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.

 

Population reduction: Why not?

page: 12
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:06 AM
link   
I believe there is a global reduction being attempted as we speak, in the form of Chemtrails - not to get off the subject of this thread, but I do believe there is a great deal of validity to this. Most of us by now have figured out what they're trying to do. Genocide? Globally, that is. If you really want to get deep, check out the Federal Grants being given under Health. This should wake most of us up as far as Human test subjects go and the reality of population reduction.




posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   
OK, I only read the first post, so please excuse me if this has been stated in a like fashion.

Population control, why not?

HUH? If it involves the culling of already alive people, then OH MY GOD NO.

If it involves a type of media driven campaign to advertise not getting pregnant and things of this sort, sure, go for it.

If it involves involuntary sterilization then NO.

If it gives people a choice, then yes.


People are given a desire to procreate and make offspring. Why is that? Why do we eat food? Why do we drink water? Why do we wash our clothes? Why do we till the ground and grow food? BECAUSE IT FURTHERS OUR SPECIES These are instincts. We have to repopulate the earth or we die out. DUH

Further, you nor anyone else can give me a limit on how many kids I can have. Only I have that right. I did decide, however, to have only one child as I know it is the responsible thing to do, both for society and for myself and my baby. But I have family members who one set has 8 children, and they're hoping for 10 total. Another has 5 kids and they're going to have more too.

Not my choice to decide how many kids they need.

Population control, like in China, is tragic. Think about the kids that are "culled" because they're the wrong gender. That would happen here too to a degree.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


Question.
Would you be willing to be one of those that die for "the greater good" as you put it or someone you loved? Or would you fight to perserve your life as any sane organism would? It's all well and good you can take the devil's advocate approach to the topic. But you gotta ask yourself the questions would you allow yourself to be "culled" or those that you loved and still claim any sort of sanity?

Or better yet heres a third option. All the space we will ever need is in well space, damn that sounded erm dunno good word.

But it would tend to make control a mite bit harder. But then there is no need to for genocide.




[edit on 26-12-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 06:09 AM
link   
honestly i find the idea very sobering. regardless what man does the population will be reduce if certain actions arent put into place. That 500million mark is to low for in my opinion, almost in a rate of endangerment of our species.

Although the topic did hit a nerve by target certain populations, i don't agree with his methods but he does have a point. Their are multiple ways of managing the quality of life without war and internal strife amoungst ourselves. Just as the sides of a coin their is both a good way and a bad way of doing things.

Probable Optimistic Solutions: [Requirements] Advancements in Obtainable Technology.

- Direct Changes in Environmental factors: a poster earlier briefed over the use of genetic engineering for vegitation, Increase varible output to regenerate the land. Making natural resources plentiful. many pros and cons with this idea, disturbing nature in unforseen ways can have unrivaled consequences.

- Secure "Somewhat" Free Birth Regulation. (self-explanatory, multiple ways of doing it without causing civil unrest)

- Fully Automated Factories, Cities, and other Minial Labours. theoretically possible by using advancements in Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics to fully remove the need of human workers for low wage jobs. could be inevitably possible once production cost of such technologies drop within 20years. Removing low wage jobs and Reinforcing education would Eliminate the Possiblity of a "Lower"/Poor class. Thus Leaving Life standards in those of the mainstream 1st world populace. (people who live in the suburbs). As long as Product retail prices arent raised, the rich will still remain rich, the current social structure remains in tact, with the exception that There Is No Lower Class Worldwide.

- Embrace Advancement By Jumping Humanity Into a Type 1 or Type 2 civilization Before Earth Exceeds Population limits. This is better acheived once all kingdoms on Earth are united. Leaving the universe for colonization, and exploration.

- Timed Regulated Lifespan Extensions. This Could be used in conjunction with Birth Regulations. Once Birth Regulation is in Place, Lifespans of the Offspring Could Be Used. With Time not being such an important Factor in procreating the offspring will not feel rushed to give birth, thus distributing brith patterns amoung newborn generations. Creating more Linear population Growth Instead of exponential.

-Social Hibernation. Cryogenic Based Hibernation on a Massive Scale. Pausing whole Socities, till a preferred time is reach. Then the populace is Re-awakened and continues normal function.

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

Of Course there are more positive ways to handle overpopulation, but i'll let you think of more solutions.

p.s. doens't anyone get the feeling the your web activity is being tagged by the NSA?



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Just wait till the bird flu mutates on genome further. With a better than 50 percent mortality rate kiss your heini bye bye. MRSA has already outpaced AIDS as the leading killer in the US. A fact not publicized as widely as it should I believe. We recently had a whole bunch of bio researchers get dead all of a sudden under unusual circumstance. It would take nfl stadiums to load the dead for funeral pyres. Drop a few napalms and saya nara. Balance is always restored, one way or another.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


You could always be first in line to offer yourself up as sacrifice in the population reduction you think is a good idea.

Anyone else who agrees with this twisted logic should get in line along with you!



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
We were the ones who had to have 6 billion children. Now when its getting out of "hand", we just kill 4 billion to "solve the problem"?!?!?!?


Thats like shooting yourself because you have a headache and want to get rid of it. Weird logic.

We created this mess together, so get out of it together. Like a man should (or like a manly female would, the feminists are lurking)



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enthralled Fan
reply to post by slackerwire
 


You could always be first in line to offer yourself up as sacrifice in the population reduction you think is a good idea.

Anyone else who agrees with this twisted logic should get in line along with you!


How very original.

Overpopulation is a nightmare scenario that will happen, it's not a matter of if, but when.

The U.S. is due to hit 400 million people around the year 2050. Thats a 100 million person increase in 50 years. The nation simply cannot absorb that many people, especially with the majority of them being 3rd world immigrants.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Obsurion
 


Spoken like a true globalist/socialist. This mindset is a much greater danger to humanity than overpopulation. Nature will correct itself, we don’t need self appointed demigods to pre-empt her.



Originally posted by slackerwire
Overpopulation is a nightmare scenario that will happen, it's not a matter of if, but when.


I disagree. I've been hearing this overpopulation crap since the early 70's, and all I see happening is an intentional decrease in food production per capita to match a preconceived agenda of depopulation. GM crops, corn used as fuel and the gov sticking it's big stinking thumb into the economics of agriculture all play a part. There's an all out war on food going on, and it's out of design by the elite, not of necessity. It's about control, not 'sustainability'. Nature is quite capable of sustaining herself without your brilliant ideas, thank you.


Originally posted by slackerwire
The U.S. is due to hit 400 million people around the year 2050. Thats a 100 million person increase in 50 years. The nation simply cannot absorb that many people, especially with the majority of them being 3rd world immigrants.


Where do you get this stuff? Exactly how are 3rd world immigrants any more difficult to feed than us fat dumb and happy gringos? There are enormous stretches of uninhabited and uncultivated land in this country. I work in DFW, the largest inland metropolis on the continent, and within the Dallas city limits there are thousands of acres of undeveloped land with livestock on them. Out side the city, where I live, the amount of open land is incalculable. All that is required is proper intelligent planning, instead of planning the extermination of people. This type of mindset can only come from a base hatred of mankind IMO. The haters are in control, the useful idiots carry out the propaganda.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistor


Where do you get this stuff? Exactly how are 3rd world immigrants any more difficult to feed than us fat dumb and happy gringos? There are enormous stretches of uninhabited and uncultivated land in this country. I work in DFW, the largest inland metropolis on the continent, and within the Dallas city limits there are thousands of acres of undeveloped land with livestock on them. Out side the city, where I live, the amount of open land is incalculable. All that is required is proper intelligent planning, instead of planning the extermination of people. This type of mindset can only come from a base hatred of mankind IMO. The haters are in control, the useful idiots carry out the propaganda.


Who said anything about feeding?

importing large numbers of illiterate, uneducated, unskilled people can only damage a nation, and it certainly wont provide any benefits.

Food and space arent the problems. Money and infrastructure are.

Think traffic is bad now? wait until ithere are another 100 million people here within just a few decades.

how about those rolling blackouts during summertime? Think adding 100 million more customers will make that situation any better?

How about social services? The amount of OUR dollars spent on those will surely increase with the aforementioned uneducated, unskilled workers who dont really have any idea what birth control actually is.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction. Mother nature or whatever you would like to call it will take care of it herself. It could be a plague or an asteroid. Or, you fill in the blank.

This planet has been a host to many parasites and it's only a matter of time until she takes it back.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


While you might not believe in God, I do. As far as I am concerned only God makes a descision who is to live and who is to die. No human has that capacity.

If we all starve to death and run out of resources, maybe that is the plan of God.

Instead of thinking of ways to kill off those you deem to be worthless, you should put your efforts into finding ways to improve the quality of life for everyone with the resources we have.

I know that might be a little more work than say, killing a few million people, but then again, it never amazes me how some people value themselves more than anybody else.

So, you are not going to be first in line to volunteer to die as a means of lowering the population? You must think you are something special.

What you suggest to me, means that you view people as disposable pieces of crap.

In my opinion, the only one you are concerned with is yourself. You could care less about any of the other 500,000,000 other people you would be sharing the world with, and would find a reason to kill a few of them, too.

By the way, I am anti death penalty, and anti abortion, so the suggestion of killing off people for the betterment of a few, doesn't fly with me.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
importing large numbers of illiterate, uneducated, unskilled people can only damage a nation, and it certainly wont provide any benefits.


I'm with you here, but it does provide benefits to the elite. The benefits of cheap labor, and a lowered average wage. It also makes the creation of a NAU possible by getting the three economies on a par. This is why it's being allowed.

Originally posted by slackerwire
Food and space aren’t the problems. Money and infrastructure are.

Think traffic is bad now? wait until there are another 100 million people here within just a few decades.

how about those rolling blackouts during summertime? Think adding 100 million more customers will make that situation any better?


Infrastructure is a problem, but it's mostly one of artificially limited supply and not demand. An example here in TX is HOV lanes. If we simply spent the money dedicated to the social engineering project of HOV lanes to expanding overall capacity, we'd be 10 years ahead of where we are now. The same is true of power generation. We have a line of companies waiting to be granted the 'right' to generate electricity for the people, but federal and state nannyism prevents it. There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to cities, which we are just now reaching. When we have fully, there won't have to be any gov edict to limit people moving to the cities. People will simply prefer the standard of living outside the cities to that within it, and a population shift will occur. In fact, it’s already begun.


Originally posted by slackerwire
How about social services? The amount of OUR dollars spent on those will surely increase with the aforementioned uneducated, unskilled workers who don’t really have any idea what birth control actually is.

Another gov created problem. If the gov was not trying to play nanny to the people, we wouldn't have to worry about this. Market forces would provide affordable health care, and free health care would be one less draw to lure people across the border. The problem is socialism and open borders, not population.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
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?


I'll take a stab in the dark and say it's because killing 5.5 BILLION people would be the most evil thing ever done in the history of human kind- ever.


The U.S. is projected to hit 400 million people by the year 2050


Let me clarify. When they talk about population control, they mean global population. Unless illegal immigration from somewhere out there is inflating the global population, this isn't a matter of closing borders, its a matter of whether or not it would be a good idea to kill 11 out of every 12 people on this planet.


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.


Yeah, I'm so sick of the Iraqis who do nothing but fornicate and burn ridiculous amounts of oil driving needlessly large and inefficient vehicles everywhere they go, even if its well within walking distance.

And don't even get me started on the Ethiopians, growing thousands of tons of excess food to stuff their fat faces when they could be growing more coffee and tea to sell to us in return for weapons and a blank check to invade Somalia, with American air support when needed.


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.

Actually most animal populations fluctuate in a very stable cycle, with populations very gradually decreasing once increased population has made food slightly harder to find, until that gradual population reduction allows for an increase in the population of their food, resulting in a gradual climb in the other animals population again, which again drives down the food population gradually, ad infinitum. Generally speaking, if this changes, it's because somebody screwed with nature by eliminating a predator or introducing an exotic species.


Sometimes unpleasant events are necessary in order to maintain the greater good.

Yes, gradual unpleasant events caused by nature in response to the actions of the affected group. Not the systematic murder of 90% of the population, brought about by greedy individuals who want to beat nature to the punch so that there is no chance of the natural "lottery" giving them the unlucky number.


People who tend to think more with emotion than logic will have a hard time understanding the problems that lie in wait for us.


I am a well known cold, calculating SOB, and a suspected sociopath, and I don't understand your logic either.

I agree that something needs to be done about some of the problems that you are proposing bad solutions to though. My recommendations, in no particular order, are to reduce waste, increase education and family planning, make contraceptives available, provide economic aid to areas where prostitution is a major economic activity for the desperate, stop withholding efficient technologies for the sake of profit, and, if absolutely necessary, get used to the fact that extravagant luxury is not our birthright, but something that we have been TAKING at the expense of others, and something that we need to learn to live without if we can't find equitable ways to obtain it.

We have the technology to grow grops ANYWHERE- If we REALLY HAD TO, we could turn the Sahara into the largest single farm on Earth. We can clean and transport the water, we can synthesize good soil conditions, we can even modify crops to make them grow FAR bigger than they do in the wild (instead we modify them to be sterile so that the poor can't engage in subsistence farming, but must either pay Monsanto or starve). All we need is the energy and the workforce to do it. The energy technology is not being implemented even though it already exists and the labor force is left untapped, engaged in low-output or no-output survival industries such as prostitution, crime, scavenging, etc. We could just as easily unlock that technology, train and employ those people, and make them capable of not only supporting themselves but generating surplusses for others, but we don't because it would rob certain people of money and power.
The Kennedy administration actually shelved a plan to take on massive irrigation improvement projects to feed the third world, because they thought going to the moon would be more impressive. There you have it folks, we left millions starving, but we gained vaccuum packed foods and Tang- neither of which even tastes good.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I'm a nihilist and I make no claims to sanity and I completely agree with Slackwire. I believe what may be part of the problem with people accepting the necessity of a vastly decreased population is their mode of thinking.

The goal of population reduction is not to make a nicer version of the world we currently live in but is to create a new world and a new mode of existing. The eventual outcome would be to have a few super states in which people live close to each other and work together in an almost socialist sense. The majority of the planet would be returned to nature and thus vastly increase the natural resources while decreasing the human impact on nature and the planet as a whole.

When we talk of population reduction and eugenics we aren't speaking of a means to make the typical boring middle class life more comfortable. Population reduction is but one segment of a total overhaul of human existence. The current mode of existence is outdated and has been accepted for centuries but now we have the knowledge to see that it is inevitably self destructive. Much of western society is built off of the cult of the ego, the aggrandizement of the self, the thought that individual personal achievemet, understanding, and spiritual growth is more valuable than shared societal growth.

It is undeniable that we are entering a new world vastly different from the worlds that came before. We can no longer view ourselves as separate sets of individuals but must view ourselves as we are, one complete species who impacts the world around us. As nice as it may seem to think of ourselves as individually and personally important it is little more than a delusion.

Population growth is not a steady increase but is exponential, when we speak of 6 billion people we are speaking of 6 billion reproducing and consuming individuals. That 6 billion people will soon become 10 billion reproducing and consuming people who will soon become 20 billion reproducing and consuming people. As population grows exponentially the time in which we have to solve this problem decreases exponentially.

No one can deny the fact that we already have a population problem. We already have millions of people starving to death due to a lack of resources. The modern humanist rationale would be to feed the millions of people with resources from the first world but this is a self defeating solution as it only temporarily alleviates the suffering of a few through the guaranteed decrease in the quality of life for all. Redistributing the resources of the planet so that all people have an equal portion would only guarantee the quicker depletion of important natural resources.

While many may claim that the idea of population reduction is itself inherently "evil" we must remember that evil is little more than an arbitrary distinction made by people to help understand the world around them and create a sense of values and morals. If we view this whole situation with pure logic it becomes quite obvious that to not adopt some form of population reduction would be a species wide suicide.

If we want to continue to feed the collective egos of the world and keep reassuring people that every individual is massively important in the grand scheme of things I suppose we will all feel really good about ourselves when we are dying en masse. We must adopt a new form of thinking composed purely of logic and we must act in the best interests of the human species.

With a population of less than 90% of the current world population productivity would increase, quality of life would increase, nature would recover and it would be easier for humans as a species to advance themselves to the point of colonizing other planets and moving out into the universe at which point our incessant need for rampant reproduction would be a great asset. With the adoption of a new way of thinking and a new set of morals we may finally be able to solve many of the issues humans face today.

As horrid a thought as population reduction may seem at first a proper understanding of how the world truly works paints it in a different light. It is a necessity whether we want to accept it or not. Instead of beating around the bush and pretending as though the population problem is not a pressing issue we should begin to figure out a proper solution. If we want the human species to continue on for thousands of years to come we must commit to logical and responsible decision making and accept what must be done.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enthralled Fan


While you might not believe in God, I do. As far as I am concerned only God makes a descision who is to live and who is to die. No human has that capacity.


I dont believe in god, nor in religion for that matter. As for no human having the capacity to determine who lives or who dies, you may want to take a look at all of the murderers in prison. They determined who lived, and who died.


If we all starve to death and run out of resources, maybe that is the plan of God.


Or, more logically, its the failure of humans to control their growth.


Instead of thinking of ways to kill off those you deem to be worthless, you should put your efforts into finding ways to improve the quality of life for everyone with the resources we have.


Maybe we could give them all puppies and ice cream cones too



I know that might be a little more work than say, killing a few million people, but then again, it never amazes me how some people value themselves more than anybody else.


Uh, I value myself more than I value some complete stranger thousands of miles away on the other side of the globe. To not do so is insanity.


So, you are not going to be first in line to volunteer to die as a means of lowering the population? You must think you are something special.


I think thats somewhere around the 50th time that little idea has been suggested. Does everyone just resort to the easiest rebuttal without confronting facts?


What you suggest to me, means that you view people as disposable pieces of crap.


Everyone is disposable, yes even me. Human life is nothing sacred, it begins and ends millions of times every day.


In my opinion, the only one you are concerned with is yourself.


No, actually I am concerned about my family and my friends as well.


By the way, I am anti death penalty, and anti abortion, so the suggestion of killing off people for the betterment of a few, doesn't fly with me.


No surprise there. Are you also anti drop the A-bomb on Japan killing a large number of people while in the mean time saving exponentially more lives?


sty

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   
my reply - as long as 20 % of the population uses 80% of the resources , it seems logical to me that we should start by reducing the 20% ..


sty

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by sty
 


i do not see any reason why we should reduce the population - this is just a dream of the elites. If the secret technologies would be released (like Tesla banned patents , 100 years old) we could sustain about 12 billion on earth with no damage. More people means more creativity. Also - when i was a kid the teachers used to say that by 2000 we would have 8 bil. people on Earth. We dont. I guess we should just focus in educating the ones we have, then go in space and continue to populate there (China would do this )

I somehow hope that we would reach thousands of billions one day - but if we reduce to 300 000 000 we would end up in another dark age, owning some technology from the "ancients" but with no ideea how it works. Also , in case of a major desaster, 300 000 000 is simply too risky - so i see the ideea very dangerous .



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


You are correct about murderers in prison. They are there because they made a choice to kill someone. Pretty much a no brainer there.

To you it is logical that humans didn't control their growth. To me it is logical that humans so self consumed with consuming did nothing to improve the conditions for anyone but themselves.

Puppies and ice cream are nice. Something everyone should have the opportunity the have and enjoy.

You valuing yourself more than a stranger thousands of miles away doesn't surprise me, as you don't seem to be able to "see the forrest for the trees."

Easy rebuttals are like your solution. Easy.

Nobody is disposable. What if you kill the next Einstein with your little plan? The next Mozart, the next Picasso? Guess you will never know because you refuse to possibly see a person who is not to your standards with the potential of a diamond in the rough.

So, you don't pland on including your family and friends in your population reduction plan? Why doesn't this surprise me?

Yes, I am anti bomb, too.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire

There seems to be a misconception in this thread that I have advocated the wholesale slaughter of people. At no time did I suggest such a thing.


That's a lie. You advocated the stoppage of food supplies to 3rd world nations, specifically those 'useless African 3rd world countries'. In other words, you support genocide through starvation.

Don't worry though, we know all about it. There are entire universities of you people who believe that the poor and starving dark skinned people of the world are like flies and you want to starve them out. Maybe starve out all the poor people in our country too, because they aren't rich enough. Don't worry, we know all about it... you don't have to admit that you advocate genocide just say that a certain number of people should just disappear. Just advocate, 'tiny genocide', 1 - 2 billion is nothiingggg... life is worthlesss...

yeah we know all about this kind of evil consciousness that's going to be woven into our society. I'm just glad the majority of us don't take the bait.

This thread is a good example of how eugenics is going to dissolve in the publics eyes. We won't have any part of your plans.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join