Multiplying like Rats

[Jitendra Hydonus]

There were a couple hundred people on this earth in 1600 now there are over 8 billion.
If people keep multiplying like rats there will be 50 billion on the earth in 2200.

[weboflife]

This post has red flags running through it. Maybe a typo by you Steve but world population around 1600 was over 500 million people. And whilst population continues to grow world population is projected to begin a decline later this century after we reach 10 billion in about 60 years. Male fertility is falling and with cost of living, particularly in the west, people are more often choosing not to have children or limit the family size to a small number.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

This post has red flags running through it. Maybe a typo by you Steve but world population around 1600 was over 500 million people. And whilst population continues to grow world population is projected to begin a decline later this century after we reach 10 billion in about 60 years. Male fertility is falling and with cost of living, particularly in the west, people are more often choosing not to have children or limit the family size to a small number.

I hope I will be stood corrected as you have pointed out but given the deterioration of the planets eco system estimates of what our planet - Mother Earth - can tolerate may be much more dismal.

A summary from Google supports my views;

[Jitendra Hydonus]

ased on current scientific understanding and environmental studies regarding Earth's carrying capacity, there is no single consensus on the exact number for the ideal population, but many experts suggest a significantly lower number than today's 8 billion+ to ensure long-term sustainability and quality of life.
Here are the key perspectives on what the Earth's population should be:

Sustainability Goal (1.5 to 2 Billion): Some studies, such as those often cited by the organization Population Matters (formerly the Optimum Population Trust), suggest that for a completely sustainable environment where everyone enjoys a high standard of living similar to Europe, the global population should ideally be between 1.5 and 2 billion people.

Reduced Consumption Goal (500 Million to 1 Billion): Other studies focusing on a high quality of life without depleting natural resources estimate that the ideal, sustainable population should be lower, ranging from 500 million to 1 billion people.

Current Reality vs. Future Peak: The current world population is over 8 billion and is expected to peak around 10.4 billion in the 2080s.
The Problem is Consumption: Experts note that overpopulation is not just about the number of people, but consumption rates, waste, and carbon footprints. Many argue that overpopulation exists because we are damaging the environment faster than it can recover.
Alternative Perspective: Some views, such as those from the Kabbalah, argue that the population isn't the problem, but rather how people treat each other. They suggest that a higher population can thrive if humanity moves beyond selfishness and connects positively, decreasing the suffering that typically comes with overpopulation.
The World Economic Forum
The World Economic Forum
 +6
In summary, experts largely believe the Earth is currently overpopulated for its long-term ecological health, often advocating for a future with a population significantly lower than the current one to allow for a high standard of living and sustainability.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

This summarizes my view on the current population explosion and over population on Mother Earth today;

According to channeled materials, specifically those publicized by Swiss contactee Billy Meier regarding "Plejaren" (Pleiadian) teachings, the Pleiades perspectives on overpopulation on Earth are:
Overpopulation is a Real, Critical Problem: The Pleiadian perspective (as reported by Meier) indicates that

Earth is significantly overpopulated.

The Ideal Population: They are reported to say that Earth’s natural resources can only properly support a population of roughly 500 million to 1 billion people. They believe that this level is necessary for maintaining a balance between human life and nature.

Consequences of Overpopulation: They argue that the high population (currently over 8 billion) is the root cause of widespread environmental destruction, poverty, and social conflict.
"Control" and Responsibility: They advocate for responsible population regulation, arguing that excessive population growth causes human civilization to live in an unsustainable, "un-natural" way, prioritizing technology and quick gains over environmental harmony.
Alien Species Wiki
Alien Species Wiki
 +4

[Jitendra Hydonus]

Web; as you read my response I want you to know that though the population growth has showed some significant changes since my studies years back i still concur with the Billy Meier reports and encounters he has had with the pleiadian beings. I read his main book decades ago and found it convincing.

I welcome your contrasting views and your more positive outlook for the future in terms of population decreases but still see this as far below what is necessary for global environmental integrity and human compatibility on our planet. I also refer to the Robert Monroe readings I did that see a total different world in the far future where population will have no resemblance to what it is today and we will be much more evolved and not even need these bodies we are now inhabiting but they will be just a point of reference.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

Why is it everywhere i go I find pop cans garbage liquor bottles wrappers and plastic bags? Never saw so much when I was a kid and there were less people!

[weboflife]

I wasn't suggesting an alternative view re: the unsustainability of how humans live in conjunction with the overall population. Obviously there needs to be a massive shift in mindset to enable human survival given the current circumstances. The earth will survive what we are doing, she has undergone massive shifts over time and Mother Nature is indomitable whereas we are not.

The world's population can fit into the island of Tasmania at the bottom of Australia allowing around 8 square meters per person. So our numbers are not the problem in my view. "The world has enough for all we need, but not for all we greed", to quote Gandhi.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

I wasn't suggesting an alternative view re: the unsustainability of how humans live in conjunction with the overall population. Obviously there needs to be a massive shift in mindset to enable human survival given the current circumstances. The earth will survive what we are doing, she has undergone massive shifts over time and Mother Nature is indomitable whereas we are not.

The world's population can fit into the island of Tasmania at the bottom of Australia allowing around 8 square meters per person. So our numbers are not the problem in my view. "The world has enough for all we need, but not for all we greed", to quote Gandhi.

Out of respect to your views i have included your whole post here. My response is very simple webolife the lifestyle you are giving an example for in Tasmania would obviously not feed over 8 billion people because no one would be able to have enough property to grow crops or fruit plants and definitely not room enough to feed meat eaters who require much more land for cattle to graze.

But your missing some basic points ive made before friend; the rich would have all the best land and the rest of us wouldn’t be able to enjoy any nature. Which is happening now in most countries. Also until countries are able to prove they can take care of their waste without polluting the land with bottles, cans, plastic, and chemical waste i will be cleaning up other peoples messes as I do daily.  Traffic in most metropolitan areas has become congested and unsafe. Enjoying nature and being able to meditate in a place without dogs barking, sirens blaring, loud speakers indoctrinating and animals being mistreated as well as nature being compromised is now practically non existent.

[weboflife]

I mustn't be explaining myself very well. I'm not countering your point that our lifestyles and attitudes to our planet must change. My example of Tasmania was to show that the world population isn't crowding out the earth, our ignorance is. Jane Goodall, the famous environmentalist, said in an interview before she died that a Jewish scholar and interpreter of the ancient Jewish texts that are found in the Old Testament, said to her that the interpretation in Genesis that man has dominion over the earth is wrong. The word used is correctly interpreted as custodianship. It makes a big difference:

"Custodianship is the responsibility, duty, or act of taking care of, protecting, or managing something on behalf of another or for future generations. It emphasizes stewardship or preservation rather than ownership, focusing on long-term health and maintenance of assets, culture, or people."

[Jitendra Hydonus]

I mustn't be explaining myself very well. I'm not countering your point that our lifestyles and attitudes to our planet must change. My example of Tasmania was to show that the world population isn't crowding out the earth, our ignorance is. Jane Goodall, the famous environmentalist, said in an interview before she died that a Jewish scholar and interpreter of the ancient Jewish texts that are found in the Old Testament, said to her that the interpretation in Genesis that man has dominion over the earth is wrong. The word used is correctly interpreted as custodianship. It makes a big difference:

"Custodianship is the responsibility, duty, or act of taking care of, protecting, or managing something on behalf of another or for future generations. It emphasizes stewardship or preservation rather than ownership, focusing on long-term health and maintenance of assets, culture, or people."

When you have over 50% of the wealth in the hands of less than five people like we do in the U.S. it is obvious that stewardship is not a priority but rather power and ownership. With this type of mentality there will be no peace among over 8 billion people.

So you may wonder am I agreeing with you and in the sense of stewardship and custodianship I would say;  YES