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.

 

Italy, the latest country to enter era of human extinction

page: 3
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are right, no one is really harmed by a dwindling human population.

That is why I want the alarmist overpopulationists /environmentalists to stop spreading their propaganda, their propaganda and push for legislation to regulate the minutest detail of life is totally unnecessary and repressive


As far as resources go, we once thought that oil was a finite resource. Now it appears it is not the result of dead dinosaurs at all. It may be self generating from the earth, no one knows for sure, all we know is that we have now found enough to last far far longer than humans will be around.

Water as a finite resource is not finite at all, once desalinization becomes routine and cost effective, there will be no shortage of water, water recycles itself. When humans die they are mostly water which is absorbed into the ecosystem, as is urine and all water usage.

In the short run water may be a problem, but it to will sort itself out, as we aren't ejecting it into space, just relocating it through waste.
But eventually sort itself out, as will all the other resources humans need to live.

Growing and distribution of food, well with fewer and fewer humans choosing to farm, it may for awhile become a problem for humans.

We don't need to regulate and micromanage ourselves out of the use of resources as we are doing now and it is getting worse. Because as humans become naturally extinct, the need for the resources will naturally dwindle and the earth will restore itself.





edit on 11Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:10:56 -0600am21602amk161 by grandmakdw because: addition format




posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

But that is just an effect of centralized government. As the government consolidates power, it naturally wants to consolidate more power as a result. It is a vicious cycle and has little to do with what the overpopulationists are saying.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: grandmakdw

But that is just an effect of centralized government. As the government consolidates power, it naturally wants to consolidate more power as a result. It is a vicious cycle and has little to do with what the overpopulationists are saying.


Environmentalism has become entrenched into the core psyche of those who run the government.

The ones who run the government grew up being brainwashed into unnecessary extremist environmentalism
based on the myth of overpopulation.

But you also have a point that government naturally wants to exert total and complete control over the smallest detail of the population. Which is what we are now seeing in the USA, which, I posit, is built on a psychological foundation of humans as the natural enemy of the ecology of the earth as well as the government.



edit on 11Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:18:57 -0600am21602amk161 by grandmakdw because: grammar



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Don't worry the government is doing a terrible job of being environmentalists. They only care about air pollution but neglect water pollution and ground soil pollution. One thing you can always rely on from the government is that it will do everything it does as inefficiently as possible.

There's the right way, the wrong way, and the government's way. Bureaucracy what a treat!



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: grandmakdw

Don't worry the government is doing a terrible job of being environmentalists. They only care about air pollution but neglect water pollution and ground soil pollution. One thing you can always rely on from the government is that it will do everything it does as inefficiently as possible.

There's the right way, the wrong way, and the government's way. Bureaucracy what a treat!



True, true.

Yet the people in government are brainwashed by extremeist enviornmentalists

or are at least perpetuating the myth of overpopulation in order to

USE extreme environmentalism

as an excuse to micromanage the population

who they see as their greatest threat

and micromanagement as their greatest weapon of retaining power -

kinda silly, since the population will slowly dissolve

and maybe if we are lucky have no need of human government or elitists

once the population is small enough



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

This is no different than any other group pushing propaganda and half-truths to further their own agenda. You are pointing out the problems of the left and environmentalist agendas, but what about the right and always trying to push for war through fear and xenophobia? It's all the same crap, just a different wrapper.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: LukeDAP
To be honest, it might make things hard for Italy in future generations (the number of elders who need support being much higher than the number of young people who are able to do so), but the whole planet, and humankind as a whole, won't change that much, IMO. I mean, if Italian women are having, in average, about a kid each, that kinda compensates places where the women have much more children than that...

According to this, I'd say that there are enough people in the planet doing more than their fair share to keep the world population pretty high...



You don't see any problem with that list of high fertility birth rate countries? Really? Assuming all facts are recited correctly, that which is generally regarded as "civilization" will fall into a de-populated dark age and that which registers rather poorly in terms of technological advancement will continue on in high population growth. I could get a bit more graphic about the problem but will, rather, provide this analogy...I don't think we'll do very well in looking to Burundi for Nuclear power plant experts to keep the lights on in...France.

This looks a lot like "Idiocracy" on a global scale.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The far-right is not the issue in this thread. We can discuss it in another thread sometime.
Happy to banter civilly with you, its fun.

This thread is about the overpopulation myth and ending it because I am tired of the idiots who claim there is a coming apocalyptic population explosion and so there is a need to tightly control humans and human activity as a result.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

I'm personally just tired of apocalypse scenarios in general. They are always wrong and always rely on a slippery slope fallacy. That was why I entered the thread in the first place.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Overpopulation is a myth? Depends on your definition of overpopulation. Parts of the globe are already massively overpopulated in my opinion. Parts of India as an example, a country of over 1.2 billion people, some of the cities seem very overpopulated.
Decreasing birthrate and aging population is a trend as standard of living increases, developed countries are leading the trend.
Apparently the world has reached peak children in the year 2010 and the increase in population up to 10 to 12 billion will come from increased global life expectancy average. I've read about this and evolutionary scientists are at a loss to explain it, there are some theories.

Overpopulation In India – Causes, Effects
www.mapsofindia.com...
edit on 16-2-2015 by JimTSpock because: link



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
originally posted by: LukeDAP
To be honest, it might make things hard for Italy in future generations (the number of elders who need support being much higher than the number of young people who are able to do so), but the whole planet, and humankind as a whole, won't change that much, IMO. I mean, if Italian women are having, in average, about a kid each, that kinda compensates places where the women have much more children than that...

According to this, I'd say that there are enough people in the planet doing more than their fair share to keep the world population pretty high...




You don't see any problem with that list of high fertility birth rate countries? Really? Assuming all facts are recited correctly, that which is generally regarded as "civilization" will fall into a de-populated dark age and that which registers rather poorly in terms of technological advancement will continue on in high population growth. I could get a bit more graphic about the problem but will, rather, provide this analogy...I don't think we'll do very well in looking to Burundi for Nuclear power plant experts to keep the lights on in...France.

This looks a lot like "Idiocracy" on a global scale.


One needs to balance that chart off with these:

average global lifespan




They show that the net population growth of these nations is very low with the high infant mortality rate, these children are counted as live births even though many die within the first year of life; and the early death rates; some countries have an average age of death as low as 32.



edit on 12Mon, 16 Feb 2015 12:11:42 -0600pm21602pmk161 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

spot on that was my frustration talking i apologise for that it is a complicated issue with many variables i do think we need to review the laws and make it more equal in terms of guardianship and providing for the children ,i agree that society has devalued the role of dad i do not really see much chance of change in that department .



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMAMOG

I taught marriage, parenting, child development for years in a major university.
It was a turning point for me, why?

The athletes who were struggling academically were put in the major I taught. I was offended at first. But the subject certainly isn't brain science.

What I began to see was most of these men were raised without fathers and were often raised in homes where Mother was too busy working to parent or did not parent, and the men were raised by relatives. Their college scholarships were their way out of a cycle of poverty.

I also realized that when they graduated they would become "role models" for the community. So I changed the way I taught and it changed me in return.

Every one of my lectures included a section on the importance of fathers in that particular stage of child development or in parenting. It took a lot of digging to get enough different information to cover several different courses, in the process of researching for teaching, I learned that fathers are crucial to healthy development and a later healthy marriage and even in career and life success.

I came to realize that what I taught these men could affect the community as they became good fathers and husbands and went on to be great community role models and speakers. It was a profound experience and honor for me to have these men, one even went on to be a prominent rap producer and he challenged me the most about the role of fathers, but he also absorbed the most in the long run.

So, to stay on my own topic. With the coming depopulation, fathers are more important than ever. As the population shrinks it is imperative that the families become more optimal.

An optimal environment for a child is one where the father is present and involved. In case of divorce co-parenting (house sharing if possible or living in very close proximity) is the next optimal arrangement.

I know sometimes the adults behave worse than two year olds after a divorce in trying to get along, but they are being horribly selfish and harming their children by refusing to be civil and share space and time with the children.

For the sake of the children if both parents are good parents, then the one with the economic advantage should have primary custody because too many children today live in poverty when it is not necessary and the fault of sexist court policies against men.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join