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: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

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?


I could have missed it, but I don't think the person who posted those quotes stated that s/he personally advocated killing people as a means to reduce population. However, being realistic, overpopulation will result in more conflict and spread of disease that will kill people. Not reproducing would reduce world population in about 25 years (one reproductive generation).

What would you realistically prefer to solve the problem or don't you think overpopulation is a problem?




posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
At what level does an unsustainable population begin?

At what level is a population considered sustainable?

What are the numbers?

Truth is, this world is only overpopulated at the point which it has thrown the ecosystem and environment into such chaotic imbalance that it collapses. At that point populations will decline, or perhaps become extinct through starvation, wars over resources etc.

Fortunately we will not have to see humanity reach that level, or unfortunately depending on perspective.

A kind of divine intervention is in the works...

imo



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace


What Cousteau said was true, to stabilize human population the death rate must equal the birth rate. It was a simple statement of the obvious, not a recommendation. Not an imperative.

Things have changed a bit since Cousteau said that though. The current rate of population growth is now about 211,000 per day. Overall, birth rates have been on the decline, outstripping the decrease in death rates (which has pretty well leveled off).
www.rickety.us...


You wouldn't happen to have the full context of that Kissinger quote would you? Never cared much for the man myself but I do know his thought processes run deep. I'm pretty sure there's more to what he was conveying than that single sentence.


edit on 9/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Those quotes were suggesting reducing the population of the planet by 50-80 percent. If that doesn't qualify as culling what does? Correction: anywhere from 10-15% to 95%

The 'proof' I referred to was proof of some form of due diligence by the people who are suggesting such a massive reduction in population. What can they offer as justification for their choice of solutions?

Reducing the population by such a significant amount isn't going to happen without taking lives. Did you think half the planet would commit suicide or maybe disappear? Someone deciding who lives and who dies, is deciding who gets the death penalty. The reason is supposedly because the earth is overpopulated and will function better as a whole with far fewer people on it. The damage to the planet that people are doing, making it more and more difficult for daily survival by depleting precious resources, those are the crimes against humanity for which it seems some select few have decided to hold the rest of us responsible.


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

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

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



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I think it's too late to start depopulation. Should have been limits set centuries ago.
I was watching a video yesterday how at first china got fines if they were caught having more than one child, then it was inprisonment , it will happen here the same way


However
If they really had plans on eradicating much of the human race they wouldn't be allowing sperm banks, organ donors and ventilators in hospitals, or other medical advancements that save lives . Etc. or they are really selling Sperm to aliens? Jk


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



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel




What can they offer as justification for their choice of solutions?

Perhaps if you looked for more of what they have to say about it rather than selected and sensationalist sound bytes, you might see what solutions they are are actually talking about and whether they are talking about what would be nice as opposed to what is likely to occur.
edit on 9/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I think the real plan is to colonise Mars. Or terraform it. Once we can no longer live on Earth.
Has Phage commented yet ?



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Oh funny, I just posted same time as you and asked if you commented. What do you think of my last reply? Just above this one,
edit on 7-9-2014 by violet because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: violet
Colonization of other planets would do nothing to help (or hinder) overpopulation of this one. It would, however, get our eggs out of a very risky single basket.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Wouldn't it be cheaper to colonize the sea/ocean floor on OUR planet?

Instead of killing off half (or more) of the population, why not use that 70% of the planet that we AREN'T using?



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Based on the quotes in the OP the solution they are suggesting is quite clear. The mechanism by which they intend to achieve it is not. But the solution, massive reduction in population, is clear.

Are you suggesting that Prince Phillip, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, J. Cousteau, Mikhail Gorbachev, Henry Kissinger, and David Brower are just sensationalist sound bytes? Or are you suggesting that the OP took the quotes out of context? Please clarify.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Ok , thanks for your reply. It's unfortunate we are destroying our beautiful world though.

I'd also thought the plan was to build vertically. No more living in a nice residential neighbourhood with lawns wasting space, yet even then this would not work.
I recall being taught this in school, about population growth.

Perhaps that will be the first phase and Mars or space stations is plan B ?

Either way I will be dead by then and not know.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Tangerine

Those quotes were suggesting reducing the population of the planet by 50-80 percent. If that doesn't qualify as culling what does?

The 'proof' I referred to was proof of some form of due diligence by the people who are suggesting such a massive reduction in population. What can they offer as justification for their choice of solutions?

Reducing the population by such a significant amount isn't going to happen without taking lives. Did you think half the planet would commit suicide or maybe disappear? Someone deciding who lives and who dies, is deciding who gets the death penalty. The reason is supposedly because the earth is overpopulated and will function better as a whole with far fewer people on it. The damage to the planet that people are doing, making it more and more difficult for daily survival by depleting precious resources, those are the crimes against humanity for which it seems some select few have decided to hold the rest of us responsible.



A huge reduction in population can be accomplished if people simply stop reproducing. Common sense should make that clear. If no new people are being added daily and some who exist die naturally, that adds up to population reduction. Someone just posted that the population increases by 211,000 per day. Multiple that by 365 days in a year. Multiple that by 25 years (a reproductive generation) or 50 years. Deduct the number of people who die naturally over that period of time. That's a substantial reduction in population.

If you're unaware that huge numbers of people don't have access now to vital resources, I don't know what good reciting stats about it would do. Certainly, those who are wealthy and powerful will always get first access to resources. Certainly, they have made appalling decisions that you characterize as "crimes against humanity." Certainly, it would be fair if everyone, including the wealthy and powerful, stopped reproducing but,realistically, what favor do you think people who are at the bottom of the economic and power rung are doing for their children by bringing them into a world where they will face crushing poverty, disease, and starvation?



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer
The fish live there! There are some floating cities. They've been posted on here. Quite beautiful. Not practical though. Not sure about burrowing underground beneath the oceans, living among magma chambers and whatnot.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

OK...the answer is to stop procreating until enough people die to save the planet. And how long does it take for enough people to die according to the group suggesting the reduction? And when the planet finally gets to the right population level as decided by whomever, the only people left are too old to procreate enough to sustain the species. Unless you suggest that some people continue to procreate in the mean time so we always have a fresh batch of childbearing women on hand. And then who decides who gets to procreate and who doesn't? And that's common sense?



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: violet
a reply to: beezzer
The fish live there! There are some floating cities. They've been posted on here. Quite beautiful. Not practical though. Not sure about burrowing underground beneath the oceans, living among magma chambers and whatnot.


Fish?

OMG!

Never mind.

Let's kill half of mankind instead.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Yep. This is what I was trying to say earlier about that slippy-slope. It's going to come down to a point where some more privileged than others will have the right to have children, and others will be denied. Social status? Affluence? Apparent health? What will the deciding factors be? What measures of discrimination will be applied? It's a little spooky to me. Frankly, I'm glad I won't be around to see it all go down.


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



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Might be what these sperm banks are really for. I think a baby can be grown out of a womb now or at least very soon in the future. Ectogenesis


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



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

Agreed. Assuming the people making this decision have the patience to wait that long, I am sure there will be a set of criteria, some set of deciding factors, that will no doubt coincidentally happen to match the traits of the chosen few making the decisions.

And the Eloi continue happily on their way munching grapes that appear out of nowhere. And every once in a while us morlocks get to jab them with pointy things and feast on the goo inside. Nice future...



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: violet

Good point. Takes all the fun out of it...but good point none the less.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join