Population reduction: Why not?, page 14

privacy

Pages: << 11 12 13 14 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

reply posted on 28-12-2007 @ 08:28 PM by Aronolac

Post 2 of 2

Population overcrowding results in something called an out-of-balance of the land to man ratio. According to our celestial friends, this planet could comfortably keep of between 2 and 3 billion people, but not more. We are approaching over 3 times what the planet can sustain. Man usually meets overpopulation by either accepting lower standards of living, or by territorial expansion. But there are few land masses on our planet that can be invaded and support a much larger population, and the un-equal distribution of wealth and resources around the world will not easily lend itself to the “haves” accepting a reduction in their standard of living.

QUOTE
“Human resources. Man power is indispensable to the spread of civilization. All things equal, a numerous people will dominate the civilization of a smaller race. Hence failure to increase in numbers up to a certain point prevents the full realization of national destiny, but there comes a point in population increase where further growth is suicidal. Multiplication of numbers beyond the optimum of the normal man-land ratio means either a lowering of the standards of living or an immediate expansion of territorial boundaries by peaceful penetration or by military conquest, forcible occupation.” [The URANTIA Book, pp 907-908- see Tmarchives]. UNQUOTE

In 2006, a high Son of the universe spoke to the problem and the correction in these recorded excerpts: [All quotes here are from Tmarchives}]

QUOTE
“The population of your world is grossly out of balance. It will be at that time, which you state [2050], approximately three times larger than it should be. There is truly an equation for the number of people that can successfully, productively, rationally, spiritually, occupy land in relationship to the square mileage or land mass.” . . . .

“We will not institute any global program of eugenics. This situation of over-population of your planet will be self-rectifying. It is unavoidable; it is now in preparation, we are aware that there are forces in your world, which will change the population level dramatically in a very brief period of time.” . . . .

“This scythe that will cut across the populations of your world, is no respecter of status, power, authority, monies, or spiritual development—it will strike evenly to everyone. And it will reduce the population of your planet: it is unavoidable; it is inevitable; it will occur. And when you do cross, whether before or after this occurs, we are there, we are so close to you. We will help you make this transition more easily.”

“We work with all individuals; we work with all souls. We wish that the production of healthy, whole, heavy souls occur on every planet, and that every soul that leaves this planet be weighty with wisdom, experience, understanding, insight, and personal reverence. You make them by moral and ethical decisions; you make heavy souls with the addition of service—not required, obligatory service, but joyful service, generous service, gleeful service, service that is done from the heart.”
UNQUOTE

This problem of overpopulation is admixed with other ethical problems developing on our earth that will, in the final analysis, create a sea change on our civilizations. For the most part, these population pressures coupled with all the racial tendencies because of genetic misalignments, will be forced on man. Man will call them “nature”, and nature will evolve a tactic, already in the works, to bring the world back into a normal balance with its life forms.

Spirit dominates mind, and mind dominates the material or natural laws of the universe. Disease is a consequence of spiritual mis-adaptation while mind remains ignorant of the laws which can abate such disasters from happening in cooperation with Spirit. No one is calling anybody “unspiritual” by the above, but clearly if a sane process of reproduction was somehow found, man would not now be faced with a monumental act of nature to eventually cull his numbers to a more manageable (in a planetary sense) population.

This approach, the spiritual one in coordination with material facts, is the one that eventually will provide solutions. Solutions to both maintain culture and preserve learning will be necessary if population over production continues at the present and uncontrolled rate.

Thank you all.
Ron

reply posted on 11-2-2008 @ 03:34 PM by belsam

Real humans solve their problems. They love each other and have children. They protect themselves and don't vow to go out and destroy other people in order to save themselves : because they know that's nonsense. Real humans promote life, and cultivate it.

The thing is their is no "real humans". Only us. Real humans will do whatever it takes to stay alive. Everyone of them views his or her life as greater than any other.

reply posted on 11-2-2008 @ 04:12 PM by Question

reply to post by slackerwire

I don't think you'd think this was a great idea if you and your family were the ones to be removed from the earth to help de-populate the planet.

See its always easy to see it from a detached point of view and say "great! it would work" provided you stay alive and we are the ones that die. I know that depopulation will come in some form or another be it natural disaster or fabricated disaster by the NWO.

If it's because of natural disasters, there's nothing we can do really, mother nature will throw everything she's got at us and none, not even the elite are safe from her wrath (what good would it be for a rich man to hide in a cave underground if nature decides to drown you? or cause a massive earthquake that renders your little hiding hole useless.) But if it's a fabricated disaster from the elite there's something morally wrong with that way of thinking. I don't care who you are or how "smart" the elite may think they are, are not, and never will be any different than the rest of us "lowly cattle". You better believe there will be people fighting tooth and nail to make sure it's the elite that are gotten rid of for even suggesting the idea of purging the rest of the world because "we're not good enough"

reply posted on 11-2-2008 @ 04:31 PM by belsam

Would it be possible to make the children in third world countries sterile by injections?

That way we don't kill anybody, we rid the world of the problem of overcrowding for the foreseeable future and it would be incredible easy to do. We could pretend it was some kind of immunisation for HIV.

reply posted on 11-2-2008 @ 04:35 PM by Question

Which is why we need a policy similar to Chinas, 1 child per couple, thereby eliminating the threat of overpopulation in the future.

yeah... too bad for you we still have this thing called free will that kinda gets in the way, oh and also the right to live. So unless you plan on getting rid of EVERYONE to try and avoid scenario from happening (after all, people will reproduce whether you like it or not) you're not providing any good solutions and are being incredibly naive in thinking everyone will just "go along" with this policy... especially here in the U.S. where we have a bad habit of telling the government "up yours" in what ever small manner we can.

When I decide to have kids, I will have as many as I planned to have (2-3) regardless of what you or the government think, regardless of whether it's a law or not. See... agains there's that whole pesky free will sneaking into your genocidal idea. What will you or the government do? Are you going to deny me my basica human rights/principles just because you don't like it?

I know there's a population problem in this world DUH! you'd have to be a moron NOT to see it. That doesn't mean YOU or the government end up deciding who lives and who dies nature/god/allah/gaia/fate decides that.

reply posted on 11-2-2008 @ 04:45 PM by Question

reply to post by slackerwire

Nature actually does a very poor job of limiting population. The global population has grown 400% in 100 years, that isnt exactly a stellar performance by mother nature.

According to whom???? who made this observation and came up with this magical number? scientists? well sorry, but as much as I support science, I'm still very aware of the fact scientists are still humans and humans are still far from flawless. Again, who decides? You? the scientist? or nature? Sorry pal, but since we came from nature, I'd rather put my money with her and let her decide when its our time to go. Heck she did it with the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, I'm sure when its our time to go, she'll whip up another meteor from the sky to do the job.

reply posted on 11-2-2008 @ 04:52 PM by belsam

Their is a major flaw in your view. That nature is some kind of sentient being. If however it isn't then what then?

reply posted on 11-2-2008 @ 05:02 PM by Question

reply to post by slackerwire

No I dont support the outright killing of people. I think aid needs to be stopped and let nature take its course. If they cannot survive without us, that isnt our problem

Oh I'm sorry... I thought you said that nature had a bad track record. Yet here you are asking nature to do something... backtracking much?

reply posted on 11-2-2008 @ 06:53 PM by Question

Originally posted by belsam
Their is a major flaw in your view. That nature is some kind of sentient being. If however it isn't then what then?

LOL! what makes you think I think nature is a "sentient" being? I was just simply stating that circumstances in nature have had in the past the ability to "cull" over population of a particular species whether by meteor or by plague.

reply posted on 11-2-2008 @ 06:58 PM by Nohup

I think it's interesting to look at old movies and newsreels and notice how much more space there seems to be for people. You see large public buildings like train stations or city halls and there will only be a couple of people strolling around. It seems like everywhere I go these days there's a crowd. I rarely find myself relatively alone in a public place, and when I do, it's odd. Sometimes I think that the perfect number of people in the world was right around the end of the 1940's, before the Baby Boom hit hard.

Just an opinion.

reply posted on 11-2-2008 @ 07:15 PM by resistor

Originally posted by Nohup
I think it's interesting to look at old movies and newsreels and notice how much more space there seems to be for people. You see large public buildings like train stations or city halls and there will only be a couple of people strolling around. It seems like everywhere I go these days there's a crowd. I rarely find myself relatively alone in a public place, and when I do, it's odd. Sometimes I think that the perfect number of people in the world was right around the end of the 1940's, before the Baby Boom hit hard.

Just an opinion.

Come visit west Texas friend. All the space you would ever want. Or not.

There's actually a ton of space all over the American west, most people just don't want to live a rural lifestyle anymore. You might look into central Asia as well.

reply posted on 11-2-2008 @ 09:45 PM by slackerwire

Originally posted by Question
reply to post by slackerwire

Nature actually does a very poor job of limiting population. The global population has grown 400% in 100 years, that isnt exactly a stellar performance by mother nature.

According to whom???? who made this observation and came up with this magical number? scientists? well sorry, but as much as I support science, I'm still very aware of the fact scientists are still humans and humans are still far from flawless. Again, who decides? You? the scientist? or nature? Sorry pal, but since we came from nature, I'd rather put my money with her and let her decide when its our time to go. Heck she did it with the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, I'm sure when its our time to go, she'll whip up another meteor from the sky to do the job.

Have you ever heard of the Census bureau? I know you most likely havent heard of something called population statistics, but you may want to research them.

reply posted on 11-2-2008 @ 09:45 PM by slackerwire

Originally posted by Question
reply to post by slackerwire

No I dont support the outright killing of people. I think aid needs to be stopped and let nature take its course. If they cannot survive without us, that isnt our problem

Oh I'm sorry... I thought you said that nature had a bad track record. Yet here you are asking nature to do something... backtracking much?

Nature, as in when a human being doesnt eat, they eventually starve to death.

If we stopped all aid to 3rd world nations, this result could be easily achieved.

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 08:20 AM by belsam

But then people would complain. And not all countries would agree with us.
Therefore simply removing food aid is not a practical solution.

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 12:18 PM by Question

Originally posted by slackerwire

Originally posted by Question
reply to post by slackerwire

Nature actually does a very poor job of limiting population. The global population has grown 400% in 100 years, that isnt exactly a stellar performance by mother nature.

According to whom???? who made this observation and came up with this magical number? scientists? well sorry, but as much as I support science, I'm still very aware of the fact scientists are still humans and humans are still far from flawless. Again, who decides? You? the scientist? or nature? Sorry pal, but since we came from nature, I'd rather put my money with her and let her decide when its our time to go. Heck she did it with the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, I'm sure when its our time to go, she'll whip up another meteor from the sky to do the job.

Have you ever heard of the Census bureau? I know you most likely havent heard of something called population statistics, but you may want to research them.

read my post again, we are far from flawless and I'm sure even the census bearreu makes mistakes and you have yet to answer my other question... who decides who lives or dies? you?

As for your stopping aid to africa argument, that is considered genocide.

You know, I actually had a whole long post planned out as to why your approach is not only completely wrong on a moral stand point, but sadly impractical. But after seeing your @$$ handed by like 3-4 other posters nothing I say will actually add anything. Although I do suggest you take the advise of these posters and get your head examined. Thinking it's ok to kill billions of people is wrong no matter which way you slice it, and you endorsing this idea doesn't make you look any better either.

reply posted on 12-7-2008 @ 10:10 AM by Anonymous ATS

reply to post by slackerwire

Dear Sir
I read your article with interest. I have no children myself for the very reasons in your article. I find that there seems to be a total vacuum of the human population issue in most articles on climate change, eco-system damage and so forth. Human population seems a taboo subject but does need to come to forefront of the political arena.

Best regards

Tim

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 12:32 AM by constitutionist 1971

Population control? So all of you that believe in population control and culling the herd start with yourself. Its a good start, and the world will be better off for it.

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 10:43 AM by Privy_Princess

reply to post by slackerwire

Don't you think it would be much easier to just throw a little money to these 3rd world countries so that they would be able to get their act together and start producing some viable intelligent minds?

IMO, every human being has potential to do wonderful things. Instead of guffawing at these poor souls, maybe we should try to help them reach their potential?

There is more than enough money to go around the world so that these 3rd world countries could benefit from it, but you know how it goes. People would rather keep ridiculous amounts of money that they have absolutley nothing to do with than give it away for a good cause.

Depopulation? No. Reinstitution? Yes.

Gonna happen? Ha ha

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 11:38 AM by sir_chancealot

Population control is very, very easy to achieve. Here's how you do it. You raise everyone's standard of living to 1st world status. In doing so, the population will "self regulate". More people will have fewer children.

Every single advanced society in the world right now is experiencing a declining birth rate. EVERY ONE. It also seems that every single advanced society (for their time) imploded from failing birth rates.

Go with what works. Besides, not a shot has to be fired for this one to work.

See how easy that is? Now ask yourself why TPTB want to reduce population through wars, famines, plagues.

reply posted on 15-12-2009 @ 10:14 PM by pumpkinorange

Originally posted by slackerwire

Originally posted by shorty

Do you really believe ALL people are worthy of life?

Yes.
We are told human beings are created in God's image and for this reason and this reason alone each and every person on the face of the Earth has INTRINSIC VALUE and is precious.
Even you.
Like a Roman coin bearing the face of the ruler who issued it, each and every human being is created in the spiritual image of the Creator.
When we ignore this precept, we do so at our peril.
You are stepping onto a slippery slope and my friend be careful as you are falling fast towards depravity.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by pumpkinorange]