It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Choice: Population of 7.5 Billion or 500 Million. What would you choose?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 07:22 AM
a reply to: FlyersFan

Humans have cut trees for survival for thousands of years,yet deforestation became a problem in the last 200years,coinciding with industrialization.Like I said,the amount we were cutting was just the necessary for survival and didnt have an observable effect on the forests.It all went sour when the need for wood for construction of huge buildings,paper,coal and what not came into play.
edit on 222Tuesday16ampam2015-06-16T07:22:56-05:0007America/Chicago by wildapache because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 07:24 AM
a reply to: wildapache
Mwahahaha haha. ...EXCELLENT. send for the nanobots.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 07:28 AM
a reply to: DaRAGE

You do know that most of the countries in the first world are stabilizing their populations right? Most of the overpopulation is occurring in the third world. Of course the average life expectancy in those parts of the world is much lower as well.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 07:38 AM
a reply to: DaRAGE

Everyone lives.

There is no person with the moral authority to make any other choice on behalf of the human race. The overpopulation issue should be solved by other means, including but not limited to the expansion of humanity throughout near space, the creation of alternative energy production methods en mass, the banning of the use of fossil fuels, and an introduction of international regulations on the use of plastics, specifically regarding to phasing out all disposable items made from fossil products, to be replaced with much longer lasting articles.

Built in obsolescence in an engineered product, requiring the premature disposal of an otherwise functional piece of tech or equipment, being used as a business model by hardware manufacturers should be made a criminal offence in all nations, and any company using such methods should be liquidated and its operations handled by either other companies who are on board with the effort to reduce fossil product use, or the government of the nation in which the offence is committed.

Solar initiatives should be enacted to ensure that the roofs of every building in every nation where it would be useful, are covered in solar panels of increasing efficiency and durability. Grid based power production and distribution should end, with each building collecting its own power from exclusively renewable sources. All new housing should be built with flooring that absorbs footfalls and converts their energy into electrical energy, and can do the same whenever a drawer, cupboard, or access is opened or closed, and be built to be cool in summer, and warm in winter, without the use of a home wide heating or air conditioning system. This last could be achieved by use of what are sometimes referred to as passive climate control techniques. This refers to a method of designing and building a house, which uses materials and design characteristics which passively optimise the internal climate, without the need for powered devices of any kind to achieve the desired result.

Recycling initiatives ought to be properly funded, rather than being an afterthought. At the moment, only roughly twelve percent of what a household in my nation throws away to be recycled, actually makes it to the recycling stations. The rest is thrown onto landfill despite being marked for recycling. Recycling methods should recieve vast investment, so that methods which require no sorting of the trash can be developed, capable of sifting rubbish automatically, and the useful remains should ALL be sold to manufacturers, or used in the development of sustainable housing (there are materials which can be used to build houses, which are made of recycled household waste products).

Furthermore, to expand the amount of available housing, land which is owned privately, but not being used (you would be amazed how often this happens) will be purchased by either central or local government without the owners explicit consent, and built upon, instead of expanding into untamed woodland, wetlands, national parks, or areas of special scientific interest.

Fracking will be straight up banned.

In summary, I would seek a solution which involved the whole human race as it is today, rather than killing off a percentage so a few greedy souls could continue as normal without fear of destroying themselves and the planets resources. We march forward as one, or we move not at all. Put another way, I would rather kill the human race off completely, than kill even a single human for the betterment of another.

edit on 16-6-2015 by TrueBrit because: Grammatical improvements.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 07:48 AM
I don't think anybody under any circumstance has the right to push the button, myself included.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 08:47 AM
No need to choose, nature will choose for us and we have decided not to choose, which is a choice in itself.
Just look up Malthusian Theory.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:26 AM
It's sad and pathetic, really.

So many times I see written that western imperialism is bad. No blood for oil. Why should the west decide what is right for the rest of the world!??

Yet, there is not a thought and the concept of destroying billions of lives.

Stay classy.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:29 AM
a reply to: beezzer

The west is certainly FAR better than the third world when it comes to destabilizing the planet. The west actually has policies and controls to slow down and hopefully reverse environmental destruction (even if they aren't very effective). The third world just breeds and breeds and destroys and destroys with no limits or controls in place.

Calling out the decadence in the west is just a red herring. Yes, we aren't perfect, and still have a LONG way to go to bring the world back from the brink, but it could be worse. MUCH worse.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:34 AM
a reply to: FlyersFan

Well I do not know about You...but wallow in my filth i do not. I have trash Picked up weekly, recycle, and bathe Daily.

Just where are you living that you are 'wallowing in your own filth?' If it is one of the massive cities, I can see a bit what you mean...

If not, i will think you exaggerate Greatly and complain Easily.

If it is a big city, move away. Plenty of places to go and be more isolated on every continent of this planet.

People living like congested animals in cities choose that lifestyle because they like it.

Now I can Say i DEFINITELY would push a button that allowed say 50 million specific People to be sterilized. Mainly those in poverty with 4+ kids as well as those repeat abortioners.

Would i sterilizd the world? Hell no.

That being said. Countries like India must change their ways but if not so what? Let that select Country their own filth. It is not my problem nor yours Id bet. Again if it is, move. The west will do just fine, plenty of land over here.
edit on 16-6-2015 by lightedhype because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:51 AM
a reply to: DaRAGE

The general consensus is it's due to overpopulation and an unwillingness to change.

You need to ask yourself some serious questions about who or what programmed you with that idea. It's not people that are destroying the planet, it's profit machines.

The premise is false and the choice your are presenting is also false.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:56 AM
If there was a population control execution system it should start in the West, its the West that greedily uses the majority of the resources.
Maybe we only need to control the top 20% of the wealthy to bring back stability

This population control thing is based on the destruction of all humanity, its satans final plan. End humanity, destroy those whom God loves. Its coming

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 10:02 AM

originally posted by: wildapache
a reply to: FlyersFan

Humans have cut trees for survival for thousands of years,yet deforestation became a problem in the last 200years,coinciding with industrialization.Like I said,the amount we were cutting was just the necessary for survival and didnt have an observable effect on the forests.It all went sour when the need for wood for construction of huge buildings,paper,coal and what not came into play.

Europe had destroyed most of it's timber by 1700 A.D. European immigrants to what is Now the USA destroyed most of the timber East of the Mississippi by 1850. Most of it was burned.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 12:25 PM

originally posted by: lightedhype
a reply to: FlyersFan
Well I do not know about You...but wallow in my filth i do not.

Actually .. you do. You are wallowing in the filth of an over populated planet.

Just where are you living that you are 'wallowing in your own filth?'

Planet Earth. Just like you. The entire planet is connected. And it's filthy.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 01:44 PM
a reply to: DaRAGE

530,409 no way this is accurate.

First of all, I would eliminate all idiots. Second of all, souls do not die. Third of all, eliminate more idiots. Fourth of all, I prefer nature to takes its course and allow for the natural destruction of all idiots!

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 03:10 PM
If this was for sure going to happen. You absolutely knew it was inevitable. I imagine that if there is such a thing as a world wide shadow government. This would be an issue that causes sides to be taken. Some will say no and be ignored or phased out. Others would say yes, and argue and fight, about how to achieve the magical 500 million population number.

Do you kill everyone in a big event. Such as a war or virus. Nuclear annihilation or world wide pandemic.

Or do you do it more slowly. Attack the idea of the family and put the emphasis on the individual. So people do not want kids. Give everyone access to birth control and make abortions easier to get. So that people have the tools to not have more children. Make alternative sexual orientations mainstream. The less male and females having intercourse. The less children being born. Try to pass laws limiting the number of children one could have. Then once those laws are accepted, start pushing for laws that only allowed those approved by the state to have children. First covertly start programs to sterilize groups of people before overtly passing laws to do the same.

Or a combination of both ideas. Use regional wars and targeted viruses to cut down the population of certain geographical areas.While also implementing long term more humane population control ideas in other geographical areas.

Maybe some countries are not on board. So you try to overthrow those and put your own people in. Maybe other more powerful countries want to be where most of the 500 million are drawn from. So those countries fight for position in the hierarchy of the shadow government.

Maybe Right, Left, and Center. Mean something complete different when it comes to the hypothetical shadow government. Or maybe not. Who knows.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 03:13 PM
a reply to: DaRAGE

It would depend on the people. 7.5 billion would not be so bad if they were all kind and honest. 500 million would be miserable if they were all psychopaths and that is the type of people who would choose to press the button.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 05:30 PM
a reply to: XL5

It is hubris to attempt to pick people who will enable the species to survive. Circumstances change and so do the demands of survival. The best super-computers can't predict with accuracy the weather in a fortnight.

Since I read the 'Population Bomb' as a kid, I've been waiting for the dieback.

It has to happen as the Universe does not allow for unlimited growth. When these consequences of too many people emerge, it will be without quarter. Air born disease, environmental collapse, climate caused starvation, massive industrial accidents, full fledged war are all waiting their chance at the Human Pinata'.

There is just too much dumb and too many people cursed with that burden.

My thought is we have less than forty years to correct things. We are falling off the plateau that we were so successful on. The niches at the bottom will be much smaller and so will be our numbers.

If I thought my kids/G-kids/family/people that I like, would have a fair chance, start up the Soylent Green Machines now.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 05:39 PM
a reply to: wildapache
Indians had deforested most of NA. This was especially true on the Eastern half.
Europeans knew they were nearing 'america' because of the stench of smoke hundreds of miles out at sea.

Then the plagues started (unintentionally BTW) and the land rebounded. We Euros were not the ones who deforested the lands the first time and since we tend to abandon the places we trashed, were only transient abusers and influencers of tree trends. Much of the NE has seen heavy regrowth because the soil isn't all that good. Lots of abandoned acreage is second growth forest now.

You would also need to familiarize yourself with regions of deforestation as opposed to global clear cutting. The local impact is so great as to cause a cascade effect 'downstream' which is a whole other branch of stupid.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 05:49 PM
a reply to: lightedhype

Because your immediate environ stays neat and clean while you ship your detritus down the drain, trash truck and sewer plant, it does not mean that you are of worth. Your dirt is just put elsewhere.

India is a pig-sty. If there is a pig sty in Indiana and you reside in NYC, it does not resolve the influence of that pig sty. If the Mississippi is overcome with residuals and it kills the Gulf of Mexico (more than it already is), you'll have to buy your shrimp from a farm in Viet Nam.

If the folks of Mumbai crash the Indian Ocean, you think that the billions will stick around there or do you think the borders will be overrun?
You sound like a bad edition of the 'Libertarian Press.'

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 06:58 PM
Those suggesting that nature has a way, failed to recognize that man is a part of nature.

Essentially, a 'depopulation agenda' is a way nature can solve things.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in