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.
originally posted by: Phage
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.
originally posted by: Tangerine
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?
originally posted by: violet
There's also vasectomies. A man should take responsibility. Like this guy you know who is seeding the town, maybe he needs stopping. I know a guy like this as well and I say who does he think he is? He's not broke though, quite wealthy and pays support on his children.loves them. It's just he thinks he can have kids with various women. I think it's his culture. His brothers do it as well. His family is huge. I can't keep up with all the half sisters and brothers on the kids.
originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: gladtobehere
So why would the TPTB want to lower a consumer group or labor pool?
Again, what if we simply found a way to make people unable to reproduce until they choose to have a simple procedure done that will make them fertile? Just eliminating the unplanned births would go a long way toward helping the problem.
II. B. 3. Expanding Wage Employment Opportunities, Especially for Women
The status and utilization of women in LDC societies is particularly important in reducing family size. For women, employment outside the home offers an alternative to early marriage and childbearing, and an incentive to have fewer children after marriage. The woman who must stay home to take care of her children must forego the income she could earn outside the home. Research indicates that female wage employment outside the home is related to fertility reduction. Programs to increase the women's labor force participation must, however, take account of the overall demand for labor; this would be a particular problem in occupations where there is already widespread unemployment among males. But other occupations where women have a comparative advantage can be encouraged.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Answer
We are like a cancer to this planet. If you think of the planet as a living organism, we are the multiplying "cells" that will destroy it.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Answer
I agree with you that eliminating births will go a long way to helping the problem. But you are forgetting what the thread is about. Its not about sensible ways to slow population growth. Its about a select few that may be trying to effect a massive, and quick, reduction in population. ....
Read the OP again, that is assuming you even read it once. Then look at your responses. You are off-point.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Answer
I agree with you that eliminating births will go a long way to helping the problem. But you are forgetting what the thread is about. Its not about sensible ways to slow population growth. Its about a select few that may be trying to effect a massive, and quick, reduction in population. And your sensible method does absolutely nothing to address what the end game of the chosen few enabling this plan actually is. Maybe to you reducing the birthrate is good enough. But to the questionable few who are suggesting a massive reduction in world population that may be entirely meaningless.
I am not one of those people who reads a few things and thinks I know everything. What I do know is I hate and pity people who read a few posts form someone they have never met and think they know everything about them. It was a sensible discussion about motives and methods, until you responded to me. Now its "people like you"...
Read the OP again, that is assuming you even read it once. Then look at your responses. You are off-point.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Answer
If you can read those quotes and say "Only ONE of the quotes in the OP specifically advocates killing anyone." and believe it, one of us is definitely off track.
Ted Turner - "a 95% decline from present levels would be ideal."
J. Cousteau - "we must eliminate 350,000 people per day..."
M. Gorbachev - "cut the world population by 90%."
H. Kissinger - “World population needs to be decreased by 50%”
How can anyone look at those quotes and say they are not talking about killing anyone? How else will they achieve a 50-95 percent reduction in population? How do you eliminate people without killing them? Nothing in his quote indicates a reduction in childbirth of 350.000. He said eliminate. It really cant be much more clear than that. If you don't see it or don't want to, that's your choice and I respect your right to have it. But I vehemently disagree. You cant reduce world population by any significant amount without killing people. There is no birth control that will get you a 95% population reduction. If they were talking about slowing the growth of the world population, yes, I agree with you entirely. But that is not what they are talking about. Not with those numbers. It cant be.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Tangerine
The people mentioned and quoted earlier at this moment do not hold political office. However, to say they have no political power or influence is very wrong. These are some of the most powerful and influential people on the planet. Ted Turner and Jane Fonda have been a driving force behind the limitation of nuclear power in this country for decades. We would not be nearly as dependent on coal, oil. natural gas as we are now if the US had been able to build the nuclear plants we needed. In fact, they led the opposition to the breeder reactors that are not only safer than the type in service now, but they actually run on the spent fuel rods from other power plants. These people have incredible influence in the political arena. And don't forget, the thread is referring to a number of people, who may or may not be working together to accomplish this agenda, regardless of political interference. If the worlds 50 richest people got together and decided that the world would be better off if "X" happened. Do you think they could do it, whatever it was? I think they could. That doesn't mean there is a secret society set on wiping out 95% of the population. But it doesn't mean there isn't either.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Answer
If you can read those quotes and say "Only ONE of the quotes in the OP specifically advocates killing anyone." and believe it, one of us is definitely off track.
Ted Turner - "a 95% decline from present levels would be ideal."
J. Cousteau - "we must eliminate 350,000 people per day..."
M. Gorbachev - "cut the world population by 90%."
H. Kissinger - “World population needs to be decreased by 50%”
How can anyone look at those quotes and say they are not talking about killing anyone? How else will they achieve a 50-95 percent reduction in population? How do you eliminate people without killing them? Nothing in his quote indicates a reduction in childbirth of 350.000. He said eliminate. It really cant be much more clear than that. If you don't see it or don't want to, that's your choice and I respect your right to have it. But I vehemently disagree. You cant reduce world population by any significant amount without killing people. There is no birth control that will get you a 95% population reduction. If they were talking about slowing the growth of the world population, yes, I agree with you entirely. But that is not what they are talking about. Not with those numbers. It cant be.
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Answer
If you can read those quotes and say "Only ONE of the quotes in the OP specifically advocates killing anyone." and believe it, one of us is definitely off track.
Ted Turner - "a 95% decline from present levels would be ideal."
J. Cousteau - "we must eliminate 350,000 people per day..."
M. Gorbachev - "cut the world population by 90%."
H. Kissinger - “World population needs to be decreased by 50%”
How can anyone look at those quotes and say they are not talking about killing anyone? How else will they achieve a 50-95 percent reduction in population? How do you eliminate people without killing them? Nothing in his quote indicates a reduction in childbirth of 350.000. He said eliminate. It really cant be much more clear than that. If you don't see it or don't want to, that's your choice and I respect your right to have it. But I vehemently disagree. You cant reduce world population by any significant amount without killing people. There is no birth control that will get you a 95% population reduction. If they were talking about slowing the growth of the world population, yes, I agree with you entirely. But that is not what they are talking about. Not with those numbers. It cant be.
All of the numbers they're talking about could be achieved, long term, by reduction in birth rates. You're seeing what you want to see and interpreting the language the way you want to interpret it to mean they're murderous sociopaths.
ELIMINATING 350,000 people per day could be achieved by massively reducing the birth rate combined with the normal death rate. It's not rocket science if you read it logically and don't jump to an emotional conclusion.