UN Asks: How Many People Could Live on Planet Earth?

Susanne Posel, Contributor
Activist Post

The Tellus Institute, a non-profit sustainability research organization, created “sophisticated human population models” with their PoleStar project (PSP). Using data provided to them by the United Nations (UN) and the World Bank (WB), they analyzed parameters such as energy consumption, land use and pollution.

The PSP predicts simulated outcomes that are being used to shape international policy. Richard Rosen, executive vice president of Tellus claims that if we are to make this world a pleasant place to live, we should “get going immediately. There’s no leisurely way.”

Geophysicists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research states that only 282 billion people could be “packed onto the planet” with all other land reserved for food cultivation only.

The PSP infers 4 possible scenarios that will come to pass because of the growing human population.

Market Forces

If we continue “business as usual”, by the year 2100, we will see the poorer regions suffer from the growth of industry. Environmental problems abound and become more acute.

We can expect family planning policies that restrict the right to have children. The expectation of population growth would be pushing the boundaries of sustainability; being 9.3 billion.

With more humans on the planet will come income disparity. The average take home pay could be as low as 5 cents per dollar earned.

Water securitization would be implemented to ensure water stress is reduced to an acceptable minimum. However by 2100, water shortages could reach as high as 50%.

Under strict food securitization policies, less than 6% of the world’s population could be affected by starvation.

Policy Reform

In this scenario, by 2100, governments have adhered to the UN’s climate change targets and sustainability goals; however economic growth is hindered and stronger policies must be put in place to curb the effects.

With family planning services enforced onto the population, only 8.4 billion people would be straining natural resources.

The average income would only be worth 11 cents on the dollar.

Expected water shortages would force 23% of the world’s water resources to be controlled by governmental policies.

International mandates controlling food would result in only 3% of the world’s population to suffer from hunger.

Fortress World

By 2100 this global society would be controlled by an authoritarian government in order to control distribution of resources. Economic, social and environmental downgrades would cause the wealthy to retreat to protected areas; leaving the masses to fend for themselves in the wastelands.

Implementing family planning services would be near impossible, leaving the global population to rise to 10.2 billion.

The average income would be reduced to 2 cents on the dollar.

Water securitization would control 46% of the world’s water supplies.

Global hunger could soar to nearly 15% of the entire population.

The Great Transition

By 2100, if the world’s societies were to radically alter their environmental preservation policies and prioritize social memes to reflect those of the UN, the planet could live in a world of social equality and cooperation.

Family planning would have successfully controlled population growth to a stable 7.3 billion worldwide.

Take home income could be raised to 36 cents on the dollar.

With less people, water securitization could be kept to a minimum of 21%.

The incidents of global hunger would be negligible.

Regardless of global population decline, the UN’s Populations Fund (UNFPA) is calling for more family planning services in order to further decrease fertility rates worldwide.

The UNFPA released a report in 2011 that erroneously claimed that the world’s population will rise to 9.15 billion by 2050. In response, the UNFPA has focused efforts on STD immunizations, abortion and contraception more readily available under the non-discriminant term, “family planning”.

Their concept for the future appears to be miserable without the submission of all humans on planet Earth to their globalist Elite schemes. They are quite good at using fear to justify their policies to elected officials, governments and average citizens. Their continued success will surely lead to the worst of possible futures.

Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism. Our alternative news site is dedicated to reporting the news as it actually happens; not as it is spun by the corporately funded mainstream media. You can find us on our Facebook page.

.

6 Responses to "UN Asks: How Many People Could Live on Planet Earth?"

  1. Adnan Khurshid  July 1, 2012 at 11:09 am

    The resources of world is either equal or grater than the needs of population at any given time. (Adnan’s Law)

    I devised this Law after studying nature for long time and that’s why I call it Adnan’s Law. According to this law all the resources of earth has never been (and never will) declined in human history, no matter how much resources we used we still have enough of it or alternative of it is available at more cheaper cost.

    So keeping in view Adnan’s Law there is no need to reduce population. In fact better policies should be adapted to distribute all resource to everyone equally.

    Reply
  2. Renee  July 3, 2012 at 12:00 am

    Adnan your response is nonsensical. Take bacteria in a petri dish, their population grows exponentially until they run out of nutrients, then population declines. We live in a finite world, new resources cannot be created, much like the petri dish, when our numbers exceed our resources…well, let’s just say that’s the point where “the resources of the world is NEITHER equal nor greater than the needs of the population”. To believe we have food and water for an infinite population is insane.
    Also an issue with the article, the line that reads “Geophysicists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research states that only 282 billion people could be packed onto the planet”…282 billion seems like a ludicroiusly big numer, is it a typo? I’ve read various estimates ranging from 2 billion to 9 billion as being the maximum numbers the earth can support long term.

    Reply
    • Adnan Khurshid  July 3, 2012 at 8:05 pm

      Dear Renee
      Thanks for your response with statistical data. But that wasn’t enough to convince me.
      I am basically a religious person and there is a word in religion call “faith” once you have this thing in God then you don’t go for numbers. My observation is based on natural study of human beings and is backed by religious belief.
      But lets talk about numbers. You may know that 40% of world resources are in the hold of only 1%. 40% is a HUGE number. There are big corporations whose wealth is more than the budget of 3 small African countries. In developed countries full un-packed food are found in trashes while at same time 20,000 children are dying in Africa because of malnutrition.
      This was just a small picture to tell you that Adnan’s Law is still valid. All you have to do is to take this 40% wealth/resources and distribute among the population equally.

    • Yoda  October 14, 2013 at 7:48 am

      @Adnan, religion has nothing to do with science. It is by definition unscientific. Just because 1% of the population owns 40% doesn’t mean that they consume 40% of the worlds resources.

  3. john Dodge  July 4, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    Organic life living in the Natural Mother Space will stabilize its population to create the greatest transfer of Love.
    The human population did not “explode” until Land Owners came on the scene and began to create Empires by Farming Humans in cities and farming plants and animals to feed them by destroying forests and Natural diverse communities. This was further accelerated by removing open villages so Mothers were no longer surrounded by children – much as you would propagate bulbs – remove the children and the Mother will create more.
    In any case to feed the numbers humans you talk of on Earth you must destroy much of Nature to create farms. But remember a farm ONLY creates food for those that are useful to the Owners (not the farmer). Where as Mother Nature creates food for those that are humble (take what they need). If these billions can not find a way to be useful (AND soon they will be competing with very intelligent Robots) to the corporate Machine then they will fade away.

    Reply
  4. Madeleine  July 9, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    We mere humans think we so special and powerful, we think we are destroying earth…we are not awesome enough to be that powerful, Most High Divine Creator did not create a good earth and humans just to watch the humans destroy earth…get real, be human…we not god, He Is…there will always be abundance granted in His will, by Her might and power only.

    Reply

Leave a Reply