Over Population

What would happen if the population increased by another Billion ??? Would the world take notice? Probably not,
as long as there was peace and prosperity.

But if you combine another Billion people and a drought lasting years over several 'major crop areas' - then you would see a world-wide calamity. There would not be enough food to feed all the people. On top of that, the food exporting countries would lose export money. Their economies would falter - maybe food riot - maybe just riots in general.

Add to that another earthquake rattling Peru or Southern California or the Pakistan/turkey area, hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation - maybe a few billion people would starve. The airports would be unaccessible, the roads would be not passible, the water/sewer systems would stop working. There would not be enough fresh water for everyone. Disease would rule the world killing billions.

All because the world has too many people and just one or two events combining to create a huge loss of life.

It's time to start reducing the world's population before these major events happen. And happen they will. It's just a matter of time before another volcano, earthquake or hurricane happens.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Cliffoprd

Over Population

Whatever happened to "natural selection" of the human species? When people living in harsh lands had little water or less food, it was OK to have a baby every year. And maybe one or two would grow up to have babies of their own. BUT What happens when you "help" to maintain that population with just enough water and food to allow those families to have almost all their babies grow up to have babies? That is a population explosion everyone can understand. Add to that today's medicine and natal care and you have the makings of a future over-population that will one day collapse on itself and take down a few neighboring countries in the process.

Take the Middle East as an example. They are populating exponentially. One country is spending enormous amounts of money they get from oil-sales to get fresh water by de-salting the ocean. Another country has turned the desert into a garden and feeding its population while exporting food. Other countries are importing food - some from oil sales and some from world food banks. There is no rational reason to have such excessive population growth. It is unsustainable and will collapse on itself at some point.

Europe has been reducing its population for decades - BUT with the immigration and the immigrants' continuing to have multiple babies per family, the population is both increasing and politically rushing towards disaster.

South America has had its over-population spurt and will soon be unable to feed itself.

What does this mean for everyone? Possible starvation. Possible no jobs for everyone. Possible a change in the structures of governments. Does any of this sound good to you?

That is why I believe we need to be taking a rational approach to curbing the world's population. Hear that India? Put a condom on it. You cannot feed your population now. India has over 50% unemployment. This is serious. Slow down your population. You are headed towards a major water and food shortage. The world can not and should not rush to your aid. Natural selection is necessary everywhere. It's nature. It's the way the planet works.
If shortage of water or food does not reduce your numbers, then disease or even war will eventually reduce the entire planet's population.

A little thought now will stave off a terrible disaster later. Limit the number of babies per family NOW!

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

over-population

Nature has a way of dampening down on "Overpopulation". When small ground mammals have extra large families, the predators somehow know to increase their babies. And this gets the population back level. When any human grouping prior to very recent times grew to large, disease always struck and reduced the human population.

Now we have used our brains to build larger cities with intricate systems of fresh water plants and food and transportation and disease control plus reduce baby mortality. All this combines to create an over-populated world.

When any disaster occurs like a hurricane or major flooding or tsunami or earthquake or prolong drought, all the structures for supplying fresh water and food disappear. This will be the way of the future. The "bread-basket" of the Midwest USA has experienced several repeating droughts. The underground lake in the Midwest is slowly being drained for irrigation. If a drought and the water table in that lake drop at the same time, the USA will be without both a food source and a multi-billion export industry. Are you prepared to last 2 or 3 years before the "bread-Basket regains its growing capacity?

Some of the things we are doing now could stave off that scenario for a year or two. But 3 or 4 years and there will be riots in the streets with people looking for food. And people will begin to migrate back to around the Great Lakes where there is plenty of fresh water.

Somehow - Someway - the world's population needs to reduce by as much as half or we will all be in dire straits.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Related articles

• China ministry: drought likely to last, threatening winter wheat (reuters.com)

over-population and US politics

Why won't the USA put a halt to over-populating? There aren't enough jobs now or in the near future for everyone. And with people coming to America 'illegally' there aren't even enough manual jobs. OK, America needs to internalize job growth. But in the meantime, there is no magic wand or enough spending to create enough jobs to make a dent in the real 20+ % unemployment. Jobs grow organically not by throwing money at them. That in and of itself should force people to limit the number of children per family. That was the result in the 1930's depression. Average family size dropped to around 0.8 to 1.2 children - not enough to maintain a population.

But over population continues. And here are some of the WHYs that I believe will keep our planet over-populating until some disaster naturally takes out hundreds of millions or billions of people - just like the plague in middle ages or the flu in the early 1900s.

There is the religious side. "Go forth and multiple" are words in every bible. But when that was written, the entire human population was at most a few million - probably much less. Today's 7,500,000,000 population has shown we have multiplied too successfully. So we will get no help in reducing the population from the religious side.

And then there is the two religious factions - Judeo-Christian and muslim; both with about 2,000,000,000 each. The difference is that the muslims are having multiple babies everywhere for political reasons and the Judeo-Christians are reducing the number of children per family. - The political implications could change the world as we know it. Either way, the population will continue to grow and the food and fresh water supplies will lessen.

Then there are the liberals who need support from poor and ethnic people to maintain their numbers in Congress. - No help here will ever be coming in reducing the population. In fact they want to increase the population for those very reasons.

And when you consider the transfer of jobs to non-USA countries and the need for employment here in the USA just to pay the taxes for both the budget deficit and social security, you begin to see that the USA has boxed Herself into a over-population corner for decades to come.

Anyone have a solution??? Would love to hear any rational solution.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Over Population and Food

At the rate the world is creating new babies and with more people living longer, the world's population will soon reach 10,000,000,000 - That's TEN BILLION people. And you say - so what!!!

All these ten billion people will need fresh water. The world is short of fresh water now at population 7,500,000,000

All these ten billion people will need food. The world is short of farm land now at population 7,500,000,000. A major drought would starve hundreds of millions of people in one year. and if the drought lasted for three or more years, the population would continue to shrink to under a billion. That means 6,500,000,000,000 (Six hundred Billion Five hundred million) people would die from starvation.

Many of these ten billion people will need fish. The world's oceans are straining to feed the world's demand now at population 7,500,000,000.

In our lifetimes, the world will find itself without fresh water, grains and fish. Forget OIL. Forget the hoax of global warming. IT'S STARVATION that will bring down all the world's countries.

Think about it. In a major flood, tornado, cyclone, hurricane, snow storm the ability to move food and have fresh water is significantly reduced for a time. Just imagine if the workers to load the ships with grain starved or the truck drivers starved or any of the transportation workers were starving and could not work. The entire world's population would be at risk. This is what will happen if we continue to be non-responsible and have more than 2 babies per family.

We need to begin to reduce the world's population BEFORE a major strain is put on the world's fresh water and food supply. While there are many things I disagree on with the way Chine treats its citizens, China is being wonderfully responsible in reducing its population with its one child per family policy. India and other over-populated countries should adopt the same policy of one child per family.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Over Population and JOBS

Have you wondered how over a hundred thousand Egyptians can protest evert day? Don't they have jobs to go to? The answer is that Egypt has over 30% unemployment. And that's for unskilled to college educated Egyptians.

When you consider the REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN THE USA IS AROUND 20% or 60,000,000 people.
(((THAT'S SIXTY MILLION USA CITIZENS ARE UNEMPLOYED.))) - when you consider these numbers, it's a wonder that the USA does not follow Greece and Egypt in national street protests against the government's failed policies.

We know the obama will stay in Office for about 20+ months and the Senate is still obama's boys. The House's new Republicans or Tea Party representatives have to lead strongly to cut excess spending and reduced the debt by 10 Billion to 20 Billion dollars a year for several years.

If we don't, there is nothing to stop future inflation, the de-valuation of the dollar and possible the dollar being replaced by some other currency or basket of currencies as the standard unit of money.

What will that mean to the USA??? For one, the price of oil will jump by 50% to 100% or more. That one factor will severely hurt the US's economy. The airlines will either raise rates or go out of business or be nationalized. If the airline customers cannot afford to travel, the tourist industry will begin to decline. If oil doubles, the price of gasoline will triple. And that means all item that need to be transported whether by truck or train will become much more expensive. And that means consumerism will drop and that means a depression worst than the 1930's.

So you see why it is imperative that we cut the over spending and reduce the US debt in large enough amounts each year. And we need congress to stop screwing with the people and do what is right for the citizens of the United States. Congress people need to put the needs of the country above their individual needs. Congress needs to cut over spending. And do it in the very next budget.

The alternative is just too horrible to think about.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford.

Over Population and JOBS

When people have more than one or two babies and when people have babies under the age of 20, the 'FUTURE WAVE" of potential job applicants increases faster than the ability of the United States or the world to create jobs.

Let's look at this in today's reality. There are fewer places to get jobs. When some employers announce future hiring of a few jobs -even a 100 new job- several thousand job applicants form lines a day in advance. To me this suggests that those people willing to work have no place to work.

It also says that there are just too many people in the job working years. WHY? Because families are having 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or more babies. This shows to me that people in general have no concept of social responsibility to the community. If they did, they would not be populating like ignorant animals without any concern for their ability to provide for these "extra" children and no concern about where there children will ever find work.

When the population increases at 200,000 babies or more a week, and the current job market is at best creating between 35,000 to 150,000 jobs per month increasing the reality that new babies will never be able to find a job. Even if our economy were to create 500,000 or 750,000 new jobs per month, we would still be creating many more babies than potential jobs. The same for all countries.

So wise up my fellow American citizens and plan babies after age 25 and only have one or two babies.

And this goes for the world in general as well. Begin to reduce population now or there will never be enough jobs anywhere for anyone who wants to work.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Schools and learning

Have you ever wondered why the children of the 1950's and 1960's were so extremely smart? Think about it for a moment. The classrooms were 6 rows of 8 seats per row and mostly filled. The teachers were underpaid. The books were old. There was no free lunch for the students. Milk was distributed in the elementary grades but the students paid for their milk. The lessons were the same year in and year out. Grammar school student had hourly changes in subject matter. Tests were given every Friday and there were unannounced tests at any moment.

So how did these children learn???

For one important reason. The basics were drilled into them by rote. Math. Reading. Spelling. Geography. And in the later years of grammar school, political sciences and CIVICS. What was CIVICS. Every student had to know how our government worked. How an idea was forwarded into a bill and how a bill became a law. In fact, every student in my grammar school dreaded the final CIVICS test. WHY? Because the only way a student could graduate into high school was to pass the CIVICS test. Fail the test - no matter how good your grades and you did not graduate.

So what did the students of the 1950's and the 1950's have that student today with all their computers and "new thinking" not have? These students had to learn their lessons by rote. Repeating and repeating them until they learned to spell, read, do math, and write. It was not difficult. Just took time and the real possibility that failure was not an option.

A student studied because there was consequences if you did not meet at least a "C" in all subjects. Failing meant being held back. No one wanted that - even to "cool" kids or the "tough guys". Everyone wanted to graduate out of grammar and high schools.

And what happened. Most students graduated and were able to enter college without having to take remedial classes to "catch-up" with all the other students in college. And even those students that for whatever reason did not go on to college were able to read and do math and think logically. That is totally unlike the majority of the students of today - as proven by the world's rate of 23rd in math, science and reading out of all nations.

So the solution is simple. Get back to rote and test, test, test. Make keeping up with the rest of the students a positive social thing. Stop paying students to go to school. Stop rewarding bad behavior.

Rote is best for everyone - no matter what you want to be in life. Rote will give everyone the basics. Rote will create a baseline of minimum knowledge for all students and raise all people up.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford

Employment figures and the government's figuring

We all know someone who lost a job, been downsized and cannot find a job in a similar industry or salary level.

I BELIEVE the unemployment figure of 9% is just plain FAKE. First of all, i understand that it takes an increase of 150,000 new jobs to drop the unemployment level by one tenth of a percent. That's 0.1%. That would be like going from 9.4% to 9.3%.

Then the government's own figure state that only 36,000 new jobs were created. No one knows how many were full time jobs in the private sector or government jobs. BUT new 36,000 jobs is NOT ENOUGH to reduce the 9.4% level to 9.0%.
So you know someone is playing loose with the math.

Then there are the tens of millions of unemployed whose benefits have run out. These people are NOT COUNTED in the unemployment figure. With tens of millions of NOT COUNTED UNEMPLOYED, the REAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBER IS MORE LIKE 17% TO 19%. With quick math the suggests that 60,000,000 are unemployed. SIXTY MILLION PEOPLE. Something is wrong here and it's our government's wasteful spending

So you see why I believe they are "fudging the unemployment numbers."

The obama stimulus failed. Admit it and let's do something different. It's crazy thinking to continue to do the same thing and expect different results. To get different results, you need to change what you were doing. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

Where are potential jobs??? In the private sector - not in creating government featherbedding or government patronage jobs at unbelievable high salaries. That's the Chicago way and it does not work for Chicago (except for the politicians in power in Chicago) and it will not work for the United States Government.

We need to foster an environment for people to become self-employed. This is where the new jobs will come from; not from government directed and funded future businesses that have not even been created yet.

The government believes you will think that more jobs are being created than actually are by creating fake and lower unemployment numbers. The government is trying to "pull the wool over your eyes." You do not let this happen in your normal life, why would you ever allow the government to do this to you now??????

Demand government cut over-spending.
Demand government reduce the spending budget - not freeze it at these high levels.
Look out for yourself or the budget will grow and the only alternative will be for the government to DE-VALUE THE DOLLAR AND REPLACE THE DOLLAR WITH A NEW DDOLLLARR AT 1 DDOLLLARR FOR EVERY 10 OLD DOLLARS. MAYBE EVEN REPLACE THE DOLLAR WITH A NEW DDOLLLLARR AT 1 DDOLLLARR FOR EVERY 100 OLD DOLLARS.

WHERE WOULD YOU BE THEN??? BROKE !!!! THAT'S WHERE.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Overpopulation - How it affects your schools

Over Population costs you real money- directly - it's money out of your pocket. HOW? Because the cities have to raise your property taxes to pay for the extra teachers and new schools. Why all the extra schools and teachers?

Let's look at these three examples:

#1) When the average family has three or more children, that means there will be a future 'wave' in their local school of over-crowding of students. That has several implications. Teachers demand smaller classroom sizes. Therefore, more teachers are needed to handle extra children in small classes. Then as the student population "wave" builds up, new schools need to be built. This is paid for by local taxes - mostly real estate taxes.

#2) When children under 18 have babies, the stress on the schools is dramatic. This also increases the student population and the same scenario in number one occurs. Also, by children under 18 having babies, this also affects the generation timetable. The lower age that children begin having babies, the shorter the generation time and the more crowded the schools become. This increases the Future "Wave" of children in schools.

#3) The best scenario is that on average all families have 1 or 2 children and begin having children after age 25. WHY? This reduces the "wave" of future students on the schools and reduces class sizes and reduces the need to build more schools and helps teachers give more attention to each student in their classes.

There is a POSITIVE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COMMUNITY to wait to have children until AFTER AGE 25 AND THERE IS A POSITIVE FINANCIAL OUTCOME TO ALL FAMILIES. It's a WIN-WIN future.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford

Over Population and Freedom

When has Egypt ever rose up from the people and demanded Freedom - ever? For the last 5,000 years, the people of Egypt have been ruled by dictators. And for most of that time, most of the Egyptians were slaves, beggars or a few middle class merchants. But has there ever been an uprising for Freedom?

Think about the Magna Carter signing in 1215 AD in England. That was a first cry for Freedom that I am aware of and it was from the Princes and Lords NOT the general public. The first cry for Freedom from the public was in 1776 in the New United States of America. And again in India under Gandhi's rule over a hundred years later

So my question is: Why are the Egyptian people now in the streets? Who is really behind these rallies?

And why are so many people able to stay in the streets for so many straight days. The answer is that there are no jobs in Egypt. Is it the government's fault? Maybe some. But with the population soaring to 80,000,000+ and almost no industry, where does anyone think there will be jobs for all that want to work??? That is totally crazy thinking. The population of this country is too large for the potential business community to absorb. That goes for India and Mexico as well; and most of South America.

It is time to start decreasing the world's population before we run out of land to farm and fish in the oceans.

And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford