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.

 

Science chief: cut birthrate to save Earth

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Education is the main issue, parts of Europe like Italy are starting to have a decrease in population, the problem with this is everyone is ageing who will be there to look after the ageing population, in poor area's of the world they have many children because they want to be looked after when they become old or one of the kids has a chance to become rich.

If we sort the economy of poor countries out the less of a problem it will become, but while we have poor countries we will continue to see high birth rates in those area's. The world isn't overpopulated far from it, there is much more room for, take a look at Australia for example. We could start with educating Roman Catholic priests in Africa, they actually tell people that condoms give people AIDS.

Everyone should have a right to have children and the more educated the people are the more responsible they become and we might have a stable population. The goverment's job is to represent us, not protect us.




posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Sure, there's room for helluva more people on the planet, but that's not the issue. The issue is wheter we have the resources to maintain a decent quality of life for everyone. That is kind of hard to speculate on though, since noone is interested on upgrading the quality of life of poor countries.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Sure, there's room for helluva more people on the planet, but that's not the issue. The issue is wheter we have the resources to maintain a decent quality of life for everyone. That is kind of hard to speculate on though, since noone is interested on upgrading the quality of life of poor countries.


Exactly but its weird that the enviormental movement is one of the reasons holding back poor countries at the moment.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I dont know what the environmentalist are doing or not. We'll never know if the resources we have now would be enough for everyone since humans as a species are not interested in making a world where everyone has some basic comforts like food, clean water etc. It'll keep going like this, we live in comfort and such (me too) and at the same time others die of hunger. My best guess is that we're quite close to using as much of resources as we can and soon we'll have to come up with ways of recycling, producing more food and cleaning the environment.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole


I just can't believe people openly discuss population reduction, as if it's a good thing. It makes you wonder why they are pushing the global warming agenda so agressivly on us.

infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Trust me, the way things are going more and more people are going to see "depopulation" as a good way to "save the Earth"... Some people will make up any excuses to accept such a policy/ideology, but of course, none of them will be the first ones to volunteer to "save the Earth' in this manner....



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   
True, as individuals we always think about our own life and what we have a natural right to do. Noone thinks about the global situations when they plan their life. It's natural to look out for your own family. If the government makes it so that you can only have one child or use X-amount of resources then there will probably be a revolution.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   
The guy in this article is pretty much right. If we don't start acting now we're screwed. The world is going to have to start taking more liberal approach to things like abortion and euthenasia. Sure that seems f**ked up, but the fact is that we live in very different times now. Things are changing, and we're going to have to change right along with it.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Without Kids neither myself or yourself would be here today.

I have 4 in total and DONT claim a single penny and never have.

There are people on this planet that do FAR worse damage to us than people having kids and relying on the Welfare to pay -


It doesn't really matter in the long run because we are not in control they are,and if de-population is required then it will happen regardless of what you or I think or do.

The Great WAR - US/UK/Isreal Vs China/Iran/Russia/North K.
Thats my prediction for the Masters plans to de-populate.

(Of course this won't happen until they have finished building thier bases in the mountains) - To be honest is it the only outcoume based on todays world events..................



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   
That's truly a scary scenario. Wasn't it awhile back when someone made a public statement that the world population should be reduced to 1 billion? If there are those nasty people behind the scenes pulling the wires then a cataclysmic event like ww3 isn't that far fetched.
Even after such a population reduction it makes you wonder how they would plan to keep that level. Maybe enforce the 1 child per family law or something.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
World Health Organisation have even discussed depopulation and birth control across the world.

I believe it was reported in the mainstream news.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   
WOW.

This is the first public advocation of Eugenics I've seen in my time. Most Eugenics enthusist went underground into more discrete organizations years ago. I guess even with war wiping out tens of thousands of men, women, and children a year all over the world, it's still not enough.

And imagine, now that the "green" society has become so popular, they're hopping on that bandwagon.

"Reduce the world population to save the earth." Maybe we should refer to this a Greenocide.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by tyranny22]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
When I was born a little over 45 years ago the population on the planet was approximately 3 billion people. In that short time the population has more than doubled to about 6.6 billion.



Isnt the Illuminati planned population reduction suppose to begin when the population reaches 6.6 billion??


Obviously, this draconian plan cannot be achieved until the planned combined disasters have achieved the 66% population reduction the Illuminati has planned


I cant remember where I read that at but I'll see if I can find it later, I'm tired and I have to get some sleep now.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   
The world population is actually getting older and according to the UN should stabilize at or near 14 billion. At this point it could start a very slow decline.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Some of you people just scare me. The ironic thing (or maybe it is just stupid) is that many posters advocating limits are the same people who claim to be against big governments, New World Orders and police states. Why do you think they really want less people? Because less people means easier to control. More people means more voices, more opposition, and more chances for uprising. You think governments really care about the environment? They care about controlling the people.

Anyway, who gets to decide these "limitation methods" and why does someone get the right to tell me that I cannot have 3 children or 4 children or 5 children if I am taking care of them. I am married and I do not have any children at the moment.

FREEDOM
or
DENY FREEDOM
?

[edit on 24-7-2007 by zerotime]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
It is obvious that the earth will only support a finite number of people. I certainly don't claim to be smart enough to know what that number is but I know it exists. I do believe that is time to either begin reducing the world population or at least stabalize it. I don't believe and never will that it should be done by any government regulations or intervention. I think that the ony involvement a a government should have is education and and possibly some programs of tax incentives to encourage voluntary reduction in family sizes.

As far as the government passing legislation to limit the number of children allowable to a family goes way beyond their scope of their authority.
Having a family and the size of that family is a personal decision and should remain so. Having said that I think it is time we begin to look at the reality of the situation and realize on our own that mother earth does have her limitations.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by duster]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
As it was already pointed out on page one...Thomas Malthus developed the Principle of Population in 1798 which said that we needed to reduce population or there will not be enough food. He created a nice little scientific chart and gave all the details. All of his predictions were wrong and none of it came truth. Why not, the population continued to grow at an incredible rate? Because this science is all based on false future assumptions.

Principle of Population and why it failed can be read on wikipedia. You will see the same false assumptions being used in todays argument by people who fear the future.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Some people will make up any excuses to accept such a policy/ideology, but of course, none of them will be the first ones to volunteer to "save the Earth' in this manner....

A common misconception, that's actually spread deliberately, is that we have to "fix" the Earth before we destroy it by consuming all of the usable resources...This is a bunch of bull. The Earth was around long before us & even if we do mess up the Natural Balance, it'll right itself after we're gone. The worst we can do to the Earth is unbalance the ecology to the point where it will no longer support us. Once we're depopulated or extinct, Mama Nature will restore a balance without us...Eventually.


Originally posted by Global consciousness
There are people on this planet that do FAR worse damage to us than people having kids and relying on the Welfare to pay -

Yes, population is a concern...Why else do countries have wars?

But there's also the vast numbers of industries that pollute our resources before we can even use them...I would consider that just as big of a problem as over-population. I mean, really...what other animal on this planet $#|+$ where it eats?



Originally posted by tyranny22
This is the first public advocation of Eugenics I've seen in my time.

Actually, any war that's hit the news has been a "publicly announced eugenics project" but it seems to work as sort of a "Reverse Dawinism." The most vital & healthy of the younger population goes out & remove each other from the gene pool, leaving the aged, unfit & deformed back home to reproduce more kids.
At least there are still idiots around who do the gene pool a favor by [url=http://www.darwinawards.com/]removing themselves[url] from it...



Originally posted by duster
I think that the ony involvement a a government should have is education and and possibly some programs of tax incentives to encourage voluntary reduction in family sizes.

And how many schools haven't been banned from teaching Sex Education because of the "religious right?" If the teenagers with raging hormones during their pubic-cycle were to at least be aware of what they're doing, maybe they'd be more likely to exert some better self-control?


BTW, with a little more work in genetic engineering, food can be "vat grown" & be easier to sustain. As is, Gengineers have already been growing "specific biomass" to produce certain types of enzymes...For example, many of the detergents that use "enzyme action" use those very same enzymes that these biomasses produce; They've been doing it for decades.
As for arable land, farmers have to keep using chemical fertilizers far too much because they've been depleting the soil with crop-growth too fast for Mama Nature to recover by herself.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
Some of you people just scare me. The ironic thing (or maybe it is just stupid) is that many posters advocating limits are the same people who claim to be against big governments, New World Orders and police states. Why do you think they really want less people? Because less people means easier to control. More people means more voices, more opposition, and more chances for uprising. You think governments really care about the environment? They care about controlling the people.


I disagree with this, this would implicate that it is easier to control smaller population such as small countries. Troughout history small countries have rebelled and thrown out dictators and such many times. In bigger countries however the amount of people who only care for their own life and dont get involved in politics or activism is huge. I'd say the mentality in smaller populations is that they care where they live more easily.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Here's a nice link with some pretty heavy maths about Population growth

Human Population Growth

try this link about : Sub-replacement fertility Wiki



A consensus?
The several agencies that try to predict future population seem to be moving closer to a consensus that:

* the world population will continue to grow until after the middle of this century
* reaching a peak of some 9 billion (up from today's 6.5 billion) and then
* perhaps declining in the waning years of this century.


IMO I wouldn't worry to much about over population Mother nature has a funny way of working things out????



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Population reduction (or at the very least population growth reduction) is somewhat inevitable.

Population growth will either be reduced voluntarily, via birth control & more people choosing not to reproduce, or involuntarily, through disease and famine.

Take your pick.

It's only through massive increases in agricultural productivity the world is able to support the massive population we have now, and we're beginning to run into the law of diminishing returns where that is concerned.

On the other hand, I strongly oppose any kind of state regulation like China's "one child" policy - authoritarian solutions to social problems rarely work, especially when they go against billions of years of biological programming.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join