..History tells us when urban density beyond a definite degree was reached this was followed by a decline of 3 high civilizations. The Maya, Ancient Rome in 1 AD and after, and the decline of England after about 1776, before the decline the major urban areas in all three had about 1 million dwellers each.

..What may have caused these civilizations' decline was human overhunting of evolution's giant computer that had evolved over millions of years. It seems that there is often truth in the proverb, there is no bad which does not bring good, and if most higher animals are too many in number they become ill. But it wasn't much bad for us that we couldn't be overcrowded, because this in evolution would then have reduced the population, and most higher life would have then been more healthy and this would then have added to the population with cycles that conditioned us to well established limits of just how much any one animal or human may achieve by more or reduced overpopulation.
The rest of this site is about additional evidence of history, the most optimal way we might find other civilizations in the cosmos to learn how they won and use this to take control of our history, and other observations and conclusions vis a vis the link between overpopulation and history. The above is the synopses. The second post is about how we may buy time before the overpopulation consumes all our resources by use of some rather awesome new science. Click Here for The Science Of Machines To Reduce Overpopulation Safely ..

In evolution before the invention of fire we all lived in the tropics and had the optimum number of other people near us because we wouldn't have been living in the city or out in the country in houses and no one for miles, with the conditions most optimal for life in the outer realms of the cities as research shows, and this would be why. Another way of looking at this is the same general truth of Supply and Demand in economics. If there is more overpopulation, there would be either more competition (Demand) than the evolved amount of competition needed for the same resources (Supply) people would have gotten cheap in supply in all ages past leading to strain or illnesses like debt. Or the same motif rearranged; reduced resources of Supply for evolution's evolved amount of Demand that would have won in all other times for the same labor, which would also be a strain, either way, try as they may, most city dwellers would lose more than they would win. All there is is based on balance of action and reaction, good and bad, hot and cold, most of the life in the world is where the land ocean and air meet, where the forces are level. If one of these is out of balance, evolution may cause problems if treated with inconsideration.

..This would explain why the plague of the 14th century was followed by the brilliance of 400 years more. Since the time from the start of the plague to the rebirth of the 14 hundreds was just one 14th the time from the start of the decline of the ancient world (when it went from the B.C. of ancient Rome to the empire) to the 14 hundreds, it's improbable to have been just coincidence. If even the conditions in the dark ages weren't enough to lower the overpopulation to revive civilization, all around us, the high civilization before and after us may owe perhaps 90 percent of it's wealth and science just to the plague. So if the middle ages were too overcrowded, and the plague hadn't reduced the overpopulation that improved the more general health of Europe, the middle ages might have stayed for 1000 more years. A rather startling conclusion; all or most of what we see of the world of civilization may its owe wealth and power, and the golden age of painting, authors and soundsmiths before, the invention of science-to mice. (This was how the plague was in ships and reached the west.)

.IIf the overcrowding is with us today this would be why half the world is in communism now. All we are is based on our relationship to land, so if overcrowding is the cause this would seem to say that communism isn't gone, just sleeping. The overpopulation is higher than ever, and I believe this would be why they seem to have it worse in Russia now than before Vlastnost. Of the first 29 countries that went communist (e.g. Estonia, Ukraine, or China) only the 29th, Cuba, is in the New World, This would be because the Old World, being civilized like with machines before the west had higher population density ahead of the rest of the world. This combined with the strain caused by bad weather would have caused first the Soviet Union and other countries like the satellite nations of W Europe to go communist. If overpopulation is the problem this would cause the west to go communist sooner or later if the overcrowding continues. This is why ways of reduction of overcrowding may be of great import to our world of 2859. Even if great engineering motifs to find more room are a Win on the world's MSN account it wouldn't be sustainable it seems without some real sort of reduction of density and/or overpopulation. If the number of people increases a lot we would use up all the room found even elsewhere like on the moon or mars, so I consider methods of machines to find more room for us to be just a way out for a while; any advanced civilization would survive only by voluntary limits on their numbers. All the resources would be used up otherwise. Imagine if in 50 years we all have just a room to breathe in.

..Since the image of our evolved amount of optimal room is much the same as the actual land because brain research shows a thought about what you see and when you think of the same image without it present are much the same, the evolution of the idea of the exact amount of room per person is much the same as the room itself. This would be why in research with overpopulation in higher animals, the illness it causes reduces the overcrowding often years before the food is depleted. While it's the best evolution may be able to allow for us or them, I think this is just evidence it's of worth to consider evolution and not just ourselves. Ideas about life would be more highly evolved than land alone because they would allow better control of the territory by the usual motif of smartness. An idea about what is physical allows better control than just luck. So if the overcrowding is one of the main problems the world has, it's important to reduce the density, perhaps by engineering or other machines like computers, to buy time to reduce it.
..Though this idea is about people's unkindness to evolution and how it has much in common with the motif of a crime, first excess, then deficiency, I believe if we reduce our numbers/unit land these days so we would buy enough relief by this method, we could actually reduce the overpopulation, not just change the density with more time. People aren't ready to reduce, it would be more burden yet, sort of like losing fat. They find this increases risk of death many times, and the young people are most able to diet, so if weight reduction wasn't much common in evolution because of no tempting lunch, and most were healthy so were never overweight, (because we didn't evolve overweight) evolution would consider diets to be stressful and the older people would have more risk thereof (or this would seem a more probable prediction). So too overpopulation was absent in evolution, and for now just reducing the burden of too much competition for reduced resources would be the most strengthening. Once the world was made stronger by reduced density, then we could consider more active (peaceful) reduction of the overpopulation.

..If you multiply up any number of organism like an amoeba, with the rate doubling and redoubling and no mortality rate, in just 30 years depending on the volume of room of each, calculations show the room occupied would take up more room than the the farthest astronomers can see and if it were possible the outward surface of expansion of the mass of these lifeforms would be faster than the speed of light. We may reduce our number of people per unit of land area by finding more of the room, buying time enough to reduce to levels of 1800 or 1900 from that time on out. I consider this salvation for those who were unaware about how ecology is the foundation of evolution, but who with a bit of effort and the power of science, could achieve the most golden exultation as good as any in the history of all neighbors who are so strong they lift us up when they say hi-mine all are! If we have just goals and can't help us how can we help others? Even if there's no way to bring our Eden back, the way to Aurora, OH should always be where lights are up and Christmas!

 And what about all the sites that say WOW! THERE IS NO PROBLEM!? My father would always say, the ones who say money isn't important are the ones who have a lot! By the increased competition, overpopulation cheapens the labor of the poor, this is like the laborers in Chinese sweatshops. I wouldn't doubt a survey would show there would be strong correlation between these who say there is no problem and the level of affluence they have. "He knows the worth of bread who hasn't had enough to eat." Listening to their advice about this may be unwise, they may offer good advice neither to us or them. The chinese communists seem smarter than them, they recognize there is a problem and I believe the new CRISPR cheap gene editing method that's been found may be much of worth to reducing the overpopulation rapidly and with celebration! I'm not a conservative, except for my common sense about something like this. 9 out of 10 of us in the science field are actually not conservative in surveys. A common sense view of overcrowding is what science allows. It seems like a person weighs 2 tons and the bad people say we'll have to amputate to lose weight because they don't care, and you'll die if you don't diet, and dieting is not so achievable with ease. The CRISPR method seems like a fast method of not dying as is common for high levels of fat not found in evolution.
Click Here or see post at end for more about CRISPR.

..A way to prove that overcrowding is the cause the present strain and weariness in the world which many report to the nurses (a weariness epidemic with 99% saying they're tired) would be to take healthy volunteers for research who lived in the suburbs all their life and move them to the city with the same amount of money for a few years, and measure how healthy they are about fatigue, stress hormones, blood pressure, and so on. They say blood pressure goes up when a person talks. I think it may go up higher when listening to others talk, this may also be of worth researching, as on this site which has recent evidence that noise is harmful and even about as harmful when we sleep, research shows noise raises blood pressure for hours even if the noise is stopped. And conversational distractions ("noise") have been found to reduce workplace efficiency by 57%, costing the life of our business a huge amount, from this you can see how overpopulation and it's behavioural stress is involved in Supply and Demand and perhaps causing the deficits that have been going on. By this about the evolution of our ideas about our land being much the same as the land, the image of the unhealthy noise may be the main way is the main way urban life is causing social woes for people who live there, and if so there's good news. Relief from the noise may soon be available without having to leave the city! They now have chips that cancel out most of the sound by an inverse wave worn as an audio. With the chip speed doubling fast, these headsets may soon allow smoother rest. Without peace of mind where is life? A more advanced aid that may eventually be achieved for you is a CONVERSATION SMOOTHER, (also know as AR Augmented reality). a headset that uses speech recognition to quickly bleep out the bad sounds like a loud song and hear just what words or dogs you like by computer. It would be a sort of filter so you hear all the good words, and "bad" words a lot better like if the boss yells at you which has been found to be harmful to health. Another way to clean up the sound sooner than this more future science is a sort of shredder that recognizes the start of bad sounds and shreds the wave by a delay in the time of the sound wave (see site map links). This may be as good as antinoise, but using existing science it may be available in just months not years, they now say just 2 or 3, and while computerized antinoise that stops 99% of noise is on the market it costs 400$ While I yell Ouch! just a few months and they'll be chip cheap. I think this and the other science of the more evolved cyber control of the sound (AR) will be a huge hit, because of the sound problem that may be making millions weary and brain tired.
..You may say, reducing overcrowding would be like overweight, no one can achieve this, so why try? If there are reasons like Good and Bad being the most important behaviour in evolution as has been proven in the math of higher evolution, there may be enough cause to try a method like a reflex arc. To reduce overpopulation like with the ozone layer and CFC's, a reliable connection between overcrowding and the problems it causes may be of worth to inspire us like dieting via a talking scale that doesn't say yum yum, but that boosts a dieter via speech when the person was considering diet meltdown, if they run (and win the marathon!) to the scale and there is a definite weigh to know what's being won or lost for what, like a scale for overpopulation to relate increases to the rate of foreclosures, drug use, debt and so on we would have more definite evidence and a real means to reduce it before the results may not be reversible. This would be the same reflex arc of the neurons, science and evolution, and so on, and we would at least have a warning from evolution. Strong computers have been well programmed to win by choosing a knowable payoff over not knowing for the same payoff (the payoff of knowing is worth more and is not the same.). We wouldn't be able to say we were unwise. And this might be a good reduction method too by way of sensors worn that would be enlightening!

..This explanation of Resources and Competition being a limit to advanced civilizations would also explain a problem long known to science; if advanced life is so common in the universe, why are not all the stars and other Milky Ways we see teeming with the machines and lights of advanced civilizations? Would they all just drive motorcycles? My explanation would be that on most advanced worlds the start of civilization was followed by the overpopulation, which then stopped the advance of the civilization. Advanced civilizations would seem to have the inevitable inconsideration of evolution's worth since preservation of the species itself was important to evolution, just the extreme is unhealthy.


..If overpopulation is indeed what's limiting the number of advanced civilizations, this explanation about Supply and Demand would imply that civilizations remaining would have all limited their numbers to survive, even if they had found ways to reach other star systems and more room to live in, because once they had colonized another world, they would have to limit the overpopulation at that point too with limited room in a while. This would be like what Malthus thought about population increasing by second or third powers more than resources. No matter how much room we find we'll always have to limit our numbers, even if we colonize a large number of worlds, because with more overpopulation by this explanation there also would be the illness with it that would slow and stop progress in a sort of age like the Middle Ages except perhaps for much duration.
.
..To find more advanced civilizations, if we search among many star systems the chance goes up we will and there are a lot more star systems outside the Milky Way. My belief is that it's possible we could use Einstein's idea of gravity waves for communication with an advanced civilization, except in real time, perhaps my own hour to shine a bit. I believe because gravity is lighter than a lite dish, it's possible gravity waves may travel faster than light. Gravity may not have all the relativistic mass gain and so on because gravity would be at another energy level like AM/FM stations of much unlike wavelength which don't resonate or pick up the signal. There wouldn't be much interaction between the more electromagnetic speed of light and the higher speed gravity waves so gravity could travel faster than light without relativistic mass augmentation or time slowdown. You lighten up to travel at higher speed and gravity would be faster than light because the intrinsic strength of gravity is much reduced compared to light.

-
..The use of gravity wave astronomy might be achieved by an experiment of my own authorship using a mass of the right amount of more robust size than the Torsion Balance experiment, devised about 1800 to find the force between two masses as one swivels past the other spinning the second mass with the force. To find the gravity wave via the giant motion a solar mass explosion has, we already know the mass it would take to find this wave by just changing the ratio of the Torsion Balance machine by Sir Issacs simple law of radiant energy, m1xm2 over r to the second power. For example since the sun was farther away, the mass of this gravity wave telescope would be larger but since the solar the events are massive, this will also reduce the mass needed to find the wave. If the waves actually are faster than light we would see first the wave almost instantly and a half an hour later we would see the light from the same event. This would be a simple way to prove if gravity is faster than light. (Even if gravity turns out to not be faster than light not this experiment is worth doing because it would be gravity wave astronomy.) Here's my Complete Faster Than Light Site With Simple Experiments That Would Prove or Disprove This.
.

..As I say I think we would search for advanced civilizations outside the Milky Way because of more chances we would find the civilizations. Some think "an advanced civilization might no more think of using light to communicate than we would think of using smoke signals.". If it turns out the speed of light is the top speed, our option would just be observation and no actual communication would be available to us with an advanced civilization because of the slow speed of light. However if gravity is of higher speed we would be able to reach the advanced civilization in almost real time because the hugely reduced mass density of gravity would mean a fast signal. If you like physics, here are my general synopses of physics.
..One of the main things we would learn would be how it was the one civilization of all the rest was able to light up the entire galaxy by achieving sustainable life. (We would know them most easily by the light of all the stars. By definition this will be a civilization that's both easy to find and the most worth finding.) If they survived they would know how they did it, and I think because of this explanation about overpopulation they would say they achieved it by limit of their numbers. This would be good PR for my explanation that overpopulation creates illness that would limit almost all advanced civilizations, any civilizations that could find out how the more robust advanced civilizations achieved life would have higher survival rates than the rest. The limitation of the advanced civilizations would probably not be caused by anything involving smartness or intelligence, certainly civilization has lots of proof that if this was involved with an advanced civilization the civilization like our civilization would have the advantage and would usually, or always win. Brilliance without the limit of overcrowding was the greatest survival aid of all the billions of years of evolution of life on earth. What people have done to evolution is unparalleled, and presumably it wouldn't be uncommon that this would be how most advanced civilizations would also treat their world's evolution, and the most worthwhile ways to win in life are with labor and love, labor is about skill, and high moral brilliance is our love of life. We can't revive evolution as it is, but we can learn what's wisest for us at any event in the times ahead via evolution, and if the idea of Supply and Demand wins, perhaps with the advent of this possibility of gravity wave astronomy in a few years we will have more than Malthusian witness if overpopulation is involved in the evolution of behavior and this wisdom is a breath of life to the civilizations.

..I think we may actually find more room not on the surface of worlds [and space stations would be too flimsy so too expensive] but inside them by blasting out spherical rooms with perhaps atomic or conventional explosions, and then quenching the radioactivity if the blast is atomic by heating or other means, so the rocks are cooled down in just a few hours instead of millions of years. We could then live in the rooms safe from the problems like war or radiation that would make space stations so high in price, with rooms of fast and easy construction. more..This would be easiest and better than any other method e.g. because of the flimsiness of space stations, but not easy. If there were any easy way, all those advanced civilizations from the huge number of stars with life support would have achieved it. I saw this seniors site called Fight Aging who also say "simple back of the envelope calculations show America could support 25 billion in comfort with a third left for recreation and other use". What the author of this site forgot was that if it's 25 billion one day in a few days it would be 50 billion, and in a few more, 100 billion, all the room will be used up without voluntary control at some point before this or most people would starve. I think we have two options, the wiser way of a reduced population levels like it was in evolution for millions of years, or perhaps the alternative of crashing. If it were well known that these are our real options "when the cosmos or evolution were created we weren't consulted" I think we should consult evolution and if we know what mother nature thinks is wise I think it's just to accept life in moderation and be kind because our body is like a miniature earth. The systems are in pairs, e.g. your heart and renal function, if one is hurt the other labors more to make up for the deficiency. If one muscle is overdeveloped and the other is reduced, risk of damage goes up, we may want have use the leg or our arm of civilization. Too much life, like a solid gold room, may not be nearly so good for rest like consideration of evolution.

. Of all the engineering and other bright stuff on this site, I consider this explanation of life by far the most important- all else is worthless without life lived well and room of our own. If you agree, please remember I think my explanation may be of more value about the rest of our lives than any other at this time in our history. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for the environment, and you. Encyclopedia Americana says that most countries have more the problem of urbanization (moving to the cities) than overcrowding. So we have another good option by which we may be able to buy more time and slow the overcrowding if we move to the country. This is my belief, if you want to help save the world, and sleep sound, move to the suburbs of the world village, you won't have to shout, and you'll hear the shine and see the stars. While the plans of this site may help us for a while I think the only real solution my be by voluntary reduction of our numbers-just like a usual advanced civilization would!

.

WHAT HISTORY MAY HAVE BEEN LIKE WITH CONTINUOUS OVERPOPULATION

..Without the reduction of overpopulation caused by the plague, I think history would have been much like watching The History Station without, just the Half Hour Infomercial! Constantinople, the Rome of the east, had much of the documents held over from the ancient world, they had saved in just Byzantium. If the middle ages had continued a thousand more years sooner or later Constantinople would have fallen (it fell in 1453). Without even this 1/100th of the ancient world's authorship saved on the giant computer memory in Byzantium, the ancient sculptures and vase paintings would have stayed safe in bogs and dirt, but perhaps would have been saved and found eventually by college marms (a goddess saved is a goddess urned!) and after a 1000 year more delay for a reawakening, authors like Shakespeare would have had to reinvent the word processor. Copernicus or Newton would not have had the guidance of the ancients like Aristarchus as foundation of the heliocentric vision that the earth goes around the moon. No serious scientist after Aristotle believed the world was flat (they saw all the ships and waves were upside down, right!) so a latter day Columbus without the benefit of the ancient wisdom would have had reduced hopes of wages from the royal lenders to find the US. Whether the western world would have been found would not have been so certain; a continued age of slow life when all were in their 45's or 50's would have both reduced explorations, but increased invasions, like nations when they are "having a bad day" sometimes do.

 There would have been a lot of reaction in scholastic Europe to any hint the world was round. Though Saint Brendon of Ireland may have found the New World, like a computer with reduced computing power being slowed down by the overcrowding, it might have taken four or five such events to have convinced the church that more land might be there. Supposing that there was exploration even if no plague to finally reach the new world (it's considered possible the Romans could have reached America not by rowing but by sail via the ships they already had) if overcrowding may have defined the general course of history (as in the Four Great ages of an advanced civilization see below Time Lines of Worlds and Overpopulation in History Thereof) I imagine another possibility; the New world was colonized, and it becomes independent like the US was in the Revolution of 1776, that is to say the reduced overcrowding int he New World causes greater health for awhile and this leads to a revolt that the New World even without the plague may have had a general advantage to win. If we take the so called super cows bred for all sorts of advantages, drought resistance, more milk ect. and all the fences were stopped and they were allowed to roam with the wild cows in just a few generations they would blend in with the wild cows, because the super cows wouldn't stand a chance against the more general power of evolution. So too as in the miracles of art music and science of the 1600's suddenly reviving like like miracles of the ancient world rerising, the new world for a time like us in the revolution would have had an advantage, at least till the overcrowding increased here too. We know here that evolution is neither good or bad; if there were any inherent advantage to the New World as we so often would hear in the old days, we would have the same advantage now as in 1776, the English and the Old World and the US aren't inherently bad or good.-While it may seem when we accepted the overhunting of predators that went with civilization since overhunting was not of worth we were also accepting being for thousands of years with no way out of the middle ages except just luck, who would have turned down higher civilization? Few of the ancients actually did. Accepting civilization is not guaranteed to be the same as accepting evolution's woe. While there are obviously other influences in history [see this link for how Weather and Other General Influences On History can predict (with a 90% correlation) who were the great civilizations in history when, based on available resources (like good weather) to them] I think any motif from millions of years of evolution like this, is of more worth than just luck to know about in general.



..
What Caused The Great Depression of the 1930's? When you type in this search the top sites have complex interlocking explanations, " bank failures, lack of generosity about loans by the banks that survived government errors, over investment" and so on. These intricate explanations seem too complex to have been the cause. I believe that behaviour about evolution in general at least is simpler than this. I know a lot about many types of truth and I know what my talents (like "music, science, painting, invention, comedy") all share in common. A cat's neurons are almost exactly the same as our brains, we just have more. And an important belief about creativity has been winning with research "in the lab"; creativity is not a blinding burst of power, rather it's many regular buildups of creative power leading to overpowering the problems creativity solves. Many who are wise about the science of creativity would say Einstein wasn't so much amazing as just a great profreader. (It's what he left out as much as what he left in.) So too, in the foundations of math all there is in the cosmos has been proven to be based on symmetries, what changes and what stays the same, this leads to the classification of all sets in the cosmos (all there is). And the cosmos is founded on energy conservation, a simple law, the same general law as the symmetries, action reaction pairs like the simple mass of the earth and the more complexifying energy of the moon, and with intelligence, i.e. neurons and synapses have a simple structure, simpler on one side and more complex on the other, here too what changes and what stays the same. You may say that behaviour is complex right, but having hurt evolution so definitely is a greatly simplifying action, and like the action reaction pairs it changes supply and demand so much all other causes would be minor.

~The failure of the banks in the 1930's I would compare to all the complexity of chemistry versus the simplicity of this simple general law like energy conservation since behaviour is simple (even if with complex results the cause controls most of what goes on). The "New science of Behavioural Economics" seems to be more nearsighted than just Supply and Demand. They use MRI when they measure how the brain behaves with changes in money (Scientific American July 2009 The Science of Bubbles and Busts). The brain center for money illusion in the cortex of the brain ("you think its worth more than it is") was "proven" by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. It's true you can find correlations between behaviour and other behaviour and they are often of worth in healthy brains to improve what goes on, but this may be nowhere near as much of worth to us as the correlation between the most general physical foundation of our territory and resources by the basic motif of Supply and Demand. While correlations of complex behaviour may influence an unnatural situation not seen in evolution somewhat, the idea that economics is inherently complex in general may not be true. In the article economist Andrew Lo is quoted as saying, "Economists have yearned that 99 per cent of economic behaviour could be captured in 3 simple laws of behaviour like physics. In truth, economists have 99 laws that capture 3 percent of behaviour". For all the wonder of Lo's economic math and science there is no doubt there is actually the one law of Supply and Demand, like action and reaction pairs. It's also like a law of morality, if we do kind in general to the ecology, or act like we have in respect to overcrowding by limits on population this is common sense. I think of modern creativity like Rap music or Picasso as about control. Control seems so important, we could hardly live without some, perhaps control seems to make the world go round. Perhaps the most important definition of Modern Art compared to older creativity is it seems to have lack of control in both emotional and skill levels. But before we say Picasso is bad I remember that kindness and forgiveness are even more important because after all there are lots of bright people in jail, yet no amount of smartness may get them out if they've been unkind. so too for all the tricks of modern times, and ancient times too, kindness in general to evolution or its equivalent may be our best defence. There they were the ancient philosophers saying (presumably caused by the overpopulation rising even then) these young people these days, the old ways were better, where's my Grecian Formula 2000? In the Money Bubble article, the author compares "efficient markets vs. bubble markets", one healthy the other unhealthy because of behaviour like "herding" where some start to invest and others follow even without any real value to the money, leading to a crash. To paraphrase, "Earlier theories about economics used the assumption that investors acted rationally and the price of a commodity would reliably reflect its value. Since this is not what we are seeing with the economic problems like the mortgage failures, we must revise our method. I.E. In research people often buy more from those who laugh more, and this is irrational." I would say people always bought more from others who would boost them more with laughter, if the seller was willing to "pay" them more with laughter which boosts the brain in much research and MRI, they already are rich enough to be in the know, a reliable authority. The laughter would reflect the real value of what the "economic comic" was selling in times when the Supply and Demand were not thrown off by people treating evolution bad. There may be many other types of economic behaviour that may seem to correlate with the brain in MRI but they may have little effect on our relation to the evolution other than bringing down the overpopulation by way of the deficiency that may be common with increased Competition for Decreased Resources. With this the price of all commodities would go up because of increased demand for reduced supply. It's not just that prices don't reflect the real value of commodities with overcrowding, in essence because the price is higher than evolution would have because most of evolution is now absent. Prices have been rising because with more people in essence goods are becoming more and more scarce (this would be why historians find inflation was a problem in ancient Rome, like our own time there was overcrowding).

Overcrowding may be a simpler explanation than all the bank complexities would be. It seems improbable all the complex changes that took place in the 1930s were just caused by luck, if there was a basic simple change in behaviour relative to our evolution we just can't live without, this would be the explanation of why the complexity of the problems started then in the 1930's. All the complex failures were at once it seems because there was a simple, underlying cause. Overcrowding Would Change Supply and Demand. Because evolution was essentially more based on goodness than bad. If we treat evolution bad we may not be justified by evolution in most other claims we may make. In the evolution of behaviour (like Von Neumann's method) the most important behaviour is not rich or poor, dumb or smart, rather, life is more about good and bad. Because of this when people treat evolution unkind, this may be of worth for all of us to take notice of, it may hurt most of us or all of us by way of Supply and Demand if we treat the world with inconsideration. Economists say, corporations (like for business) are immortal, they live on after we will. If we live to be 100 and treat our body or the world bad there may be no better place to live than the world or body we have.

 When I read all these sites about how events like the great depression or the dark ages were with complex causes, it reminds me of the fable of The Repentant Cat I once read about in a great collection of folk yarns about cats. The cat was being unkind to the mice and the mice said so, so one day the cat said, "Enough! I've heard it so often, there must be truth in repentance. I'll do what you say. From now on no more mousing! I'm a truly repentant cat. I'll do so if you just grant me one favor, when I'm on the cushion in my throne room (I'm worth being exalted for being repentant) all I ask is that you visit me there and bow down, one by one, before me." So the mice agreed, thinking what a great cat this was to be so kind, and they all were celebrating, repentant cat and mice alike. And each day they lined up and bowed in the throne room behind the rug, one by one just as the cat had asked. All went well till after a few weeks it seemed to two of the mice who were more noticing than the rest that there were fewer mice than before. So the time after this, the mice told the rest and they waited for when they would bow, and the was an uproar, with the mouser and the mice running everywhere. I see these complex sites and I feel like people may have said, great, no more predators, we've reached Paradise for us, and I wonder if we like the mice are better off with the cat (or the equivalent, of lower population density, like moving to the country or the outer urban realms) than without, at whatever level evolution was in balance with for millions of years. Like the two mice, I'm noticing about a general change in numbers that all the complexity of the mouser leads others off on sidetracks at the same time most may pay extra for if it continues. The mice need the cat and the cat needs the mice because they co evolved over millions of years, like the muscle of your arm, if you can only move forward and not return your arm you have reduced options, and Darwin believed if there is even a small advantage, even for months of days this often is enough to determine survival in evolution.

 A life without some pain, like a boss, is a life without wisdom. If evolution will level out to it's evolved worth, why act as if otherwise. You may help by a lifelong visit to the country or the nearer outer realms! You may be boosting the world and you by doing a good deed so you are genuinely helping by doing so, you'll indeed be more able to help with your reflexes restored from the urban weariness. The cat and mice, like the trees in the forest if not held in natural balance by forest fires to trim them like at Christmas (the good side of Christmas I think) it may seem with too many trees, more than in evolution are literally without the advantage of the light to make them strong. All the complex explanations like with law to know what to do if in doubt without looking it up are often not needed if we use one important rule, Do Unto Others And Especially Evolution As We Would Have Evolution Do To Us And If Bad Deeds Have Been Done, Be especially Aware Of Overpopulation and take steps to counteract the way it tends to cause more problems than to solutions. And why not vote for me for a Nobel prize in Economics for doing better than relating behaviour to other behaviour! Supply and Demand relates to territory and the deeper truth.

One way we may achieve this without having to find land elsewhere like Mexico has achieved by way of TV Soaps to make people aware of what goes on like in urban realms and the way it has caused many dwellers problems there.



Click Here for How we May Reduce Population Density Without Reducing Birthrates using the science of the 2010's or more advanced technology and science (Or please read the following post if you have both posts.).

Time Lines of Worlds and Overpopulation in History Thereof

For an advanced civilization, the timeline of history may be much like our own, first there is the promise of civilization without overpopulation, an ancient classical era. From there there would be the increase of the population leading to a dark age. Carl Sagan says in Cosmos that the Greeks (via use of real science with evidence while others just thought) almost just did invent science in ancient times, and this would be the first major branching out from the time line of our own world, because if science had been invented as in our own time, there would be the two trends of the civilization, the downward trend caused by overpopulation and the upward trend of science. If atomic weapons had been invented in ancient times it's possible we wouldn't be here by now without colonization to other worlds like Mars, but while obviously a challenge, this wouldn't always be out of the question for advanced civilizations.
.
The second major branching of the advanced civilization's timeline would be as with our own world where some sort of plague would resolve the dark age that followed the classic age of healthy levels of population density that would go with the civilization's initial achievement. This resolution of the slowdown by plague may be common with advanced civilizations because of the unsanitary conditions of a dark age perhaps after 1000 years or 10,000 years. This is what I call a natural plague, caused by something we evolved with for millions of years that was present in evolution with its own natural limit, this would explain why it was that the plague reduced the population down but not to zero. In evolution the tendency would have been to reduce it to a certain level when people got the plague and then with lower population, the world would have rebounded with more clean living found in evolution than in overcrowded cities because we already had evolved with it and in life science we find that illness was mostly absent in evolution, so we had resistance. If this were not so with the natural plague type, over millions of years, evolution would have caused a fatal "natural" plague if there were much chance of this and we would have gone extinct and wouldn't be here. Thus on most worlds with an advanced civilization with the physics and the evolution caused by it the same general type, after the golden age of the classical civilization without real science there usually would follow a dark age. But just as in the history of our own world, this type of plague would do more good overall than harm because it would usher in a golden age like in the 15 hundreds. Then the overpopulation would start to increase in the time after the natural plague perhaps like our world with the invention of science, and a repeat of the two trends of science upward and overcrowding with it's downward tendency would take place including the possible solution by colonizing nearby worlds or worlds on nearby star systems.
.

 As of here in 2009 the new resistant germs are actually causing more deaths than AIDS because new drugs like antibiotics are being out evolved by the bacillus, and if world population densities go a bit lower if it actually turns out we reduce for the time being, and the rates of debt ect., also go lower about as much, this would be evidence that Evolution Via Supply and Demand holds true. While the correlation of the end of the Middle Ages and lower overpopulation with the advent of an age like in the 1600s or other "ancient" age could be coincidence, if the overcrowding is reduced by this second plague like the swine flu and another golden age follows, this would be a more causal link than just this already strong correlation of 14 to 1 proven by what we find in world history.

 As I realized this about our entire world history and how the great times seemed to be when there was reduced overpopulation and more natural and the bad times seem at higher levels of this, I was a bit puzzled by two things. The plague that may have created the golden age of the 1600's started in 1348 in England, yet there was an economic revival before this; Dante, Chaucer, and painters like Giotto, the founder of modern real painting seemd to have more skill than before; this about overcrowding is not like a prophecy; the golden age wasn't ready to start just to build up my other observations! So I was puzzled, why was there a considerable revival, both economic and cultural with the painters and authors seemingly with their skill returned before the plague, if the reduction of the overcrowding caused the high skill levels of the 1600's as Competition was reduced to more natural level.. And then I was reading in the Wiki site about overcrowding, there was the worst famine in the history of Europe at just this time, the early 1300's! My luck is not 13, the famine was caused by changes in weather I hadn't yet heard of.

 The second puzzle as I say was about why Rome and Greece collapsed if via overpopulation yet why Byzantium didn't collapse and retained the cultural treasures of the ancients another 1000 years. One the same Wiki site they say the first plague known in history was in Constantinope about 550 AD, the plague of Justinian. (This wasn't like the plague of tuberculosis that killed Pericles in the golden age of Greece. Justinian created the first code of law influential to us in all the time since.). About 300,000 people died in this plague of Justinian and the population of Constantinople, "the Rome of the East", like Rome had a population of 1 million before this.

Here's why I think Byzantium was in what seems like a sort of "suspended animation" for 1000 years, carrying over the culture of the ancients to us before it fell in 1453; Ancient Rome was crippled and fell. Byzantium would have too if not for the plague. Like trimming an unhealthy bush, the plague reduced it's branching. Now the branch is too ill to go foreward and be creative like Rome or Greece, yet not so ill it would crash; suspended animation...

 The general reduction may have had influence on the Carolingian rennaissance. Charlemaine was active about 775 AD and was crowned Christmas day 800. The plague of Byzantium influenced the rest of Europe and continued through to 600, and the time to Charlemaign was just to 775 or 125 years. By the same sort of suspended animation, the numbers would have been stabilized in N Europe too, and so added inertia to Charlemaign's hopes of an ancient revival, it is now at any rate! The lower level of density and it's influence would have carried over the hundred years after, as was stabilizing in Byzantium.

  Yet the empire of Charlegmein wasn't an empire, Neither Holy, or Roman or an empire, he held together the illusion of an empire, not by internal cohesion, but by military force . By Competition and Resources, the answer here compared to the 1600 golden age would be about what the numbers were before the plagues of famines. Constanople had one million people before the plague then, while the urban areas of Europe before the early 1300's had just 12,000 people each. When the European famine hit the revival by this explanation was already in nearer reach since 900 years of woe had already reduced these areas to far lower than before the time of Byzantium and Charlemaign. The 1300's famine and economic problems that first reduced the overpopulation just reduced the population 10 percent, yet even this much may have helped the following economic times, and the second plague reduced this by 60% and so the cities of Europe and Asia of the 15 and 1600's weren't just 2/3 better than before, they were 2/3 better than 12,000/300,000 of Byzantium or numbers already perhaps 1/10 of the time of the plague of Justinian 2/3 of 1/10th or 15 times lower. Byzantium held on, and the later age thrived and flourished.

---

Why Do The Orient and Europe Have Parallel Histories with A Golden Age, a Middle Age, A Rebirth, and A Modern Era?

_Carl Sagan in Cosmos in the chapter about the ancient Greeks says "The sixth century BC was a time of remarkable intellectual and spiritual ferment around the world. Not only was it the time of Theodorus, Anaximander, Pythagoras, and others in ancient Greece, but also the time of the Egyptians Necho who sailed around Africa to sail around by boat (not by starship..) of Zoroaster in Persia, Confucius and Lao Tse in China, the Jewish profits in Israel, Egypt and Babylon, and Gautama Buddha in India. These events would not seem unrelated."
...
 This would be because the ancient world had never been overcrowded, and civilization like the local football team where we live in August had never lost a championship, nobody knew it ever would yet. Sort of a childhood of civilization. It's been said for example that Plato was so read and respected all the rest of Western Philosophy down through history was a mere series of memos to make a few comments to modify his, the motifs staying the same in all the ages up to our time. All of us (if we're alive) have a mythology of our youth.

It's easy to see how the ancient world has had influence on our civilization, just as what we think has influence on the actual physical shape of our brains structure, the same way a tree branch multiplies up its structure to find the light in competition with other branches. In MRI they find that you can rewire your brain just by thinking, and you change the shape of your branches, it's also true that the branches you wire up when you are young are often what determines much of the rest of your life history. When you play in competition like with a machine you find that if you open with moves to the right, all the rest is determined by that (or with my level of genius, to the left!) You may say, the brain is like chameleon softwear, it's flexible and changes to adapt to conditions. It turns out you actually can teach an old goddess new tricks especially if a life is under strain like when you're a hero, the general shape of how you move your troops, like a branch in the woods without too much light, has the most influence. This would be why the ancients had so much influence. The later strain, caused by the illness caused by the increased Competition for the reduced Resources, like the branch with reduced light in the forest would have multiplied the perceived value of the ancient events. I think they were praised more than they would have been if civilization did well because of the illness of later times, like in the forest with reduced light where the strain causes most of the shaping and molding of the branches based on what happened at the start, praised not because civilization should have been ill in later history, but mostly because it was. I think we should all have greatness, not just the ancients (who are now dead)! Were they really that great? They were just accepted with many of their errors mixed in with their achievements. While I like their good and great ideas, and lots of the conclusions they reached were more worthwhile than not, I don't always agree with an idea just because it's ancient. For example Buddha said life is suffering, and in the light of the enlightened one is salvation to solve this problem. This has been accepted by millions, and yet biologists find that illness is almost totally absent in a natural system of evolution, so the conclusion that suffering is common is "What is uncommon?" I hope I can phrase my answer in the form of lots of wages just for knowing like I wannabe rich with Vanna! Who's ever heard the sound of a Palm VX clapping, if it has an FM well, could be!

One problem is how to explain what caused the same living conditions both in East and West from ancient history to our time.

The machines of war and the machines used to subdue nature were by definition usually more portable and lightweight than other machines like for mills (about 30 of which were invented in china, but it took a delay of 1000 years for each to reach the west) with the necessity to be mobile in war by horsepower, and in an age when material wealth wasn't valued as much, certainly the science of winning wars was more urgent and so these machines were more rapidly bought and sold, and this led to a more even distribution of the machines used to subdue evolution and this would be what caused the overcrowding to rise consistently in both the East and West of Eurasia. So the general conditions of life and death, the ratio of population density essentially, would have caused a parallel history of both the Orient and the West. This would also be consistent with the idea perhaps of the same general motif of The Four Great Ages mentioned above. Using overpopulation or the lack thereof to explain the general contour of history thus would also explain the parallel histories from ancient times otherwise unexplained of East and West in the same general way, not just the parallels by unknown cause of Sagan's two ancient worlds he mentions in Cosmos. If history in general is simple, the parallels of East and West, all four of the Ages historians say were in both the Orient and The West would seem to be more supporting evidence that this motif the 4 Great Ages may be a common timeline of worlds with advanced civilizations. The physics would be the same, so the life evolved from it would cause the same motifs because this is a simple motif. With both East and West having ages that correlate well with levels of population density for example feudal China and Japan were about the same time in history as the dark ages of Europe, the golden age of the Ming dynasty of China was parallel and contemporary with the golden age of the 1600's of Europe and both the East and West have ancient classic and modern eras, the link is much stronger between overcrowding or levels more like evolution and the general events of history. With two parallel histories the link is stronger because there are not just Four golden or dark Ages associated with low or high levels of overpopulation, there are essentially twice as many ages to compare, and it becomes a more causal link

  In history brilliance was more often good for control, and what we may need most for brilliance is just enough evidence to make enough impact the world would listen. Otherwise the world's illness may continue, and it's your and my world too. Evolution, not people may be the final arbiter, and adapting to Evolution even if she seems "immoral" where dying is common, or a reduced birthrate to achieve the same conclusion, may be wiser than rebellion. If dying itself is so bad, it wouldn't have been present in all of evolution for millions of years. We must be strong enough in our life to overcome overpopulation as if it were death, and our inspiration to make life more precious for it's limitations. We only get so many chances, and they are precious beyond this world.

  In more recent science, another example of the woes of urban renewal that may have failed with ancient civilization in addition to Ancient Rome, The Maya and England in 1776 may be that of Angkor Wat in Cambodia, this is now the largest temple in the world left over from ancient times. Angkor held more than 500,000 people in a block of about 20 miles. European cities of the time in the 12th 13th centuries had cities of just 10s of thousands. Popular Science June 08 in an article about satellite archeology tells of how archaeologist Damian Evans thinks the collapse of Angkor Wat in the 1200s may have been caused by so much intense cultivation of the land it finally collapsed by way of the system of canals and reservoirs they used for too much co-op activities. He bases this on images from above showing usual expansion of the lots in the jungle, and then the buildup is suddenly without the order at the outside. While Evans thinks this would be essentially a collapse of food sources, if overcrowding may have caused the collapse of other civilizations like ancient Rome, this may be proven or disproven by finding coins around this ancient trove of history. A shortage of food is not the same as a shortage of room to live, e.g. The economic conditions following the start of the Great Depression in the 1930's didn't lead to most people starving, and neither would necessarily a period of food shortage cause a loss of money by way of a lack of behavior and that's only loosely bound with food, we don't live by bread or live by bread a loan. Thus like in ancient Rome you might expect something like inflation before the loss of cultivation, which could be measured by coin output, there are always hoards of coins from ancient civilizations because they're small and durable. The overinflation or underinflation of the economy would precede the collapse at least some"wat!" if the cause was behavioural. Popular Science says "Evidence is building to suggest Angkor is not an isolated case, there may have been other sprawling cities in Southeast Asia. New orbiting machines may be used to see if early settlements in Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Burma also had the collapse caused by over cultivation." If my belief is correct, of most import may be to find hoards of coins from above and compare these with the agriculture, which would have declined somewhat after the time of inflation or deflation of the money in each of the urban areas.
I believe in the Four Great Ages. If there would have been parallel historys east and west because of like levels of population, why did Angkor Wat in Cambodia have like levels of population but wasn't in a dark age too? Because the same could be said of the Byzantine Empire that held over from the classic world of Greece and Rome a large hoard of the literature, and other ancient traditions just in time for the 1600's. Byzantium held out for almost 1000 years. I think "survived" is a good description of how this empire lived. Not much of original worth comparable to the ancient glory was achieved by the Byzantines, they were good to appreciate the ancients but they were just subsiding about higher realms of life. Constantinople, the Rome of the east in Byzantium had 1 million dwellers at the start of it's history but from there on the population decreased and this would be how it got by without collapse, as would would be expected if the overcrowding was the cause of the collapse of the ancient world itself but the moderate reduction may have aided the survival of Byzantium. But Angkor Wat being greater would have had more population density than the Byzantines and more risk of collapse.
~~

  DID The ANCIENT WORLD FALL, OR JUST Slowly BLEND AWAY?

 
  We often hear historians of the ancient world "these days" say the ancient world didn't fall, rather it just changed into something that was mostly like it was before, so in their belief there was no fall of the ancient world, just a gradual slide. This is a modern idea, not common to historians of the golden age of the 1600's to the mid twentieth century, and this could be a clue that it's more healthy to think Rome actually did fall, and use history to our advantage. If the historians of the 17th or 18th were healthy when they believed this about the ancient world, it would seem this simple perception would be more probable to be the truth. The overcrowding now may be influencing the historians' perception of ancient history itself. After all if history is a record of behaviour, and about Supply and Demand, overcrowding may be having a strong influence on the modern world, historians and 21 year olds alike! It's well known in the science of risk assessment people involved with risk think some harmful behaviour seems safer than other people who aren't with the same risk. If you smoke, chances are you'll think it's safer than nonsmokers, it often seems the ones who aren't overweight praise the value of exercise, and rich people are the ones who say money is unimportant! Even if this process of innuation to risk is natural, in order that in our life in evolution that we would build up resistance to harm, the lack of availability of a worthwhile resource like peace and quiet it seems would not be achieved with overcrowding just by ignoring it or by making more effort. It's not natural like boosting your immunity with poverty. In behavioural science if they ask you to name all the words where the third syllable begins with an O, it's tougher to solve than when the second syllable has an R! Thus the availability of an advantage determines it's perceived worth. If a person is poor and has lived poor all their life, they tend to think it's more natural, and if most of the modern historians have lived with the spiritual poverty of overcrowding, they would perhaps be out of reach of the even the idea of the golden age of the 1600's or of the greatness of the more ancient world, so without awareness it may seem to modern historians like it really didn't even matter to be aware of the harm that may come to us if the modern world may fail just as the ancient world if we don't know why. If it fell and we don't know why but find out and solve it, our chances of a better world where we survive and flourish may be much higher than if we just assume that the ancient world didn't actually fall. Like the light in the mine to find the air so the other miners can make it out of the mine in time, what's going on with the creative people like Stravinsky or Elvis in his later years would seem to be worth notice, because many say the creative people lead the way in their life and times, good or bad, for what happens to the rest of the world in 100 years or so later. Monet was in the 1860's and Elvis was in the 1960's, so I think of Elvis and Rock'n Roll like a sort of impressionist music, and not coincidentally it seems, the ancient Roman mosaics with about the same levels of overpopulation seem like the impressionists. I don't praise modern artists or other creative people on the radio for the bad news if they say they're hurt with each song, because often we dream of the glory of love, and good people don't profit from the suffering of others, and if you praise another for misfortune it's not good because they learn the mistake and it takes longer for them to recover than they would otherwise. I believe that only when the light says we have won will we have won.
~~

Overpopulation and U.S. History

   Here in the U.S. being young in the 60's and 70's was often hearing somewhat convenient truths we were told that we won 1776 because we were the good ones and England in the late 1700's was in sorry shape and the US was on "shedule" for our reliable ways being an inspiration the world. If you read any real good story you'll often find that like in evolution it's not as simple as this. Many chili eaters eat mozzarella (Low fat! My Mom's PR Here!)) While other wars up to Vietnam seemed to prove that we were the good and great nation and deserved to win, all or most nations we defeated had more overpopulation and by this explanation about Competition and Resources we may have actually won for the most because we were with lower levels of this harmful cause of overpopulation and it made us stronger. While no doubt we had this general advantage and then we improved on it with our brilliant science to better our world, my explanation of our lower levels of overpopulation being I think the main cause would be the general area we had to be in to win. In war Germany was defeated but overpopulation remains, and so too seem the problems like the budget deficit that may have influence on most if it leads to problems like before WWII. Blaming Germany for problems alone and not solving what would seem to be the real cause of that war if it were overpopulation I think could be the world's worst error. The convenience of that incorrect explanation may have been good to waste our time we could have spent or will be spending reducing the overpopulation (see second post below for some practical ways we can achieve more room, some as convenient as moving to the suburbs, and others more advanced like higher speed transportation to make the country and city more easy to go between, thus smoothing out the high density in the city while adding more persons in the country.) No doubt we had to defend ourselves in WWII, but Hitler didn't cause the general area of the depression of the 1930's that preceded it and his rise to power, so I think reducing the overpopulation would solve it better than just defending against problems caused by overcrowding and not the overpopulation itself.

. It may seem we won most other wars with our more healthy levels of overpopulation. We were more healthy than our enemies, by that measure we should have won Vietnam too, right? While U.S. in the '50s and '60s had lower levels of overpopulation than Vietnam, both the U.S. and much of the rest of the world by that time had unnaturally high levels of overpopulation, not just compared to each other like in 1776, but compared with evolution itself where both The US and Vietnam were overcrowded. Because of the way overpopulation would seem to limit itself by way of behavior like communist behavior (reduced Supply and More Competition causing illness and loss of life, reducing overcrowding) I think Vietnam won the war because they were favoring what was most natural by evolution's tendency to reduce the overpopulation because the US had the same problem and this would be an important reason much of the rest of the world is ill or communist, it may be evolution's way of reducing the overcrowding. (Birth rates fell about 75 % in the Former Soviet Union after the Russian Revolution in the 20th century.) Generally if nations have evolution on their side even if for a "bad" cause like reducing overpopulation they may do better than those and seem to win somewhat, or "more" overall like in Vietnam without this advantage. Even if communism is one way to reduce overcrowding, voluntary reduction seems a safer way, and in either event because of the baneful conditions overcrowding would cause like communism or WWII, it's tendency to reduce itself would mean we have to reduce it either way. I think if we do this a safe way it may be wiser than communism or worse.

   It seems like people are wasting their time with time getting tight on complex explanations, when Supply and Demand would save us if it was well known, So Thanks a Lot For Reading this Site, Copy It 10022 times and on and on, Tell It To All The World And Work Your Wonders On High Power. This To Me Seems To Truly Be The Best Salvation, Brighter Than Any Other In The 20th or 21st Century. If we're smart about evolution, I believe we could well achieve a return to a golden age like the ancient world or the world of the 1600's if we were determined before it's too late.

.Carl Sagan says in COSMOS just as we can't predict what evolution would evolve to, no weather machine to know tomorrows history, we can't know who will make history without a time machine and this seems not much probable. While we can't know exactly what will take place, we would know the general cause. If you go outside and there's more heating up your outfit in a heat wave if it's hot, and it will rain down if it's moist. Overpopulation or underpopulation are not optimal like life should be!

Click Here to read the following post for How we May Reduce Population Density Without Reducing Birthrates using the science of the 2010's or more advanced technology and science like CRISPR (or please read if you have both posts.).

MAIN PAGE; ENCYCLOPEDIA COMPUTORIA, SCIENCE

..