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.
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.
Originally posted by Astyanax
You might try taking a squint inside your cup of coffee. Who produced the contents?
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.
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.
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.
Using your logic, wouldnt it be better if I started the wholesale execution of people instead?
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.
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.
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!
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.
Using your logic, wouldnt it be better if I started the wholesale execution of people instead?
Obviously this wasnt the first time someone called you ignorant then correct?
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......?
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]
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?
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?
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.
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?
Originally posted by slackerwire
The part that contributes the least, African 3rd world nations.
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.
Do you really believe ALL people are worthy of life?
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.
Please copy and paste the part where I mentioned murder
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.....................
Correct, but having tons of children is a problem that is not restricted to, but predominant in 3rd world nations
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!).
Which is why we need a policy similar to Chinas, 1 child per couple, thereby eliminating the threat of overpopulation in the future.
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.
Using the 2 examples I posted previously, in what ways would the global economy suffer if the populations of Somalia and Ethiopia simply disappeared?
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.
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.
So, yes - genocide, great solution to overpopulation.
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]
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.