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.

 

Population control - Yes or No

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: RevolutionAnon

So if we remove your fantasy that humans wouldnt kill the Animals, where do we stand?

Cause they clearly showed, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and, they will kill anything?




posted on May, 4 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   
It's kind of sad that dumb ideas never seem to die off. It's hard to believe that in 2016, we're still debating whether eugenics is desirable or not.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: PanPiper

So let the children starve instead? Your defending of the animals does'nt make your argument more valid. The point is there is plenty in this world, and plenty of opportunity to meet higher demands. Whenever you have brought up the animals i have given a direct response. Everytime i have mentioned the children that starve or die from disease you just repeat something about animals completely avoiding that topic. I believe animals are more worthy of this planet than we will ever be. Yet here we are and were not decreasing in numbers.



Sub-Saharan Africa faces specific and complex challenges. The number of hungry people in the continent rose to 239 million last year and 40% of children under five years old are stunted due to malnutrition. Africa's population is expected to almost double by 2050, bringing it to almost 2 billion people. Based on present trends, the current African food production system would be able to meet only 13% of the continent's needs by 2050.

Despite this urgent need, African crop yields have been largely stagnant over the past 50 years. Less than 4% of farmland in sub-Saharan Africa is irrigated. Almost three-quarters of its soils are degraded (pdf) due to years of planting crops without replacing nutrients; fertiliser use is by far the lowest in the world with most farmers unable to afford it.


Do your homework, stop crying about animal welfare when it is'nt even necessary to inconvinence them.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
It's always great to hear of eugenics and who is preaching it.
The old, wealthy, famous person who already has children and has leached off society already.

I would personally like to see the top 5 to 10% of the worlds elite wiped off the face of the planet and their wealth distributed throughout society
It would end hunger, help endangered species...
Don't quote me but I think the top 5% own 90% of the worlds wealth.

The true parasites are the greedy
The true mentally ill are those who follow the teachings of the true parasites

But hey, why not kill poor people, sick people, that makes sense


If you make more than $32,400 a year you are in the top 1% of the world's income earners. So according to you progressives, pretty much anyone that works for a living in the US is part of the evil elite 1%.

Top 1% Globally

So show us all how serious you are and kill yourself first...



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RevolutionAnon

322 Species of animals are of direct extinction cause of humans. Link

99% of the animals at risk of going extinct is cause of humans.Link

Species going extinct is going in an extreme rate cause of humans Link


Just to illustrate the degree of biodiversity loss we're facing, let’s take you through one scientific analysis... The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.*


WWF

You want to cultivate land that already has evolutionary animals living there to feed an intelligent design?

If i was to say what i think, no.. I think all life is precious, but never if its killing something else..



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

He never actually mentioned the 1% only you did. He said he would like to see the top 5-10% of the worlds elite wiped out. that would be the top 5-10% of this quota




The threshold is significantly higher if you look at the top percentile by wealth instead of income. To reach that status, you’d have to possess $770,000 in net worth, which includes everything from the equity in your home to the value of your investments. That’s equal to roughly:
693,607 euros
52.7 million Indian rupees or
5 million Chinese yuan

So the Billionaires and their close counterparts.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: RevolutionAnon

In nature, if you cant provide food for yourself, you die..

A kingdom offers food if you bow before the king..

The Church offers food if you bow before God..

If you want food cause you think its a privilege, well i call on eugenics if thats the case..

Im not an idealist..



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
NVM
edit on 4-5-2016 by Tiamat384 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: RevolutionAnon
a reply to: Edumakated

He never actually mentioned the 1% only you did. He said he would like to see the top 5-10% of the worlds elite wiped out. that would be the top 5-10% of this quota




The threshold is significantly higher if you look at the top percentile by wealth instead of income. To reach that status, you’d have to possess $770,000 in net worth, which includes everything from the equity in your home to the value of your investments. That’s equal to roughly:
693,607 euros
52.7 million Indian rupees or
5 million Chinese yuan

So the Billionaires and their close counterparts.


You don't think being in the top 1% of income earners is elite? Stop trying to move the goal post. The poorest hood rat in the projects in America lives better than 99% of the world's population. I am just pointing out the absurdity of the memes that get thrown around. People yell about the 1% not even realizing they are part of it. First world problems.

A net worth of $775,000 is not mega rich. Hell, most public school teachers in the US would have more than that based on their extravagant pension payouts.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Raggedyman
It's always great to hear of eugenics and who is preaching it.
The old, wealthy, famous person who already has children and has leached off society already.

I would personally like to see the top 5 to 10% of the worlds elite wiped off the face of the planet and their wealth distributed throughout society
It would end hunger, help endangered species...
Don't quote me but I think the top 5% own 90% of the worlds wealth.

The true parasites are the greedy
The true mentally ill are those who follow the teachings of the true parasites

But hey, why not kill poor people, sick people, that makes sense


If you make more than $32,400 a year you are in the top 1% of the world's income earners. So according to you progressives, pretty much anyone that works for a living in the US is part of the evil elite 1%.

Top 1% Globally

So show us all how serious you are and kill yourself first...


Oh that is so cute, you have transposed my reply over the ops message and assumed that I want to see people killed because of the ops issues
Thats so funny in a peculiar sort of way

I guess metaphoric and hyperbole are not as clearly understood in this context.

Let me suggest that my silly comments were a reply to the ops silly comments

Strangely your point is not mute, maybe if we were to rid the world of the US population then things would look better for the rest of the world?

Now just for your information, I am not from the US, I am a parent, husband with dependents, my wage would equal less, divided amongst my dependents than $32000

and again because you may miss the hyperbole, you may miss the blatantly obvious, my issue was with the arrogantly greedy who have more money than they could ever, ever use, who turn people into slaves to earn more.
Not those earning a reasonable wage.
Dont be silly



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: PanPiper

If you read this:



Your defending of the animals does'nt make your argument more valid. The point is there is plenty in this world, and plenty of opportunity to meet higher demands. Whenever you have brought up the animals i have given a direct response. Everytime i have mentioned the children that starve or die from disease you just repeat something about animals completely avoiding that topic.


You will see your most recent post proved this point.

Also if you read this and actually make an attempt to understand it you, maybe, will grasp its underlying concepts by linking the terms used to their meanings. I will highlight these in the hope it will become clear:



Sub-Saharan Africa faces specific and complex challenges. The number of hungry people in the continent rose to 239 million last year and 40% of children under five years old are stunted due to malnutrition. Africa's population is expected to almost double by 2050, bringing it to almost 2 billion people. Based on present trends, the current African food production system would be able to meet only 13% of the continent's needs by 2050.
Despite this urgent need, African crop yields have been largely stagnant over the past 50 years. Less than 4% of farmland in sub-Saharan Africa is irrigated. Almost three-quarters of its soils are degraded (pdf) due to years of planting crops without replacing nutrients; fertiliser use is by far the lowest in the world with most farmers unable to afford it.


You will understand why i refuse to conversate with someone who operates akin to a broken record player. So i say once again with fear of another WWF link, Cultivating Africa is'nt just a feasible plan, It will be the only hope they have. Unless Jesus is planning on multiplying that 13% there will be upto 1,740,000,000, that Africa's own farmland cannot feed.
edit on 4-5-2016 by RevolutionAnon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: RevolutionAnon
a reply to: Edumakated

He never actually mentioned the 1% only you did. He said he would like to see the top 5-10% of the worlds elite wiped out. that would be the top 5-10% of this quota




The threshold is significantly higher if you look at the top percentile by wealth instead of income. To reach that status, you’d have to possess $770,000 in net worth, which includes everything from the equity in your home to the value of your investments. That’s equal to roughly:
693,607 euros
52.7 million Indian rupees or
5 million Chinese yuan

So the Billionaires and their close counterparts.


Thanks RA, I think you got the general idea better than I reasoned it myself



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Lol. You moved the goal post i just repositioned it back to where it should be. Do the math. The top 5-10% of the Elite would be the top, say 5%, of the 1%. People earning 32,400 a year would not fall into the top 5% of the top 1%. That is fact. It is undisputable mathematics I am sorry for the offence this causes but i have simply learned a system of numbers that is both logical and prevelant in this era.



"A net worth of $775,000 is not mega rich. Hell, most public school teachers in the US would have more than that based on their extravagant pension payouts. "

Yet 32,400 is? Again...Top 5% of the top 1%. So 0.05% of 1%.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: RevolutionAnon
a reply to: Edumakated

He never actually mentioned the 1% only you did. He said he would like to see the top 5-10% of the worlds elite wiped out. that would be the top 5-10% of this quota




The threshold is significantly higher if you look at the top percentile by wealth instead of income. To reach that status, you’d have to possess $770,000 in net worth, which includes everything from the equity in your home to the value of your investments. That’s equal to roughly:
693,607 euros
52.7 million Indian rupees or
5 million Chinese yuan

So the Billionaires and their close counterparts.


So you wipe out all the billionaires and then what? You spread all their money around and what do you do once it runs out? You go after the left over elites who still have too much money? So now it isn't the billionaires but people with $100k? There is always going to be somebody somewhere that has more money than someone else.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: RevolutionAnon

In an idealist world, it would probably work...

And then you have facts.. Problem with an idealist mindset its always a fix on a single problem and makes things even worse then they once were..



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: PanPiper

Cultivating farmland in Africa could quite easily become an industrial operation, that is the negative. But unless these top listed billionaires decide that maybe i could build Africa's farming infrastructure up to a productive and maintainable level without asking for a profit in return, this will unfortunately be a likely outcome. Again i say the greedy will destroy the poor for the sake of profits.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

1. This is'nt a point i made i was just defending his position as you completely twisted it to suit a different set of rules and i personally hate that being done to me.

2. If i was to comment and we assume for a day i could make anything happen, I would have all profits return into companies and employee wages. I would ensure no company could be owned or profited from directly and that everyone would be on a fair and equal enough wage.
Footballers are a great example of this, some are paid in excess of 300k a game to exercise and kick a ball around, something that was most probably their favourite hobby before becoming proffessional. Soliders have a more vigorus exercise regime and they risk their lives even if the wars they fight are'nt necessarily justified; I believe the starting wage for a solider is around 20k?.
These are two idea's i would implement, the need for big business' is evident, but the need for billionaire entriprises behind them are not. With wealth equally shared amongst all and all business's non-profitable,only existing to provide services and pay wages, the world would begin to become a fairer place. But this is a daydream that humanity would not be capable of, It's just fun to speculate.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: PanPiper

As an added note for this. I see your logic but we do not live in the forest (And these days if you did it would probably be privately owned). Nature actually provides food for you, if you were an animal you would then be equipped by nature to both hunt/gather and to protect yourself.

Food is not a privilege it is a necessity. One to many people go needlessly without.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: PanPiper
a reply to: RevolutionAnon

In an idealist world, it would probably work...

And then you have facts.. Problem with an idealist mindset its always a fix on a single problem and makes things even worse then they once were..



Didnt your idealistic world include the depopulation of the sick and poor




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join