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.

 

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

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Same pot, less mouths. Count me in for 500 million. Hell of a lot easier to ensure we colonize the galaxy when we get a preindustrial level of population reset.




posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
If the world buried as much money into clean energy, renewable energy, and the like, as they do into weapons development.....this discussion would be mute.

Some of these discussions frankly disappoint me as a human being. Sorry but the first nations of the world were more than capable of living in harmony with the planet, and that ability was taken from them.

Technology should be advancing us a species but instead it is merely advancing us to our destruction.

And for those pro-500 mill......yes, it is easier to lay down and die rather than do what's necessary to overthrow our corrupt governments and make the change that is necessary for this planet that doesn't involve allowing the elite to choose 500 million people.
edit on 17-6-2015 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I hope you depopulation folks dont have kids just sterilize yourselves and do the rest of us a favor. If you want to depopulate anyone do us all a favor and start with the person in the mirror.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
To be honest, i wish humans could work together as a whole, respect nature but foremost live in balance with nature. Can i see this happening with 7,5 Bill. no. In fact i cant even see it happening with 500 mill. Problem is humans the quantity is not, it worked when the human population was 10-15k around the equator. The 500 million guidestone is merely a symbol for fear. It has no function but to overthrow the actual world order. The point is can we live in harmony with the Messiahs philosophy or do we live as humans that has gone outside of its ecosystem.
I choose neither of the two if humans cant change.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
I hope you depopulation folks dont have kids just sterilize yourselves and do the rest of us a favor. If you want to depopulate anyone do us all a favor and start with the person in the mirror.


Awww, such a cute emotional reaction that solves nothing. I'm sure it made you feel so much better, thou!


originally posted by: Dr1Akula


I am sure these kind of people also praise Hitler's and Stalin's work, various slaughters and genocides throughout history, people dying from hunger, diseases etc.

Good job people kill others instead of trying changing the system for the better.



This one's funny as well. Insane leap in logic there, chief.

These other solutions you speak of... I mean, let's look at reality for a second. We've had billions of minds on this planet for several generations now. Ideas have been thought out, they have been implemented time and time again. We "progress" at the expense of sustainability, taking more from nature each year without looking back. Cool, I'm a-okay with this as long as we have a good shot of getting off planet and colonizing other worlds in time to ditch this one.

I'm just not certain about that. In the grand scheme of things, what's 7 billions lives compared to being a hell of a lot more certain we keep existing for at least a few million more years. That makes me want to worship hitler, or stalin or something? LOL! wow, that makes no damned sense at all.

You're cool with a 60-90% chance (i pulled the numbers out my arse, of course) of making it to that next step, I think it's worth the genetic diversity (erm, we're cataloging that bank right now *crickets* ) to increase our chances of surviving what we've been cooking up for the last... eh pick your point... for all of history, I guess.

...but even the thought, I must just wanna go hang out with Hitler, or mass murder, and like get of on it... I mean just cause I can think about it, weigh risk vs reward, you know think about it rationally... I gotta be a horrible monster, LOL!
edit on 17-6-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Getting off of this planet is the only choice that is reasonable here. If we really wanted to, we could be on Mars by now. The technology exists to do it now, but they are just too afraid of losing someone on the trip. This world has lost it's sense of adventure!

During the renaissance, we had people daring to get onto a boat and sail off into the great unknown, not knowing if they would fall off the world at the horizon or not. What we need now is that same explorative spirit to step up and take the lead. Once we make it to the next planet, then populations here are going to need to boom to support the new push for colonization. Also, what we perceive here as wanton destruction of our planet by greenhouse gasses will be seen there as the saving grace, by virtue of making a more stable, breathable environment.

This all is predicated however on the governments of this planet getting their collective heads out of their arses, and get on board with insuring that the human race will evolve, and extend it's dominance to space, the final frontier!

TheBorg :-)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: DaRAGE
We have 7.5 Billion people on Earth. Pollution is rampant. Consumption is all consuming. Nature is being destroyed. There is a mass extinction currently occurring. The general consensus is it's due to overpopulation and an unwillingness to change.

The Powers That Be have created nanobots that have spread around the world and infected every human. The nanobots in TPTB and your own body have been disabled.

You have been given a choice.

A. You can push a button that will enable the nanobots to quickly kill seven billion humans all of them randomly until 500 million of them are left. This will hopefully help the planet recover but hey, that's a lot of dead souls... murderer.

B. You can choose to not push the button and leave all 7.5 billion people alive. This will probably continue the destructive trend but hey, everyone lives... for now.

I would like to hear your choice. What would you do. You live either way. There is no other choice in this equation. It's either one or the other in this theoretical situation.


If it's one or the other, it's pretty easy. I wouldn't press the button. A 500 million population would be great, but not if it involves mass murder. If it happened as a result of a decrease in the birth rate over 150 years, that's a much more palatable solution.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

THANK YOU for an answer to the question I was asking.

It was a simple question and a lot of the posts don't answer it. Many accuse me of wanting depopulation instead.

I was just putting in a hypothetical question. Thanks for the answer.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: DaRAGE
I'm glad you asked the question as it is important in its nature. We have people like myself that aren't thinking about the short term, we want to sustain the human race and reduce the chance of extinction (not hitler). Others want to keep the current population, completely oblivious to the coming demise of the human race,starvation, disease, huge impending wars for limited resources, claiming the higher ground in terms of morality.

Stop being pathetic people and answer the question. When you compare to hitler you lose all credibility and your opinions are not welcome. It's a theological question, some of us are willing to answer it. Yes it's mass murder but by continuing this path we are on you are condoning mass murder by ignoring the problem. Not even ostriches with there head in the sand will survive



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: DaRAGE


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


Who is saying that?

Overpopulation is a myth. We are just wasteful, is doesn't have anything to do with the number of us, it's the kind of products we create.

The throw away society isn't the result of how many of us are here, but how much money some of us want to make. That and the fact that we are idiots and like to gather in areas most prone to violent, natural disasters.

I would rather live in the world where nobody tells me when and how I can have offspring. Since that's my right as a human being. So it's the 7.5 Billion + for me thank you very much.

I don't live a wasteful life, neither do my kin. I see no reason why I cannot continue to produce valuable members of society.

~Tenth



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: DaRAGE

B:

And tell all of them about the nanobots...then see how quickly they choose to live a more sustainable lifestyle...problem solved.

BTW...all of those who begin to shout and debunk the nanobot 'theory'...get theirs activated to show the rest it's not a joke nor an idle threat.

It would work on me...would it work on you?

In any case...i agree with Tenth above...it's not about the numbers, it's about rampant and uncontrolled profiteering and the drive to force even more consumerism down the public's collective throats.


edit on 22-6-2015 by MysterX because: added text



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Wouldn't go as far as saying over population is a myth. Far from it. If you mean we don't invest enough in agriculture in developing countries and effectively use resources then you are correct, but currently we produce only enough to sustain only 2 billion. People forget about the billions starving, deprived of education and shelter. People are taking the stance from a developed civilisation perspective.
I also feel birth control is vital in countries like China.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: rossacus


Wouldn't go as far as saying over population is a myth. Far from it. If you mean we don't invest enough in agriculture in developing countries and effectively use resources then you are correct, but currently we produce only enough to sustain only 2 billion


That's just not true. Food production world wide, far outweighs requirements based on population. The problem is the KIND of food grown. You think America HAS to produce all that corn?

Nope, not one bit. But high fructose corn syrup is a cash crop, so there you go.


People forget about the billions starving, deprived of education and shelter. People are taking the stance from a developed civilisation perspective.


That has nothing to do with HOW many people there are, but with HOW poor those people are because the rich and greedy are overusing our resources.

Study after study show clearly that the biggest problems facing the world are wealth inequality, which leads to over populating of urban centers like we see in India and China.

We have to solve the problems that LEAD to overpopulation in major urban centers, not tackle the problem of population itself.

Those issues are poverty, education, sustainable energy programs, agriculture. Reducing the # of people will only lead to more of the same if you don't first address the causes listed above.

~Tenth



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   
7.5!

And release the higher tech.

Disclose and end world religions and create Upgrade, Equality, and Freedom for everyone, no money, no banks, no forced slave labor, but volunteering. Venus Project.

And encourage people to get fixed after 1-3 children, those who want children.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: DaRAGE


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


Who is saying that?
~Tenth


It's a hypothetical situation.... A hypothetical question. And many people say that.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Unity_99

What about paying people not to have children?

A lot of the overpopulation talk is centred on the so-called 'third-world'...if the West is so worried about the growth of populations in these countries, instead of surreptitiously sterilising them through vaccination programmes (India, Africa...Gates foundation)and the like, why not simply pay them for not having children after say...1 or 2 births?

Give them the equivalent of a living wage, which if we're talking about India or Africa would be absolute peanuts.

This would do several things; Get the populations in check, prevent many heartbreaking child deaths, bring those countries economies up enough to a point where they can become part of the so-called 'first world'.

Money talks.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower
Fair point. I don't see eating over 3 million chickens a day as sustainable with a growing population and higher life expectancy. Higher production would lead to more pollutants, methane etc et. Like they say in interstellar the last to starve will be the first to suffocate.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I'm already doing my part.

I have no plans to reproduce.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun
Don't plan for that. Don't deny yourself the privelage.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I am admittedly self-centered and care only my survival, can't stand other people, so I would push the button to get rid of 7 billion, no problem.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join