Over populated or exagerated? You can always stand on Zanzibar

        
    I was told about a book named "Stand on Zanzibar" and due to it's relation to today's world I figured I'd share about it with others. This book has a look at how our world can be so broadened and magnified simultaneously. Although most people (and Wikipedia) will say it pushes people to the belief that we as a world are over populated I don't find it to be that cut and dry. They sheer thought of standing upright and shoulder to shoulder next to every person in the world confined only to the not so big island of Zanzibar is not exactly appetizing to me or most anyone. Yet the thought of that brings out the obvious question if we all can fit shoulder to shoulder there than we could all fit with much more space between us in somewhere larger and so on. If you evenly spread the square footage out of the world to each individual (even accounting for the subtraction of water ways and inhabitable lands) we're talking square miles.
     "Its title refers to an early twentieth century claim that the world's population could fit onto the Isle of Wight (area 381 km²) if they were all standing upright. Brunner remarked that the growing world population now required a larger island—the 3.5 billion people living in 1968 could stand together on the Isle of Man (area 572 km²), while the 7 billion people whom he projected would be alive in 2010 would need to stand on Zanzibar (area 1554 km²)".
     So to think that Ted Turner can sit on Charlie Rose's television program and state clearly that the world is over populated and needs to cut back to 2 billion people or the world will rise 8 degrees in 40 years is utterly ridiculous and repulsive when remembering that he is the sole owner of more land than anyone in the world. So Teddy thinks we need to cut back. Well maybe Teddy needs to dish some land out if he's so concerned for the population (we wouldn't dare do that).
     I'm not 100% either way, but I also think that if the world was a more stable place without constant oppression and war and population control in some countries and what not we might have 9 or 10 billion by now. I mean just accounting for all the deaths of war and what would have been out of them (possible children) we could be talking 13 or 14 billion. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of deaths and that comes with consequences. So why would the elite want population control? The less people there are the easier they are to control? We know they wouldn't do it for the money because the money is in more population in most cases.
     So either way over population or depopulation both have there downfalls and advantages but the real problem is when people are manipulating population at all. Are government has declassified many documents clearly stating depopulation motives in countries across the globe. So it makes you, or at least me, really start to think about all of the diseases and viruses and MAN MADE THINGS THAT WOULDN'T EXIST IF NOT FOR MAN CREATING THEM. Our government has even discussed/carried out the creation of anything from chemical weapons that focus on your genes (your race and so on) to the infamous "gay bomb". Yes I said it, the gay bomb. a weapon that was meant to be dropped on the enemy to make them suddenly full of female hormones and therefore making them unable to fight and only willing and wanting to have sex with their fellow soldiers. HAHA But so sadly true.
By: Alex Wyatt