It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Famous quotes on reducing the World's population.

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hellas
Do the Georgia Guidestones count?



Yes, they count for a lot.

At this point, I don't think the question is whether population control needs to happen. I think we all know that it does because we have gotten too far from being able to practically and usefully relocate various populations. Meaning that we have too many people crowded in too few places and no practical way of relocating them in order to achieve a better balance between people and nature. If we can find a way to do that and then actually implement that idea, we would have no use for this conversation.

Therefor, the question before us now is......where do we start. The only practical places to start would be with people whom we would all feel guilty as hell when we exterminate them. We all know who these people are and where they are and why it would be for the benefit of everyone else's well-being if they were gone. The only other option we have that most people could live with are the groups of people, world-wide, who promote and actively practice the killing of others for ideological reasons. But then we would have the bleeding hearts crying "Who are WE to judge"?




posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Answer
Apparently, Australia alone is so big, that every man woman and child on Earth could receive their own quarter-acre piece of land.

Yeah, but that would be sharing, and promote nasty things like egalitarianism.

I prefer this quote


“The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed.”

Prove to me that it's scientifically inaccurate and I'll change teams.



Actually, the onus is on the person making the claim to prove it not on others to disprove it.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Who put anyone of you in the position to declare such a thing? You work under the disguise of the typical, caring, bleeding heart, then you are judge-jury-executioner. You are really just a lot of monsters.

And the bill gates quote is rich considering his human farming program in Africa has caused population explosion. People like to talk down God with one side of their mouth and play him with the other.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
a reply to: gladtobehere

How come it is when the people that say this nonsense never leave it on a note next to their bed when they take their own life offering to lead the way to a civilized earth prosperity?

What they are saying is, now I have enriched myself and it's time for you to go, thanks for your help now AMF.

I say let them lead by example.


Has it occurred to you that a solution to overpopulation is to lessen or stop reproducing? That doesn't involve killing any people.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere

Prince Phillip:

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”



Well, pity he didn't drop dead in Wales and return as a killer virus during the NATO conference.


edit on 7-9-2014 by jajaja because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arpad
Who put anyone of you in the position to declare such a thing? You work under the disguise of the typical, caring, bleeding heart, then you are judge-jury-executioner. You are really just a lot of monsters.

And the bill gates quote is rich considering his human farming program in Africa has caused population explosion. People like to talk down God with one side of their mouth and play him with the other.


What God?



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I am a stupid and insignificant human as are you. The ones among us that can reach a point to dictate how other stupid and insignificant humans live and die, effectively become Gods.

Maybe the population is or isn't a problem, either way we are no way in a position to regulate that. Wealthy people such as those quoted are especially not in shape to make such judgments.

edit on 7-9-2014 by Arpad because: auto spell



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I would like to think there is some burden of proof, or at least due diligence, to be fulfilled before a culling of the general population occurs. But that in itself has its own problems. Who decides what is proven and what is diligence? This is nothing more or less than the death penalty for crimes against humanity on a global scale. With no representation, no defense, no appeal, no parole.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Stemo


There you go...More wasted resources!



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arpad
a reply to: Tangerine

I am a stupid and insignificant human as are you. The ones among us that can reach a point to dictate how other stupid and insignificant humans live and die, effectively become Gods.

Maybe the population is or isn't a problem, either way we are no way in a position to regulate that. Wealthy people such as those quoted are especially not in shape to make such judgments.


Speak for yourself. I am neither stupid nor insignificant. Gods are supernatural deities. Humans are not supernatural deities.

Obviously, overpopulation is a problem. We are in a position to change that. How does wealth equate to "not being in shape to make such judgments"??



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I would like to think there is some burden of proof, or at least due diligence, to be fulfilled before a culling of the general population occurs. But that in itself has its own problems. Who decides what is proven and what is diligence? This is nothing more or less than the death penalty for crimes against humanity on a global scale. With no representation, no defense, no appeal, no parole.


Has anyone posting here suggested culling the population?

As for who decides what is proven, by which I think you're asking what is fact, the scientific method determines fact via testable evidence.

What death penalty for crimes against humanity? What crimes against humanity?



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

The problem is not the number of people on the planet, it's the type of people.

Our resources are being squeezed by industrialists, and those that have the money to exploit all of our resources for profit. Pollution is a problem that we all share to certain degrees, but it is the elite that continue to supply fossil fuels and suppress new technologies. Our military is the largest consumer of fossil fuels.

Monsanto has been given a green light to genetically modify our food so it can withstand even more herbicides and pesticides. Personally I think Monsanto scientists and it's corporate heads should be up in front of the line when we start the culling, followed by the DOD, all jet setting politicians, movie stars, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Warren Buffet, Hank Paulson, and anyone with a house that is more than 5,000 square feet.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Answer
Apparently, Australia alone is so big, that every man woman and child on Earth could receive their own quarter-acre piece of land.

Yeah, but that would be sharing, and promote nasty things like egalitarianism.

I prefer this quote


“The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed.”

Prove to me that it's scientifically inaccurate and I'll change teams.



Actually, the onus is on the person making the claim to prove it not on others to disprove it.


Sure, and it works both ways. Some are making a claim that the planet is packed to the brim like anchovies. Some are saying we could all fit comfortably on a comparatively small continent.

All I said is that I would change teams if it were adequately proven to me. I disagree with the claim that the global population needs radical, immediate reduction--I'm not convinced, so why exactly would I set out to prove myself wrong for someone else's benefit? Isn't that for the ones making the claim that I (and others) disagree with??

My main reason for posting on this thread is because I don't like the idea of, "Well, there's too many people here," turning into an impetus for, "Well, the only solution is to stop the poor, the diseased, the _____ from breeding etc etc."

It can take an uncomfortable, and inhuman, turn very quickly.




edit on 7-9-2014 by NarcolepticBuddha because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Answer
Apparently, Australia alone is so big, that every man woman and child on Earth could receive their own quarter-acre piece of land.

Yeah, but that would be sharing, and promote nasty things like egalitarianism.

I prefer this quote


“The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed.”

Prove to me that it's scientifically inaccurate and I'll change teams.



Actually, the onus is on the person making the claim to prove it not on others to disprove it.


Sure, and it works both ways. Some are making a claim that the planet is packed to the brim like anchovies. Some are saying we could all fit comfortably on a comparatively small continent.

All I said is that I would change teams if it were adequately proven to me. I disagree with the claim that the global population needs radical, immediate reduction--I'm not convinced, so why exactly would I set out to prove myself wrong for someone else's benefit? Isn't that for the ones making the claim that I (and others) disagree with??

My main reason for posting on this thread is because I don't like the idea of, "Well, there's too many people here," turning into an impetus for, "Well, the only solution is to stop the poor, the diseased, the _____ from breeding etc etc."

It can take an uncomfortable, and very inhuman, turn very quickly.





You're right, it could take a bad turn. Why not do something now to prevent that from happening in the future? I'm sure you will agree that there are finite resources and, at some point, there will be too many humans for those finite resources. I'm sure you're aware that famines exist in some parts of the world and that some people go hungry even in the U.S.. Resources are not shared evenly and, as the population increases, that will only get worse. The wealthy and powerful will be the last to suffer. Guess who will suffer first? What is the problem with encouraging people to reproduce less or not at all? What is the problem with giving them incentives to not reproduce? After all, people who never exist are not harmed.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Answer

Apparently, Australia alone is so big, that every man woman and child on Earth could receive their own quarter-acre piece of land.

Every individual could have enough land on which to grow their own food and have their own shelter. With renewable energy (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal etc.), its not inconceivable.

Would it be a huge undertaking? Absolutely but this is just to illustrate that the situation is no where near as bad as they would like us believe.




Exactly. Truly sad that so many people jump to the conclusion that the Earth is about to collapse under the weight of humanity. It's so strange...we think we can annihilate this planet so easily. And, it's really scary to see so many people here agreeing with the powers that be...that's what is scary.

Think to yourself why they want the masses gone...it's a completely different reason than what they say is the reason.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Answer

the situation is no where near as bad as they would like us believe.


Agreed. But, it is getting worse. However, I think it is a long way away from being unmanageable. And, by that time, I speculate we won't be confined to this one planet anymore, so I believe its not an issue.
edit on 7-9-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
We have constant wars and abortion on demand.

Looks like things are moving in their right direction.

Though I would have to agree with the posters that pointed out that the proponents for such a thing should lead the way and be an example.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Anyone who doesn't think that this is an issue is cruising through life with blinders on. It's mainly an issue because there will be no change. Population will continue to expand exponentially. Just be thankful that we live in one of the last eras where a good amount of people can live comfortably.

And one of the main problems is that religion will stand in the way of any serious discussion about this… for multiple reasons…

One, religion most often promotes offspring – by limiting contraception, abolishing reproductive education, taking population control away from the people and handing it over to the government (legislating away abortion clinics), scripturally mandating procreation, and lastly... large families, in religious circles, are often viewed as a badge of pride.

And Two, while the religious masses view the world is as a temporary place (until you go to whatever mythological 'promise land' you believe in), most people don't think this world is the priority. That god will just sort it all out in the end and as some have already stated - "humans shouldn't play god". Basically just throwing hands up in the air and skirting all responsibility to their fellows in humanity.

Either way, it's all scary. It won't affect us badly, but in a few more generations, it will be too far gone (it already is, but we just don't see it yet).



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
a reply to: gladtobehere

How come it is when the people that say this nonsense never leave it on a note next to their bed when they take their own life offering to lead the way to a civilized earth prosperity?

What they are saying is, now I have enriched myself and it's time for you to go, thanks for your help now AMF.

I say let them lead by example.


Has it occurred to you that a solution to overpopulation is to lessen or stop reproducing? That doesn't involve killing any people.


Did it occur to you the OP includes quotes from people that want immediate reductions in population?

Might I remind you from the OP.

J. Cousteau, 1991 explorer and UNESCO courier -

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”

Henry Kissinger:

“World population needs to be decreased by 50%”

Does either of these sound like birth control to you?



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I had an interesting thought.

Week after week I see threads, articles, and general news stories about the undue stresses of immigration on the US but when there is an conversation about the stresses of the population explosion many people seem to ignore the ramifications.

When I last checked just a few moments ago the population was estimated at 7,259,189,757 wasn't it just a year or so ago that we had hit 7 billion. IMO it is going up pretty fast.

For entertainment purposes here is that link by the time you read this I wonder what it will be at.Current World Population

For further entertainment the US population when I checked was at 323,061,033 here is that link U.S. POPULATION (LIVE)

It is just something to ponder.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join