Questioning NASA and Testing the “Globe theory”


photo released by Tim Peake to Flickr from the International Space Station


I am only sharing (below) what I see, as what can only be called lies, fraud, errors without explanations or possibly just a “circus” to be put on to keep the funding coming in, and the Truth of Yahuweh(God) out of the minds and hearts (Spiritual warfare). The following is a list of websites that contain many questionable things NASA has shared as fact. I say it is high time to take a closer look at what you think is real and test what you think you know. I may or may not agree with what is within the following but I do think it needs to be considered. Caution, adult language may be used.

Please add any reliable resources into the comments section. If any evidence I show is unreliable please let me know.


Space station photos bring forth questions about Flat Earth (My Write-up)

The Biggest Lie of All NASA lies! (You tube)

Hubble Shoots The Moon. (Article)

NASA Insider Exposes the Flat Earth! (You tube)


200 Proofs Earth Is Not A Spinning Ball (Article)
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball pdf.

Debunking the Spinning Ball Earth…/debunking-spinning…

Flat Earth Evidence…

Earth Hoax? – Part 1 of 2. Don’t Spin Out!…/earth-hoax-part-1-of-2-dont…

Earth Hoax? – Part 2 of 2. The Global-Ball-Bull?…/earth-hoax-part-2-of-2…

Hard evidence that the earth is not a globe…/Scientific-evidence…/1/

The Natural Physics of Water Prove Earth Flat…/water-proves-earth…

Sundials and the Flat Earth…/

The Globe Earth Lie…/the-globe-earth…

The Earth is Not Moving…/earth-is-not…
The Flat-Earth Conspiracy…/the-flat-earth…

Antarctica Has No South Pole…/south-pole-does…

Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

No Curvature on the Flat Earth…

Where’s the Edge Then?…/south-pole-does…

Satellites can not be orbiting the earth as it is extremely hot in the Thermosphere which would melt any man-made spaceship. It is about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher. The governments track everything from these stations as they did since many many years ago.
GPS Before the Satellite Hoax GPS = LORAN

Proof that the standard Heliocentric Model is In error:

Lunar Wave / Holographic Moon…

Prof. Eric Dollard The Sun is not what we wave been told.!!!…

The Flat Earth and its Advocates: A List of References

A wise man may change his mind.
A fool never does.(unknown)

My Top Ten Reasons to Vote “NOTA”

Hear are my top ten reasons to stay away from the names that are chosen as Manchurian, oops, I mean candidates and vote NOTA, or None of the Above.

Even if one of the candidates weren’t pre-chosen, our votes are:

your vote counts.jpg

1. from dead people


2. from illegal aliens


3. are not counted in america


4. hacked through electronic voting.


5. controlled by Soros, Rockefeller,, Rothschild’s, and others controlling the rest of the world.


6. voting for the “lesser of two evils”

b and c.jpg

7. used for “Bread and Circus'” to make us feel like we are a part of the show.


8. superseded by the Electoral College

 puppets29. voting for the same. More puppets.


10. Conclusion. Our votes are irrelevant.

When will the time come to stop the evil that rules this world? If you think voting is going to do it you haven’t awakened yet.

Yahuwah Please help us.

Cannabis or calamus? What’s really in the bible?

Cannabis or calamus? What’s really in the bible?

Cannabis or calamus? What’s really in the bible?


Written by Pat and Lynn Kempen

How many times have you been told that the use or consumption of the cannabis plant is a sin or of the Devil? The next time someone says it’s the Devils weed, correct them, for they know not what they say.

Gen 1 29 label

With the Hebrew words for “calamus” and “cannabis” so similar, and the fact that calamus is of lesser value and also toxic, we must question the validity of the term “calamus” in English versions of Scripture. 

The word calamus is found in the KJV three times:
bibleExodus 30:23 God telling Moses the formula for the anointing oil (250 shekels worth.)
KJV-sweet calamus
NKJV-sweet-smelling cane
ESV-aromatic cane
NASB-fragrant cane
Song of Solomon 4:14, speaking of it in a refreshing garden
Ezekiel 27:19 speaking of cane as merchandise.

The KJV translates the Hebrew word “qaneh” (pronounced kaw-naw’) into “calamus.”  Per Strong’s Concordance, “qaneh” means “a reed (as erect); by resemblance a rod (especially for measuring) shaft, tube, stem, (the radius of the arm) beam (of a steelyard): – balance, bone, branch, calamus, cane, reed, spearman, stalk.”

The Hebrew word for “calamus” is “kanah bosm,” which is plural.  The singular for this is “kaneh bos,” which sounds remarkably close the modern word “cannabis.”

According to Webster’s New Hebrew dictionary, the current Hebrew word for cannabis is “kanabos.”
Thus, contentions that the KJV possibly interpreted the Hebrew word incorrectly as “calamus” warrant consideration.

Exodus 30If Exodus 30:23 is referring to a monetary value of calamus or cannabis, the “250 shekels” is approximately $125.00 worth (which is 2.5 cents/gerah X 20 gerahs/shekel X 250 shekels in Ex30:23) which is a considerable amount.
* Per the ATS Bible Dictionary (and others), a shekel is a term for either weight or currency (a coin.)  A shekel is worth 20 gerahs.  A gerah is the smallest weight or coin among the Jews, and worth about two and a half cents.

If the 250 shekels is referring to weight, instead of coinage, it is a considerable amount of whatever it is the KJV is referring to as “calamus.”

While cannabis is non-toxic (not a single death has ever been directly attributed to it, despite much effort being given to document such a fatality), calamus is most definitely a toxin. The FDA banned calamus from uses in food and medicines in 1968 as calamus contains more than 75% asarone.  Asarone is a poison which has been shown to cause cancer, and has ill effects on heart, liver and kidney functions.  This toxin in calamus is used for pest control.  Why would God specify a large quantity of a poison be used in holy anointing oil?

In 1936, Sula Benet, a Polish etymologist from the Institute of Anthropological Sciences in Warsaw revealed solid evidence of the Hebrew use of cannabis.  The word “cannabis had previously been thought to be of Scythian origin as Scythians first brought the plant to Europe, but Benet showed it has much earlier origin in Semitic languages like Hebrew. Sula Benet “In the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament there are references to hemp, both as incense, which was an integral part of religious celebration, and as an intoxicant.”  Benet demonstrated that the word for cannabis is “kaneh-bosm”, and in traditional Hebrew “kaneh” or “kannabus.”  The root “kan” here means “reed” or “hemp”, while “bosm” means “aromatic.”  This word appears five times in the Old Testament (Exodus, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel) and has been mistranslated as “calamus”, a common marsh plant with little monetary value that does not have the qualities or value ascribed to “kaneh-bosm.”  The error occurred in the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, the Septuagint in the 3rd century BC, and was repeated in translations that followed.

It is illogical to assume that a plant as important as cannabis, which is such an incredibly useful source of fiber for textiles, loaded with nutritive oils and medicinal properties while also being non-toxic and ridiculously easy to grow, would have gone unnoticed and would have been ignored by the Judaic religion.

With as many benefits (medicinal and utilitarian) that cannabis has to offer humanity, I contend humanity needs to expedite the end of prohibition of this non-toxic plant, and have it removed from the governments drug scheduling listing. There is no valid reason to have our brothers and sisters jailed for consuming this “NON-TOXIC” plant. There is no need to have lives ruined for trying to be healthy.

Bible-believers, specifically, need to thoroughly examine this issue in light of the etymology (the origin of a word and the historical development of its meaning), and the likelihood of mis-translation of “qenah” in the King James Version. WHAT IF God intended cannabis (as opposed to calamus) to be part of the anointing oil?


What do you truly know about this plant?

It’s time we talk about this. 

For more information or to get involved, please contact us at or join us on facebook atMissouri Christians and Cannabis or Hempeneers United.

Join the discussion @

Duped by Idiocracy: Christians, Cannabis, and Trusting the Government to Define Morality

Duped by Idiocracy: Christians, Cannabis, and Trusting the Government to Define Morality

Written by Ruth,
I’ve recently introduced my husband to a frightening documentary which told of a society in which a giant corporation had purchased multiple government agencies and thus was able to convince the people to subsist solely on this corporation’s manufactured product.  Believing that water was fit only for their toilets, the citizens of future America poisoned themselves and everything else by replacing water with Brawndo, “The Thirst Mutilator.”  Fortunately, a man who had been placed – and abandoned – in suspended animation five-hundred years prior suddenly awoke and managed to convince the citizens to water their crops with…well, water…and the people were saved from starvation.

I am, of course, referring to the 2006 film Idiocracy.  While watching it, one can’t help but chuckle and wonder what kind of IDIOTS would ever believe that they should replace all-natural water with a sports drink that happens to own the FDA, the FCC, and the USDA.  And yet here we are in a country in which the National Guard and State Police raid little old grannies with a helicopter in order to seize her single medicinal plant.  A country in which Americans don’t think twice before washing down their prescription pills with a Miller Light, or five, but haul out the pitchforks over their pot-smoking neighbors.  It’s a country in which doctors routinely over-prescribe opioids and set their patients on the path to heroin addiction. A country in which our police systematically hunt and destroy plants which not too long ago were valued for their many industrial and medicinal uses.  A country with an astronomical incarceration rate because it sentences men and women to prison for nonviolent, victimless crimes.


It’s not difficult to imagine the idiots of future America making the argument: “I believe what the government is saying about water.  I’ve seen the dangers of water firsthand and I’ve heard horror stories involving water.  Not only do scores of people drown in water, but I’ve even heard of people who have died from drinking too much water.  If water is too hot, it can scald you or boil the flesh off your bones.  If it’s too cold, you could get hypothermia and freeze to death.  Also, a lot of water is teeming with toxic chemicals and dangerous microbes.  It is better not to take the risk.  Also, a lot of people have abused water – they use WAY more than they actually need.  Some people even use it just for fun and invent new ways of using it, like scuba diving and water skiing, frittering away their time and their money on this liquid death.”

“But, Ruth, people need water to survive.  Our bodies are made of mostly water.  We will actually die if we do not have water.  Your analogy is stupid.”

To that I would respond: we all actually also need cannabinoids, and for some people an external source of cannabinoids is the difference between life and death.  They can shrink tumors and fight cancer; they can effectively treat epilepsy and alzheimers.  For many others, cannabinoids are the difference between thriving and merely existing.  They ease chronic pain, they stimulate the appetite and help the ill to consume the energy they require to fight their illness, and they ameliorate anxiety and depression.  What is stupid is to be afraid of a substance and ignore its beneficial uses because some people have abused it, or because the idea of smoking a medication seems wrong to you, or because it has intoxicating effects.

“But It’s a Sin to Become Intoxicated”

It is a sin to become “intoxicated” for the sole purpose of being “intoxicated,” unless by “intoxication” we mean pain relief or an elevation of mood for the depressive or an easing of anxiety for the anxious.  For some, such as those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, that “intoxication” is therapeutic, and it isn’t any more sinful to be “intoxicated” in this way than it is to be “intoxicated” from taking prescription antidepressants or anxiolytics.  For others, that “intoxication” is a side effect of their medicine, and it isn’t any more sinful than being “intoxicated” from taking prescription opioids as directed.  As the pill bottles warn, “Do not drive, operate heavy machinery, or do other dangerous activities until you know how this medication affects you.”  The same principle applies to cannabis.

As with any drug, there are pros and cons to using cannabis which must be weighed by each individual.  As we do with many other medications our doctors prescribe, we have to first try a drug to see how it affects us – whether or not we feel it is beneficial in treating the ailment it was prescribed to treat, and whether those benefits outweigh any negative side effects.

And in a market saturated with medications offering such potential side effects as hallucinations, “overpowering urges,” an inability to control bowel movements, benign or malignant liver tumors, fatal bleeding, dizziness, lightheadedness, coma, nausea or vomiting, seizures, severe pain, paralysis, massive weight gain, stroke, depression, suicidal thoughts and actions, and death, just to name a few, cannabis emerges as a natural and viable alternative.  It also happens to be far less addictive than prescription opioids and has a much higher safety profile than even Tylenol.


Yet many well-meaning Christians insist on applying a unique set of standards to cannabis which define any use as “abuse” and which define experiencing the effects of cannabis, no matter how mildly or medicinally, as “intoxication.”  This is based on a belief that any use of this particular plant is disordered, wrong, or “sinful” in and of itself.  But then perhaps drinking coffee is sinful because we want to feel the effects of caffeine, just as it is sinful to drink a glass of wine to feel its relaxing effects, as Mormons believe.  Perhaps taking ibuprofen to feel its pain relieving effects is sinful, as is taking Benadryl or NyQuil as a sleep aid.

On the contrary, I don’t believe it is inherently sinful to responsibly use a substance in order to feel relaxed or alert or to lessen physical pain.  If that is really what we believe, then we’ve falen into gnosticism.

Some early and medieval Christian ascetics, in fact, believed it was sinful to seek pleasure or comfort from food or drink, and so they starved themselves or ate unappetizing food, and only what was enough to sustain them.  Some also wore hairshirts in order to cause themselves constant discomfort.  And of course, they abstained from marriage and therefore any sexual contact.  Do you believe it is wrong to guzzle your water or eat beyond what you actually need, to enjoy a steak or ice cream, or to wear comfortable clothes and a good pair of running shoes?  If not, then stop pretending to be the ascetic you’re not.  Admit that you believe God created some things for our enjoyment and some things to improve our lives.

Just as we do, or ought to do, with everything else, it makes more sense to work to discover the properly ordered use of cannabis than to condemn it altogether.  And I honestly do not believe that I am arguing for Christians to figure out how to properly-order something that is inherently disordered, such as homosexual sex or transgenderism, greed or wrath, envy or vanity, gluttony, lust, pride, or idolatry.  I’m not talking about squaring a circle or inventing my own morality and my own god.

In my most recent post, I argued that in general, cannabis use isn’t “bad” or “sinful” in and of itself, and that a Christian may use cannabis with a clean conscience.  Drawing from several biblical passages and, I hope, staying true to their intent, I argued that cannabis is essentially “good,” as it is part of God’s creation.  It seems obvious to me that, like all other plants and animals, God placed cannabis under the dominion of mankind, to use according to our discretion.

Because cannabis isn’t poisonous and is extremely safe to use – rather, it possesses the ability to confer a multitude of benefits upon the user – precisely because it works in conjunction with the mammalian endogenous cannabinoid system, we can infer that God intended cannabis for human (and even animal) consumption.

At the same time, however, I pointed out that cannabis use for the Christian can be sinful if it is offensive to other believers and causes them to sin, or if it gets in the way of attracting converts to Christ (1 Cor 10:23-33).  It is also sinful to use cannabis if the user is acting against his own conscience in using it: if he believes it is a sin to use it and uses it anyway, then he sins in his heart (Rom 14:14-23).

Cannabis and the Law of the State

Given the above understanding of scripture, must we conclude that in a state where cannabis is still illegal, a Christian should probably not be using cannabis – not because the law in particular is good, but because it is sinful to risk the scandal of being arrested for possession?  I would not go so far as to say that the law ought to be obeyed because it was instituted by authorities which have been appointed by God (Rom 13:1-7).  As Dr. Norman Horn of the Libertarian Christian Institute has written in his article “New Testament Theology of the State,”

Submission to civil government, then, is always qualified. The command is …

Read more @ Duped by Idiocracy: Christians, Cannabis, and Trusting the Government to Define Morality

Overpopulation, Fact or Fairytail?

Overpopulation, Fact or Fairytail?

Overpopulation: The Perennial Myth

“What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint) is our teeming population. Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us . . . . In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race.”

This was not written by professional doomsayer Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb, 1968). It is not found in the catastrophist works of Donella and Dennis Meadows (The Limits to Growth, 1972; Beyond the Limits, 1992). Nor did it come from the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State’s pessimistic assessment of the world situation, The Global 2000 Report to the President (1980).

It did not even come from Thomas Malthus, whose Essay on Population (1798) in the late eighteenth century is the seminal work to which much of the modern concern about overpopulation can be traced. And it did not come from Botero, a sixteenth-century Italian whose work anticipated many of the arguments advanced by Malthus two centuries later.

The opening quotation was penned by Tertullian, a resident of the city of Carthage in the second century, when the population of the world was about 190 million, or only three to four percent of what it is today. And the fear of overpopulation did not begin with Tertullian. One finds similar concerns expressed in the writings of Plato and Aristotle in the fourth century B.C., as well as in the teachings of Confucius as early as the sixth century B.C.

From the period before Christ, men have been worried about overpopulation. Those concerns have become ever more frenzied. On an almost daily basis we are fed a barrage of stories in the newspapers and on television—complete with such appropriately lurid headlines as “Earth Near the Breaking Point” and “Population Explosion Continues Unabated”—predicting the imminent starvation of millions because population is outstripping the food supply. We regularly hear that because of population growth we are rapidly depleting our resource base with catastrophic consequences looming in our immediate future. We are constantly told that we are running out of living space and that unless something is done, and done immediately, to curb population growth, the world will be covered by a mass of humanity, with people jammed elbow to elbow and condemned to fight for each inch of space.

The catastrophists have been predicting doom and gloom for centuries. Perhaps the single most amazing thing about this perennial exercise is that the catastrophists seem never to have stopped quite long enough to notice that their predictions have never materialized. This probably says more about the catastrophists themselves than anything else. Catastrophism is characterized by intellectual arrogance. It’s been said of Thomas Malthus, for example, that he underestimated everyone’s intelligence but his own. Whenever catastrophists confront a problem for which they cannot imagine a solution, the catastrophists conclude that no one else in the world will be able to think of one either. For example, in Beyond the Limits, the Meadows tell us that crop yields, at least in the Western world, have reached their peak. Since the history of agriculture is largely a history of increasing yields per acre, one would be interested in knowing how they arrived at such a significant and counter-historical conclusion. Unfortunately, such information is not forthcoming.


But isn’t the world overpopulated? Aren’t we headed toward catastrophe? Don’t more people mean less food, fewer resources, a lower standard of living, and less living space for everyone? Let’s look at the data.

As any population graph clearly shows, the world has and is experiencing a population explosion that began in the eighteenth century. Population rose sixfold in the next 200 years. But this explosion was accompanied, and in large part made possible, by a productivity explosion, a resource explosion, a food explosion, an information explosion, a communications explosion, a science explosion, and a medical explosion.

The result was that the sixfold increase in world population was dwarfed by the eighty-fold increase in world output. As real incomes rose, people were able to live healthier lives. Infant mortality rates plummeted and life expectancies soared. According to anthropologists, average life expectancy could never have been less than 20 years or the human race would not have survived. In 1900 the average world life expectancy was about 30 years. In 1993 it is just over 65 years. Nearly 80 percent of the increase in world life expectancy has taken place in just the last 90 years! That is arguably one of the single most astonishing accomplishments in the history of humanity. It is also one of the least noted.

But doesn’t this amazing accomplishment create precisely the overpopulation problem about which the catastrophists have been warning us? The data clearly show that this is not the case. “Overpopulation” cannot stand on its own. It is a relative term. Overpopulation must be overpopulation relative to something, usually food, resources, and living space. The data show that all three variables are, and have been, increasing more rapidly than population.

Food. Food production has outpaced population growth by, on average, one percent per year ever since global food data began being collected in the late 1940s. There is currently enough food to feed everyone in the world. And there is a consensus among experts that global food production could be increased dramatically if needed. The major problem for the developed countries of the world is food surpluses. In the United States, for example, millions of acres of good cropland lie unused each year. Many experts believe that even with no advances in science or technology, we currently have the capacity to feed adequately, on a sustainable basis, 40 to 50 billion people, or about eight to ten times the current world population. And we are currently at the dawn of a new agricultural revolution, biotechnology, which has the potential to increase agricultural productivity dramatically.

Where people are hungry, it is because of war (Somalia, Ethiopia) or government policies that, in the name of modernization and industrialization, penalize farmers by taxing them at prohibitive rates (e.g., Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya), not because population is exceeding the natural limits of what the world can support.

Significantly, during the decade of the 1980s, agricultural prices in the United States, in real terms, declined by 38 percent. World prices followed similar trends and today a larger proportion of the world’s people are better fed than at any time in recorded history. In short, food is becoming more abundant.

Resources. Like food, resources have become more abundant over time. Practically all resources, including energy, are cheaper now than ever before. Relative to wages, natural resource prices in the United States in 1990 were only one-half what they were in 1950, and just one-fifth their price in 1900. Prices outside the United States show similar trends.

But how can resources be getting more abundant? Resources are not things that we find in nature. It is ideas that make things resources. If we don’t know how to use something, it is not a resource. Oil is a perfect example. Prior to the 1840s oil was a liability rather than a resource. There was little use for it and it would often seep to the surface and get into the water supply. It was only with the dawn of the machine age that a use was discovered for this “slimy ooze.”

Our knowledge is even more important than the physical substance itself, and this has significant ramifications: More people mean more ideas. There is no reason, therefore, that a growing population must mean declining resource availability. Historically, the opposite has been true. Rapidly growing populations have been accompanied by rapidly declining resource prices as people have discovered new ways to use existing resources as well as uses for previously unused materials.

But an important caveat must be introduced here. For the foregoing to occur, the political and economic institutions must be right. A shortage of a good or service, including a resource, will encourage a search both for additional supplies and for substitutes. But this is so only if those who are successful are able to profit from their effort. This is precisely what classical liberalism, with its emphasis on private property and the free market, accomplishes. A shortage of a particular resource will cause its price to rise, and the lure of profit will attract entrepreneurs anxious to capitalize on the shortage by finding solutions, either additional supplies of the existing material or the development of an entirely new method of supplying the service. Communicating through the use of fiber optics rather than copper cable is a case in point.

Entrepreneurs typically have drawn scientists and others with relevant expertise into the field by paying them to work on the problem. Thus, the market automatically ensures that those most likely to find solutions to a particular problem, such as a shortage of an important resource, are drawn into positions where they can concentrate their efforts on finding solutions to the problem. To cite just a single example, a shortage of ivory for billiard balls in nineteenth-century England led to the invention of celluloid, followed by the entire panoply of plastics.

In the absence of an efficient and reliable way to match up expertise with need, our efforts are random. And in the absence of suitable rewards for satisfying the needs of society, little effort will be forthcoming. It was certainly no accident that the takeoff, both in population growth and economic growth, dates from the decline of mercantilism and extensive government economic regulations in the eighteenth century, and the emergence in the Western world of a relatively free market, characterized by private property, low taxes, and little government interference.

In every category—per capita income, life expectancy, infant mortality, cars, telephones, televisions, radios per person—the performance of the more free market countries far surpasses the more interventionist countries. The differences are far too large as well as systematic to be attributed to mere chance.

Living Space. But even if food and resources are becoming more abundant, certainly this can’t be true for living space. After all, the world is a finite place and the more people in it, the less space there is for everyone. In a statistical sense this is true, of course. But it is also irrelevant. For example, if the entire population of the world were placed in the state of Alaska, every individual would receive nearly 3,500 square feet of space, or about one-half the size of the average American family homestead with front and back yards. Alaska is a big state, but it is a mere one percent of the earth’s land mass. Less than one-half of one percent of the world’s ice-free land area is used for human settlements.

But perhaps “living space” can be measured more meaningfully by looking at such things as the number of houses, the amount of floor space, or the number of rooms per person. There are more houses, more floor space, and more rooms per person than ever before. In short, like both food and resources, living space is, by any meaningful measure, becoming more abundant.

Finally, it should be noted that the population explosion has begun to fizzle. Population growth peaked at 2.1 percent per year in the late 1960s and has declined to its present rate of 1.7 percent. There is no doubt that this trend will continue since, according to the latest information supplied by the World Health Organization, total fertility rates (the number of births per woman) have declined from 4.5 in 1970 to just 3.3 in 1990. That is exactly fifty percent of the way toward a fertility rate of 2.1, which would eventually bring population growth to a halt.

Everything is not fine. There are many problems in the world. Children are malnourished. But the point that cannot be ignored is that all of the major economic trends are in the right direction. Things are getting better.

Contrary to the constant barrage of doomsday newspaper and television stories, the data clearly show that the prospect of the Malthusian nightmare is growing steadily more remote. The natural limits of what the earth can support are steadily receding, not advancing. Population growth is slowing while the supplies of food, resources, and even living space are increasing. Moreover, World Bank data show that real wages are increasing, which means that people are actually becoming more scarce.

In short, although there are now more people in the world than ever before, by any meaningful measure the world is actually becoming relatively less populated.

David Osterfeld

Dr. Osterfeld was assistant professor of political science at Saint Joseph’s College, Rensselaer, Indiana.


This article was originally published on Read the original article.