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: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Our greatest efforts are in the preservation of life at any cost. So we are stuck with the preservation of life and the cost.




posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere
With this new mystery illness spreading among children in the US and the outbreak of Ebola overseas, I couldnt help but to consider the conspiratorial aspect.

The following are some quotes about population reduction. Feel free to add more.

Prince Phillip:


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

Bill Gates:


“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

Ted Turner:


“A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

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.”

Mikhail Gorbachev:


“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

Henry Kissinger:


“World population needs to be decreased by 50%”

David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club:


“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”


Am I wrong or does most of these people have children? If they truly believed their message they’d off themselves and their families too!



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
China's forced population control has backfired. Look it up. The 1 child policy was initially decreed and, at the time, never intended to last as long as it has. They didn't want to repeal it because they were afraid of changing policy, what with such a strong handed government. Now, they have an aging population and vastly too few producers to sustain it.

They are in serious trouble and are trying to hide it to save face. They have shot themselves in the foot.

I like the idea a lot of much more rigidly preventing unplanned pregnancies, how many fewer miserable children and parents would there be?



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: djmarcone




Now, they have an aging population and vastly too few producers to sustain it.


I will call that statement what it is an absolute failure to look up the facts. From the 2010 to 2014 China's population has grown by 33,962,371 and their immigration is at a negative 313,996. So I don't know where you got your information but from here on try this source. Current World Population This will be the third time I have posted that link in this thread.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: djmarcone




Now, they have an aging population and vastly too few producers to sustain it.


I will call that statement what it is an absolute failure to look up the facts. From the 2010 to 2014 China's population has grown by 33,962,371 and their immigration is at a negative 313,996. So I don't know where you got your information but from here on try this source. Current World Population This will be the third time I have posted that link in this thread.


Thank you for pointing that out and also for posting your "Little Mind Benders...Layman's definition of Theory vs. Scientific Theory" at the bottom of each of your posts. If only more people would read it.

It's interesting that some people are in an uproar at the thought of population control but don't mention the currently popular methods: war and starvation.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

The type of reactor used in Japan is not the same type that the Turners lobbied against. A disaster like the one in Japan could not happen with this style of reactor. Not all reactors work the same. Once the moderator is removed this reactor has no choice but to shut down. Period.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

You are assuming that the powers behind this are aiming for a long term solution. I am not seeing what I want to see, I am seeing what they said. You are the one introducing additional elements into the scenario to justify your view.

"All of the numbers they're talking about could be achieved, long term, by reduction in birth rates."

If you believe that there is no point in continuing this conversation. You are not going to achieve a 95% decrease in world population without killing people. Period. There is no emotional response, its just fact. If you have to create some benevolent purpose to support your opinion then I respectfully refer you to Occam's razor.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

The planet is big enough to have us all until we spread out onto other planets. Why do these guys not put their thoughts
on how to spread the human population over our planet and ways to support all those people instead of reducing the population.




posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Answer

You are assuming that the powers behind this are aiming for a long term solution. I am not seeing what I want to see, I am seeing what they said. You are the one introducing additional elements into the scenario to justify your view.

"All of the numbers they're talking about could be achieved, long term, by reduction in birth rates."

If you believe that there is no point in continuing this conversation. You are not going to achieve a 95% decrease in world population without killing people. Period. There is no emotional response, its just fact. If you have to create some benevolent purpose to support your opinion then I respectfully refer you to Occam's razor.



What "powers behind this"? I challenge you to copy and paste a post in which I referred to "powers behind this". I don't even know to which "this" you refer.

Others have done the math for you to prove that it could be accomplished by reduction in birth rates. If you prefer your paranoid interpretation, that's your option.

"If you believe that there is no point in continuing this conversation." ? That's not even a sentence.

I didn't create any "benevolent purpose" for anything and I challenge you to copy and paste any post in which I did.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: gladtobehere

The planet is big enough to have us all until we spread out onto other planets. Why do these guys not put their thoughts
on how to spread the human population over our planet and ways to support all those people instead of reducing the population.




There are not enough resources to support unlimited population increases. Resources are finite. You know that, right? I sincerely hope that humans never occupy other planets. Making one ultimately uninhabitable by most lifeforms is bad enough.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Answer

You are assuming that the powers behind this are aiming for a long term solution. I am not seeing what I want to see, I am seeing what they said. You are the one introducing additional elements into the scenario to justify your view.

"All of the numbers they're talking about could be achieved, long term, by reduction in birth rates."

If you believe that there is no point in continuing this conversation. You are not going to achieve a 95% decrease in world population without killing people. Period. There is no emotional response, its just fact. If you have to create some benevolent purpose to support your opinion then I respectfully refer you to Occam's razor.






What "powers behind this"? I challenge you to copy and paste a post in which I referred to "powers behind this". I don't even know to which "this" you refer.

Others have done the math for you to prove that it could be accomplished by reduction in birth rates. If you prefer your paranoid interpretation, that's your option.

"If you believe that there is no point in continuing this conversation." ? That's not even a sentence.

I didn't create any "benevolent purpose" for anything and I challenge you to copy and paste any post in which I did.


This is the last time I will respond to you on this thread. You really are staggeringly dense.
1) "What powers behind this?" I refer you to the very first sentence in this thread. The one referring to the "conspiratorial aspect" of multiple disease breakouts occurring simultaneously.
2) I saw the math, and it comes nowhere near a 95% reduction in population. Not even close.
3) "If you believe that, there is no point in continuing this conversation." I am sorry one missing comma confused you so much. Not surprised, just sorry.
4) The 'benevolent purpose' you created is in denying the basis of the thread - a conspiracy to achieve a massive population reduction.

You ignore the conspiracy, you ignore the statements calling for massive depopulation, you choose to believe that there is no urgency on the part of the conspirators - something you have no way of knowing, and then act like its a matter of fact that your view is correct. I cant even begin to tell you how many ways that is just plain screwed up.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Answer

You are assuming that the powers behind this are aiming for a long term solution. I am not seeing what I want to see, I am seeing what they said. You are the one introducing additional elements into the scenario to justify your view.

"All of the numbers they're talking about could be achieved, long term, by reduction in birth rates."

If you believe that there is no point in continuing this conversation. You are not going to achieve a 95% decrease in world population without killing people. Period. There is no emotional response, its just fact. If you have to create some benevolent purpose to support your opinion then I respectfully refer you to Occam's razor.






What "powers behind this"? I challenge you to copy and paste a post in which I referred to "powers behind this". I don't even know to which "this" you refer.

Others have done the math for you to prove that it could be accomplished by reduction in birth rates. If you prefer your paranoid interpretation, that's your option.

"If you believe that there is no point in continuing this conversation." ? That's not even a sentence.

I didn't create any "benevolent purpose" for anything and I challenge you to copy and paste any post in which I did.


This is the last time I will respond to you on this thread. You really are staggeringly dense.
1) "What powers behind this?" I refer you to the very first sentence in this thread. The one referring to the "conspiratorial aspect" of multiple disease breakouts occurring simultaneously.
2) I saw the math, and it comes nowhere near a 95% reduction in population. Not even close.
3) "If you believe that, there is no point in continuing this conversation." I am sorry one missing comma confused you so much. Not surprised, just sorry.
4) The 'benevolent purpose' you created is in denying the basis of the thread - a conspiracy to achieve a massive population reduction.

You ignore the conspiracy, you ignore the statements calling for massive depopulation, you choose to believe that there is no urgency on the part of the conspirators - something you have no way of knowing, and then act like its a matter of fact that your view is correct. I cant even begin to tell you how many ways that is just plain screwed up.


1. You failed to copy and paste a quote in which I said anything about "the powers behind this".

2. Applied over time it certainly did.

3. Missing comma? Put a comma wherever you want in it and it still isn't a sentence.

4. The "conspiracy" is in your head. I am forbidden by law and personal philosophy from opening it with a can opener and fiddling around in there. However, I did point out that starvation and war kill people. You didn't respond to that. I guess it didn't fit into your conspiracy theory.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 04:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: gladtobehere

The planet is big enough to have us all until we spread out onto other planets. Why do these guys not put their thoughts
on how to spread the human population over our planet and ways to support all those people instead of reducing the population.




There are not enough resources to support unlimited population increases. Resources are finite. You know that, right? I sincerely hope that humans never occupy other planets. Making one ultimately uninhabitable by most lifeforms is bad enough.


I respectfully disagree. We are capable to do amazing things. I am sure we can figure out these problems you mentioned.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: zatara

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: gladtobehere

The planet is big enough to have us all until we spread out onto other planets. Why do these guys not put their thoughts
on how to spread the human population over our planet and ways to support all those people instead of reducing the population.




There are not enough resources to support unlimited population increases. Resources are finite. You know that, right? I sincerely hope that humans never occupy other planets. Making one ultimately uninhabitable by most lifeforms is bad enough.


I respectfully disagree. We are capable to do amazing things. I am sure we can figure out these problems you mentioned.



Capable, perhaps. Inclined to do so, no. As a species we don't seem to have made nearly enough progress toward ending war, disease, poverty, starvation, and destruction of the natural world. Our inability to do our part to reverse climate change will soon reach the point where it will be too late. We will have sealed our fates and the fates of many species.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

On tonight, live from 10PM Eastern time!

Show thread with listening information



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I'm going to post my show piece tonight on this subject…

----

How much longer can mankind continue to exploit the planet with his unfettered growth? With millions starving to death each year, surely the end is nigh? Well, there's that doom porn angle again, but overpopulation is certainly an issue that needs to be faced, and it turns out some of the biggest names around have weighed in on the subject. In a thread posted to the General Conspiracies forum by Member Glad to be Here, titled "Famous quotes on reducing the World's population", we learn of seven famous people laying it all on the line, as regards the need to reduce the number of humans on the earth.

As an example, here is what Prince Phillip, the husband of Queen Elizabeth, had to say: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

And media mogul Ted Turner weighs in with: “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

In 1968, Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich published an alarming book, "The Population Bomb", the opening sentence of which is another quote to add to those presented in the OP:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate."

Ehrlich proposed that in the face of this looming disaster, a radical effort was necessary, including the promotion of birth control, to the point of government addition of sterilization chemicals in drinking water, abortion on demand, pre-natal sex determination, so that people from societies that preferred male children could abort the girls instead of having girl after girl in an effort to birth a boy, and most controversial, a system of triage that would withhold food aid from countries that had "no hope of food self-sufficiency", effectively starving them into self-sufficiency compliance.

The Population Bomb sold two million copies and was very influential in the formation of public policy in the 1960s and 1970s, both in the United States and around the world.

There was only one problem. Ehrlich was wrong. Not merely "oops, forgot to carry the one" wrong, but "missed by a mile" wrong.

His statement that, in 1968, food production was at its limit? Wrong, by a wide margin -- growth in production has actually exceeded population growth, meaning that, though we are almost double the population, there is now more food per person than in 1968. Daily caloric intake levels have increased by 24%.

Those hundreds of millions that would starve to death in the 1970s? Death by starvation rates have fallen by more than half since he made that prediction.

Ehrlich's suggestion that countries like India should be starved into population compliance? India's malnutrition rates have gone from 90% in 1968 to less than 40% today, and most of those are due to corruption, not overpopulation, despite more than doubling their population in that same period.

And yet, the myth persists. We have too many people, if we don't stop having more and more children, and do it quickly, we're doomed.

Myth, you say? Yep, myth. The United Nations is predicting that current global population growth rates will slow to zero by 2050 and remain stable or possibly start to decline after that point. What is troubling is that, while the developed world is shrinking rapidly, with both Europe and North America dropping below two in the average number of children per woman, the third world is also shrinking, but much more gradually, with the average rate in sub-Saharan Africa still at about 5 1/2 children per woman.

Therein lies the question, to whom are these quotes in the OP addressed? Prince Phillip of the UK? Bill Gates? Ted Turner? Are they talking to Europe and North America, which are already killing themselves off? Or is this more of Ehrlich's mistaken radicalism, an effort to reduce the population of the world's poorest people? Remember, we're not talking about a real problem here -- we have enough food for everyone, it's just the distribution system that needs tweaking.

So I really have to wonder. Radical suggestions for a problem that doesn't exist? I don't think much about Illuminati plots to cull the herd, but this gives the notion a little boost.

Oh, and just to shine a light on the inky blackness of the hypocrisy here:

Prince Phillip - 4 children
Bill Gates - 3 children
Ted Turner - 5 children
Jacques Cousteau - 4 children
Mikhail Gorbachev - 1 child
Henry Kissinger - 2 children
David Brower - 4 children

There you go, every single one of them but Gorbachev produced more children than the average in Europe and North America. The two that I quoted earlier, Prince Phillip and Ted Turner, between the two of them, have nine times the number of children that I do. Explain that, you elitist tools.

In closing, I would like to add another quote to the OP:

"What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint) is our teeming population. Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us.... In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race."

Truer words were never spoken… by Tertullian, a Christian theologian in the Second Century, when the world's "teeming population" was 190 million people, which is about the population of Pakistan, today.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: zatara

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: gladtobehere

The planet is big enough to have us all until we spread out onto other planets. Why do these guys not put their thoughts
on how to spread the human population over our planet and ways to support all those people instead of reducing the population.




There are not enough resources to support unlimited population increases. Resources are finite. You know that, right? I sincerely hope that humans never occupy other planets. Making one ultimately uninhabitable by most lifeforms is bad enough.


I respectfully disagree. We are capable to do amazing things. I am sure we can figure out these problems you mentioned.



Capable, perhaps. Inclined to do so, no. As a species we don't seem to have made nearly enough progress toward ending war, disease, poverty, starvation, and destruction of the natural world. Our inability to do our part to reverse climate change will soon reach the point where it will be too late. We will have sealed our fates and the fates of many species.


I understand, I have hope.. you do not.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: zatara

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: zatara

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: gladtobehere

The planet is big enough to have us all until we spread out onto other planets. Why do these guys not put their thoughts
on how to spread the human population over our planet and ways to support all those people instead of reducing the population.




There are not enough resources to support unlimited population increases. Resources are finite. You know that, right? I sincerely hope that humans never occupy other planets. Making one ultimately uninhabitable by most lifeforms is bad enough.


I respectfully disagree. We are capable to do amazing things. I am sure we can figure out these problems you mentioned.



Capable, perhaps. Inclined to do so, no. As a species we don't seem to have made nearly enough progress toward ending war, disease, poverty, starvation, and destruction of the natural world. Our inability to do our part to reverse climate change will soon reach the point where it will be too late. We will have sealed our fates and the fates of many species.


I understand, I have hope.. you do not.



It's nice that you have hope but how does that translate into action on the part of those in power?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
They actually had the balls to speak the truth in public.

The population of the world is getting out of hand and we will ALL suffer for it.

If you remove emotion from the discussion and shun the "every life is precious!" mantra, you have to admit that our planet can not continue to sustain our population at current growth levels.

Unfortunately, the ignorant masses who don't understand the problem are the main ones breeding like horny rabbits. Just look at the sh1tstorm that was caused when someone suggested mandatory birth control for women on welfare. Just try to imagine how many unplanned children are born daily on our planet... it's ridiculous.


I find it quite disturbing to realize you get so many stars for saying something like this. Calling people who don't comprehend the same way as you do 'ignorant masses'.

The problem isn't with the actual number of human beings on this planet. I personnaly believe this is a biased assumption. Why not look instead at the treatment we offer Mother Earth and all of her ressources nowadays. This may be a very wise spot to start on.

But heh, I guess it's simply easier to assume the population's level is causing all of this...
instead of looking at us individualy and accept that the choices we made towards our everyday way of living might be causing all of this.
In fact, families are much smaller today than they were 50 years ago. And just look at the impressive increase in materials and ressources consumption compared to back then.

I'll tell you something.
The reality is that Earth's population could be greater by a huge amount with no imbalance whatsoever if we would only accept our natural place in this universe.




top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join