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.

 

Who's for a bottleneck?!!!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   
You know what we humans need?

We need another population bottleneck. Our population needs to be knocked down to about 2 million of us all of a sudden. Hey, I think it's the only way we're going to get our mess cleaned up. Socially and environmentally.

I for one would be totally willing to sacrifice myself to help stem the DESTRUCTION OF OUR PLANET! Uh, what more could I do? I really love all the people who want to band together to take over and do things better. Oh wait. No on wants to band together, that's right. We'd much rather bicker.

I was thinking about this last night as I fed myself my daily dose of CNN, that Bush had opposed the Kyoto treaty because he was afraid that it would hurt our economy. Which it probably would, I agree, but to place importance on money over the health of the PLACE WE LIVE...

I don't know, it just sounded absurd at the time.

And I would hope that G. W. was one of the survivors. So he can be forced to help clean up the mess by the men with the dogs.

Who's with me?




posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Our population needs to be knocked down to about 2 million of us all of a sudden.


Since you put it that way, those Georgia Guidesstones aren't looking so bad now:

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature



[edit on 12/19/2004 by cotwom]

[edit on 12/19/2004 by cotwom]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I would be with ya here DC...IF I wasnt a mom, with the responsibility of this young person in my hands.....I have to HOPE the future will be a better place because of him, and I need to be here to help raise him in that manner....

Being a parent changes everything for a person......



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Whats the sense of killing billions of people to control the population? THe onyl reason for population control is to prevent the disasters that are feared to come from it, and the only reason to stop those disasters is to prevent people from dying. So where's the sense in killing everyone? Kill everyone to prevent deaths from disaster?



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I'm seeing that people don't like going from about 6 billion to 2 million.

I believe that the population of the planet would be no more than less that 1% of the current popullation in the USA.

Wouldn't we be considered an endangered species?


[edit on 12/19/2004 by cotwom]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Im for a bottleneck if I can be one of the 2 million
JK

Im not for that in anyway I think its about time for humans to expand into space. Wiping out most humans when the population gets high is no way to evolve as a species. It would set back technology so bad having only a million people because of the disaster it would take to kill almost 6 billion people. Nuclear war, a plague or a asteroid strike are the only things I can think of that would do that. It might buy us a few thousand years and we would be back were we started.

Making a Bottleneck would be taking two steps backwards for humanity.

[edit on 19-12-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Whats the sense of killing billions of people to control the population? THe onyl reason for population control is to prevent the disasters that are feared to come from it, and the only reason to stop those disasters is to prevent people from dying. So where's the sense in killing everyone? Kill everyone to prevent deaths from disaster?


Who said anything about killing anyone?

You sick...



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

I for one would be totally willing to sacrifice myself to help stem the DESTRUCTION OF OUR PLANET!

And I would hope that G. W. was one of the survivors

Who's with me?



Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Who said anything about killing anyone?

You sick...


Ummm....

[edit on 12/19/2004 by cotwom]

[edit on 12/19/2004 by cotwom]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Im for a bottleneck if I can be one of the 2 million
JK


Thanks, Shadow...

This illustrates exactly the reason why my idea is completely impossible.



Im not for that in anyway I think its about time for humans to expand into space. Wiping out most humans when the population gets high is no way to evolve as a species. It would set back technology so bad having only a million people because of the disaster it would take to kill almost 6 billion people. Nuclear war, a plague or a asteroid strike are the only things I can think of that would do that. It might buy us a few thousand years and we would be back were we started.


I think it's time to go to space too. That seems only the logical next step. But do you think we could pull our .s out soon enough to avert the catastrophe that awaits in a couple hundred years? Hmmm... I think only a catastrophe could cause that to happen. How ironic.

Nuclear war would be a bad way for it to happen. We'd be screwed. But how about a pandemic that only a slight amount of the population was completely immune to? With two million people, we'd probably have plenty of people who were sufficiently talented to fill all the roles of a functional society. And we could keep ourselves busy by cleaning up our mess. We could learn to use existing technology to do this. And at the same time, learn not to make the mess in the first place.

Maybe it's a pipedream. No, it is a pipedream, but hey, I like it.



Making a Bottleneck would be taking two steps backwards for humanity.


Uh, no it wouldn't.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by cotwom

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

I for one would be totally willing to sacrifice myself to help stem the DESTRUCTION OF OUR PLANET!

And I would hope that G. W. was one of the survivors

Who's with me?



Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Who said anything about killing anyone?

You sick...


Ummm....



Yeah, I see you trying to making a point there. Nice try. Helping stem the destruction of our planet by dying does not imply killing anyone, and neither does G.W. surviving. This implies self sacrifice (or suicide, whichever you prefer), and causing the suffering of the wicked through compassionate salvation, over which I hold no domain, of course.

Hey if anyones killing anyone, it's going to be Nygdan. He's the one that wants to kill everybody!

[edit on 19-12-2004 by DeltaChaos]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Heres my take on the situation. The agriculture industry is dependent (as is all industry) on oil. Without it there is no way we could produce enough food to feed all the people in the developed world. As oil becomes more scarce, food will become more expensive and eventually we will no longer be able to sustain this huge human population (which will be even larger by the time that happens) and a massive, natural die off will occur. I read an interesting article comparing the population growth patterns of humans to other animals and bacteria/viruses. humans fall in with the parasites which suggets that the population rises and falls in cycles as the resources are drained from the host. I know most everyone here has already heard this but it makes my point that a reduction of the world population is inevitable. no one needs to do anything to help it happen.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   
If you used neutron bombs a nuclear war wouldnt be that bad for the earth as most people might think.

I agree you would have to chose plenty of people who were sufficiently talented to fill all the roles of a functional society. But who would decide which people are valuable to a future society and which are not.

I dont think any human or group has the right to make that choice.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Delta Chaos
do you think we could pull our .s out soon enough to avert the catastrophe that awaits in a couple hundred years? Hmmm... I think only a catastrophe could cause that to happen. How ironic.

Nuclear war would be a bad way for it to happen. We'd be screwed. But how about a pandemic that only a slight amount of the population was completely immune to? With two million people, we'd probably have plenty of people who were sufficiently talented to fill all the roles of a functional society. And we could keep ourselves busy by cleaning up our mess. We could learn to use existing technology to do this. And at the same time, learn not to make the mess in the first place.


History has a tendency to repeat itself.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Whats the sense of killing billions of people to control the population? THe onyl reason for population control is to prevent the disasters that are feared to come from it, and the only reason to stop those disasters is to prevent people from dying. So where's the sense in killing everyone? Kill everyone to prevent deaths from disaster?



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
If you used neutron bombs a nuclear war wouldnt be that bad for the earth as most people might think.

I agree you would have to chose plenty of people who were sufficiently talented to fill all the roles of a functional society. But who would decide which people are valuable to a future society and which are not.

I dont think any human or group has the right to make that choice.



Chances are we'd be unable to try making that choice and all the people we would have wanted to survive would be dead... (and with my luck) all the women. At which point if I was a survivor, I'd kill myself.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Telly
I know most everyone here has already heard this but it makes my point that a reduction of the world population is inevitable. no one needs to do anything to help it happen.


Yeah, that's right. So we consume, so shall we be consumed. That reminds me of one of my favorite movie diatribes:


Originally read by Hugo Weaving as Agent Smith (Long Live Priscilla!)
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
If you used neutron bombs a nuclear war wouldnt be that bad for the earth as most people might think.


Neutron bomb. Good call. Very clean, very clean.

My problem with it is that it would kill innocent flowers and puppies, too. We need to keep all the puppies.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by cotwom


Chances are we'd be unable to try making that choice and all the people we would have wanted to survive would be dead... (and with my luck) all the women. At which point if I was a survivor, I'd kill myself.


All the women yeah that would suck
I heard that NORAD is staffed by equal numbers of men and women for just this reason. Wouldnt make sense for only all men to survive a nuclear war in bunker.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos


My problem with it is that it would kill innocent flowers and puppies, too. We need to keep all the puppies.


Well if your really want to save the puppies I would suggest a bio weapon that just kills humans which could be made perhaps a weaponized version of smallpox. But they could be very hard to control it even if you had a cure for the 2 million people it could mutate and your cure might not work anymore.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Ahh, I love talking Malthusian stuff! This guy made some good points, over a hundred years ago, that are still discussed today.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Well if your really want to save the puppies I would suggest a bio weapon that just kills humans which could be made perhaps a weaponized version of smallpox. But they could be very hard to control it even if you had a cure for the 2 million people it could mutate and your cure might not work anymore.


Again, I'm not going to kill anyone. I don't have a bio-weapon. Nygdan, step up. It's your floor.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join