Population reduction: Why not?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I apologize in advance if this is in the wrong topic.

We have all heard of the plan by global elites to reduce to population to a manageable 500 million people, but my question is this:

With the coming overpopulation disaster awaiting the entire planet, why are people against reducing the population globally?

The U.S. is projected to hit 400 million people by the year 2050 (a 100 million person increase in under 50 years) and all one must do is take a look at society around them to see that we simply cannot absorb that many new people. Our standard of living would be substantially degraded, and our infrastructure would crumble.

The U.S. could maintain a relatively stable population if all immigration (legal and illegal) were to cease immediately. It would all but guarantee a better standard of living for our children and their children, as opposed to being crushed by a human flood.

Surely what I am about to say will bring cries of racism as it has on other forums, let me assure you this has nothing to do with race.

The largest problem with overpopulation rests in the 3rd world nations, those nations who really dont contribute much to the planet while sucking away vital resources. Various factors including lack of education and religion lead to virtually no birth control methods being used, which results in even more suffering for the masses.

These 3rd world people eventually attempt to migrate to modernized nations which results in higher social service costs, higher taxes, and a lower of standard of living for those who have lived and grown in the modernized countries.

Case in point: Certain areas of the U.S. resemble 3rd world nations themselves due to a large influx of said 3rd world immigrants. Given that a majority of those who migrate to the U.S. come from poverty stricken nations, how many more will be able to be absorbed before the general standard of living in the U.S. declines more than it already has?

Disclaimer: I am not comparing humans to animals, simply using the analogy of why certain events must take place. I am NOT advocating the hunting of humans.

We all know why hunting of wildlife is necessary: The herd must be culled in order to preserve the ecosystem. Using deer as an example (something I am familiar with growing up in northern WI), an overpopulation of deer will completely destroy the local ecosystem, thereby creating even more deaths from starvation and other causes. If proper management is practiced, a certain number of deer will be taken by hunters in order to preserve and guarantee the future of a healthy deer population.

Sometimes unpleasant events are necessary in order to maintain the greater good. People who tend to think more with emotion than logic will have a hard time understanding the problems that lie in wait for us. Something must be done, and the longer we wait, the worse it will be.

Thanks for taking the time to read my lengthy rambling.




posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Damn, the idea of billions of people being removed from the planet doesnt get a single response. I am surprised.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Give it time, I'm sure there will be plenty of responses, it is a weekend after all and some folks who frequent this site actually have a life outside the Internet


Anyhoos... the thing that disturbs me about this topic is it's always the rich elitists who consider themselves the ones worth saving. I mean, apart from being rich and ruthless, what real practical contribution do they really make to the planet? Surely the ones worth saving are those with practical skills, people who really work for a living and who wouldn't sell their grandmothers to make a quick buck.

I know a lot of third world countries would be a target for population reduction but then who is going to do all the work? Western corporations are already involved in outsourcing to many 3rd world / developing nations in order to massively increase profits by slashing labour costs. So therefore it would make more sense to drastically reduce the populations of the western developed nations who, having already lost their jobs to overseas workforces, can no longer afford to be the good little consumers that they once were anyway, so from a capitalist viewpoint are already dead wood.
It's the developing nations with the new workforces who are now going to become the big consumers.

If a natural global disaster were to occur today, who would be the people rebuilding and surviving? It sure as hell wouldn't be the pampered rich, more used to having everything provided for them rather than having to rough it and get their hands dirty.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy


Anyhoos... the thing that disturbs me about this topic is it's always the rich elitists who consider themselves the ones worth saving. I mean, apart from being rich and ruthless, what real practical contribution do they really make to the planet? Surely the ones worth saving are those with practical skills, people who really work for a living and who wouldn't sell their grandmothers to make a quick buck.


Good point, however I would simply add this: The wealthy have the means to produce. Without the financing, nothing gets done.



If a natural global disaster were to occur today, who would be the people rebuilding and surviving? It sure as hell wouldn't be the pampered rich, more used to having everything provided for them rather than having to rough it and get their hands dirty.


I would disagree on one point: If a natural disaster were to occur, the survivors would be one of 2 groups: Those who can and those who cannot.

Those who can provide for themselves or provide a motivation for others to do so will survive, while those who have nothing or are unable to contribute anything will die.

If a situation were to occur in which we were all on our own in terms of survival and an extremely wealthy individual were to happen upon my little survival group and offer me a large amount of gold or other precious commodity if we would take care of him, I would gladly accept his offer provided I felt he didnt pose a threat of any kind.

Would I do the same to someone who could contribute nothing while sucking away our resources? Absolutely not.


I know a lot of third world countries would be a target for population reduction but then who is going to do all the work? Western corporations are already involved in outsourcing to many 3rd world / developing nations in order to massively increase profits by slashing labour costs. So therefore it would make more sense to drastically reduce the populations of the western developed nations who, having already lost their jobs to overseas workforces, can no longer afford to be the good little consumers that they once were anyway, so from a capitalist viewpoint are already dead wood.
It's the developing nations with the new workforces who are now going to become the big consumers.


Who would the corporations sell those cheaply produced products to?



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   
The corporations would sell those consumer products to the same people that are now manufacturing them. The home markets are getting slack as people, out of work due to outsourcing, have to tighten their belts and stop buying needlessly all the new gadgets and "nice to have" items we are told we must all have.


Good point, however I would simply add this: The wealthy have the means to produce. Without the financing, nothing gets done.


No, the wealthy do not have the means to produce. If everyone told them to go poke their wealth where the sun don't shine, they'd shrivel up and die.

I guess there are two different scenarios that dictate entirely different outcomes.
1. A natural global disaster leading to massive depopulation of all classes.
2. A hideous genocidal depopulation programme at the hands of our own crazy western leaders.

Both serve up an entirely different set of circumstances. I'd hope number 2 would be off the agenda but would not be surprised by some covert effort to make it happen.
Number 1 would certainly make life interesting for the rich elite. If the money becomes worthless paper, how are they going to buy their way?
It's not like they have piles of precious metals lying about as most of it is only investments in a virtual computer world, they don't actually have it in their possession.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I totally agree that the world would be a far better place if there were less people on it - less pollution, plenty of water, food and mineral resources for all, better health etc etc etc

However, as for a global elite reducing the population - why oh why oh why didn't they just do something to stop the population growing at such a huge rate over the past few decades?


At the end of WWII there were about 2,500,000,000 people on the planet - now there are 6,600,000,000 and growing by the second .....



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Well, regardless of whether it is something that happens by the whim of the elite, or the whim of nature matters little. It is inevitably going to happen. I personally don't think that the level will be taken down to 500 million, but I do think that it will be reduced down to at least 2.5 billion people.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Double

[edit on 18-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Don't know how accurate this is but is interesting none the less:

www.worsleyschool.net...

Given any of type of global scenario only the strong would survive. In nature the strong survive by eating the weak, litterally and not so literally.......

Who knows what your felow man is capable of in a dog eat dog environment of a survival situation. Humans are selfish, greedy self obsessed individuals at the best of times......!

MR



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I do not see a natural event causing this kind of de-polulation. From over 6 billion to 500 million.

And I think the point has already been made. Why the rich elite get to decide who lives or dies?

To answer the question of the thread. Of course the planet could do with a smaller human population but to what level and from where?

A reduction of 50% seems right to me. No hard logic here just a gut feel. Of course, the population needs to be culled everywhere.

And who on this thread would be happy to be culled? Certainly not me.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Here's the problem, this type of mass genocide shares the views of Mao Tse Tung, a tyrant. Kill countless people for a quick resolution to what he wanted.

Human beings die at a rate of every 11 seconds, while the good Lord brings them in at every 7 seconds, so what we need to do is find a way to narrow that gap of 4 seconds, even eliminate the gap all together or swing it the other way to start seeing progress in our overpopulation concerns. I just can't condone the deaths of billions of people so that others may live more comfortably.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   
you are basing your premis on the fact that our current ratio of distribution of resources is innefficient. If all our resources were distributed in a way that actually put the things needed in peoples hands that need them, we would have more than sufficient to support all life on this planet. You underestimate the ability our planet has to preserve life. the problem is that there is an unnatural controll over the worlds resources and a stradegy is used by powerful nations to increase demand by creating an artificial state of supply. Like diamonds, such things like water, food, LAND, commodities, knowledge. The ones perpretrating this manipulation of the worlds population are more dedicated to preserving themselves than providing the world with the next possible step in progress. that word "they " worship as being the "responsible men". they "own" the country, indeed the world in deeds and titles to our planet. The reality is, contrary to what they think, that it is our planet. Everyone alive is here because it is the natural state of things for us to grow, good. We need to keep our feet moving. the more hands, the more we can do.

There is a theory called non zero sumness. It states that every encounter in society, small or amongst large groups, is driven by an attempt to make a win/win situation. One group that knows where there are good fish and will tell another where they are in exchange for knowledge of how to catch them. The problem is like that in game theory, that once it is known how to make a win/lose situation in which the one that wins artificialy does so by creating the lack of reciprication of siad resources. They learn where the fish are but never teach the people whose fish they are how to catch them better, so they get more.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by newyorkee]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
also the elite would like us to think that they have the means to produce when in all reality the ones producing are the bulk majority that keep society functioning. There is all this hype about the profesional world and specialization. they would like you to think that you dont know enough to keep things working, it would all be destroyed without them yata yata. We are capable and worthy of saving.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Been letting my mind free wheel as it is the weekend and thinking about the thread subject, why does a population reduction have dramatic and rapid?

If we limited the number of children a family could have and reduced the gap as detailed by bigbert 81, this would lead to a nature reduction in population.

And hopefully slackerwire will not object but who is in favour of population reduction?

I certainly am.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I think that all we have to do is to look again at the Hurricane Katrina situation. How many people just waited to be saved? The majority.

This would be true for any mass catastrophe. The majority would wait to be saved, turn on each other, kill each other....while the intelligent ones were the ones already prepared and surviving in much different circumstances.

I've always been a proponent of Eugenics. A Necessary 'evil'. The Earth can only take so much abuse and I believe right now it's on overload. I don't think population control would be so that others can live more comfortably, it's a true necessity.

I also believe that the powers that be have been practicing with population control for a very long time. AIDS, CANCER, 'Natural disasters'.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Been letting my mind free wheel as it is the weekend and thinking about the thread subject, why does a population reduction have dramatic and rapid?

If we limited the number of children a family could have and reduced the gap as detailed by bigbert 81, this would lead to a nature reduction in population.

And hopefully slackerwire will not object but who is in favour of population reduction?

I certainly am.


I never personally stated I think 500 million is a good number, I believe between 1.5 and 2 billion people would be a fair number.

I think equaling out the birth and death rates would be a good idea, especially by using your suggestion of placing limits on the number of children a couple could have. However, that would still keep us at the unmanageable 6.6 billion we have today.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
A Modest Proposal


Originally posted by slackerwire
The largest problem with overpopulation rests in the 3rd world nations, those nations who really dont contribute much to the planet while sucking away vital resources.

I am from one of those third world nations.

I write to congratulate you on your charitable proposal, which will effectively relieve our groaning planet of its burden of surplus humanity -- if you catch my drift -- and banish for centuries to come the threat of lifestyle devaluation now looming over the rich world.

I would remind you, however, that charity begins at home.

If you, my dear slackerwire, are really serious about this procedure, make a start by vowing to breed no more. If you already have offspring, earnestly advise them to do the same. It may be wise to persuade them to undertake certain surgical procedures to prevent them from going back on their promise to you in a moment of weakness.

Next, persuade the rest of your family and all your friends to follow suit. Doubtless many of them share your views and will be only too happy to do so.

Now comes the difficult bit: you must carry the message out to your community. Get out there and preach the Gospel of Sterility! You may encounter some opposition. Be not dismayed; obstacles exist only to be surmounted! Behind your efforts, let there be found your efforts, as Gene Wolfe put it in a slightly different connexion.

Eventually, if Fortune smiles, you may persuade your entire country (natives and immigrants alike) to cease procreating and enjoy their precious lifestyles in childless felicity.

At that point, if you're still keen, you may come after us.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
While picking up your heavy dose of sarcasm, I also noticed you suggest we eliminate productive people while keeping those who are nothing but a drain alive. Why is that?

[edit on 18-8-2007 by slackerwire]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Productive of a Reply


Originally posted by slackerwire
I also noticed you suggest we eliminate productive people while keeping those who are nothing but a drain alive. Why is that?

I suggest you examine the labels on your clothes.

Next, look at the fine print beneath the logos on your toys and household appliances.

How about the keyboard on which you're typing your genocidal little fantasy? Where was that made? The rest of the computer?

You might try taking a squint inside your cup of coffee. Who produced the contents?

I'm sorry you have to pay us for picking your cotton nowadays, but them's the breaks.

I could go on in this vein indefinitely, but you probably take the point.

Not that I care two hoots. But other readers of this thread undoubtedly will, and that's important to me.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Lower population means less workers, meaning less production.

Sometimes economies collapse from having a population that is actually too small. And really, population regulates itself. No reason to even worry about it.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Johnmike]





top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join