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.


Earth Needs Fewer People to Beat the Climate Crisis, Scientists Say

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 02:07 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

I am fed up to the back teeth of men whom abuse the title Scientist to blame human population for the ill's of a culture.

The number of people is not the issue and never has been, how they live, in what condition's and what culture they live by ARE the issue.

IF instead of blaming people, often illiterate third world people, often people being sent OUR crap by waste exporting company's for all the world's problem's these supposed scientists were to instead turn around, look in a mirror at themselves and ask.


Why have we not built vast subterranean hydroponic farm's and city's.

Why have we not build Giant Stratoscaper pyramidal towers with deck's each of which containing entire town's, farm's and nature preserves.

Why have we not made proper use of the SEA's instead of pouring our waste into them like idiot's saying someone else will clean it up.

Why ARE the scientists continuing to created monstrous neonicitinoid pesticides, GM tailored chemical's and GM crop's while forcing farmers to give up there heritage variety's that have been adapted over slow selective breeding to the land were those farmers are cultivating over many generation's (And are now being completely lost as corporation's force there cancer causing crap onto the world, crap that can only thrive when it is bathed in yet more cancer causing crap in the form of there tailored chemical solution's that kill the soil but make there GM crop's thrive giving those pharma corp's a growing monopoly on the world's food supply).

I will say it again these are NOT scientists they are QUACK's and Charlaitan's whom are not fit to be called scientists even if they have a hundred PHD's because to be frank they lack the ethical reasoning and objective stance a true scientist has and are simply passing the blame for there OWN mercenary career choices that have led the world into this predicament, "Oh it's not me I am a good scientist and only work for that big Pharma company my research is for the good of humanity (hm cough cough), well the board members are human being's after all (remotely)", instead they blame the people, now let's be fair the people are like sheep, they also have to work but there are a group of corrupt entity's that tear up jungle's, strip mine, create poisons that kill nature, control government's and profit from ceaseless war - yes that's right the CORPORATIONS NOT THE PEOPLE.

NOW think how different this world would have been with GOOD, ETHICAL, HUMANE and caring rulers.

Think how different it would have been had every scientist worth his salt STUCK to moral principles and refused to work for greedy devious scum bag financiers and power hungry corporation's.

Think how much better life would have been for people AND Nature had they solved the problem's rather than creating new ones AND how many more people and animal's would be in the world today because instead of exploiting humanity ceaselessly as a market for corporate greed they had instead tended the human race and acted SANE for once.

BUT NO let's pass the buck shall we, let's blame the poor, the downtrodden and the already victimized and wronged that are the great majority of the human race.

Once again these are not fit to be called scientists they are DISGUSTING.

edit on 6-11-2019 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 03:48 AM
I found nowhere in the article where it mentioned committing genocide or killing people to reduce the population. It said the population needs to be stabilized and then ideally reduced slowly over time that can be accomplished through reproduction control of the population.

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 03:58 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

This is all gonna solve it self when peak oil gets here. No worries.

edit on 6-11-2019 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 03:59 AM

originally posted by: HarryJoy
I found nowhere in the article where it mentioned committing genocide or killing people to reduce the population. It said the population needs to be stabilized and then ideally reduced slowly over time that can be accomplished through reproduction control of the population.

And here is how control of reproduction is being carried out......

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 05:04 AM

originally posted by: HarryJoy
I found nowhere in the article where it mentioned committing genocide or killing people to reduce the population. It said the population needs to be stabilized and then ideally reduced slowly over time that can be accomplished through reproduction control of the population.

You have to know this is Naive.

Of course population control is about killing off people. Right now the Marxist Left or what's called Democratic Socialism which is connected to the Fabien Society wants to kill people in a humane way in order to achieve their goal of population control.

Controlling the population through birth control and vaccines especially for the poorest among us has always been the plan. They supported Gas Chambers before Hitler. They objected to selecting people to be killed based on Nationality they wanted the selection to be based on class.

Here's a video of Fabien Society member and Nobel Prize Winner George Bernard Shaw saying people should have to justify their existence or be killed in a humane way.

"I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. Deadly by all means, but humane, not cruel." Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw, LISTENER Feb 7, 1934

Here's more about the Fabien Society:

The Fabian Society is a British socialist organisation whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist effort in democracies, rather than by revolutionary overthrow.

When Bernie Sanders or AOC talk about Democrat Socialism, it's nothing new. We know exactly what it is and how destructive it can be. Sadly, the youth think it's something new and hip. So they march for climate change which is exactly what climate change fanatics want so they can control every aspect of human behavior in the name of saving the planet

Here's Democrat Socialist Bernie Sanders talking about Population Control:

Again, Democratic Socialism is nothing new and it's a destructive force. I bet if you asked Bernie Sanders supporters about the history of Democratic Socialism, they wouldn't have a clue as to what it's about. They just know Bernie was played by Larry David on Saturday Night Live.

The irony here is, they say a woman should control her own body and have a right to choose yet they're saying a woman has no right to choose if she wants to have more babies. The right to choose is only sacrosanct when you're killing babies not producing them.

Here's AOC talking about not having babies:


Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York suggested this weekend that it may not be ethical to have children, given the difficulties that climate change will likely cause in the years to come.

In a live stream on her Instagram, Ocasio suggested to her 2.5 million followers that the answer was not clear. "There's scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: Is it OK to still have children?" she asked.

You have climate fanatics talking about everything from Cannibalism and Ecocide. Climate Change Fanaticism is a clear and present danger to humanity.

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 05:15 AM
a reply to: sooth

that's what i always use to say. if they are so worried about it, let them be the first ones to step up and be sacrificed to the global warming... oops, climate change god.

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 06:40 AM
To be fair, we only need 2 people in this world.

Me.. and the bloke at the bottleshop. He also runs the shop next door, so I can buy chops with me cask.

Any more than that, and it's a noisy afternoon, and I'd rather not have to put the telly up louder. Again.

but as we simply have to have more, can we limit it to just enough? You know, less than more, but more than less?

ionno.. I avoid you all anyway.. everyone wants a hug, till a bearded maniac rides towards you, arms wide, screaming illegible things... I love Adrian.. maddog to you.
(if you're from Perth, you know this guy, I know him personally..)

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 06:43 AM
Now I know that science has given us a good deal of positive progress,but-
Isn't it ironic that literally EVERYTHING which has led to all the problems we see today-pollution/over industrialisation/nuclear waste/over population/rivers and oceans jammed with plastic/increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere/pcbs teflon in every living thing etc etc...

is a result of our development of science.

But don't worry folks-scientists know how to fix it all and we MUST listen to them!

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 06:49 AM
a reply to: dfnj2015

Imagine my surprise when I came on this thread and actually saw someone saw the way to solve climate change is to do what China is doing.


What next, we need to protect children by supporting guys like Epstein?

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 06:53 AM
All scientists are evil

Those who blasphemously point out that humans are responsible for their own actions, even more so.

So it it written. So it must be.

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 06:56 AM
Remember when governments use to use foreign threats to justify taking away rights (they still do)

"Oh we have to listen into your private conversations to fight the Russians"

The problem is with the advent of the internet, its easy for regular people from all around the workld to communicate. So this makes it harder to justify stripping of rights because some other countries people are evil, when you can just talk to those people.

So we see many people protest these actions

The elite found a clever way around this; make the enemy OURSELVES and say we are killing the world.

Now people clamor to self flagellate; "please punish me for harming mother earth. Take away my rights, my wealth. Let me live in squalor for my sins! Reproduction is evil and must be stopped"

Meanwhile the elites laugh at how successful this endeavor had been, and continue to own many homes and fly on private jets that damage the environment far worse than any of the regular people they shame.

They have people so twisted we even see people claiming the authoritarian polluting regime of China is to be modeled to fight climate change.

Its very frightening to watch this death cult, but in a way very impressive to see just how much it has brainwashed some people.

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 06:59 AM
a reply to: Grambler

What next, we need to protect children by supporting guys like Epstein?

Careful, Grambler, lest you unleash a host of new memes!


posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 07:15 AM

Scientists Say Earth Needs Fewer People to Beat the Climate Crisis

Apparently the global warming hysteria is devolving back to the point which it derived from...

Carbon Eugenics Agenda

Climate Eugenics

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 07:19 AM
a reply to: AndyMayhew

But the thing is- hypothetically-
I am a vegetarian,no kids,no car,no smart phone,try to buy locally produced food/clothes.
you know,doing the stuff that we are all supposed to do to help a sustainable planet...

How do my actions prevent any of the negative effects we see from international frieght burning bunker oil creating more toxic gas in one day than all the privatley owned cars on the planet make in one decade?

When I try to recycle/limit plastic use-does that help to unf#ck the plastic choked rivers/industrial pollution?
No it doesn't.

Do my actions prevent any negative effects on the environment?
How am I responsible for the unregulated massive industrial polluters of the developing world?

Being responsible for our own actions does not prevent greedy souless globalist mega corps from forcing upon us their unsustainable system.

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 07:38 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

Ok lets start with the top first , since they control the worlds wealth once we reduce their population it should be totally cool for the rest of us!

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 07:42 AM

The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control. It “must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity,” they write.

We already have population control.


Boys can become girls, and girls can become boys.

On top of War,Disease, and BAD WEATHER.

Maybe those jacksnips ought to stop calling themselves scientists.

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 08:04 AM
ALso depopulation would cause a financial crash if they just started offing people , there will be less tax generation

less people spending to support the economy

we are assets to the capitalist market
so why destroy a valuable resource

doesnt make sense to the globalist view
in my opinion anyway.

I think Biochar is the best bet we have right now of fixing the climate crisis
and mass plantations of trees and using industrial Hemp instead of trees for paper , and toilet roll , and for fabrics etc

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 08:05 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

Fine, lets start with the scientists who think AGW is real.

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 08:10 AM
a reply to: LSU2018

No lets start with government who will be the ones to enact these barbaric legislations
and also the top 1% of wealth owners.

Since they are a part of this problem too !

its trickle down economy remember so , the trickle of depopulation should start at the top!

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 08:23 AM
I think we do need less people. No, I'm not talking about killing off masses of people. I think it can be done mostly through education and access to contraception over time.

I don't pretend to know the best way to accomplish this but here are a few ideas:

The United Nations makes a range of projections for future population growth, based on assumptions about how long people will live, what the fertility rate will be in different countries and how many people of childbearing age there will be. Its main population prediction is in the middle of that range – 9.7bn in 2050 and 10.9bn in 2100.

It also calculates that if, on average, every other family had one fewer child than it has assumed (i.e. 'half a child less' per family), there will be one billion fewer of us than it expects by 2050 – and nearly four billion fewer by the end of the century (within the lifetimes of many children born now). If that happens, our population will be less than it is today.

Countries have had success in reducing their birth rates. Thailand, for instance, reduced its fertility rate by nearly 75% in just two generations with a targeted, creative and ethical family planning programme.

In the last ten years alone, fertility rates in Asia have dropped by nearly 10%.

Where women and girls have economic empowerment, education and freedom, they choose to have smaller families. Greater freedom usually leads to greater uptake of family planning and ending child marriage pushes back the age at which women have their first child which often reduces family size.

For instance, African women with no education have, on average, 5.4 children; women who have completed secondary school have 2.7 and those who have a college education have 2.2. When family sizes are smaller, that also empowers women to gain education, take work and improve their economic opportunities.

Currently, more than 200 million women who want to avoid pregnancy are not using modern contraception. There are a variety of reasons for this, including lack of access to contraceptives, concerns about the side-effects of contraception and social pressure not to use it.

These women mostly live in some of the world’s least developed countries, where population is set to rise by 3bn by 2100. Overseas aid support for family planning is essential – both ensuring levels are high enough and that delivery of service is effective.

Across the world, people choose not to use contraception because they are influenced by assumptions, practices and pressures within their nations or communities. In some places, very large family sizes are considered desirable; in others, the use of contraception is discouraged or forbidden.

Work with women and men to change attitudes towards contraception and family size has formed a key part of successful family planning programmes. Religious barriers may also be overturned or sidelined. In Iran, a very successful family planning campaign was initiated when the country’s religious leader declared the use of contraception was consistent with Islamic belief. In Europe, predominantly Catholic countries such as Portugal and Italy have some of the lowest fertility rates.

The UN projects that population growth over the next century will be driven by the world’s very poorest countries. Escaping poverty is not just a fundamental human right but a vital way to bring birth rates down. Decreasing child mortality, improving education and providing people with economic opportunities all help to reduce fertility and population growth. International aid, fair trade and global justice are all tools to help bring global population back to sustainable levels.

In the developed world, most of us have the power to choose the size of our families. We also have a disproportionate impact on the global environment through our high level of consumption and greenhouse gas emissions – in the UK, for instance, each individual produces 70 times more carbon dioxide emissions than someone from Niger. When we understand the implications for our environment and our children’s futures of a growing population, we can consider having smaller families.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in