Population reduction: Why not?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Perhaps if the OP is so concerned about overpopulation, then perhaps they can help to eleviate the problem by........ removing themselves from the planet? Maybe take their little Genocide friends with them? I am sure I can help you find a good slaughterhouse.... would you prefer to be dog or cat food?

NO?



Damn! You know, I should be used to these Genocidal Fantasists by now who believe we should kill millions of people, but won't put themselves forward...

Note how they almost always seem to come from well off backgrounds.




posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terran Blue
Perhaps if the OP is so concerned about overpopulation, then perhaps they can help to eleviate the problem by........ removing themselves from the planet? Maybe take their little Genocide friends with them? I am sure I can help you find a good slaughterhouse.... would you prefer to be dog or cat food?

NO?



Damn! You know, I should be used to these Genocidal Fantasists by now who believe we should kill millions of people, but won't put themselves forward...

Note how they almost always seem to come from well off backgrounds.


What a clever little way you have found of avoiding the topic at hand. I have heard this same argument before, usually with people who do not wish to face reality or are too ignorant to debate it.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax


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


At what point did I say eliminate ALL 3rd worlders? Naturally some are needed in the producing countries: Bangladesh for example, which has a population of over 120 million and is the size of Ohio could lose 30-40% of its population and still manage to be a slave wage production nation. Nothing would change there except for less people.

How about countries such as Somalia or Ethiopia? Nothing comes out of there, and they are constantly in need of large amounts of foreign aid. They should continue to exist because......?



[edit on 18-8-2007 by slackerwire]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
What a clever little way you have found of avoiding the topic at hand. I have heard this same argument before, usually with people who do not wish to face reality or are too ignorant to debate it.


And what a clever little way you have found avoid the fact that while you support death on a global scale, you lack the conviction in your beliefs, and the testicular fortitude, to help the situation in the only logical way that YOU are able to, ie, getting rid of yourself to aid in a quest you so obviously have given a lot of thought to.

And who said I was avoiding the topic? I was merely pointing out that you want to decrease population, you would do little better to start by leading by example.

And I note you rolled out the utterly predictable Deny Ignorance BS, and declared me ignorant. Man, I must say, I never saw that coming. Please excuse while I am just being stunned for a moment...

*is stunned*

I do love how many on this site seem to think that labelling someone as ignorant in a debate is like playing a trump card, a mortal blow in a battle.

So, in response to your comment that I am avoiding the topic, I am putting the question to you, as part of this idiotic debate, why don't you remove yourself as part of the issue if you are so concerned?



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 

You speak of population reduction as if it were possible somehow. How does one do that even if you or some government wanted. Only way I know is some exotic, potent disease. Diseases kill a certain percentage of populations except those with natural or artificial immunity. So you can't kill just one part of the would population. Everyone suffers. Unthinkable.
The only pratical solution IMHO is gradual population reduction using proven methods. The only methods that come to mind is 1. The chinese model where they dictate by law and some incentives how many kids you can have. AND: 2. General improvement in standard of living by industrialization such as what has happened in Europe, Canada and the US. People have fewer kids as the standard of living improves. They also pollute less and clean up better. It is basic 101 Economics but that is another thread. Thanks!



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terran Blue



And what a clever little way you have found avoid the fact that while you support death on a global scale, you lack the conviction in your beliefs, and the testicular fortitude, to help the situation in the only logical way that YOU are able to, ie, getting rid of yourself to aid in a quest you so obviously have given a lot of thought to.
I have already decided to do my part and not have children. Given the current state of affairs in this country doing so constitutes child abuse IMO.


And who said I was avoiding the topic? I was merely pointing out that you want to decrease population, you would do little better to start by leading by example.
Using your logic, wouldnt it be better if I started the wholesale execution of people instead?



I do love how many on this site seem to think that labelling someone as ignorant in a debate is like playing a trump card, a mortal blow in a battle.

Obviously this wasnt the first time someone called you ignorant then correct?



[edit on 18-8-2007 by slackerwire]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by slackerwire
 

You speak of population reduction as if it were possible somehow. How does one do that even if you or some government wanted. Only way I know is some exotic, potent disease. Diseases kill a certain percentage of populations except those with natural or artificial immunity. So you can't kill just one part of the would population. Everyone suffers. Unthinkable.
The only pratical solution IMHO is gradual population reduction using proven methods. The only methods that come to mind is 1. The chinese model where they dictate by law and some incentives how many kids you can have. AND: 2. General improvement in standard of living by industrialization such as what has happened in Europe, Canada and the US. People have fewer kids as the standard of living improves. They also pollute less and clean up better. It is basic 101 Economics but that is another thread. Thanks!


I agree wholeheartedly. By no means am I naive enough to think there is a quick solution to this problem. I think a continuation of policies such as China's 1 child limit as well as cutting off all forms of aid to 3rd world nations would be an acceptable solution.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
I have already decided to do my part and not have children. Given the current state of affairs in this country doing so constitutes child abuse IMO.


Oh but I am sure you could be doing more? Seeing as you obviously are so hardcore on this issue, you must want to do more to fulfill your dreams of genocide? Why not join the USAF, become a nuke bomber pilot, and..... say, drop a nuke on your home town? Then crash the bomber into the smoking ruins?


Using your logic, wouldnt it be better if I started the wholesale execution of people instead?


Then why don't you? Oh that's right, because it's illegal to murder in your comfortable little world isn't it? Pesky poor folks, always protected by the damn law...


Obviously this wasnt the first time someone called you ignorant then correct?


An incredibly sharp reply... and I see you have shown that you have chosen to ignore my point regarding the use of the word ignorant as a debating tool on ATS, due to lack of a defense... Or that you are.... ignorant of it.

Ugh... must remember not to stoop so low...

So, my question remains, will you be removing yourself in the name of your cause? And furthermore, I would like to ask: Just out of curiousity, what part of the world did you have in mind to decrease population by first? Middle East? China? Damn Muslims and Chicoms man, they need to go!

Don't they?



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire

How about countries such as Somalia or Ethiopia? Nothing comes out of there, and they are constantly in need of large amounts of foreign aid. They should continue to exist because......?



Hmm... interesting , Somalians and Ethiopians have little or nothing to offer our greedy empires so they shouldn't exist at all. Let me ask what purpose you might serve a Somalian or Ethiopian? Your existence offers them nothing so why should YOU exist at all.




[edit on 18-8-2007 by Ruiner]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


It seems like your logic is on the par with Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and to an extent, Hitler.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ruiner

Originally posted by slackerwire



Hmm... interesting , Somalians and Ethiopians have little or nothing to offer our greedy empires so they shouldn't exist at all. Let me ask what purpose you might serve a Somalian or Ethiopian? Your existence offers them nothing so why should YOU exist at all.

Those countries are large recipients of foreign aid. Where do you think that aid money comes from? Myself and people like me aka taxpayers.



[edit on 18-8-2007 by Ruiner]


[edit on 18-8-2007 by slackerwire]

[edit on 18-8-2007 by slackerwire]

[edit on 18-8-2007 by slackerwire]

[edit on 18-8-2007 by slackerwire]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terran Blue



Oh but I am sure you could be doing more? Seeing as you obviously are so hardcore on this issue, you must want to do more to fulfill your dreams of genocide? Why not join the USAF, become a nuke bomber pilot, and..... say, drop a nuke on your home town? Then crash the bomber into the smoking ruins?
Do you ever have any rational points or are you just filled with unrealistic solutions? My hometown is very small, would yours be a better target?



An incredibly sharp reply... and I see you have shown that you have chosen to ignore my point regarding the use of the word ignorant as a debating tool on ATS, due to lack of a defense... Or that you are.... ignorant of it.


You are unwilling to debate facts or statistics, instead you chose to act like a retarded goat. When you care to live in reality, let me know. There is nothing for me to defend. The facts are on my side.


A

nd furthermore, I would like to ask: Just out of curiousity, what part of the world did you have in mind to decrease population by first? Middle East? China? Damn Muslims and Chicoms man, they need to go!

Don't they?


The part that contributes the least, African 3rd world nations.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
The part that contributes the least, African 3rd world nations.


One of the most ridiculous ATS posts to date. All are worthy of life, killing people due to birthplace isn't worth debating unless you also intend to argue in favour of other, past genocides.

You claim we're talking unrealistically ......yet...it seems to me you propose the murder of around half the world's population. 'Cause that really does make sense.....................

Besides the point altogether when you consider this doesn't solve the long term problem. The problem being people seem to have this crazy habit of having children and I know it sounds mad, but that's not a 'problem' restricted to 'third world nations' (shocker!).

What you suggest is little more than a lazy short term solution. 1st and 2nd world nations will no doubt continue having children, and then we're back at square one. I guess then we commit mass genocide again? Who do we kill in a few centuries, few thousand years, whatever the length of time when our numbers are again at breaking point.

By then of course there'll be a whole different group of third world nations due to the huge fallout the global economy would suffer.... The fault of those who supported and committed genocide the likes of which the world hasn't seen before.

So, yes - genocide, great solution to overpopulation.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ruiner

Hmm... interesting , Somalians and Ethiopians have little or nothing to offer our greedy empires so they shouldn't exist at all. Let me ask what purpose you might serve a Somalian or Ethiopian? Your existence offers them nothing so why should YOU exist at all.


Originally posted by slackerwire

Those countries are large recipients of foreign aid. Where do you think that aid money comes from? Myself and people like me aka taxpayers.




Really? Foreign aid comes from taxpayers? God forbid the taxpayer's money should go towards providing aid to a starving country. I can think of so many better ways to spend it. For instance how about using $998,798 of it to ship two washers to Texas.




[edit on 18-8-2007 by Ruiner]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by shorty
 


Good Post



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty


One of the most ridiculous ATS posts to date. All are worthy of life, killing people due to birthplace isn't worth debating unless you also intend to argue in favour of other, past genocides.
Do you really believe ALL people are worthy of life?


You claim we're talking unrealistically ......yet...it seems to me you propose the murder of around half the world's population. 'Cause that really does make sense.....................
Please copy and paste the part where I mentioned murder


Besides the point altogether when you consider this doesn't solve the long term problem. The problem being people seem to have this crazy habit of having children and I know it sounds mad, but that's not a 'problem' restricted to 'third world nations' (shocker!).
Correct, but having tons of children is a problem that is not restricted to, but predominant in 3rd world nations


What you suggest is little more than a lazy short term solution. 1st and 2nd world nations will no doubt continue having children, and then we're back at square one. I guess then we commit mass genocide again? Who do we kill in a few centuries, few thousand years, whatever the length of time when our numbers are again at breaking point.
Which is why we need a policy similar to Chinas, 1 child per couple, thereby eliminating the threat of overpopulation in the future.


By then of course there'll be a whole different group of third world nations due to the huge fallout the global economy would suffer.... The fault of those who supported and committed genocide the likes of which the world hasn't seen before.
Using the 2 examples I posted previously, in what ways would the global economy suffer if the populations of Somalia and Ethiopia simply disappeared?


So, yes - genocide, great solution to overpopulation.
If nothing is done, the horrors of mass overpopulation will be exponentially worse. Especially to those of us in modernized countries who enjoy a high standard of living.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ruiner

Really? Foreign aid comes from taxpayers? God forbid the taxpayer's money should go towards providing aid to a starving country. I can think of so many better ways to spend it. For instance how about using $998,798 of it to ship two washers to Texas.


[edit on 18-8-2007 by Ruiner]


Foreign Aid is Unconstitutional, and despite the untold billions and billions of dollars sent to various 3rd world nations, the conditions there remain the same.

Throwing good money after bad is not a smart idea.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


I do believe that all should have their first rights to life. It is unfortunate that the nature and nurturing of certain individuals (bad guys) cause them to be the way that they are; however, as children starting out, they DO have as much right to live as the next person.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by slackerwire
 


I do believe that all should have their first rights to life. It is unfortunate that the nature and nurturing of certain individuals (bad guys) cause them to be the way that they are; however, as children starting out, they DO have as much right to live as the next person.


Thanks, just wanted clarification.

Would you support a 1 child per family policy?



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


That is different. Ending someone's life is completely different than never having a life to even fool with. I have already stated that if there was a way to narrow the 4 second gap between birth and death rates, then that would probably be the best option. It's like the difference between a condom and an abortion. Keeping anything from POSSIBLY happening vs. stopping something that already has.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join