Proof That All Humans Can Comfortably live In America

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

[OneVike]

Let me begin by saying I do not want all humans living in America. However, to make my point that we are not overpopulated, I will use the lower 48 states as my example to prove all humans can live comfortably in the the continental United States. I will offer actual updated numbers to show how I come to my conclusion, that not only is the World not overpopulated, but we are in fact hundreds of years away from it happening.

Since the mid 1960's liberals have been claiming the World is coming to an end, because there are too many people on the planet. There have been many movies made in Hollywood about the planet being overpopulated by humans. The majority of them are so ridiculous they make 1950 B movies look entertaining. One Movie in particular was "Soylent Green". It stared three great actors, Charlton Heston, Chuck Connors, and Edward G. Robinson.

The premise of the Movie is set in the year 2022 (yup that's right). In that future year, the World is suffering from pollution, overpopulation, depleted resources, poverty, dying oceans, and a threat of another Ice Age beginning to set in. Much of the population survives on processed food rations, as the government struggles to find enough food to feed the people. Then they come up with a miracle solution, Soylent Green. I guess if Biden and the Communists succeed in what they have planned for us, parts of this movie could come true.

The plot begins with the murder of a wealthy businessman. Well, in the investigation the government's new source of food becomes part of the case. When the murder is solved, so too is the question, "What Is The Secret Of Soylent Green?" The Movie ends with Heston's character, Detective Sergeant Thorn screaming, "Soilent Green is people!", as they take him away to be turned into human food. At the end of this article you can watch the full trailer for the movie.

Click on image to see video clip

So as far as the Hollywood writers in 1973 were concerned, the population of the World would become so bad by 2022, that we would have to be fed human meat to survive. Instead of advancing like we have, were were supposed to devolve into starve ravaged humans who will believe anything the government tells us. OH, wait a minute, I guess they were partly right, because today we are told that Communism is good and half the country believes it.

Which brings me back to our supposed population problem. Are there too many people on the planet for us to survive? Many liberals believe so, that's one reason they want to murder as many unborn babies as they can get their scalpels and vacuums on. Men like Bill Gates are spending vast amounts of their own money to ensure humans stop producing, by funding flu vaccines that sterilize men and women.

So I decided to look into this population problem we supposedly have. What I learned was we are not even close to being overpopulated. Allow me to take you through my process. It's quite simple actually, because we have examples all around the World as to how it could be done. A simple understanding of math, along with the knowledge that mankind has already succeeded in helping tens of millions of humans around the World to live comfortably in large metropolitan cities.

Below are are some actual numbers that you need to know to follow my thinking. As you do, it must be pointed out that in 2020, Tokyo Japan was rated as the best large city in the World according to Global Finance Magazine

Tokyo ranked first among cities with the highest quality of life in
2020 due to its overall relatively good scores in most metrics
and Japan’s strong response to COVID-19. Japan has had
very low case counts, a subsidized advanced transportation
system, and an overall high quality of life. (GFC top 10 List)

• 1.) World's apx population as of 1/1/21 = 7,874,965,825 (billions)
• 2.) World's most populated city = Tokyo Japan
• 3.) Tokyo's apx population as of 1/1/2021 = 37,393,129 (millions)
• 4.) World's habitable miles = apx 36,794,240,000 miles (billions)
• 5.) World's habitable acres = apx 23,548,313,600,000 (trillions)
• 6.) America's (U.S.) habitable acres = apx 2,000,000,000 acres (billions)
• 7.) Total size of Tokyo in miles = 5,233 square miles
• 8.) Total acres per square mile = 640 acres per square mile
• 9.) Total size of Tokyo in acres = 3,349,676 acres (millions)
• 10.) Total humans per acre in Tokyo = 11.16 humans per acre
• 11.) #1 divided by #10 = 705,642,099 acres needed for World's population
• 12.) Compare #6 to #11 ---- There is more than enough space in the United States
• 13.) Compare #11 to #5 --- We are not overpopulated.
• 14.) World's projected population in 2100 = 10,874,902,318 (billions)
• 15.) #14 divided by #10 = 974,453,612 acres needed in 2100 for World's population

I took the above screen print from a graph at macrotrends.com
They have a cool sliding graph that shows you what they
project the World's population to be year by year, up to
2100. That is when they project the population to be
10.87 billion. Even in 2100 the World's population
will comfortably fit in America.

After extrapolating all the numbers, it looks like we could actually put all humans in the Mainland portion of the United States. Mind you, I only used habitable land mass numbers, So places that man cannot live has been omitted from my investigation. Now it would have to be a large city that is as densely populated as Tokyo Japan. However, all the needed infrastructure for highways, schools, subways, trains, hospitals, shopping malls, and even privately owned businesses would fit.

Plus, since there would still be 1.29 billion acres left, we could stretch things out to accommodate some parks, golf courses, airports, entertainment venues to keep people amused, and even vast subway and rail systems. We could use the rest of the World for our agriculture, mining, lumber, etc. etc. etc. For water, we could build mega piplines to bring fresh water from the great lakes so everyone would have clean drinkable water. If in 80 years United States became too crowed, then we could just expand farther North into Canada or South into Mexico, and still have the rest of the World for other uses.

Yup, this World is not even close to being over populated, so it shouldn't even be on anyone's radar as a problem. Mind you, those living in Tokyo have a higher standard of living than humans living in open country areas like Africa, South America, and the Middle East. So it's not like I am offering a solution that is inhuman.

The only reason we're told the planet is overpopulated, is so that lefties can convince us to agree with their plans for population control. These supposedly great ideas only give them complete control of our lives, from the cradle to the grave. This is why they consistently try their best to debunk any idea that there is more than enough room on earth for humans to live for hundreds of years. One example is the way they ignore the fact that most humans gravitate to large metropolitan ares.

Cities like New York, Tokyo, Paris, Moscow, Melbourne, Mexico City, etc. etc. etc. are so populated because humans like being in cramped quarters. For them, that's where the fun is. Truth is, those who live in a megalopolis, hate living in the country. So to use the logic that each person getting an small portion of land would not work, is just more illogical claims to debunk the fact that we are not overpopulated.

These doomsayers point to the problems they see in the World, like Climate Change, and environmental damage, that could be alleviated if there were just less humans. Truth is, man cannot do anything about the weather, unless we put out the sun. Problems occur in the World because of men's evil hearts, not because we are having too many children. It's my opinion that 95% of humans in government are some of the most vile and evil idiots on the planet. These idiots either won a popularity contest or were appointed by other evil idiots. It's those evil idiots in power, not the evil idiots living next door to us, that are the biggest problems.

In every corner of the World there are problems. Yet, the reason food is expensive and hard to get, is because a government caused a problem. The reason there is mass starvation, is because governments screwed something up, or created it on purpose. Gas shortages happen because governments screwed things up. Houses and infrastructure projects are expensive because governments screwed things up. Electric grids and energy is problematic because governments screwed things up. Modern wars happen, because evil men in the governments of poorly run countries want what other countries with good governments have.

There are many evil men in society that are not in government, but when we try to lock them up, we often times come up against government policies that make it impossible to do so. Mind you, it's government officials who decide what is legal and illegal. Case in point, today you can legaly murder an unborn child, but if you smash a turtle egg it's off to prison for you. 90% of today's problems in society are created by stupid evil humans getting elected or appointed to government. Forty years ago Reagan said that government works best when government gets out of the way. More true today than ever.

The only place overpopulation exists, is in the government. Eliminate 90% of the people in governments and our overpopulation problems will be solved. Think about it, it's government officials who come up with stupid solutions to fix problems others idiots in government created in the first place. When ever we get a smart person running for office, the stupid evil idiots do all they can to destroy the person, because they don't want the problems they created fixed. Otherwise they won't have an issue to get re-elected on.

Ultimately man is at the root of all problems, but not for the reasons liberals claim. In their hearts, liberal governmental elitists know that their ideas are worthless. Otherwise they would practice the things they tell us we need to do to save the planet. Yet, when the rubber hits the road, they themselves are the biggest violators of the planet. That's because, their end game is to return us to a feudal system where they can control our lives lives from cradle to the grave, not a pristine planet.

It is without a doubt that all problems would cease if humans just turned their hearts to GOD. Yet, men desire to live without GOD, because we want to do things our way. Since the beginning of time we have been doing it our way, and the results are always the same. Nothing in our personal lives has changed. We still lust after the same things, and work for that which never truly satisfies us. Then when our end comes, we all return to the dust we came from and then meet our Creator.

My question to you is, are you ready to meet the Judge? Well, I hope you have the right lawyer. If not, then I know Him personally, and He's free. He's never lost a case before this Judge, and He's always looking for more clients. Only the One who paid the price for your sins can get you into the exclusive club I'm destined for. Jesus Christ, is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one comes to the Father accept for those who go through His Son. Maybe instead of worrying about an overpopulation problem, you should get to Know Jesus.

[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.