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.

 

De-population: Agenda, or Natural Order?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 09:41 AM
link   
As I perused the local, national, and international headlines this morning, as I do every morning, some headlines caught my attention. Taking into account the medias penchant for over-stating and sensationalizing, I still find the headlines of interest, because they show a global trend. Japan has been in the news consistently due to a steep decline in matrimony, and therefore birth-rates, as well as a rise in "grass-eaters" as they call them. Men who neither date or marry, and many who forego sex as well. On the home-front(USA), we see this today...


You could be forgiven for immediately thinking about the "mouse utopias" made popular by John Calhoun in the 60's, but as interesting as they were, and not without merit I might add, there were some holes in John's theories pointed out by his colleagues. You can read a short piece on that here.

In November 2018, the BBC posted an article claiming a reduction in "fertility rates" globally, although the decline is shown in roughly only half of the worlds countries...

Source
Note that birth-rate and fertility-rate are defined differently, but connected nonetheless;

The birth rate is the number of live births per 1,000 of the population each year.
The fertility rate is the average number of of children born to women of childbearing age (15-44)


I said recently that "de-population" is an open agenda. It is not a secret, and many of the worlds wealthy and public figures have made their stance known on the topic, and have put a portion of their resources toward that end. Bill Gates being one of the better known.

The question is, how much of the decline in births and the slight reduction in life expectancy is due to the efforts of those who have a vested interest in effecting such change, and how much is due to the natural order of things? My tendency is to say it is a combination of the two, but I still think nature is the driving factor, which adds a third variable, ecology. What do you think?
edit on 11/27/2019 by Klassified because: correction

edit on 11/27/2019 by Klassified because: C2




posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I think all the garbage people eat plays a large role. Add in all kinds of new drugs and chemicals.
Factor in birth control, abortion. Families don't need 15 kids to help work the farm anymore.

I would also think as you mentioned nature, having it's say in densely populated areas, some kind of as yet unidentified natural trigger the reduces birth rates or fertility.

A virtual plethora of contributing factors.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified




how much of the decline in births and the slight reduction in life expectancy is due to the efforts of those who have a vested interest in effecting such change,


So birth rates just so happened to always be the same for all of history until the rich aristocrats from Britan and the mega wealthy intellectuals from American invented eugenics and legalized abortions for "undesirables" ... and then it just so happened to start declining dramatically.... sure, the "natural order" of things as in the people in power need to keep the numbers of those they rule in check lest they get rowdy.

about as natural as a farmer culling his heard because they become unmanageable.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Of course add abortions. And now the push for homosexuality and transgender. The OBVIOUS is that the less babies the less damage to the earf.

There is some validity to that, however I must add that at least where I am people seem to manage their impact on the environment much better than they did when I was a child.

I am not really sure though if that matters in some areas of the world where having many children is still a "good thing". Africa/India/Muslim nations...



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: smkymcnugget420
I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiments, but as has been pointed out previously on ATS, the present population of the planet would seem to indicate that at least until recently, de-population has been a dismal failure. Only in recent decades has a very slow but steady decline been shown in both births and life expectancy, which leads me to believe that there is more than one contributing factor, without ruling out the efforts of those who favor it.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

I think a lot of people decide to stay single these days between 18 and 40 due to work and other issues plus all the negativity in the media surrounding relationships and marriage breakups portrayed as an every day thing.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn
Do you see this as a worsening trend, or do you think it will level off at some point? Maybe another baby boom down the road?



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

I have ony two words to explain fertility rate decline:

Toxoplasma gondii

The T. Gondii pathogen infects nearly half of the world's population. It was carried to humans by cats. It causes a wide array of symptoms, including decrease of fertility, and behavioural changes in both men and women.

More info on how it affects fertility:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

edit on 27-11-2019 by TaninimLong because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Women, given the benefit of education and birth control, choose to have fewer children. In rural environments, children are extra hands. In urban settings they are extra mouths to feed.
edit on 0000001110551110America/Chicago27 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

I think it’s a mix of things, but mostly I think it’s out of choice.

I turned 40 earlier this year, my wife 35. We have a 10 month old girl. Why now? I’ve dove everything I’ve wanted to do. Had the jobs, money and niceties.

There’s also not as much of a risk of having a baby later on in life as there was, say, 50 years ago. Medical sciences mean you can have a baby in your 40s and even 50s.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Klassified

I think it’s a mix of things, but mostly I think it’s out of choice.

I turned 40 earlier this year, my wife 35. We have a 10 month old girl. Why now? I’ve dove everything I’ve wanted to do. Had the jobs, money and niceties.

There’s also not as much of a risk of having a baby later on in life as there was, say, 50 years ago. Medical sciences mean you can have a baby in your 40s and even 50s.


What you describe seems to be the norm now days, from what I see. I was done making babies at 27 and other parents with children the same age as mine have 15-20 years on me in a lot of cases. My wife and I are making a go at advancing our careers now that our responsibilities as parents are getting less and less.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 11:22 AM
link   
The Host has a way of naturally casting off the parasites. No matter how ignorant or eloquent their appearance or speech. The world has been used up. Refuse is accumulating faster than it can be absorbed. Toxins are dispersed and disposed in cavalier and dangerous ways. Some remaining toxic for millennia.

Can any of you discount this....

Add solar cycles affecting heat and cold. a cliché much used.. "The Perfect Storm"



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: TaninimLong
a reply to: Klassified

I have ony two words to explain fertility rate decline:

Toxoplasma gondii

The T. Gondii pathogen infects nearly half of the world's population. It was carried to humans by cats. It causes a wide array of symptoms, including decrease of fertility, and behavioural changes in both men and women.

More info on how it affects fertility:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


You seem to be suggesting that Cats and their Symbiotes are plotting to take over the world.
I like this theory. The fact that many spinsters collect cat, lends it some credence.
edit on 0000001111291111America/Chicago27 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

yes with the onset of globalism and the founding of the UN... had to get everyone on the same page ya know. getting TV's and internet in everyone homes helps spread the word too.

for the rest of history we could send a few million to die brutally in war and nobody would bat an eye



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: rom12345Toxoplasma gondii Indeed......



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Perhaps, Women, Cats and Toxoplasma gondii, are all symbiotic. In order to keep the natural balance.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

I think its an agenda. This low fertility rates is only happening in Europe and North America.
edit on 27-11-2019 by ChefFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I think in terms of the Spanish Flu or Polio or the Plague or even Ebola and Aids. a reply to: ChefFox



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

Oh, I don't know. I think it largely depends on how great of an impact technology has.

Nanobots, bio-mechanics, cell replacement... Who knows.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

A lot of the falling fertility rate is due to obesity, and people masturbating more over porn.

Its lifestyle related more than anything else.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join