The myth of overpopulation suggests that the world's growing population will strip the Earth of its usable resources, leading to diminishing standards of living, poverty, hunger, and environmental catastrophes.

Rhoda Wilson

The Expose News - com

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The myth of overpopulation has been a persistent concern for many, suggesting that the world's growing population will strip the Earth of its usable resources, leading to diminishing standards of living, poverty, hunger, and environmental catastrophes. This article aims to debunk this myth by examining historical data, current trends, and expert opinions.</p>

<h2>Historical Context</h2>
<p>The myth of overpopulation can be traced back to the late 18th century when Thomas Malthus published his essay on the principle of population. Malthus theorized that population growth would outpace food production, leading to widespread famine and poverty. However, his predictions have not come to pass due to advancements in agriculture and technology.</p>

<h2>Current Trends</h2>
<p>Today, the world produces enough food to feed 10 billion people, yet hunger remains a problem in some regions due to political failures and distribution issues rather than overpopulation. According to the World Education Service, the world currently produces 17% more calories per person than it did 30 years ago. This indicates that food production has kept pace with population growth.</p>

<p>Water scarcity is another concern often linked to overpopulation. However, the Earth is awash in water, with oceans covering 70% of the planet's surface. The challenge lies in making freshwater accessible to those who need it. Since 1900, freshwater withdrawals have increased sevenfold, while the world population has increased only fourfold. This suggests that our ability to access usable water is increasing faster than population growth.</p>

<h2>Population Growth Rate</h2>
<p>Contrary to popular belief, the world population is not growing exponentially. The global population growth rate has been declining since its peak in the early 1960s. Between 1950 and 2000, the world population grew at a rate of 1.76%. Between 2000 and 2050, it is expected to grow by 0.77 percent. This decline in growth rate is due to factors such as increased life expectancy, urbanization, and education, which lead to lower fertility rates.</p>

<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The myth of overpopulation is largely unfounded. Historical data and current trends show that innovation and resource management can sustain a growing population. While challenges such as hunger and water scarcity persist, they are not caused by overpopulation but by political failures and distribution issues. It is crucial to address these challenges through effective policies and technological advancements rather than perpetuating the myth of overpopulation.</p>

<h2>References</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href='https://www.pop.org/overpopulation-myth/'>What is the myth of overpopulation? - Population Research Institute</a></li>
<li><a href='https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-overpopulation/'>Debunking the Myth of Overpopulation - Population Research Institute</a></li>
<li><a href='https://www.usccb.org/committees/pro-life-activities/myth-overpopulation-and-folks-who-brought-it-you'>The Myth of Overpopulation and the Folks Who Brought it to You | USCCB</a></li>
</ul>

Debunking the Myth of Overpopulation: A Comprehensive Review

<p>The recent claim that the United Nations (UN) has ambitions to become a world government with its own military power has sparked considerable debate. This claim was made in an article published by The Exposé on September 10, 2024, which cited a hidden camera recording of Jorge Paoletti, a legal affairs official in the UN Treaty Section.</p>
<p>Paoletti was recorded stating that the UN aspires to be a globalist world government and that it should have its own military power. However, it is crucial to examine this claim critically and consider the broader context of the UN's mission and structure.</p>
<p>The United Nations was established in 1945 with the primary goal of maintaining international peace and security, promoting social progress, fostering better living standards, and encouraging economic development. The UN Charter explicitly states that the organization is based on the sovereign equality of all its member states. This means that the UN operates through the cooperation and consensus of its member countries, rather than as a sovereign entity with its own military.</p>
<p>While the UN does have peacekeeping forces, these are composed of troops contributed by member states on a voluntary basis. The UN does not have a standing army of its own. The purpose of UN peacekeeping missions is to help countries torn by conflict create the conditions for lasting peace. These missions are authorized by the UN Security Council and operate under strict guidelines.</p>
<p>The claim that the UN aims to become a world government is not supported by the organization's official statements or actions. The UN's focus is on strengthening global governance and cooperation, not on becoming a sovereign entity. The Pact for the Future, mentioned in the article, is a non-binding agreement that encourages member states to work together on global challenges such as climate change, poverty, and inequality.</p>
<p>It is also important to note that the UN spokesperson, Stéphane Dujarric, dismissed Paoletti's remarks as not representing the official position of the UN. Dujarric emphasized that Paoletti was a junior staffer and was not speaking on behalf of the organization.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the claim that the United Nations has ambitions to become a world government with its own military power is largely unfounded. While the UN seeks to strengthen global governance and cooperation, it does not aim to become a sovereign entity with its own army. The UN's mission and structure are based on the principles of international cooperation and the sovereign equality of its member states.</p>
<p>For further reading on the UN's mission and structure, you can refer to the official UN website: <a href="https://www.un.org/en/">UN Official Website</a>. Additionally, you can find more information on UN peacekeeping missions here: <a href="https://peacekeeping.un.org/en">UN Peacekeeping</a>.</p>

Claim Review: UN Aspires to Become a World Government with Military Power

<p>In an interview, <a href="https://remedia.social/claim-author/andrew-wakefield-b9ae5748e147">Andrew Wakefield</a> &nbsp;made several claims about vaccines and autism. One notable claim was that 'more than half the adult population of the world are anti-vaxxers.' This claim warrants a thorough examination to determine its validity.</p>
<p>Vaccine hesitancy is a complex issue that varies widely across different regions and populations. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines vaccine hesitancy as the 'reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines.' While vaccine hesitancy is a concern, it does not represent the majority of the global population.</p>
<p>According to a study published in the journal <em>The Lancet</em>, vaccine confidence varies significantly across countries. The study, titled 'The State of Vaccine Confidence 2016: Global Insights Through a 67-Country Survey,' found that while some countries have high levels of vaccine hesitancy, others have very low levels. The study can be found <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)31540-2/fulltext">here</a>.</p>
<p>A more recent survey conducted by the Wellcome Global Monitor in 2018 found that globally, 79% of people agree that vaccines are safe, and 84% agree that vaccines are effective. This survey included responses from over 140,000 people across 144 countries. The results of the survey can be found <a href="https://wellcome.org/reports/wellcome-global-monitor/2018">here</a>.</p>
<p>In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine acceptance has been a critical issue. A global survey conducted by the Imperial College London found that while vaccine hesitancy exists, it is not the majority view. The survey, which included responses from over 13,000 people across 14 countries, found that the majority of respondents were willing to get vaccinated against COVID-19. The survey results can be found <a href="https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/218476/global-survey-reveals-high-levels-covid-19/">here</a>.</p>
<p>It is important to note that vaccine hesitancy is influenced by a variety of factors, including misinformation, cultural beliefs, and personal experiences. Addressing vaccine hesitancy requires a nuanced approach that involves education, communication, and building trust in healthcare systems.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the claim that more than half the adult population of the world are anti-vaxxers is not supported by available data. While vaccine hesitancy is a real and important issue, it does not represent the majority of the global population. Surveys and studies consistently show that the majority of people around the world support vaccination and recognize its importance in protecting public health.<br>
</p>
<blockquote><br>
The transcript:<br>
I went to the CDC back in 2000 and they said, look, Dr. Wakefield, you know, it's, it's everybody gets the MMR. Only a few children have autism. So how do you equate it? Well, that's how medicine works. A lot of people smoke, only a few develop lung cancer, but the point is it's pattern of exposure. I said, look, we believe, for example, that age of exposure is important.</blockquote>
<blockquote>We know this because with the natural infection, the younger you get measles, the greater the risk of infection. of a more severe reaction. If you get it under one, for example, does the same pertain to the vaccine. If you get the vaccine younger, are you at greater risk? And they went away to their credit and they tested that hypothesis and they found that it was exactly, and they spent the next 14 years destroying the documents, putting them in a dumpster and covering up and publishing a paper that exonerated the vaccine until one of the whistleblowers, William Thompson, head scientist in that study came forward and said, I can't live with this any longer.</blockquote>
<blockquote>I kept the, the documents here. They are, it showed fraud, most appalling violation of medical and scientific ethics on behalf of the CDC. So people say now, oh, there's no evidence. Vaccines cause autism. Absolutely. There is. And when you have to commit to that level of fraud, any level of fraud, but that level of fraud, not only in the context of this vaccine, but Pfizer in the context of the, of the COVID vaccine, everybody else, you're on a losing, run right from the start.</blockquote>
<blockquote>You are going to lose because you can only sustain that lie for so long and then someone somewhere is going to come forward, some brave person and say, actually, no, it was completely the opposite. And public confidence is shattered. It will never be regained. So now we are in a majority of people who are saying no to the 4th, 5th, 6th booster for COVID.</blockquote>
<blockquote>And by definition in media terms, those are anti vaxxers. More than half the adult population of the world are anti vaxxers. So, I think that, as I say, this will turn out to be the greatest mistake they ever made. And I think that we are winning, uncomfortable as that may be, we are winning.</blockquote>

Claim Review: Are Half the Adult Population Anti-Vaxxers?

<p>The claim that Food Standards in Australia and New Zealand are being changed to replace real food with fake 'food' without proper labelling or regulation has been circulating recently. This claim suggests that gene-edited foods will be deregulated, allowing the food industry to self-regulate and avoid labelling requirements. Let's break down this claim and examine its validity.</p>
<h2>Understanding the Claim</h2>
<p>The claim revolves around proposed changes to the Food Standards Code by FSANZ (Food Standards Australia New Zealand). These changes aim to deregulate gene-edited foods, which are created using techniques like CRISPR. The concern is that this deregulation would allow the food industry to avoid labelling and regulation, potentially misleading consumers.</p>
<h2>What is Gene Editing?</h2>
<p>Gene editing involves altering the DNA of an organism using techniques like CRISPR. This technology has the potential to create foods with desirable traits, such as improved nutritional content or resistance to diseases. However, the long-term effects of consuming gene-edited foods are not yet fully understood.</p>
<h2>Regulatory Changes and Concerns</h2>
<p>The proposed changes by FSANZ would exempt gene-edited foods from certain regulations, potentially allowing them to enter the market without thorough safety assessments or labelling. This has raised concerns among consumers and advocacy groups, who argue that consumers have the right to know what they are eating.</p>
<h2>Scientific Perspectives</h2>
<p>While gene editing holds promise for improving food production, there are valid concerns about its safety and long-term effects. A study published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0450-7">Nature</a> highlights the potential risks associated with CRISPR-edited organisms, including unintended genetic changes. Another study in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019308477">Environment International</a> discusses the need for comprehensive risk assessment and regulation of gene-edited foods.</p>
<h2>Consumer Rights and Transparency</h2>
<p>The claim emphasizes the importance of consumer rights and transparency in food labelling. Consumers have the right to make informed choices about the food they consume. Deregulation without proper labelling could undermine this right and erode consumer trust in the food industry.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that food standards are being changed to replace real food with fake 'food' without proper labelling or regulation is partially true. While there are proposed changes to deregulate gene-edited foods, the extent to which this will impact consumer safety and transparency is a matter of ongoing debate. It is crucial for regulatory bodies to balance innovation with consumer protection and ensure that any changes are based on sound scientific evidence and public consultation.</p>

Claim Review: Changes to Food Standards in Australia and New Zealand

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Claim: "The myth of overpopulation suggests that the world's growing population will strip the Earth of its usable resources, leading to diminishing standards of living, poverty, hunger, and environmental catastrophes." is Mostly False

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: