfere with other humans rights to be free.

Thus, while I think 99% of those who are FReeper types, could live together harmoniously enough to survive in a place I project, because we will work together to make it happen if we were forced to. I know the rest of thew World has a bunch of idiots who allow others to tell them how to live without realizing the people those chose will destroy their lives.

Yet, FReeper types like us, could make it work without putting everyone in a box like the boundaries if the lower 48 states. We would because we realize freedom to chose where one lives is the best way to make societies work properly, and we would accommodate enough people for all to be free without forcing them to be be our slaves.

I’ll repeat myself, it will not work in a global scale because those on the left have the inner desire to run everyone else lives. That self meglomaniatic attitude is what creates places like the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. etc. etc. Thus, as I wrote, humans are the problem, not the logistics or the science and technology. It’s humans that make it impossible.

Thus as I eluded to, without God in control to will never work.

But hell, without God, man could not even make a small island nation like Cuba work, when there are highly technologically advanced societies with high standards of living in places the same size as Cuba that work just fine.

Another example is Haiti. Why is it so screwed up? Because men, desire to rule over others in a way to stop the advancement of all. It’s not because they have too many people, it the rulers.

[jmacusa]

Jamming rats in a cage compels them to turn on each other. This is what they intend for us.

[BDParrish]

Thanks for your ideas. Something for the “little grey cells.” No?

[dfwgator]

We’re all living in Amerika
Amerika ist wunderbar
We’re all living in Amerika
Amerika, Amerika

[whitney69]

“...but a few could be dropped in from helicopters.”

You mean like the crane that dropped the steer into the raptors cage in Jurassic Park where the thing was stripped in about 30 seconds? On that, you may have a correct observation.

It isn’t the people that can’t live together, it’s the people being brainwashed by those trying to keep them from living together so they can be controlled.

wy69

[A Navy Vet]

"I tend to simplify and make the observation that most animals packed too tightly become neurotic."

That was proven decades ago with rat and monkey studies. They also become more aggressive. It's the same with humans. Just look at our packed inner cities compared to country folks who have more space. Which has the most crime per capita?

[OneVike]

Which has the most crime per capita?

Ever live in small towns? I have. I have lived in cities the size of L.A. and towns as small as Galletin Gateway Montana.

While I understand your point, don't aver ask the question, unless you are ready for the answer. Crime in small communities are much higher on the per capita scale than you realize. It's just that they are so small the crime waves don't happen every night, but a crime does happen, a lot more than people realize. Think about it, one murder in a town of 1000 residents is astronomical per capita wise. 100 per 100,000

Imagine if New York has 100 murder per 100,000 residences? That would mean there was 8300 murders last year instead of just 431 last year in 2020

As it was, NY's 431 killings comes out to 5.2 killings per 100,000

As for other times? Let's look at the drug problem The problems are a lot more troublesome in small rural areas. Sadly, in many country rural areas, up to 30% of the population uses drugs. Not hard to reach when there are only 250 people in the damn town. Small communities don't have a lot to offer young kids, and drugs are real accessible. Meth addiction is rampant in small communities.

While cow tipping may seem innocent, these kids are doing a lot more damage than just tipping cows. The good part is, if you do the crime in a small community, you will do the time.

Yet, numbers are deceiving, when you brake them down. Big metropolitan cities actually have less crime per capita than most small rural communities. Sad, but true.

Check this story out about 8 members of the same family murdered in a town with a population of 2181.

Eight Members of Ohio Family Dead in 'Execution-Style' Killings

That town just had a staggering murder rate of 400 killings per 100,000. Can you imagine the news if the equivalent number per capita happened overnight in NY? That would be like killing 33,200 people.

So the number is smaller, but on the equivalence scale, the emotions of the towns folk is powerful. Per Capita, less people died on 9/11. Yet, most humans have never heard about the family destroyed miles away in some hick town.

So when you consider the crime rate, consider how many people live there. I remember living in many small towns, and the crime rate was astonishing. Robbery, drug running, assault, rape, property theft, breaking & entering, and even murder. OH, teen unwed birthrates in rural America out does that of bigger cities. Again, not much to do, so they have fun any way they can.

Remember, big government has it's tentacles in every school in America, and that indoctrination has been devastating to the younger generations in small communities. Like I said, never ask a question, unless you want an answer.

All that, and I personally prefer the small community over the big cities. Had both, and I like small.

[A Navy Vet]

Thank for the info. I didn’t know crime stats were that high in fly-over country - just going by what I’ve read over the years.

[OneVike]

Welcome,

Yes.

[OneVike]

Yea, like I said, the biggest problem is younger people have few things to keep them busy, because the same laws that limit their ability to work, effect the small rural areas also. So no one wants to pay them high wages either, so they do what most young folk do when they have too much time on their hands. They do drugs, drink, and get into troubles.

[A Navy Vet]

"Think about it, one murder in a town of 1000 residents is astronomical per capita wise. 100 per 100,000"

No, never lived in a small town unless Rota, Spain counts, which it probably doesn't due to different culture. Thanks for the info, but I don't understand your math above. Are you extrapolating from 1000 residents to 100,000 residents? Plus, I think you're generalizing. I just don't buy your numbers.

Yes, the youth in extremely small towns have little to do, but from my knowledge, most of their crimes are burglary, tress passing, misc mischief, alcohol abuse, etc. But then, you should know better than I having lived in such towns. Also, I was talking about rural folk regarding more space.

[OneVike]

I was putting the per capita numbers on an equal setting.

In order to compare numbers that are given in the 100,000s, I needed to then bring up the small town numbers to match the same % as is the Big city numbers are. I needed to equalize the number to work.

As in algebra for fractions? You need to level the playing field to numbers that match. Thus to add 1/4 and 1/3, we must find a common denominator, which would be 12.

Thus 1/4 = 3/12 while 1/3 = 4/12

Then we can then add 3/12 + 4/12 to get 7/12

Thus 1/4 + 1/3 = 7/12

I did that with per capita numbers and used 100,000 as the common denominator to get an equivalence to compare the numbers of murders.

Thus, if the small town of 1000 had one murder, and you extrapolate the number to equal the % of murders in the large city we have to use the common number of 100,000, because that is the common denominator we need to make the comparison work.

Once things are on an equal setting, we can see that, at least on a per capita base, the murder rate in a small town is astronomically higher than the murder rate in the large city. At least with the one I used as my example. Imagine if 10 people were murdered in a town of 200. You get my point.

Statistics can really screw things up. As I said, I’ll still take my chance in a small town. However, one cannot argue with facts.