This page deals with human overpopulation and its ties to child sexual abuse. The content has no warranty. The visitor may become offended and may suffer mental and emotional harm. Incidentally, reckless disclosure of the website content may result in civil and criminal penalties. In view of the potential consequences, the visitor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the author, the publisher, and their agents against all claims, losses, expenses, and lawsuits that may arise from this visit. Leave now or proceed at your risk.
|CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF OVERPOPULATION|
Overpopulation is the consequence of sexual reproduction. Strangely, most people tacitly assume that overpopulation starts with the birth of a new individual. This mental picture leaves out the important aspects of sex drive and sexual intercourse. They occur seasonally in animals, but humans succumb to their sex drive throughout the year. A couple having regular sexual intercourse every other day usually needs about six months before the female partner conceives a child. At this rate, an average woman can produce over 30 children during her lifetime.
Naturally, not all developing fetuses are carried to term. Some never mature because of miscarriage, or stillbirth, or death of the mother. Even more influential has been infant mortality caused by illnesses, mishaps, or killings, but these natural effects are not enough to keep the human population from growing. During the last century, human population has been increasing like never before. The outcome has been associated with reduced infant mortality and increased longevity while the birth rates have not reduced in proportion. This conclusion is superficially sound, but ignores human mentality and behavior. Scientists and common people alike do not understand that overpopulation is not a biologically predetermined fate. Overpopulation is the result of unrelenting sex drive in combination with stiff ideological opposition to contraception and abortion. The lack of intelligence in matters of multiplication used to be offset by wars, diseases, and limited availability of food. It is only nowadays that low intelligence is emerging as the main factor behind human overpopulation. But no one suspects that poor intelligence is the consequence of yet another phenomenon: child sexual abuse.
Child sexual abuse (also known as incest) is a widespread phenomenon that affects everyone on earth. Sexual abuse causes dissociation and abnormal mentality. The victims diminish their emotional intelligence, but some develop problem-solving abilities. These smart but emotionally stupid survivors are the captains of the industry or geniuses who make scientific and technological discoveries. They have helped mankind rise above the animal kingdom. Thanks to these narrow-minded experts, people are no longer susceptible to common diseases and are not threatened by animals. Improvements in the quality of water, food, and overall conditions of living have allowed people to live longer than ever before. Modern medicine has reduced infant mortality below 1 percent, and humanity is on its way to endless prosperity.
Regrettably, this rosy picture is spoiled by the negative consequences of childhood sexual abuse. The victims not only become emotionally stupid, but they also become sexualized and sexually active. The combination of sex, material wealth, and psychopathology leads to overpopulation and environmental damage, conditions that are about to destroy humanity and life on earth.
WHAT IS OVERPOPULATION?
Overpopulation is generally defined as an inability of the environment to support the existing population of humans or other living things. There are various degrees of overpopulation. Absolute overpopulation means that the living things have exceeded their ability to sustain their existence. As a result, the population typically destroys its environment and starves to death. An example is the Irish potato famine or the contemporary famine in east Africa. People have been dying in huge numbers because the environment has been unable to sustain the large populations. By contrast, relative overpopulation is a situation when resources become scarce. As a result, each individual has less living space, or fewer available resources, or reduced quality of life. This definition is not always applicable to a given situation, and the word overcrowding might be a better label. For example, during the funeral of Pope John Paul II, the population of Rome doubled, and the city was closed to prevent more people from coming in. This was a classical case of overcrowding; many people wanted to be at one place at the same time. Although this type of temporary overcrowding can happen even at low population, permanent overcrowding is usually caused by high population density, when too many people live in a limited area. The area may exhibit just a few symptoms of overpopulation, but may be doing well in other ways. All metropolises seem to have problems with automobile traffic and pollution, but may still have space to add new housing units and may have no shortage of natural resources. Even some countries fit this concept. Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan have many people, but these countries are able to import food and most raw materials from abroad. However, Taiwan suffers from shortage of water for its industry; South Korea is no longer able to find enough sea food in its territorial waters, and Japan has serious problems with affordable housing. All three countries show some symptoms of overpopulation, but are able to function because they can import food and raw materials from other parts of the world. Such a situation of local overpopulation has existed since the dawn of humanity. When the local resources became scarce, people moved elsewhere. Nowadays, people inhabit every livable space on earth, and overpopulation has become a global existential problem.
THE UBIQUITOUS MAN
Many people have more children than is needed for simple replacement. Adult children from such families often reminisce how wonderful it was growing up in a big family with many siblings. The adult children have no clue what the consequences of their wonderful childhood lead to. Statistics show that the global human population grows as follows:
1.5 billion 1900 
3 billion 1960 
4 billion 1974 
5 billion 1987 
6 billion 1999 
7 billion 2011 Note: In 1999, the projected year for 7 billion was 2015 .
9 billion 2043  Note: Projected data from 1999.
The numbers mean that the human population quadrupled in one century. In 2004, the global population reached 6.350 billion people, and the USA had 292 million people (4.6% of the total) . In 1900, the USA only had 80 million people , which represented 4.2% of the global population. Although the rate of population growth is expected to slow down in the future, the earth has already reached 7 billion people, and that is a lot of souls to hold, feed, and satisfy. And the human population continues growing day by day.
Population increase is a global phenomenon. Demographics reveals that industrialized countries have some of the highest population densities, and population growth is closely associated with national prosperity (education, health care, and GDP). The high population densities do not mean that more people mean prosperity, but that prosperity spurs people to have more children. Also some developing countries have high population densities; India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, for example. The following list shows the numbers of people per square kilometer in various countries of the world. Population per square mile would be 2.6 times higher. The numbers have been calculated from 2010 data, and the current population densities are even higher.
The numbers are surprising. The general notion has been that the Chinese multiply excessively, but their population density is only half that of western Europe. By contrast, if UK and Netherlands were equal in land area to China, they would have 2.35 billion and 3.52 billion people, respectively. Just these two countries would have 5.87 billion people, which corresponds to more than 90% of the global population. The good thing is that industrialized countries of Europe have stabilized their populations. Some European nations are still growing at a very slow pace, while others are slowly declining. Developing countries are currently responsible for 99% of all population growth . India and Egypt have recently acknowledged that their huge populations impede economic and social progress, but a recognition of an issue is not enough. India and Egypt are having difficulties behaving differently; their populations continue to grow, and neither country has been able to identify the root cause of its social problems.
The table of population densities exposes a paradox. The USA already seems overpopulated despite having a relatively low population density. Driving to many national parks in a car is no longer possible; parking in a national forest requires a paid permit, and crawling rush-hour traffic painfully reminds us that we are overpopulated at a mere 32 people per square kilometer (83 people per square mile). Yet, USA has 3 to 10 times lower population density than most European countries have. Sweden, which only has 21 people per square kilometer, also suffers from overpopulation. The ancient forests of Sweden have disappeared and have been replaced with tree plantations. The rest of the once pristine Scandinavia also experiences the limits of the environment. Deer hunting, which used to be a popular pastime, has been severely affected by the shortage of animals to kill. These examples show that "overpopulation" is reached when the demands on the environment are higher than the environment can support, and can occur long before people experience shortages of food, drinking water, or natural resources, or notice environmental degradation.
Although population density is indicative of the degree of overpopulation, this indicator can be misleading. The average population density in Egypt is just 82 persons per square kilometer, but most of Egypt is a desert with population concentrated along the Nile. The true population density in livable parts of the land exceeds 1000 people per square kilometer . Similar situation exists in China. The western half of the country has many places with no population, while the urban areas of the east have population densities in excess of 2000 people per square kilometer .
The limits of the environment can be seen even in the least populated countries. Russia, Canada, and Australia have shortages of natural resources despite huge land areas and low population densities. Australia has about 20 million people on a continent that is as big as Europe, but cannot support the needs of all the inhabitants. There is severe water shortage and loss of crops to the elements: drought, fire, and locust. When people begin to notice these limits, most other living creatures have already gone extinct or have been driven to the brink of extinction. Also Russia has encountered environmental limits. Easily accessible oil fields of the Soviet era have been exploited to capacity, and all new oil fields are much more difficult to develop. Also the Siberian tiger suffers. There are only hundreds of these large animals left in the wild. The main reasons for the decline are loss of habitat to man, tiger poaching by humans, and over-hunting of the tiger's prey by humans. Similar changes are seen in Canada. It used to be a seemingly inexhaustible source of wood, wildlife, and raw materials. Things have changed. The population has reached 30 million people, and most natural resources are exported to the USA or Asia. The human pressure on the land is both domestic and international. Despite these problems, desperate island nations who are threatened by the rise of oceans hope to use countries such as Australia or India as their new homeland. How naive the islanders are! Any sensible country will say, "Enough is enough; we cannot afford to take in more foreigners." By contrast, some countries, such as those of Scandinavia, like foreigners and will undoubtedly accept them even if it means self-destruction.
Despite the great problems overpopulation has caused, many people are still asking: "What are the signs of human overpopulation?" or "What would happen if the earth became overpopulated?" or "When will my country become overpopulated?" It is truly remarkable that something that conspicuous has not been noticed and acknowledged by the majority of the citizens of the planet earth. For those who are still unsure whether overpopulation is happening or not, here are a few consequences:
When considering the consequences of overpopulation, it would be a mistake to focus only on our local environment. There are populous countries (China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines, Nigeria) that experience serious problems with basic resources and have worldwide impacts. Shortage of drinking water, insufficient arable land, deforestation, crop reduction, and flooding or desertification cause migrations of these peoples. They are coming to your habitat and are putting more stress on it. Similarly, many Japanese have moved out of their overcrowded island to work and live in foreign lands.
Because of human overpopulation, the world is changing. Japanese cities stretch for miles without any greenery; the dense network of freeways in the Netherlands looks disgusting, and the northeast of the USA is a very crowded place. But overpopulation involves more than numbers and aesthetics. Population densities do not reveal that large parts of countries are not habitable or suitable for agriculture. Russia and Canada are big, but who wants to live north of the 55th parallel? China has its own problems, and most of the population lives in the eastern lowlands, where crops can be grown. The western deserts, highlands, and plateaus do not support good farming and are only suitable for ranching. Depletion of natural resources is also a problem. Populous countries have already used up their resources and are forced to import raw materials from other lands. Japan is a typical example. It may not be obvious that the needs of the Japanese population affect the Brazilian rain forest or the fish stock at Iceland. Similarly, an American may not understand how the U.S. population affects the production of oil in Venezuela, Nigeria, or the Middle East. Nowadays, new economic powers are hungry for natural resources and import them from distant places. In addition, China has arranged for long-term leases of land in Africa and Latin America to grow traditional Chinese crops because the overpopulated homeland needs more food. Global trade, mining, harvesting, and transportation put stress even on the remotest and the least populated stretches of the earth.
The total number of people living on earth is an issue, but an equally troublesome issue is the amount of stress every person puts on the environment. Long gone are those days when India had only 700 million people and Indira Gandhi claimed that her country did not exploit and pollute the environment as much as industrialized countries of the West did. Nowadays, India and China are becoming industrialized and are approaching the levels of material consumption of the West. The same trend exists in other developing countries, such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Turkey. In the past, the number of people living in the Third World used to be just a matter of statistics, but today the Third World affects the global environment.
At present, human overpopulation and loss of habitat for man and beast have become global problems with devastating consequences. Individuals may run away from this issue for a few years by living in less populated countries, but overpopulation will reach and affect every corner of the earth in the bitter end. Asian pollutants only take one year to travel across the Pacific Ocean to the shores of the American continents. Pollutants from the Americas only travel half the time before they reach the shores of Europe and Africa. Fish can move from ocean to ocean in weeks, and birds and airborne pollutants only need days to overcome these "huge" distances. In many ways, the earth is a small place.
One might say that reducing the population growth to three children per family would significantly alleviate the consequences of overpopulation, but this opinion is naive. Any family that has more than two children increases the population. The difference between having three children and a dozen children is a few generations, and the outcome is the same.
As mankind entered the modern age, the dynamics between humans and the world changed, and old ways are no longer acceptable. Ten thousand years ago, there were just a few million people on earth. Everything people produced was natural or biodegradable. The population could double or triple, and no one noticed. Today we live in a non-linear environment, and any increase in population will have dire consequences during our lifetimes. Even if the global population stopped growing today, it would not be enough. In a few decades, the Third World will reach the levels of material consumption and the environmental demands of the industrialized world of today. America, which has less than 5% of the global population, consumes over 30% of raw materials. When the whole world reaches this level of consumption, material demands on the environment will be at least six times higher than they are today. Such a high level of exploitation of the earth will certainly lead to biological and environmental collapse. The scariest thing is that even at the current levels of consumption, humanity uses natural resources faster than the planet can replenish them. Some resources, such as coal, crude oil, wetlands, and arable land are nonrenewable during human existence. Once they are gone, they are lost forever. In parallel, we are destroying and poisoning the environment to get to the remaining resources. Also this aspect is not reversible on a human time scale.
In addition to population growth, humanity has to deal with the increasing impact every living person has on the environment. There is a two-stage process. First, humans tax the environment by their increasing demand for energy, raw materials, living space, services, and consumer goods. Second, human activities destroy nature, produce toxic chemicals, and generate non-biodegradable trash. These activities have devastating consequences for all life on earth.
Man has become so prevalent and so influential that he has altered the flora, fauna, and landscape of the world. In parallel with human impact on nature, a new phenomenon has evolved over the last 200 years: loss of natural reserves. Every reasonably livable place on earth is populated today. The existing natural resources are still sufficient to provide humans with materials and food to support our huge numbers, but there is no backup. If for some reason the crop failed just for one year, billions of people could be in danger of starvation. Unlike in the distant past, contemporary humans cannot go to the forest, jungle, or sea to find enough food during a calamity, because these resources have been largely depleted. In desperation, people would harvest the few remaining resources to survive, and thus finish off the still existing plants and wild animals. The next year, there would be nothing to eat because of human overpopulation and environmental destruction. The same problem can arise even with man-cultivated crops. If the harvest is bad and people become desperate, they may eat even the portion of the crop that is supposed to be planted the next season. With nothing to plant the next spring, deadly famine and wars for survival may become the only options.
Environmental destruction means more than pollution of soil, water, and air. If things were just polluted (dirty) humanity would be in a good shape. The real problem is toxic pollution. America's major ports have been poisoned for decades. Boston and New York have some of the worst harbors. These eastern cities have been joined by Seattle on the Pacific coast. Water toxicity in the Puget Sound was recently reported to be the worst of any coastal waters of the USA. Louisiana's "cancer alley" also raises eyebrows, and states in the southeast (Georgia and Florida among others) have very high levels of mercury in their ponds, bays, and streams. You can still go fishing, but eating the fish can kill you.
Deforestation and harvesting of lumber are advancing at a fast pace in the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Congo, China, Indonesia, and Southeast Asia. Huge trees that used to be common in the American West are now restricted to 1% of their original domain. Also other raw materials are in short supply. The last substantial oil field in the USA was discovered in Wyoming in the 1980's. There has been no new major find of crude oil in the lower 48 states. The world supplies of crude oil, coal, and many metals are estimated to last only decades. Life will get very ugly thereafter. Toxic pollutants will cause illnesses that used to be uncommon, and raw materials will be very expensive. Because of depleted resources and a growing demand, prices of basic materials will be unimaginable. The dramatic increase in the price of copper over the last twenty years reflects this trend. The earth is approaching a breaking point, and the relationships between supply and demand are getting nonlinear. In the 1980's, Japan could buy raw materials abroad. In the 2020's, every country will keep its raw materials for domestic use or sell them at very high prices. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the prices of gasoline. In the year 2000, a gallon of gasoline could have been bought for 1 U.S. dollar. Nowadays, the price is around 4 U.S. dollars. If the world demand for gasoline rises by mere 10%, the price of gasoline may double because the demand exceeds the supplies. This is what nonlinear means. The war in Libya, which only produces 2% of the world output of crude oil, sent shock waves through the financial world, and prices of gasoline at the pump rose dramatically.
The environment will further deteriorate in the future. Deforestation will cause imbalance between gases in the atmosphere, and global warming will add to the consequences. Production of crops will suffer because of heavy flooding or drought. The Philippines, Indonesia, Central America, and other deforested countries of rainy regions will go hungry. Transfer of species from one habitat to another will wipe out local species and cause economic hardship and environmental disasters, such as algae overgrowth, rodent and insect overpopulation, and diseases. Fresh water will become a strategic commodity in most places on earth. Just over the last century, Mexico City sank by 10 meters because of depletion of underground water. The same problem has occurred in the San Joaquin Valley in California. The valley floor is 10 meters lower than it was in the early 20th century. In addition, California is facing a big problem: Salt concentration in the soil makes it difficult to grow crops. Loss of underground water is also affecting Las Vegas, Phoenix, Yuma, San Diego, Los Angeles, and every other community of the dry Southwest. The decades of free underground water are almost over; the natural reservoirs have been depleted. Also in the Southeast, the wetlands of Florida are drying out, and surface water is polluted by man-made chemicals. The Great Lakes still have enough water, but here, too, toxic pollution kills wildlife and threatens the health of humans. The demand on the land and the ability of the land to produce are approaching a breaking point. It is only a matter of time when we reach it.
People's exploitative attitudes toward the environment are often caused by the "out of sight out of mind" mentality. When people finish washing their cars, they pour the dirty water into the storm drain and feel fine about getting rid of the disgusting emulsion. They ignore that there are 10,000 other guys like themselves who also empty their buckets into the city storm drains, which go directly into creeks and rivers. A similar nonchalant attitude exists toward the air. A truck driver can see his vehicle puff huge clouds of smoke, but he solves the problem by driving faster and getting away. He is oblivious to the millions of other drivers who behave the same way. The smoke disappears from his view, and he believes that there is no consequence of his behavior. The smoke is there, but he may not see it. Only when he reenters his metropolitan area from the outside world, can he notice a difference. But even then he and most other drivers do not care and pollute the seemingly endless atmosphere. If they had emotional intelligence, they would see how fragile our ecosystem is. It is a miracle that our thin biosphere can produce such an abundance of life. This marvel of nature is something to protect because our world is a vulnerable place. Let us consider a few data:
The diameter of the earth is just 12,700 km. The air at 7 kilometers above the sea level is barely breathable, and no animals live at this high elevation. Most ocean creatures occupy the "shallowest" 3 kilometers. So, the biosphere of the earth is just 10 kilometers thick. Ten kilometers may seem like a lot, but it is an extremely thin skin. To give you an idea of how thin it is, imagine that you have a globe that is 1.27 meters in diameter (about 4 feet). This is 10 million times smaller than the earth is. The entire biosphere is only 1/1270 of the diameter, which is 1 millimeter (about 40 mils = 1/25 inch).
Can you visualize the fragility of life on earth? Can you imagine this 1-millimeter layer on a 1.27-meter ball? Over 95% of all the people live in one-fifth of the biosphere, which is about the thickness of the wall of a soda can. Do you understand what the pollution of air, water, or land does to the thin layer? The sky does not go on forever. The sky is the limit.
Professional drivers know that the USA is finite. A person can drive from coast to coast in 3 days. If it were possible to drive through the center of the earth from one end to the other, the trip would only take 2.5 times longer than crossing the country. One driver could make the journey in 8 days. A commercial airplane moving at 800 km/hour could make the trip in 16 hours. She is pretty small this planet of ours, isn't she? And she is the only one we have.
Biologists have scary predictions for the future. The elephant, rhinoceros, big cats, polar bear, and all other big animals will go extinct in the wild within 10 to 20 years. Unknown numbers of undiscovered species will die. Humans will suffer, too. Native populations of Africa will lose their game and livestock. This process has already begun in the traditional Masai lands. The once proud herders and warriors now take menial jobs in cities just to survive. Within a generation, hunger, illness, water shortages, and death are likely to strike millions. The Amazon forest will become a wet swamp; American mountain ranges will turn into brushy fire traps, and the rain forests of equatorial Africa will be logged to the last standing tree by local and foreign companies. In America, flooding will get much worse on the Mississippi. Worldwide, increased temperatures of the earth will produce bigger gradients between the warmest and coldest places, which will lead to more severe storms, higher regional rainfall, and further damage to the flora and fauna.
The seas and oceans are dying. Some 100 million sharks are killed every year. No species can sustain such heavy hits decade after decade. Crustaceans are ever harder to find and suffer from cancerous growths. Fish that are caught are poisoned by industrial and agricultural chemicals. Florida's manatees are about to disappear forever. Killer whales (orcas) in the Puget Sound are moving in the same direction. At the current rate of fishing, the north Atlantic cod is expected to be wiped out within 20 years despite drastic cuts in the European fishing fleet. There has been a temporary increase in cod numbers in Scandinavian waters because of arctic melting, but this improvement is too little to satisfy human demand for sea food. A bigger problem is that coral reefs of world's oceans are dying, too. Nearly 15% of world's coral reefs are already beyond repair . At the current rate, 70% of the world's coral reefs are expected to be destroyed within 20 to 40 years . By 2050, the Great Barrier Reef is expected to decrease its coral cover to less than 5% of its original size . Another huge problem is water acidity. As the amount of CO2 in the air increases, the oceans are getting more acidic. In response, corals and shells of marine animals are being dissolved. If these species go, others that depend on them will follow.
On land, the situation is getting just as desperate. Only a few dozen pairs of the American condor survive in the American southwest. Native species of fish have been wiped out by damming the Colorado river. California, a former domain of the grizzly, has had no grizzly bear in more than a century. Other species have suffered in similar ways. Most large mammals have been killed; others have lost their habitat and ability to successfully reproduce. Noise pollution has driven big animals into remote and inhospitable places, where survival is short. In the US coastal waters, power boats run every few seconds along the coastline at high speeds and have major effect on the life below. No human family could live in a house with speedboats continually roaring through the living room. Just a leaf blower or lawn mower your neighbor uses gets on your nerves. Vehicle and boat traffic is many times worse. Wildlife cannot thrive in such an environment.
A long time ago, California had plenty of trees. Vast forests used to fill the whole valley, from Los Angeles to Redding, and from the Pacific to Sierra Nevada. The Golden Valley looks very different today. You can drive for miles without seeing a tree. The flat landscape around you is a depository of agricultural chemicals with unpronounceable names; the underground water is a deadly cocktail. Plants, game, and predators are being destroyed by the ultimate predator: the incestuously abused man.
The impact of the human animal on other life forms is doubly dangerous. In the wild, the fittest survive. The weak and sick animals are killed by predators, illness, or environmental challenges. Man does the opposite. He chooses the very best of the best animals and kills them for food, profit, or the sheer joy of killing. The surviving animals are degraded; the whole gene pool is compromised. Decline of the species becomes inevitable.
Despite the current ecological problems, things will get much worse in the near future. Concrete and asphalt will permanently cover wetlands, watersheds, valleys, and hills. Natural environment will be transformed, and native species will disappear. Cities, skyscrapers, noxious fumes, and industrial noises will replace nature. Quality of life will suffer; psychological stress will grow; human health will deteriorate, and wild animals will scavenge on human garbage. Human food will be manufactured in animal factories; garbage will be fed to poultry, farm fish, and cows, and then the human animal will eat the garbage-raised meat.
THE TABOO TOPIC
Most people refuse to impose any self-control on their procreation. A young pregnant woman who is a drug user and is dying of AIDS often surprises her doctors with her determination to give birth to her child. The child's quality of life, assuming that the child survives, does not matter to the mother. She only pursues her interests. The same mentality is typical of the rest of the human race. Parents are determined to have as many children as they please. This self-indulgence in procreation often happens in the poorest and the least healthy families. Interestingly, these relatively few families (perhaps 10%) are responsible for about 50% of all new births. By having only 1 or 2 children, instead of a dozen, a poor family could significantly increase its mobility, quality of life, and could be in a better position to properly care for its children. The poor family does not get it, and neither does a rich family. The parents lack emotional intelligence and do not accept the idea that the quality of their lives would be better if they had fewer children.
One of the major causes of unrestricted multiplication is immediacy of thought in time and space. Adults sexually abused as children tend to lose emotional intelligence and only care about their momentary needs. What happens in the future makes no difference. If a couple feels like adding another child to the family, the immediate desire wins. The woman becomes pregnant with another child, and sometimes with more than one. The couple's immediacy of thought also results in focus on self. When confronted with overpopulation, the couple thinks: What is the big deal? We are only having our third child. One more child on earth will make no difference in the overall population. The couple fails to understand that the earth has a billion of other families with the same mentality. Is it a crime to have a second, third, fourth, or fifth child? Apparently not.
The tendency to procreate without restraint is supported by churches, which depend on big families. The Catholic church in particular opposes any contraception or abortion. The bigger a family is, the better for the church. More services can be offered, more money can be made, and more children can be sexually abused by priests. Encouragement of procreation is in the best interest of the church. The religious establishment does not recognize that it is self-destructive. Religious people believe that when they die they will go to heaven and their Gods will miraculously provide them with all necessities. Why bother? Why worry about environmental destruction? Even if it results in human deaths, there is always life in the heavenly kingdom. The virgins are waiting! And so the emotionally dissociated people multiply without restraint.
The virgins should make it clear. Most Jews and Christians can recognize the psychopathology of a Muslim "terrorist" who is willing to die defending his land against American, British, French, or Jewish occupation, but a similar detachment from reality and self-destructive behavior on our part are not recognized for what they are. Because of psychopathology brought about by childhood abuse, parents often have many children for reasons that are not exactly altruistic. The consequences of sexual abuse drive the average male to dominate other people and to build his private kingdom. A fresh and steady supply of children to rape is important to the head of the family, as is the size of his kingdom. He can impress other males with his unspoken message: Look at my kingdom. All these children and this woman are under my control. For the father, the size of his family is a status symbol, and women, too, love bragging about their children and try to outdo each other. The one who has the highest number of children feels that she is special and better than other women are.
Such self-destructive mentality is typical of the western societies. We do not expect them to have any deeper connection with life, land, and nature. Surprisingly, even the Hawaiian aborigines have abandoned the sensible ways of their ancestors and multiply excessively, often having 4 or more children. In this respect, all humans are strikingly similar.
THE PSYCHOPATHOLOGY FACTOR
Childhood sexual abuse starts a vicious cycle of self-destructive behavior, but only few sexually abused people become patently psychopathic and risk their lives. Most survivors of incest show their brain damage in subtle ways and only over the long run. With our emotional intelligence limited, we cannot feel the meaning of the future consequences. Even worse, we are trying to solve the causes of our problems by relying on the same behavioral approaches that created such problems in the first place.
Because of diminished emotional intelligence, farmers have been using chemicals to kill weeds and insects; meat producers have been feeding chemicals and antibiotics to animals; manufacturers of materials and goods have been applying poisonous chemicals to facilitate production, and doctors have been attacking humans directly:
Here is your supply of antibiotics. Did you get your flu shot this month? And don't forget to vaccinate your kids before they go to school this season.
All the participants in the collective madness can see that man-made chemicals kill viruses, bacteria, grasses, bugs, fish, birds, frogs, snakes, and mammals, but people assume that their superior intelligence and their close association with God will protect them against the same fate. The poisons will, presumably, recognize the mental superiority of humans and will not attack their bodies, and — heaven forbid — their brains! Religion promotes this psychopathic belief by stressing the biological and mental differences between animals and humans. It is God's will that the earth and its creatures and resources serve man. Anything that man does is part of God's great plan for humanity. Nothing can go wrong. God is in charge, and his plan is perfect. Unfortunately, such irrational beliefs are fueled by the neuropsychological consequences of childhood sexual abuse.
So far, environmental diseases have had limited impact on human health, but as the concentrations of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, and industrial chemicals increase in the environment, food supply, and human bodies, unprecedented health problems will develop. Marine mammals that are found dead ashore are harbingers of the coming problems. The carcasses contain so many dangerous chemicals that they have to be handled as toxic waste.
Over the last 20 years, the incidence of some illnesses has noticeably increased, and doctors have become aware that something in the environment is beginning to make people sick. In parallel, once effective antibiotics have lost their powers, and some diseases are now uncontrollable. When the breakdown point is reached, no one will be able to fix the consequences. Very sick individuals will die, and the poisoned survivors will envy the dead. Everyone will be affected by man-made poisons, drugs, and genetically altered life forms. No one will escape the consequences of sexual abuse, not even those rare exceptions who were not sexually violated as children.
It all started with child sexual abuse. Incidentally, man developed intelligence, improved his chances of survival, thrived, and multiplied. One day, naturally occurring food could no longer meet the demand of the increasing human population, and cultivation of crops became a necessity. To boost production, man was determined to prevent yearly flooding along major rivers. He built dams. The crops were big for years until the day the soil became exhausted. Without periodic flooding that brought nutrients, the soil could produce no more. But such consequences could not stop the sexually abused man. To make the soil productive again, the brightest minds of the time invented industrially produced fertilizers. To further increase the yield and eliminate competition, a new generation of narrow-minded geniuses invented herbicides and pesticides. The poisons destroyed huge populations of wild species, from worms to birds and mammals. Unwittingly, through his psychopathology, man poisoned himself and his environment. Farm runoff entered the streams, seas, and oceans. World's biggest bodies of water became polluted with industrial chemicals and heavy metals, and sea creatures started dying in big numbers. Reduction in fish supply drove the inventive man to employ huge dragnets that stretch for miles and scrape the ocean floor. The consequent environmental destruction reduced the fish populations even more, and the sexually abused man came up with a new technique: fishing with poisons. Everything that lives on the reef is killed and surfaces belly up. This indiscriminate slaughter reduced the food source for the remaining big fish, and the big fish declined even more. But the ingenious character of the human species has not been exhausted. Shrimp farmers of Southeast Asia are now adding antibiotics to the water to increase the shrimp survival rate and meet the ever-growing demand for sea food. Also American fishermen and farmers have had a lot of experience with this practice; they have been using antibiotics for decades. Catfish, chickens, pigs, cows, milk; in fact, everything you eat contains antibiotics. Lately, out of necessity, the American incestuous society came up with another nifty solution: alteration of the genetic code of farm animals and agricultural plants. Now we have bumper crops again.
The same type of mentality is being applied to energy. The Louisiana shoreline is honeycombed with oil and gas pipes. Similar pipe webs can be found in Wyoming and Colorado. To meet human demand, crude oil production has been expanded into the oceans. To supplement insufficient sources of electricity, many countries, most notably USA, Russia, France, and Japan, have resorted to the construction of nuclear power plants. The environmental impacts of these approaches are obvious during failures. A hurricane in New Orleans exposed the buried pipes and tons of oil products. A destruction of a BP oil rig caused that the gulf coastline was covered with crude oil, and unknown amounts of crude oil killed marine life in the deep sea. The Fukushima nuclear power plant destroyed by an earthquake and tsunami is likely to pollute the environment and make it unusable by humans for many years. These impacts are direct results of overpopulation and psychopathology. Sadly, damaged human minds do not get it and preserve their faith in being able to manage the unmanageable.
Man is smart. Smarter than nature and evolution. What nature could not do in a billion years, man will outdo in a few decades. Human inventiveness is limitless. Why should we change our way of life when we have all these scientific geniuses with elegant solutions to every problem humanity encounters? Why should we worry about overpopulation when it is not a real problem? The inventive human mind will make it through any hardship imaginable. The human spirit will survive and thrive. But the human species will die.
An inseparable property of psychopathology is the inability of psychopaths to recognize their behaviors as harmful. People who multiply like rats often claim: "Yes, we have six children, but we recycle, and the problems in today's world (overpopulation, pollution, global warming, dwindling resources, etc.) are not caused by us." It is remarkable how narrowly the voracious human rats describe their role in environmental destruction. The large families are unable to acknowledge that they need heat generated by coal power plants, products of daily use manufactured in polluting factories, construction materials, vehicles, gas, roads, food, water, sewage, garbage dump, and countless other products and facilities that are essential for human life. The psychopathic families are unable to see their activities as harmful. Almost universally, brain-damaged psychopaths falsely believe in their mental superiority and righteousness. Such people are unable to see themselves as evil even if they honestly tried.
THE PEOPLE AND THE GOVERNMENT
Every human society has a leadership. From time to time, an anomaly occurs, and the leadership is not acceptable to an overwhelming majority of the population. In such a case, the leadership is removed through electoral process or by force. Some unpopular leaders manage to cling to power thanks to the military, but they usually do not last long and are replaced by a government that is acceptable to most people. This is the general social trend, and all governments can be considered to be either tolerable or likable. The governments give the people what the commoners want, and the government officials get what they want. The whole society arrives at an ideological consensus that bearing as many children as possible is righteous. Having many children is a matter of social prestige, recognition, and ethnic identity. Not having a child in Vietnam is considered shameful, but not having children in Mexico is an ungodly lifestyle that is worthy of social condemnation and excommunication.
So, the people want to have many children, and the politicians want many citizens over whom they can rule, or use them to invade some country, or get their votes, or tax them, or simply because it reads in the Bible that people should multiply. It is God's will, and the government passes laws that promote population growth. The more children a family has, the more money it gets from the government. In some countries, such as the Soviet Union or Mussolini's Italy, big families received honorable recognition for having many children. The Soviets bestowed the title "Mother heroine" on effective breeding machines, and the Italians gave medals to the best breeders. The United States is doing the same thing to this day. Big families are praised on television, rewarded with tax cuts, and when a mother delivers quintuplets, the children attract corporate sponsors and receive a guarantee of college education in a prestigious religious school.
In such favorable conditions, everyone should be happy, but there is this human nature of relativity. What was good enough yesterday is inadequate today. Every family wants to live better, have more children, more money, buy more, consume more, and own more. The common people make their governments move in this general direction. The people want to grow the economy, and the government wants to grow the economy. Everyone has a need and wants more, and more, and more. This seems like a sensible goal, but humans sexually abused as children ignore one detail: The earth does not grow.
Most businessmen believe that more people are better for business, and every person is considered a potential customer. Nothing else matters to these simple-minded shopkeepers. They are courting the Third-World populations to come to the USA to live the American Dream. The government listens to the merchants and implements policies to support the will of The People. And the Third-World populations come by the millions and destroy your American Dream. What such an open-door policy leads to can be seen in western Europe. In the 1960's and 1970's, West Germany invited foreign workers to their country, and soon there were 3 million Turks, who represented 5% of the total population. Among other millions of guest workers were the Yugoslavs and the Italians. Most of the temporary workers never returned to their countries of origin. Nowadays, the foreign populations have become a burden. They reduce the standard of living of the Germans and are the source of social friction. The rapidly diminishing natural resources and means of livelihood are likely to enhance whatever cultural differences there are between the various ethnic groups, and will cause a big trouble. The potential consequences could have been avoided by having sensible reproductive and immigration policies, but no one seems to care. The Swedes have accepted Third World immigrants, who now represent 20% of the total population. The immigrants have not become Swedes in the social sense, but have created their own societies with foreign customs, languages, morals, values, and laws. Similarly, the British have admitted millions of foreigners from all over the world into their country and now are facing ethnic and cultural problems. The French are having similar difficulties with the 5 million Arabs living in France. Likewise, the Italians are being overrun by African invaders, but no one in Italy is willing to use their military to defend the country. The ancient Romans are also known for senseless immigration policies. The Romans absorbed enslaved populations into their society — and unwittingly destroyed the Roman Empire.
In the meantime, Americans whose livelihood depends on natural resources are experiencing labor shortages. But instead of grasping the root cause and changing their behaviors, Americans continue pursuing their self-destructive ways. "How am I supposed to make a living?" complains a lumberjack. "How am I supposed to feed my six children and a wife?" And a commercial fisherman picks up the same tune, "How am I supposed to make payments on my house? How am I supposed to feed my four hungry kids and a wife?" And buffalo hunters join in, "How can we feed our big families? Why can't we go out and shoot the damn cows?" And the good people in the United States Congress and the White House hear the desperate cries for help and implement policies that allow more logging, fishing, and buffalo hunting. Hey, the people are hungry. It is un-American to let them starve when we have plentiful resources out there. Overpopulation is no problem. All we need is open up the land for human use. If we give them jobs, the hungry people will vote for us, and everyone will be happy.
This very dangerous reaction to a scarcity of natural resources makes the current situation much worse. Instead of preserving the little we have left, we are determined to use it up while supplies last. The US House of Representatives recently approved exploratory drilling for oil in the protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska, and the Obama administration approved exploratory offshore drilling for oil in the arctic. The northern wilderness is about to be lost forever, and the drilling will solve none of our energy problems. The core fallacy of the decisions is that America has no energy problem. America has a behavioral problem. Desperate people do desperate deeds, but do not deal with behaviors that make such deeds a necessity.
The USA currently imports 60% and produces 40% of crude oil to cover the national needs. Our dependence on foreign oil is obvious. But things do not have to be this way. America produces enough crude oil to cover all its needs. America just needs a few behavioral changes. Instead of driving a car that makes between 20 and 30 mpg on the highway, we could drive cars that make between 50 and 60 mpg. The technology has been around for 25 years. Honda and other manufacturers used to make cars with excellent mpg in the 1980's and 1990's, but were forced to abandon them because only 1% of Americans were buying them. Americans wanted big engines that roar, have power, and accelerate fast. If we can resolve this consequence of childhood sexual abuse and can be happy with moderate acceleration and reasonable cruising speed, our gasoline problems can be solved within a few years by replacing the old gas guzzlers with smaller engines. A few examples of environmentally friendly cars are listed below.
Sixty miles per gallon sounds nice, but how can I transport my wife and six children in a car? I need a family bus.
Isn't it amazing how one expression of psychopathology feeds another?
Overpopulation is a personal and political matter. On the personal level, we refuse to reduce the number of our children voluntarily. On the political level, we use the power of the state to increase the population by encouraging individuals to have more children, by banning abortion, and by supporting immigration. Immigration, in particular, is a big issue in the USA. America is a country of immigrants, and foreign-born mothers are responsible for one-fifth of the US population growth . Today's immigration is uncontrolled and voluntary. Anyone who wants to can come to the USA illegally, but things have not always worked this way. In the old days, immigration of African blacks was non-negotiable, and people were brought to the USA against their will. For 200 years, white immigrants imported blacks from Africa for cheap labor. Nowadays, the African population represents more than 10% of the nation. It was incest that made the white man behave this way. It was psychopathology of the whites that brought blacks to America. It was a combination of misdirected hate, sexual dominance, and unresolved incest that had caused slavery in the USA.
Like all psychopaths, the whites never thought about the future consequences of their behaviors until the day the whites recognized that the blacks were all over the South. The whites treated the blacks like unwanted pests, and intimidation, discrimination, rapes, murders, and lynching of blacks were common. The whites had been a psychopathic bunch before they imported the blacks, but now, with blacks all around the master race, the whites were raging: They had been cheated by their own stupidity.
Nowadays, history repeats itself. The master race of America imports cheap labor from Hispanic and other Third-World countries, and makes temporary profit. Poverty in the Third World is staggering, and the illegal newcomers submit to any form of economic or sexual abuse to stay in the USA. But again, like in the old days, the exploited people have been rapidly multiplying and have flooded the country. A report by the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that the Hispanic population of the country grew by 43% between 2000 and 2010 . Many Americans still enjoy benefiting from the labor of the Hispanic population, but they are beginning to recognize the Hispanic presence. The brown illegals are being treated like pests, and once again, incestuously engendered stupidity of the master race has overwhelmed its owners.
Wimpy regimes, such as the American society, will lose in the long run. Americans have no moral or political will to change their behaviors. They spend trillions of dollars on "national defense," and go to a distant war to kill some imaginary enemy, but then they invite the real enemy to their country and allow him to destroy it from the inside. Every time America wins a military conflict or helps some dictator suppress a peasant revolt, population of the USA increases. American support of dictatorial regimes in Chile, Guatemala, Salvador, Haiti, Korea, Vietnam, etc. has resulted in massive migrations of the local populations into the USA. America had almost no Vietnamese population and no Asian gangs prior to the 1960's, but now there are millions of immigrants from Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia in the USA. Since our victories in the US-Mexican and US-Spanish wars, America has received huge numbers of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, and Philippine populations. Since our victory over the Japanese Empire and revenge for Pearl Harbor, Hawaii has been receiving a steady flow of Japanese immigrants. Since our "victory" in the Cold War and destruction of the "Evil Empire," America has received millions of immigrants from former Communist countries. Iraq will be no different. When the war will have been "won," America will have many more Iraqis than it had prior to the conflict.
The current behavioral trend can only produce one result. An identical scenario is replayed every time heavy rainfall turns the Australian outback into lakes. Living things of all forms and sizes multiply, and multiply, and multiply. And eat, and eat, and eat. And multiply, and multiply, and multiply. And then, one day, the natural resources run out, and there is a massive die-off. When the waters retreat, the parched land is covered with bones and carcasses. The same thing will happen to the Americans and the rest of the world if people do not stop child sexual abuse and come to their senses.
DEALING WITH OVERPOPULATION
The theoretical solution to the growth of domestic population is simple. Since overpopulation is caused by childhood sexual abuse and its consequences, sexual abuse has to be stopped before any long-term improvement can occur in other areas of human behaviors. Legally mandated executions of rapists and sexual abusers could stop additional abuse, and psychotherapy could heal the current victims. Once healed, the victims might regain their emotional intelligence, or the social environment will be such that even psychopaths will be influenced by the rest of the society and will behave in responsible ways. It can work. Iran, a country that is deeply religious (and thus must have a high degree of incest), has been able to reduce its birth rate from 7 to 3 children per woman . The Iranian progress is not enough to reduce the population, but the Iranians are doing a great job in birth control and may be able to stop their population growth in a few years.
Of course, just stopping the population growth and keeping the number of people at the current level is not enough. We are currently killing the planet. We are using its resources while supplies last. If we want to survive as a species, we will have to create a sustainable natural environment throughout the world. America, Europe, and Japan cannot sustain their huge populations and environmental demands forever. Having only one child ever must become the norm if we want to prevent self-destruction. When the Third World reaches the population densities of the leading countries and becomes industrialized, imperialistic powers will no longer be able to bully other countries or occupy them with a few hundred soldiers. Western powers will no longer be able to use their relatively weakened economic muscle to get natural resources from abroad. Overpopulated industrialized countries (both the current ones and the future ones) will suffer economic and environmental hardship. We are at the crossroads. Countries around the world either take immediate and drastic measures to force their populations into steep decline now, or face the catastrophic consequences of their self-destructive prosperity in the near future.
Some geniuses in industrialized countries may think that their superior armed forces will conquer and kill other peoples and seize their lands. The warmongers will certainly try, but this is not a workable idea. Since the world has seen what the Americans and the British did to Iraq, few countries will be caught naked the next time. The defenders will use weapons of mass destruction. The affected areas will not be habitable for many years, and will not be usable by the attacker. Remember Chernobyl? The place is dead to this day. Most Soviets and Americans learned during the Cold War that a military conflict cannot be won with weapons of mass destruction; the victor would destroy itself. If we used conventional weapons, we could occupy huge parts of the world, but the net result would be that the defeated populations would move to America, as we have seen in every previous war. This means that countries with high population densities will have to deal with their problems internally. Forcible export of overpopulation abroad will not work. Reduction of the world population through wars and mass killings will not work either. Even if we killed 80 million people every year, the population of the world would stay the same because the global population grows by 80 million people annually. For comparison, the population of Great Britain is 60 million; Germany has 80 million, and the total number of the dead in World War II was only 70 million. Few people have the stomach for slaughter on such a big scale. But do we have the stomach for the unavoidable consequences of overpopulation and environmental destruction? Or are we just ignorant? Do we fully understand what overpopulation means?
Overpopulation does not mean that everyone will have a little bit less than he has today. Overpopulation means that there will be 10 fish and 100 fishermen. Overpopulation means that there will be 10 liters of gasoline and 100 cars at a gas station. Overpopulation means that there will be 10 liters of poisonous air, and 100 people will breath it. Overpopulation means that there will be 10 chickens in the supermarket, and all will be loaded with herbicides, pesticides, heavy metals, plastics, and antibiotics. And 100 shoppers will be determined to bring one of those rare birds to their dinner tables to survive one more day in paradise.
We need to get out of this credit-card mentality and address our problems before they develop and become overwhelming. When you owe money and cannot pay, the government allows you to file for bankruptcy. If this option fails, you flee to another country. In the worst case, you are arrested and put in jail. The earth does not work that way. If you destroy your environment, you have to pay the price. To avoid the ultimate penalty, you need to act now. Passive disagreement with families that multiply like rats and pollute your world will change nothing. Education, strict enforcement of proper behaviors, replacement of all pro-life and pro-immigration public officials, and swift and maximum punishment of violators are the only ways to reverse our self-destructive trend.
If a meaningful change is to happen in the world, it will have to happen in the whole world. Developed countries will have to take the lead and provide sensible alternatives to the current state of overpopulation. The fight for the survival of the human race will happen on the global level through international agreements and sanctions, and on the national levels under the pressure of the people. This is how it could work:
Overpopulation will be recognized for what it is: a crime against life on earth. The global human society will impose strict limits on reproduction. One child maximum per couple for the next 7 generations, or until the world population drops to an environmentally friendly number. Thereafter, families will be allowed to have 2 children to stabilize the population at that level. There will be no exceptions to the limits. Violators and their illegally produced newborn children must be EXECUTED.
Many people believe that having an unlimited number of children is a basic human right. Anyone who would try to curb multiplication and impose quotas is seen as an enemy of humanity. The psychopathic breeders do not acknowledge that their excessive reproduction violates the basic human rights of everyone else and that their behaviors are killing the whole living world. And the more they multiply, the more political power they gain, and the better positioned they are to turn their psychopathology into the law of the land.
Immigration, similarly as domestic multiplication, faces many personal and political obstacles. If these can be overcome and the American nation decides to stop legal and illegal immigration, technical solutions are very simple. The measures would have to be decisive, deterrent, and effective. The US borders could be closed with zero possibility of illegal entry; the border guard and coast guard could be put under strict orders to shoot and kill anything that approaches the US territory; all illegal immigrants inside the country could be forced to leave by a specific date or face capture and execution; rewards could be offered for hunting down illegal immigrants who disobey the order to leave, and anyone harboring or aiding an illegal immigrant could be punished just as severely.
The case for execution is strong. Execution is the most effective way to solve overpopulation in an incestuous society. Most members of the society lack the mental ability to alter their behaviors voluntarily, and a strong law with big teeth is needed to enforce proper behaviors. A law without teeth only acts as a suggestion and is ignored. This is why execution of violators is all-important. Execution stops further multiplication by the offender, acts as a deterrent to multiply excessively, and reduces the population by killing the offender.
Yes, execution is a drastic measure, but may soon become necessary if you, your children, and humanity are to survive. Every new child coming into this world is taking natural resources, living space, and life support from you, and also produces toxic pollution and damages the environment. The newborn child and its parents are slowly killing you. Such a slowly occurring death is difficult to understand by people with reduced emotional intelligence, but that is exactly what overpopulation does to you. Obviously, the world is nowhere near to accept the proposed solutions to overpopulation at this time. Most people are "pro-life," and life will have to get very bad before anything is done to reverse immigration and domestic multiplication. Unfortunately, then it will be too late.
The Current State of the Union
Immigration represents a significant part of the US population growth, and immigrants, most of whom come from Third-World countries, have the highest reproductive rates. The population of Mexico grew 8.5% between 1995 and 2000 , and Mexico's National Population Council expects that 3.5 to 5 million Mexicans will move to the US per decade over the next 30 years . In 2003, America had 40 million Hispanics ; most came from Mexico. An overwhelming majority came to this country illegally. During the last two decades, countries with the highest population densities or birth rates (Mexico, China, Philippines, India) have been the largest sources of US immigration .
The Mexicans, Chinese, Philippinos, and Indians have already destroyed their lands, polluted them, cut down the trees, and killed the wildlife. Now they are emigrating to other countries to do the same there. If you do not stop them, they will kill you. They will not do so through military force, but by being here, consuming your land, your air, and your water, and by polluting your environment. Naturally, they will promote their values, change your political system, favor their countries of origin, and gradually transform the United Stated of America into The United States of the Third World. Immigration is not an American problem; it is your problem. If you do not act now, the whole country will soon look like LA and NY. Will you defend your life against enemies, foreign and domestic? Or will you remain ignorant? Hey, it is your country. Immigrants couldn't care less. They will always be able to go back home to their countries of origin.
Emigrants from the Third World who come to industrialized countries are doubly dangerous. The newcomers improve their standard of living and multiply without restraint while consuming energy and natural resources much more than they did in their countries of origin. Back in the Third World, many of the children would have died, but now they survive, increase the total population, and burden the environment. It is almost impossible to find a family from India or Mexico with one child. These nationalities typically have 3 or 4 children, and often more than half a dozen. Surprisingly, excessive multiplication is not an ethnic heritage. Spain, which gave rise to most countries in Central and South America, has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, with about 1.6 children per family. Spain, unlike other Catholic countries, makes abortion legal and available. What a contrast this is to Mexico or the USA, where 12-year-old raped girls are forced by the state to bear the children of their rapists! Clearly, overpopulation is not a matter of sex or rape, but of incestuously produced psychopathy.
Some demographers in the USA are not worried about the increasing third-world population in the country. They believe that the newcomers will quickly learn the national language and will acquire the national mentality. But this wish is unlikely to come true. The reasons are given by the numbers and the mutual affinity of the newcomers. If a few individuals came from a foreign country to the USA, they would have no choice but to become an integral part of the country. With big waves of immigrants, the model changes. As a result of large and diverse ethnic groups, America has no national language. Some states use English, some use Spanish, and some have both official languages. People in the USA tend to live in ethnic enclaves (Irish, Italians, Jews, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indians, Russians, Koreans, etc.) and to identify with the culture, morals, and laws of their kins. History shows that a person from a crooked country is likely to preserve his or her crooked mentality despite acquiring the language of the host country. Furthermore, the numerous foreigners tend to be more loyal to their countries of origin than to the new homeland. Thanks to big numbers, the newcomers acquire political power and promote their values and mentality. In addition, they strive to make the USA an extension of their country of origin. The net outcome is loss of the US national culture, mentality, morality, and cohesion, and the country is sliding toward self-destruction from within.
Third World countries, most notably Mexico, have figured out a long time ago that western democracies are feeble-minded and can be easily exploited. For decades, pregnant Mexican women have been coming to the USA for the sole purpose of giving birth and gaining the legal right to live in this country. They have done so one by one, in a car, on foot, on a bus, or on an airplane. They have come unorganized and in an inconspicuous way. We have not yet seen a busload of pregnant Mexican women to cross the border to give birth in the USA. But, as the advantages of US citizenship become more prominent in the overpopulated future, we can expect that a whole industry will be created to bring pregnant Mexican women to the USA. Luckily, there are only 100 million Mexicans. China is a much bigger problem. There are at least 1000 million of poor Chinese who would be more than happy to enter the USA. In a few years, we can expect jumbo jets or passenger ships loaded with pregnant Chinese women to visit Guam or Hawaii with the goal of dropping anchors in US harbors. In fact, the invasion has begun. Deutsche Welle reported in 2014 that about 10,000 pregnant Chinese women have entered California for the sole purpose of giving birth in the USA. And once a child is born in this country, it instantly becomes a US citizen because of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. Another set of psychopathic laws gives the parent of the child the right to live here as well because the child supposedly needs a guardian. Arizona has recently challenged this self-destructive mentality. The people of Arizona have essentially passed a law that bans non-citizens to reside in Arizona. A similar law, addressing the legal status of "anchor babies," is being considered. How this proposal will play out is hard to predict because America has too many psychopaths who are more loyal to foreigners than to Americans and will want to preserve the current self-destructive trend.
The described clash between sensible people and psychopaths is the most serious domestic conflict since the war between the North and the South, and has a potential of breaking up the country. Some states are likely to enter the self-preservation mode and will stop all immigration and population growth, while others will try to open up the borders to foreigners, reestablish federal control over the runaway states, and pull the whole USA under the water.
Correcting the current situation is difficult, but it is important to recognize that citizens who support or allow the existing high levels of U.S. immigration and domestic multiplication are committing treason. Not just treason against their country, but treason against themselves and their children.
These guys rape their children, remember?
The guys are psychopathic, and so is their immigration policy. Yes, they are flag-waving patriots. Yes, they sing the national anthem. Yes, they march in parades. Yes, they make patriotic speeches. Yes, they salute the American flag. Yes, they recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But they do absolutely nothing to defend their country in real terms. The reason for such behaviors is attributable to a loss of emotional intelligence and predominance of scholastic intelligence. The psychopaths have no interest in caring for themselves and their significant others, but are deeply concerned with the well-being of strangers and foreigners. Psychopaths typically treat their own people and complaining victims as enemies, but insist on giving all moral, emotional, legal, financial, and material support to trespassers, violators, invaders, thieves, rapists, and murderers.
The core problem of psychopathology is an inability to project one's personal boundaries and needs beyond the family. If a US Congressman or President had a dozen people outside his house ready to occupy his residence because they like it and want to live there, the owner would have called the law enforcement and would have had the invaders stopped outside his fence. He would have had the invaders, who have already penetrated inside, rounded up, removed, prosecuted, and placed in federal prison for a long time. After this experience, the Secret Service would have watched the President's property with orders to shoot any trespassers without warning. Similarly, the lowly Congressman would have hired private guards to defend what is his. But when it comes to invaders of the USA, the President and the Congressman facilitate the invasion of the country and treat the outsiders as honored guests who have a constitutionally guaranteed right to seize what is not theirs. Naturally, the President and the Congress do not make the US policy on invasion by foreigners in a vacuum. Every aspect of immigration ultimately depends on the people. People could deal with out-of-line politicians to correct an undesirable situation, but why would the people do so? There is no dispute between the nation and the government. The people and the government cooperate and do their best to help their competitors and enemies take over the country. They all agree that my house is my castle, but my country and my street are anybody's pick.
The attitudes of western peoples toward immigration or domestic procreation are directly attributable to the brain damage left behind by childhood sexual abuse. European countries and Japan have reached high population densities and have modified their procreation. Having only two children is the norm out of necessity. The USA and Canada still have relatively low population densities, and ban on abortion and planned parenthood is the dominant theme in North American politics. Idiocy rules supreme. Interestingly, all rich western countries, with the exception of Japan, readily accept economic migrants and refugees. The righteous peoples of the master race do not want to look bad in front of God and the world. They dogmatically offer a helping hand to the world and ignore that they are killing themselves. Meanwhile, the peoples of the Third World are looking for any opportunity to better their economic situation in the West while preserving their reproductive rates, cultural identity, and profiteering mentality.
The rich peoples do not understand what they are doing to themselves. It would be noble to accept a few refugees or migrants. But it is suicidal to allow all those millions in need to immigrate to the prosperous countries. As an owner of a house, you can understand the folly. You help the unfortunate people of the Third World by allowing them to live in your house. You have four rooms available and are willing to sacrifice one of them. As the poor foreigners hear it, they come in numbers, and soon you have only one room for your family. The rest of your house is occupied by refugees. You have no more free rooms, but dozens of additional migrants and refugees are knocking on your doors to let them in, too. While you hesitate, unsure about what to do, the residents of your house decree that the house is a public property and all who want to must be allowed to enter. What used to be your house is destroyed as the competing migrants try to grab whatever they can. In the end, they kill each other, including you and your family. This seemingly theoretical scenario is well known from American history. Generalissimo Santa Ana allowed the Anglos to enter Texas to live there. In a few years, there were ten times as many Anglos as Mexicans. Many Mexicans fled; many were murdered, and Texas declared its independence from Mexico. The western world is committing the same folly nowadays.
The next 10 to 20 years are critical for the reversal of human overpopulation and saving life on earth. If nothing substantial is done during this period, we will lose the war for our survival. To be successful, humans will need to work not only on population reduction, but will have to change their lifestyles. Certain steps will be needed to protect the environment against further deterioration. Some corrective steps can be taken voluntarily; others will have to be forced by the state.
The attitudes of the pro-life and pro-immigration proponents are understandable in the context of incest. Sexual abuse in early childhood robbed the victims of emotional intelligence, and they are unable to see the global picture. To make the issue of self-destructive growth understandable to their minds, the problem has to be reduced from the whole country to every victim's family. In the USA, where 32 people live per square kilometer, an average person has a living space of 30,000 square meters. This corresponds to a square with a side of 180 meters, which is approximately 200 yards. This area of 200 x 200 yards is your entire world. There is no more space "out there." All the space around you is taken by other people. If you want roads, facilities, public lands, and manufacturing plants, you will have to sacrifice a big part of your theoretical space. If you want a mansion, the building materials will have to come from your square. If you pollute your square with smoke and nasty chemicals, you will have to live in the nasty environment. But do not whine. You are lucky. Your family happens to live in a fertile valley. Other families live on the top of a cold and windy mountain. This means that the actual livable space is much smaller than the average idealized square is. In Europe or Asia, the average square is about 3 to 10 times smaller. In the UK, the square is just 64 x 64 meters, which is about 1 acre.
What are you going to do with your square? Will you allow an immigrant to come into your square? If you allow just one person to enter your square, you instantly lose 50% of your world. If you marry a person in the neighboring square, you double your combined space, but if you have more than 2 children, you are reducing the available livable space per person. When a couple has 4 children, which is quite common in American families that need a van to drive their brood around, your livable space reduces each generation by half. This is considered below.
Generation People Side of square in meters
1 2 182 (Today)
2 2+4 105
3 2+4+8 69
4 -2+4+8+16 49 (< 1 acre)
5 -2-4+8+16+32 35
6 etc. etc.
The 200 by 200 yards per person may still seem like a lot of land to some people. To give you a different perspective, imagine that you see a person every 200 yards. Wherever you look or go, even the most remote place in the USA, there is a person every 200 yards. How many animals do you see every 200 yards? Not many, right? They need a lot of living space. A big cat, such as cougar (also known as puma or mountain lion), needs at least 20 square miles (50 sq. km) of pristine wilderness to survive. He needs to kill a large animal (say 50 kg weight) every 6 days. Man probably eats 1 kg of meat in 6 days, in addition to other kinds of food. There are 1600 Americans on 50 sq. km and consume about 1600 kg of meat in 6 days. Thus, human demand for meat is roughly 32 times higher than the demand of a cougar is. And cougar neither produces toxic chemicals nor destroys the natural environment. Only humans do.
THE OPTIMUM POPULATION
Most people would agree that the earth is no longer able to meet our needs and is overpopulated. Lower population densities would probably make our lives better. The question is How many people would be optimum? The answer is not easy to find, because the question goes to the core of mankind and is subconsciously modulated by childhood sexual abuse. Humanity has reached its characteristics because of incest and because of its consequences. Our ability to learn and to produce material goods, and our successful procreation have made the human being a very social animal. If we want to preserve the social characteristics of humanity, our numbers have to be sufficiently high. We also need to keep in touch with one another. This involves communication and transportation. Some roads, airports, and sea ports are necessary to satisfy our social needs. They are affected by our curiosity, which is another human quality that is driven by incest. Our needs to explore and to travel mandate some level of industrial infrastructure. Another issue, also affected by incest, is our relationship with the environment. Do we want the earth to become "civilized" and converted to human friendly use, or do we want the earth to remain predominantly wild and natural? If we choose civilization, we will continue doing what we are doing until we destroy the earth and mankind. Another extreme would be underpopulation, which would lead to low genetic variability, loss of human characteristics, and loss of social services and facilities. Somewhere between these two extremes is an optimum number of people the earth can support.
From the long-term perspective, humanity should not significantly alter the character of life on earth. The human impact should be such that every other living thing, and the natural environment as a whole, remains unaffected by human activities. This would call for a fairly low human population. To preserve our human characteristics, people would have to live in cities. A city of about 50,000 or 100,000 people could provide all the facilities people need for decent living. If humans populated just 20% of the natural world, the impact on the planet would already be noticeable, and this degree of human expansion should be considered the upper limit of our population. People would probably choose to live in the prime real estate, and this raises the question How much of prime real estate does the earth have?
The earth has a surface of 500 million square kilometers. Less than 30%, about 150 million sq. km, are land. Only 20% would be used by people, which is 30 million sq. km. But only about two-thirds of land are reasonably suitable for human habitation, and only about one-third (50 million sq. km) could be considered the prime real estate. Thus, humanity would live on 30/50 = 60% of the prime real estate. This human encroachment on the wild environment would significantly affect other species despite the initial consideration of no major impact.
Now, assuming that 30 million sq. km of land would be occupied by people, the total human population on earth can be estimated. If you imagine that you own 1 sq. km (0.386 square mile) of land that has to support all your needs, or that a family of 4 only has 4 sq. km (1.54 square mile) that have to support all the needs of the family, the realization is that the environment cannot support huge amounts of people and be able to regenerate itself. There are not many wild animals on 4 square kilometers to be used as a food source. The land seems large enough to grow food or raise livestock, but think what happens when many animals live in a small area. If you do not, you may end up with chicken farm manure all over Arkansas, or with Amish farm runoff all over Pennsylvania and Chesapeake Bay, or with hog farm manure all over Georgia and Carolinas. Plants and livestock have their limits.
Food is critical for survival, but life support includes more than food production. Consider also other uses of land. Your garbage dump area, toxic waste area, human waste, living area, recreation, roads, water sources, water disposal, raw materials, etc., and you begin to see that our demands on the environment are huge. Of course, the land would also have to support our natural environment. We could not live here and exploit the natural resources of the protected areas. This would be our world. The other world would be untouchable. Based on the idea of 1 sq. km per person, the optimum population could only reach 30 million people worldwide. If we allowed 10 people per square kilometer, it would correspond to one-third of the current US population density, and the place would seem crowded. For comparison, the American West has about 50 million people living on about 4 million sq. km. The population density is 50/4 = 12.5 people per sq. km. Easterners may find this population density ridiculously low. But, as was mentioned earlier, we are already consuming more than the earth can deliver. Fish stocks, crude oil, raw materials, fresh water, and game are in short supply in the American West. In other words, even as few as 12 people per sq. km are too many and lead to an unsustainable environment.
The limit of 1 person per 1 sq. km can also be derived from the global situation. The average population density in the world is obtained by evenly spreading 7,000 million people over 150 million sq. km of the total land area, which produces 47 people per sq. km. But about 50 million sq. km are inhospitable places. The remaining 100 million sq. km support practically all human needs. So, the effective population density on habitable land of the world is about 70 people per square kilometer. Psychopaths may dismiss this number and may reply that the earth is big and is able to accommodate many more people. That is the real problem of psychopathology. Mentally damaged people are often incapable of understanding that the calculated population density applies to the whole earth. Kilometer after kilometer, mile after mile, the average population density is very high.
To reverse the current trend and make a meaningful difference, the stress humanity puts on the land needs to be reduced many times. This is why the total population density should be at about 1 person per 1 sq. km. The total number of people on earth would be around 30 million. For comparison, the USA had some 30 million bison in the early 1800's. Nowadays, only the wildebeests in Africa have more than 1 million heads. The number of the U.S. bison is at about 250,000 heads. Just this winter (2004/2005), hunters in Minnesota shot 200,000 deer. Interestingly, the surviving 37,000 wild horses in the entire American West are seen as a "big competition" by ranchers and other land users. Many of the animals are destined to be killed to make space for man. The folly of this policy is apparent in the ratio of man versus beast. In the American West, there are roughly 1,350 Americans per one wild horse. In addition, 7,000 million people live worldwide. Reducing them to about 30 million (or at least 100 million) is a big, but a necessary, step. The people could live in 300 cities of 100,000 people, or in 600 cities of 50,000 people, or in other combinations. The point is that the total population has to stay low. Based on land area, the USA would have about
10 million sq. km x 20% = 2 million people
who could be living in a few dozen cities. Yes, even this small population would have to recycle and prevent environmental pollution. Any higher demand on the earth is a one-way street to disaster. And we are well on our way.
ADVANTAGES OF LOW POPULATION
By contrast to overpopulation, a small population is beneficial to the physical and mental health of the human society. If we reduced our current population substantially, every person would have more natural resources and more healthful environment. In addition, something amazing would happen in social relationships. The small population would cause that every member would be important for the functioning of the society. People would depend on each other and would care one for another. Food, material goods, and services would still have to be provided to satisfy our needs, and that would translate into full employment. It works like this: Every human society must have a minimum amount of people who provide the necessary social functions and services. One worker often cannot meet the needs of every consumer, but two workers are more productive than two individual workers are. Three workers are even more productive and are able to support many consumers. Employing another worker may not be necessary, and he is unemployed simply because the small team of workers has high productivity.
Unemployment in the overpopulated world could be reduced by reducing the work time, but such an option goes against the voracious mentality of incestuously abused humans. An employer wants to get the maximum benefit out of the smallest number of workers. In addition, American politicians and big business have transferred production to foreign countries. This means that America has neither the ability to produce goods, nor does it have the ability to buy the foreign-made goods. When you earn no money, you cannot buy things, no matter how cheap they are.
If the human population were small, competition for jobs and resources would be reduced, employers would value their workers, and people would be nicer to each other. Road rage would disappear. Everyone would be part of a team. Communities would live in the village spirit. Criminals would be unable to function in such a society. Similarly, useless people, such as Philadelphia lawyers, New York stock brokers, Washington bureaucrats, tax preparers, insurers, soldiers, paper shufflers, and pen pushers would become extinct. All major decisions about social trends would be made collectively. There would be universal college education, medical care, and social securities in sickness and old age.
The above depicted social arrangement seems Utopian, but is within the reach of humanity. In fact many communities in America already live in the communal spirit. They are religious sects and polygamist groups; that is communities with the highest degree and prevalence of socially practiced incest. And that is a big paradox. Their social adhesion and collective approach is what is desirable in a healthy community, but without the power structure, abuse, and blind obedience. Also in the general society, social and economic issues arise from childhood sexual abuse and its mental consequences. If we can do away with incest and its negative mental impact, human values will change completely. There will be no pursuit of wealth, dominance, prominence, or unnecessary grandiose projects.
PREVIEW OF THE FUTURE
The consequences of overpopulation and related pathology should strongly show within a few decades. Contemporary overpopulated countries with high birth rates give hints at what is likely to come. Among the most significant factors will be maturation of today's children to child-bearing age and their desire to live better than their parents lived. Since today's children represent the largest segment of the population, the number of child-bearing individuals will be the highest in human history. Even 2 children per family will result in dramatic increase of humans over the following decades, which are the most critical. The high level of reproduction will be somewhat offset by the preference for boys in developing countries (India, China, and Pakistan). In turn, the existence of too many males without female partners will cause social instability, crime, and wars. The likelihood that any effective anti-population measures will be implemented is very low, as the case of India suggests. India, despite its serious problems, has been unable to deal with overpopulated cows, monkeys, and inner-city street people. Similarly, street people are abundant in Brazil. Some poor Brazilians have moved to the country, where they occupy farms and ranches by "squatting" on the land of big land owners. Crops are either damaged or stolen by the squatters, and farmers are afraid to continue living on the land. The country of Zimbabwe has shown what squatters ultimately do to overcome their hunger and poverty. Farmers were driven out or killed, and the farms along with crops were looted. In the end, no one was able to benefit from the land. This outcome is very representative of situations when too many people compete for insufficient goods. In the USA, people sometimes murder to get their desired Christmas toys. One can only imagine what will happen when people will be fighting for food.
Overpopulated places will see massive migrations. Richer individuals will try to enter western countries, while poor villagers will not be able to live from their ever smaller fields, orchards, oases, and pastures. The fate of the Masai, who had been proud cattle herders for generations, reveals that a demise of an entire culture can occur quickly. The inhabitants will either abandon or sell their land, and move to cities to search for a better life. And cities will further swallow fertile land for housing. In many places, there will be shortage of water (Australia, northern India, and Central Asia). Crops will be looted for survival or profit. Production of food will become impossible for most small farmers. On top of these problems, toxic pollution, genetically modified organisms, and global warming will severely damage the life support of humanity. The situation will lead to spiraling losses of crops, increasing hunger, conflict, lawlessness, breakdown of social structure, and massive die-off when neighbors will be killing neighbors.
The American southwest has begun showing the symptoms of the described scenario. California is in dire situation and will likely run out of water within a few years. Millions of Californians may move to Oregon and Washington. The population of these states may double or triple within a decade. But these states have also been stressed by heat and drought. In addition, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas will see many residents move to northern states. The high population density will significantly burden the northern environment. There may also be refugees from the Great Plains because of severe climate. Additional refugees may arrive from the east to escape snowy winters or Atlantic hurricanes. The environment of the American northwest may collapse under the high demand. The population will have to move somewhere else to survive, but no part of the North American continent will be able to support the huge numbers of people. The domino effect will spread throughout the land, wiping out one habitat after another.
THE UNAVOIDABLE OUTCOME
Is there any chance for humanity to prevent the doomsday scenario outlined on this page? Well, the numbers do not look encouraging. Even if the above suggestions were strictly enforced today and all new couples only had one child ever, it would not be possible to significantly reduce the world population any time soon. Assuming global life expectancy of 60 years, it would take 60 years for all people who are alive today to die. Sixty years is an instant in geological terms, but from the viewpoint of the current nonlinear world, it is a very long time.
Even if couples only had 1 child ever, it would take 20 years to reduce the population of the earth by 1 billion people through natural die-off. During the same period, industrialization and demands on the environment, mainly by the Third-World population, may increase several times. This means that despite a population decrease, the earth will be burdened substantially more than it is burdened today. In 20 years, the North Atlantic cod will be gone, and a lot of arable land will be lost. Industrial pollutants will be more prevalent; the environment will be much more toxic, and global warming will degrade agriculture. Of course, this is an optimistic scenario. It is much more likely that the earth will add between 1 and 2 billion people over the next 20 years, and about the same number during the next 20 years, and any hope for the survival of the human race will wane rapidly. But one should always try to survive. Or at least consider hypothetical scenarios in the face of impossible odds. Several recent events clearly show which of the considered trends is dominant.
How can Europe solve the "refugee crisis?" That is a great question. It goes to the core of humanity. If all people on earth were sensible and had good values, helping others would be easy. The problem is that most people are irresponsible and do not feel compelled to behave appropriately. They multiply excessively, do not take care of their environment, live and spend carelessly, and do not work toward social prosperity of everyone. Should countries that are better off help such societies? Should the world help those who refuse to fight for their country? Should the world help those who are corrupt to the bone? Should the world help families that have a dozen children each? Should the world help those who refuse to treat women as people? Should the world help those who rape their children? Should the world help those who attempt to force their laws and belief systems onto others? These are serious issues, and not everyone might be willing to help such people.
However, let us put our concerns aside for now. Let us assume that we will, in principle, help people in need. Whom do we offer help? To warring nations? Alright. To very poor nations? Why not? To uneducated nations? Yes, of course. To nations affected by unfavorable climate? Certainly. To nations that seek better life? That goes without a question. Everyone has human rights. It is our duty to help everyone.
So, today we start helping the disadvantaged of the world by taking them to our country. That is how the European fiasco started. The pro-immigration nations did not ask what will happen the day after tomorrow. At a mere million migrants, Europe is paralyzed and is bursting at the seams. Migrants own the streets, mock local laws, and do as they please. Fences are rising on European borders, but hundreds of thousands of additional migrants demand to be let in, too. While many Europeans still want refugees and migrants, they do recognize the difficulties of taking in many people. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Tomorrow may start a full-blown civil war in Ukraine, Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria, India or China. Will Europe be able to accept the many millions of war refugees? Clearly not. Climate change in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa will produce additional hundreds of millions of migrants. There will be no way to accept them. Europeans will be blamed for being selfish racists or worse. But the denial of entry will not stop migrants. They will push forward. A fence in Hungary did not stop migrants. They went around it or broke through the fence. In Ceuta, a Spanish territory in Africa, very high fences are being scaled by Africans who want to enter Europe. It is plain; passive fences do not stop migrants. Active elements of defense, involving various types of neutralizing force, are the only effective means of stopping determined invaders. Will Europe use brute or lethal force to defend itself? If force is not used, Europe will be overrun, and the whole world will become the Third World. If force is used, some migrants may be killed, and the majority may return home to die in social conflicts or of starvation. Europe may survive for a while, but overpopulation and its consequences will strike everyone in due time.
Yes, it is always nice to dream. The above dream is only a dream. It is too late to save humanity. The effects of incest are insidious, and changing the behaviors of humans sexually abused as children is not possible on a global scale. The problem is that incest victims resist a change even when the change is for their own good. As life on earth will become harder and harder, incest victims will dissociate more and more, and grow more psychopathic. Or does anyone believe that a citizen of the world, such as an American, will voluntarily stop multiplying like a rat? That an SOB who drives an SUV will voluntarily switch to a 0.5-liter Fiat or Honda? How likely is it that a material American with a 3,000-square-foot mansion will move into a three times smaller cottage? How likely is it that an owner of a yacht will exchange it for a wooden canoe? How likely is it that producers of plastics will return to natural materials? How likely is it that the US government will stop wasting resources on human exploration of Mars and use the money here on earth? The likelihood of any of this happening is very low, and the outcome is inevitable. No one knows what, when, and how will happen, but the way things are going, humanity and life on earth will suffer a global environmental catastrophe within the next two generations. It will not be one big thing, but a long series of problems that will result in not livable conditions. Then, after humans die out, nature will have a chance to repair itself from millennia of rape by the incestuously abused man.
 US Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/main/www.popclock.html
 FASonline. Tallying Tomorrows Consumers: World Population Growth Sets a Slower Pace.
 Center for Immigration Studies. http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back202.html
 Census Geography - Highlights and Analysis:
 Hispanic Market. http://www.ahorre.com/hispanicinfo.htm
 Countries of Birth of the Foreign-Born Population 1850-2000.
 Total Midyear Population for the World: 1950-2050.
 World Population Profile: 1998 --
 Iran's Birth Rate Plummeting at Record Pace.
 Population Growth Rate. http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/social/pgr/
 Why Is the US Population Growing? http://www.prb.org/
 Population growth. http://www.learner.org/exhibits/dailymath/population.html
 U.S. Population Growth http://audubonpopulation.org/newpop2/pages/facts/uspop.htm
 Reuters February 21, 2004. Great Barrier Reef Faces Major Destruction.
 Synthetic Sea:Plastic in the Ocean. Algalita Marine Research Foundation video
Transcript 2001. Retrieved March 2, 2008
 Adios, Las Vegas: Lakes Mead, Powell May Run Dry by 2021.
February 14, 2008, The Associated Press article, Retrieved March 2, 2008 from
 Bryan Walsh (Oct28, 2008). What the Public Doesn't Get About Climate Change.
Time Health and Science. Retrieved November 5, 2008 from
 Mike Stobbe, AP Medical Writer. US births break record: 40 pct out-off-wedlock.
Retrieved March 18, 2009 from
 Crary, D. Gallup: More in US say they are pro-life. Associated Press, May 15, 2009. Retrieved May 15,2009 from http://www.freep.com/article/ 20090515/NEWS07/90515068
 Asian and Hispanic Populations. Retrieved May 14, 2011 from
 Longest River on earth. Retrieved November 16, 2011 from
 Population Characteristics, Population Density. Retrieved November 16, 2011 from
|Top of Page|
|Nov 27, 2015||Unpublished work © 2004-2015 Martin Dak. All rights reserved.|