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.


- - Controlling Earth's Population (How & Why) - -

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 08:11 AM
Like a lot of people here on ATS, I recently read an article where an ecologist recommended exterminating 90 per cent of the human population on planet Earth, as he believed it would not survive without such ‘drastic measures.’ That is 5, 850, 000, 000 people. Almost six billion.

The method he recommended using to do this was ‘Ebola Reston,’ or Reston ebolavirus, which, as it turns out, is only fatal to monkeys.

A recent speech at the Texas Academy of Science during which Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner demonstrates exactly why this is such a fitting monkier for the ecologist. The video cameras were turned off for Dr. Pianka's speech as the material wasn't 'fit for public consumption.'

. . . is favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years.

Now, personally, I think this man is a sick, twisted fraud. If you read the whole article, you will notice that Pianka did not even have data to back up his claim. The man is just sad.

But anyways, when I first read this, I immediately thought of an alternative to this horrible form of genocide. Read on, please.

In 2001, 54, 995, 665 people died in 227 countries (of 267 ‘administrative divisions’) worldwide, two and a half million in the U.S. alone. Going by these numbers, in one century the earth will lose 5, 499, 566, 500 people. Compare this to the proposed extermination number: 5, 850, 000, 000. Not much of a difference, huh?

Now, if the Earth is really not going to survive with the population as it is now, and with the growth rate as it is now, then how about this: preventing births for the next hundred years.

What? I hear you think. Prevent babies being born for a century? It’s inhumane!

Ahh, as inhumane as genocide with influenza? As inhumane as the deaths of the 322,437 who died in the atomic bombings? As the 50 million that died in Soviet gulags from 1930 to 1950? As the estimated 50 – possibly as many as 100 – million that died from the Spanish flu in 1918/19? As the 62 million that died in World War 2? No, not as inhumane as those deaths. In fact, not inhumane at all. ‘Lacking pity or compassion’ is what that word means. Preventing new births can hardly be called that. It would merely be thinking like the Japanese: thinking for the future.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

By 2050 this planet will have approximately nine and a quarter billion inhabitants. Have a look at this graph:

As you can see, by the year 2100 this planet will have over 10 billion inhabitants, and by the time the mass baby-booming population gives up, our little rock will have over 11 billion people. Now that is a massive number. Think about the world strife we have now, with just 6.50 billion (a.o. Feb 24, 2006). Floods killing thousands in one of the most highly developed countries on earth, enough wars and nuclear weapons to give every child one for their 9th birthday, and 5.26 million people dying horrible deaths from smoking and car-crashes each year, not even to mention the millions of other sufferings humans have to go through in their daily lives, mostly in undeveloped countries, of which most are directly related to population numbers, and their climb.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Actually preventing the births would be the hardest task, I believe. There will always be a few million people dodging the authorities just to have a kid. Also, there is the problem of getting all countries world-wide to agree to this plan. These problems are on the operational side of this proposed version of population control, and, I believe, should not be discussed here.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Just read in the paper yesterday that bananas are going to cost $12 a kilogram, for God’s sake. This statistic is comparable to petroleum prices, which are only going to get worse, at $1.30 a litre here (US$3.64388 per US gallon, I think after much calculation), as well as the cost of many, many other everyday, household items.

Pollution is on the rise, with over a million people dying each year from airborne contaminants worldwide. The United States released 97, 441 tons of carbon monoxide – yes, monoxide, not dioxide – in 2002. Now that is just scary. With reference to carbon dioxide, our atmosphere has approx. 2, 940, 000, 000, 000 tonnes of it, of which about 1 per cent is what the earth contributes. The rest we humans put there.
Most of this CO2 is released from power plants, which supply the earth’s population with electricity. A lower population theoretically means lower electricity needs, and thus less CO2 released annually. And how about nuclear power? All we are doing is building more nuclear plants to supply the increasing amount of people that need electricity. Waste products from this process amount to 12, 000 tonnes each year; and all we can do is seal it up, and hope that future generations will have either the know-how or the balls to get rid of it. Reminds me a bit of cryogenics, actually.

In summary, I do not think that this planet will be able to sustain the human population for over 1, 000 years. And as usual, I do not claim to be an expert on this – rather, I’ve been looking into it for about 2 hours now – but I find it obvious that drastic measures are needed, and soon.

The preventing of women giving birth will reduce the projected population of 2100 by 49.996 per cent. Almost half, and that number does not take into account a reduced number of births.

All-in-all, I believe that simply stopping people being born for a while will solve many, many problems – and it is a solution that does not even require the killing of one person, unlike any other ‘quick-fix’. It will actually work!

Now I know my little argument here hasn’t convinced Joe Smith, as I’ve only spent a few hours on it, but I hope that it has got you thinking, and I hope that scientists on the board read this, and get thinking. And if you’re a boffin from some government, take this proposed method of population control into consideration! Take it to the United Nations! I believe that it is worth the effort (of course, after you’ve spent 2 years, 6 million dollars, and sent 21, 000 pieces of paper through the govt. machine so that you can hire a car out to drive to the local university to research it; wasteful idiots).

Yes, but, in general; everyone, think about this! It is a feasible alternative to a dead planet!

I have no idea if this idea has been thought of before, none at all. I am very sorry if it has, and even more sorry if it has been discussed here. Mods, please delete if so. All numbers I have quoted have been the minimum available. If you find them or any other information I have presented here to be incorrect, U2U me or post.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

External source:


edit: spelign? wahts speling? Also title; no views.

[edit on 21/4/2006 by watch_the_rocks]

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 04:38 PM
Stop babies from being born for a whole century. It would be amusing to see them try. Oh God those less developed countires getting more and more populated...

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 08:42 PM
I must say, it's a bit disappointing that more people have not replied after 12 hours. That bloody impostor thread overshadows this one, I suppose.

Oi, guy from Canada, read:

Originally posted by watchtherocks

Actually preventing the births would be the hardest task, I believe. There will always be a few million people dodging the authorities just to have a kid. Also, there is the problem of getting all countries world-wide to agree to this plan. These problems are on the operational side of this proposed version of population control, and, I believe, should not be discussed here.

Not to be discussed here!

I merely posted to propose this alternate method.
If you find it implausible, have reasons (other than the quote) about why it would not work/why it is not necessary, or if you are generally disgusted with the idea, post! Write down you opinion! I would love to hear it.

If a program of population control needs to be initiated, I merely think that this method would be both more effective and less taxing than sticking lethal viruses in the air.

[edit on 21/4/2006 by watch_the_rocks]

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 09:31 PM
OK thats two methods of population control, but do you think that we have to stop giving birth period, how about this we as a planet stop at one birth per couple? That way we lower our population and we still get to have kids.
And one other thing, can people still have kids when their a hundred years old?

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 09:40 PM
Good post, WTR.

For whatever reason I do honestly believe that attempts will be made to diminsh 5/6 of the world population, just like is mentioned all over the net in relation to NWO/Illuminati goals.

Maybe that IS the ultimate goal: Kill 5/6 and enslave the rest. According to Icke and others this is where the Reptiles come in. No, I still am not convinced about the Reptiles, although I am almost starting to believe there are in fact other species of intelligent life forms on this planet, or should I say in this planet?. Come on Troubleshoota, enlighten us...

"Five to One baby, One in Five... No one here gets out alive..."

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:31 AM
Decent post, and makes sense. something needs to be done.

But why stop all births for 100 years straight? Uhh, just me here, but wouldnt it be better to stagger it somewhat, for 2 year period or whatever? Or is that what you meant?

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:55 AM
there's been a movement to do this for years, called the voluntary extinction movement or something of the like. i found it hard to swallow then as i do now.

humans are animals at their base. accept it or not, you are driven by the same needs and desires the common street rat is, and the only reason you live better is through a fluke of evolution that allowed our ancestors to see that manipulating the world around them could create better circumstances.

i've always been an advocate of both population control and space exploration, so i've had two possible methods to accomplish the former, the most palatable being the one using the latter as a vessel, the other showing my base and misanthropic nature.

1 - use the worlds resources to do a HUGE R&D project on prupulsion, astrophysics, and get half our population (or more) off this rock in search of new locales for human colonization. this would take time, resources, and patience, thre things humans as a whole are known to hoard greedily. i have no hope that this method will ever be taken seriously by anyone in power.

2 - alternately, and in tune with the illuminati proposal someone mentioned, we could entertain ourselves with a 3rd world war. trust me, if you try to stop people from having children, you'll have one anyway. so the purpose of this third world war ties into my space ex. goal by eliminating a huge percentage of the population in the name of creating a NWO, a world government. if done intelligently, the new society (small, hungry, and wounded, yes, but at peace) would come to the conclusion that in order to prevent such circumstances from happening again, technology needs to be developed. if done my way, a technocracy would be developed, a sort of socialist government that focused on maintaining a balance of safety, comfort, and over all, technological advancement for the whole.

i don't hold human life sacred. if it were sacred, we wouldn't have so bloody much of it polluting the face of our one (and currently only) home. people die every day, and it's for worse things than the advancement of humanity as a whole. killing billions in a horrid war is far more preferable than trying to deny humans their own humanity by denying them the right to procreate - something that's as hardwired into our brains as breathing.

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:19 AM
here's the link to the movement trying to accomplish what you're talking about:

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:30 AM
Well its obvious to me that population is going to be a problem one day. I didn't realize that day had already gotten here. How would you stop people from having kids for one hundrend years? I'm guessing you would make it mandatory that every male have a visectomy by the age of 13?? The only other thing I can think of is to have men and women separated in work camps doing specific tasks where talent and ability can be utilised.

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 07:00 AM
I understand the idea, but 100 years????

sorry if i,m not getting this but. wouldnt the human race be extinguished.??

average life span in developed countries is around 60 -75 depending on male female. so unless you have a plan to try and artificially inseminate a bunch of grannies after most of the males have died or are unable to 'perform'..etc

even if you said. hmmmm ok 30yrs then..that would be better as statistically deaths due to natural causes/old age anyway would reduce population by around 40% and at least you,d have enough males and females of a reasonable age to produce offspring. then you,d have to repeat the process again with the new generation though to achieve those kind of results

edit to add this..

would it surely not be better to limit each couple with one child??
2 people having one child would effectively half the poulation each generation as each older generation dies

[edit on 28-5-2006 by AGENT_T]

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 07:12 AM
I'm sure the dudes running the planet are always going to have twenty or thirty children per lifetime. I didn't take it like every single person on the face of the earth would under go such treatment. Those in power never live by the same rules imposed upon everone else.

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 07:19 AM
I agree completely. if they turned around tomorrow and said ok guys drastic measures. no kids for anyone for 50yrs, you could bet your bootie that the ''powers that be'' and the''brainiacs'' would be coming up with all kinds of cloning / selective breeding plans to fill thier agenda.

one rule for plebs to cut their numbers for a useful size workforce and one rule for the new ''pharoes'' to ensure their royal bloodline to control the rest

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 08:43 AM
I remember frequently hearing about concerns over the growing human population in the 1970's when I was a kid. It seems that for many years now you rarely hear a peep about it. I always thought that there should have been a "Manhattan Project" for global population control, namely mass sterilization, since you would never be able to rely on people's 'promises' that they wouldn't have children (or say, only 1 child maximum). I don't see the need to kill but rather prevent births so that in just a few decades populations will be sharply reduced, and thus less strain on the earth's resources. Afterall, if the most intelligent species on the planet cannot control its own population, nature will do it for us ultimately.

Not to stray off topic but if the world's leaders had the slightest concern for the future of this civilization they would have also instituted a "Manhattan Project" for the development of limitless, clean, sustainable energy source(s) many years ago as well.

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 08:54 AM
what, am i chopped liver? no consideration given to my points? boo.

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 09:47 AM
Although I don't doubt your prediction for a second, I don't think your solution would ever work. I believe procreation is the purpose of life. Without satisfying this basic instinct our drive to survive would diminish completely.

So I guess it's going to have to be a plague after all!

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 10:22 AM
It worked very well for the Chinese. If couples had more than one kid (I think it's one), they were fined a huge amount of money and/or lost certain privileges. I'm surprised no one has mentioned that here.

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 01:07 PM

Originally posted by dollmonster
Although I don't doubt your prediction for a second, I don't think your solution would ever work. I believe procreation is the purpose of life. Without satisfying this basic instinct our drive to survive would diminish completely.

So I guess it's going to have to be a plague after all!

So if I understand your theory correctly your saying that the best way to deal with the situation is for some created plague that looks like a natural disaster to strike, taking the population down to nearly nothing, then, start all over again replenishing the earth. I wonder if this scenerio has possibly occured many times in past history, as in the days of Noah or Sodam and Gomorah?. Someone once said that history repeats itself in cycles of seven. It starts off with righteousness, triumph, eventually leading to a great falling away and finally utter destruction. I'm missing a few of them Maybe someone else has heard it before and can refresh my memory.

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 07:00 PM
I thought this thread was long dead.

Obviously, I have no wish to eliminate the human race. I meant preventing births for one hundred years in total, not 100 straight. Perhaps, as it was said, two or three years on and the same off? So over the course of two centuries the above-mentioned effects on population would be accomplished. I don’t think I worded it right in the first place

posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 03:27 PM
no need to cut the number of new births.

Human populations follow a "boom and bust" cycle of ever increasing magnitude.

Interesting facts about population equations

The last global adjustment was from the "black death," when 3/4 of the developed western world died within 50 years from the plague.

There was a minor pandemic before world war one, but nothing to permanently threaten the species.

Mad cow or avian flu may do it next.

When humans get dense enough, they begin to pass social diseases that naturally thin the population to more reasonable levels.

A second form of thinning is self-induced, by warfare. Periodic genocide/war reduces local population below danger levels. Thanks to new techs, we can accomplish this globally instead of on merely the tribal or even regional levels.

The flood and the tower of babel are ancestral memories of such things.

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 07:16 AM
Overpopulation deserves more attention than it gets. Right on with option 2:
The final frontier is the ideal. Infinite Space and a new era of human ingenuity and perhaps new modes of political organization. Lets the earthlings breed! Just let me on the ship. Free countries have a hard time addressing this problem. I mean people will revolt heavy against the idea they couldnt do what is in fact our most primary program. You could create a device that sends out waves of energy that sterilize huge amounts of people and detonate these in orbit maybe. No protest.
This is devious cause it would just be the 'elect' that would be free of this effect and thus a neoaristicracy would emerge. An ideal 'reset' of the population would clear out a whole bunch of people...Like some return to the ancient world in terms of population but with all our high technology. Basically I think this problem is being worked on and its likely most of us may not have the option of continuing once the plan has hatched. Oh well..dems da breaks! So everybody work hard and try to be successful and powerful maybe so you can be chosen to pass the 'transition'.


log in