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: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 05:30 AM
link   

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.



You would have to check with the gladtobehere I just copied and pasted from the OP to make my point.




posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 05:59 AM
link   

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?



I don't think there is a problem.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   

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.


Much of the black culture seems to be fine with that sort of behavior.

I never once said that women should bear the full responsibility. Men who are careless should be snipped... problem is, by the time that's realized, the damage has been done. There needs to be a medical "kill switch" for sperm production that can be turned on or off via medical procedure. People are VERY reckless with sex and it results in a lot of unplanned pregnancy.

I had a vasectomy a year ago because I am promiscuous. People think I'm crazy for having it done without having kids... and therein lies the problem: the only fool-proof methods are currently permanent. I know a vasectomy can be reversed but it's expensive and not 100% so doctors consider it to be a permanent method. If doctors offered an easily reversible form of male sterilization that wasn't wildly painful, scores of men would be lining up to have it done.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

So why would the TPTB want to lower a consumer group or labor pool?



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: gladtobehere

So why would the TPTB want to lower a consumer group or labor pool?


Ha this is what I have always thought, why would TPTB want to reduce their ability to have billions of consumers of their products just disappear? It never passed the logic test for me. We are customers and workers for crying out loud, just like the olds days of labor when the company owned the housing track, and the store. They get you coming and going and you end up working for free just to survive. Then it's just a matter of a little extra, and some fluoride in your water and viola' you are a worker bee.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer
Well yes that's highly unusual to have a vasectomy in advance.

Back to your idea of preventing pregnancies unless they are planned.
Although I must agree the unplanned events are a major contributing factor.


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.


I don't think there's an ethical way in females to prevent this. Being realistic, females are ready to reproduce once puberty has begun. In this scenario, no child is going to admit to their parents they are engaging in sexual activities. It's rare for parents and teens to be so open. This is why we have teenagers dumping newborns in dumpsters. It's why we must talk to our daughters about this and put them on birth control pills or other methods. Talking to our sons really does not get anywhere. There are people who are so strict, their kids fear talking about this. Parents who are so darn naive, thinking my child would not have sex. Get real.

The problem may lie with the Africans and East Indians who's daughters have children too early in life. It's their culture, it's a problem. The memorandum I posted discusses the 13 nations who are by far causing over population by not being educated and their culture allowing it.

There are so many contributing factors, it's hard to name them all. It's in the memorandum I posted, if one wants to read it.

As for other nations who might be waiting until marriage to have children, I posted in my reply to Phage, that women's rights or equality among the sexes in jobs was a way to get women out working instead of being homemakers , having children. It was in the memorandum. Not sure why others responded to my quotes from it, as me not having read it, I did. In it was an a- ha moment for me, where I interpreted the equal rights movement being the reason why this must happen. I mistakingly used the term ' feminism''. Others can read it and come to their own conclusions.




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.



edit on 8-9-2014 by violet because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2014 by violet because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   

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.


oh how true. If people would just only have children if they can afford them, or NO children, but NO, this will not happen. Take a look at africa. The mother cries because her child is starving. Well, who created that problem ? She and her mate decided to have children. SO THEY, are the problem. So why is she crying ? They decided to have them and now cain't take care of said child. With that kind of mind set then go multiply like rabbits. That will surely help the problem. One hours pleasure = another starving child. USE A CONDOM. Dumb mindset that your children will take care of you by farming in a COMPLETE UTTER DESERT. This all an excuse thinking, so that One hour of pleasure is justified for farm help," in a DESERT". Good luck with that one jr.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
There are a lot of scumbags in this world, but these people should be shot. They sound like they could use a dose of their own thoughts, the ones still alive anyway.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
It is one thing to talk about not having children than doing something about the problem. Wear a CONDOM , get fixed or get a job to take care of the one that you already have. I can understand the people who worked in a buisness for awhile , then had children and lost their job and struggling to get another job while taking care of children. Understandable. But for a person who obviously cannot take care of themselves and have children is just A jerry springer waiting to happen.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
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.
edit on 8-9-2014 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   

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.


The quotes in the first post were from the following people (and possibly out of context): Prince Philip who is in his 90s and has zero political power; Bill Gates who made no mention of forcing anyone to do anything nor of killing anyone; Ted Turner who has zero political power; J. Cousteau who had zero political power and is dead; Mikhail Gorbachev who is 83 and no longer has any political power; Henry Kissinger who was truly an appalling and dangerous human being but who is now dead: and David Bowe who is no longer the executive director of Sierra Club and had zero political power.

Of all of them, Bill Gates is the most powerful and, as I said, in his quote did not advocate forcing anyone to do anything nor did he advocate killing anyone.

Much ado about nothing.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Oops, Kissinger is still alive. He's 91. If he still has the ear of anyone with real power, he should be feared.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   

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.


You still missed my point. Only ONE of the quotes in the OP specifically advocates killing anyone.

The rest of the quotes can be easily interpreted as a push for a lower birth rate and better education/control regarding contraception. You're jumping straight to the "they want to kill people off!" explanation with little to actually back it up other than your fear of the "powers that be."



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   

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.



I refer you to the nuclear accident in Japan. The reactor still isn't under control. More nuclear reactors and, eventually, the overpopulation problem discussion will be moot. Of course super wealthy people have influence--some for good and some for bad.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   

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 quotes were taken out of context. We have no idea what those people said in context. With the exception of Kissinger and, maybe, Gorbachev, none of those people had a history of advocating violence. Prince Philip doesn't count. He's absolutely powerless and was probably making a smart alec remark in response to a reporter's inane question about what he would like to come back as in a future life. He has a history of sniping at reporters.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   

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.


I agree.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
The depletion of finite resources is our biggest problem.

Potable clean water is already becoming a huge problem around the world.

And none of the world's policy makers are doing a damn thing to remedy these growing problems. So yes, overpopulation is becoming problematic, for that main reason.

If there's nothing we humans are better at doing, it's ignoring and procrastinating on a problem and waiting until it becomes dire... or someone loses an eye.

Maybe the leaders are just sitting back waiting for the next world war or plague to skim off some of us useless eaters, instant fix... and it kicks the can down the road for them so they can continue to rest with their feet up on their desks.

Our taxes hard at work.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join