It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: elysiumfire
If you haven't heard of/read 'Red Mars' by Kim Robinson-Stanley I highly recommend it. It is Sci-Fi, but incredibly well written and highly plausible.
With your good intentions noted, I have to say that there is nothing remotely plausible with regard to terra-forming our nearest neighbour planet, Mars. Space travel is out of the question for many many decades, at least another century. I am sure you realise just what it takes to put a person into space, the vast endeavour required. We have learned a lot regarding space, but to actually terra-form the surface of another planet, and to colonise it, our technology is not sufficiently advanced enough for that.
originally posted by: muzzleflash
originally posted by: Nothin
Thanks for this thought-provoking thread.
Could you please explain: how the 90% of Human-Beings, not on Earth, are no longer a part of Humanity?
Why do you use the term: NWO, when it is a known code-word, (at least on ATS), for the 0.1%ers, Bilderburg clans, and their endless quest for more for them, and screw everyone else?
I think all humans are part of Humanity. I made the assumption that the guidestones referenced Earth based civilization and that it did not preclude additional human populations off-world. I hope that is a reasonable jump to a conclusion. You asked a good question though.
Whomever wrote the guidestones should reword or explain why they shouldn't reword it, to address your keen questioning. It's clear I, for the sake of writing a simplified thread and playing devil's advocate against a very popular belief on ATS, make some strong assumptions contrary to the assumptions popular here for the sake of promoting argument and provoking intellectual discussions.
I used the term NWO because it is vague and non-specific, but also because I knew that it would generate controversy by exploiting the common misconception that it references a specific when it in fact does not. My comparison was with the word UFO which is taken to mean aliens when it does not in fact necessitate aliens. I was utilizing an exploit to generate controversy so that the topic would be exciting enough that someone might bother to discuss it with me.
I reluctantly admit I have to generate controversy to some degree or else I will be ignored as a boring thread creator, and I do not think that is entirely my fault - I am merely playing to the environment I find myself in. People are fickle and divisive by their own accord and I am just embracing that in hopes that I can use it against them to compel them into deeper thinking and conceptualization of big ideas so that one day I won't have to use psychology tactics simply to propel a fun discussion.
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: muzzleflash
In case you didn't know it muzzle, your tax dollars have been going to third world couples as UN incentives to not have more than one or two children. I bet you never had a clue how your money is being redistributed around the world.
originally posted by: elysiumfire
Professor Bradshaw, Director of Ecological Modelling in the Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences.
Some very strange and illogical claims have been made in this thread, particularly with regard to how large a population the world can sustain. Why is it suggested to maintain humanity at half a billion globally? Of course, it is to give that half a billion people an equal level of existence and an equal amount of accessible resources and to maintain a similar level of quality of life. It is also to reduce the strain on the earth’s resources.
We are over-populated. The extractable finite resources of a finite earth cannot support the current population levels. The developed countries, alone, require the resources of one and a half earths to maintain current quality of lifestyles. Are you prepared to reduce the level of quality of your lifestyle to aid the many billions who exist and survive way below such a level? You can’t bring those people up to your level, you would need the resources of five earths to do that. No, you have to reduce your level if you live in a developed country, you have to level down to them. There is no alternative.
The problems we are experiencing now were realised and known over a century ago. There are people alive today who were born into a world where the global population level was 2 billion. We are now at 6.5 billion. In one human’s lifetime, the world’s population has increased by over 4.5 billion. This has put such a strain on the earth’s resources that it is going to bring conflict into human relations around the planet as people begin to migrate towards the developed countries where most of the earth’s extracted resources are focussed and delivered.
Climate variations and disruptions, from temperate to hostile, will drive desperate people away from their traditional countries towards the countries they believe they will find a better life. How welcoming of them will you be?
originally posted by: NwoDedispU
a reply to: muzzleflash
Who made those stones? Rulers of Justice? Not flippin likely. People who just want to control everyone else and kill them off so they have more of everything. The people who wish this stuff are Mentally disturbed and need to be taken down.
originally posted by: Grumble
DBCowboy, think of it like this: you and 999 other people are on a small cruise ship that is being buffeted by huge waves. If everyone is free to act on their own, survival instincts will lead them all to run away from the incoming waves, tilting the ship precariously and perhaps causing it to sink. If they accept leadership and work together to balance the distribution of mass, they may be able to survive the waves. The reality is that many individuals with similar motivations acting independently can cause horrific outcomes in physical systems, in markets, etc. Coordination and cooperation are the key to survival, and the individuals must cede freedom of action in order achieve those goals.
originally posted by: 2020AYWW
This is a fascinating thread, good job muzzleflash at keeping it civil and productive.
My feelings are that in the "Age of Information" a vast majority of people are highly uneducated. This leads to exploitation
originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You take too people away and then the environment really goes to hell.