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: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax


Thank you for corroborating my supposition. You do, in fact, formulate your view of reality on the basis of alleged facts drawn from studies you have only heard about.
I mentioned a single study someone who shared your opinion used as an example. Basing your opinion on a single instance makes you out to be a bigger moron than I gave you credit for being.

quote]And this proves that third world countries are unproductive? How?
Lets use Africa as an example. Millions die from famine, disease runs rampant throughout many nations there, they consistently require aid from the IMF and numerous first world nations, etc etc etc. What exactly do they produce besides war, disease, death, and poverty?



Ooh, slippery. Every 'point' you have made so far was in reference to 'American'. If other countries want to waste their resources on aid to the third world, what's it to you? Their money isn't coming out of your pocket.
If you read back throughout this thread, you will see I said ALL aid, not just American.


Just didn't. You really don't get it, do you?

I get the fact that you are too dense to let the problem of overpopulation stand in the way of your attempts to discredit someone who brings it up.

I get the fact that you really dont know too much about this topic, instead you would rather attack my ideas as opposed to putting forth your own.

I get the fact that you are an arrogant douchebag who refuses to acknowledge that other people just might be right, and you might be wrong.




posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terran Blue




Me calling you a bigot comes from observing your comments and attitudes. If you don't like how you are perceived, change how you act.


Your perceptions of me mean nothing. I couldnt care less what idiots think of me.




And what is more, is that you started this thread, assuming you were right, thus making you the aggressor, thus making you the biggest fool. Ever heard the saying "If you have nothing nice to say, then keep your mouth shut"?
Ever thought of heeding your own advice?







I have no NEED to prove what I say,


And therein lies your problem.



Why waste the time highlighting this in detail when anyone who has been watching this thread can see what a fascist you are?
First I am a bigot, and now a fascist. Wow, you sound just like those dredlocked hippy douchebags. Do you happen to be one of them?




Ah yes, but I assume being the great military hero that you are, you have killed many who have been at your feet as you hold a rifle on them, haven't you?
Post a single comment I have ever made referring to myself as a military hero. You cant, but facts mean nothing to you do they?





You imply that culling deer is something that should be considered for humans. I refer people to page one.
Assuming is your first mistake. Stop assuming you know what I am thinking. You dont.






Very cute coming from you Adolf, considering you have spent many posts on hurling insults at those who dare to disagree with your sick ideas. Maybe it is YOU who should leave the house hmm? Perhaps leave your state? Mingle with people outside of your class?
Your constant references to nazis only detract from any previous credibility you may have once had.

Nazi, fascist, blah blah blah. Are you some sort of leftist douchebag?

Wait, let me rephrase: We already know you are a douchebag, are you smoe sort of leftist?




So, if I was to say for example, "Let's wipe the United States off the map with a full nuclear spread from Russia and China and the EU, because they are just a waste of carbon," and you took offense, would that make you an idiot?
I wouldnt take offense. That is your mere opinion, of which it can be easily discounted. People who get offended by words are weak minded fools.




You may have, you may not have, I am past giving a toss. Point is you implied it countless times. Ever heard of reading between the lines?


Ever heard the phrase: " Assume makes an ASS out of U and ME?

Stop assuming moron.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
I do not see a natural event causing this kind of de-polulation. From over 6 billion to 500 million.

Freedom, some good ideas, but I completely disagree with this one. What about limiting people's access to fresh water? What about dwindling food sources due to the sharp decline in honey bee populations? Those are two EXTREMELY catastrophic things I see that can definitely have that impact or more.
Also, what about how companies that sell popular soft drinks, for example, own the rights to large water sources...and if the fresh water supply dwindles that their profits will mean more than people surviving and using the water sources they claim. Then there's a certain bottled water company that uses tap water as their source...what would happen then? What about a poisoning of the water sources that we all trust to be purified?
It could definitely happen, although I hope that it doesn't.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   

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. 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.


I won't call you a racist or a bigot, but rather I think you are biased as in what you feel wastes the vital resources in placing the blame on third world countries. I would argue the opposite. What about NAFTA and policies from "Developed" nations that exploit those other nations? The diamond trade, chocolate, coffee...free trade in general...It's really the developed nations taking advantage of the "third world" ones. Third world countries, and the people of them, are not the problem as much as large corporations. Look at the border towns of Mexico/US, with the Maquiladoras, and how those companies such as Duro and air conditioning manufacturers dispose of their (sometimes toxic) waste. At one time people of "developed" nations needed large families to help support the community, to do chores that technology now takes over.

A large population with improperly employed technology I think is a huge problem. Having many people to perform communal tasks, given that there is enough sustinence to support them is not bad, but having technology completely replace jobs of people, or tasks, leaves a smaller niche in communities of where labor and contributions can be made.

All that technology is supposed to "save time," but is that really possible? Doesn't it just "make" more time to do more things? Can time really be saved and can you get cash out on it later? I didn't think so.

Third world countries are really not the issue as much as how developed nations exploit them.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
The planet is "self cleaning", when we get to be too much of a burden, mother nature will control us with disease. It's best to let nature take the lead on this one.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I have no problem with companies exploiting 3rd world nations, afterall, those nations allow themselves to be exploited.

Are there horrendous conditions in the diamond mines of South Africa? Of course, and those responsible for them should be held accountable just the same as those who hire illegal aliens.

However, lets be realistic here, there is a demand for diamonds(which are not a precious or rare stone anwyays) and where there is a demand, there is sure to be someone with a supply.

Peoples affinity for diamonds is the root cause of the problem, not the corporations. Much the same with the narcotic issue here in the U.S. The dealers are not to blame, the users are.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
The planet is "self cleaning", when we get to be too much of a burden, mother nature will control us with disease. It's best to let nature take the lead on this one.


As I stated before, a population growth of 400% in the past 100 years indicates mother nature is not taking care of the problem as efficiently as she needs to.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
A fairly recent study concluded that when a community of rats overpopulates it exhibits suicidal behavior. Are humans any different? Crazy as it sounds now (to most), there's a distinct connection between squeamishness about revelaing the truth about various unexplained phenomena (including the more bizarre stuff that no one talks about) and cluelessness on what to do about the ecological crises. Truth begets justice and knowledge; which yields new energies, methodologies, technologies and whatnot... No one can be MADE to give a (sucidal) rat's hiney about the future of humanity and Earth.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
I have no problem with companies exploiting 3rd world nations, afterall, those nations allow themselves to be exploited.
....
The dealers are not to blame, the users are.


If you have no problem with people being exploited, and the "developed" nations wasting so many resources (third world nations are not sucking them up, developed ones are...and we leave MUCH more of an imprint than third world countries)...
then why did you start this post? If you don't have a problem, don't care, and already know this, why have said anything in the first place? Your original post doesn't line up so much with what you just said.

Also, you're saying blame the users...that would be the people in the developed nations.

Thanks for proving my points.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by appl3sh3rb3t

....


If you have no problem with people being exploited, and the "developed" nations wasting so many resources (third world nations are not sucking them up, developed ones are...and we leave MUCH more of an imprint than third world countries)...
then why did you start this post?


3rd world nations arent sucking up resources? How do you figure? DOes billions of dollars in aid every year not count as a resource?


If you don't have a problem, don't care, and already know this, why have said anything in the first place? Your original post doesn't line up so much with what you just said.
Huh?



Thanks for proving my points.

Exactly what points do you think you just made?

[edit on 19-8-2007 by slackerwire]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
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.

Really, would that be the answer to make it stable? What if it were more balanced, rather than just being limited? Would it REALLY guarantee a better standard of living with so many other problems we have? How so?
It's also called the "lifeboat theory"...any person with a clue about ecology and science would have heard about it since high school...
And if you're going to argue financial things and economics, wouldn't that be impractical? You might want to read up on the population issues that places like Spain are having...and they have issues with illegal immigrants like the United States (people from Mauritania crossing by boat to the Canary Islands, crossing Northern Africa into the Rock of Gibraltar and up through Spain). Completely ceasing all immigration is not a practical answer nor would it be an intelligent one.



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.


How cute...saying socioeconomics doesn't apply to race...but if you were to dig in a little further, you would be able to see correlations. Maybe you're not being racist, but still...



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.
...
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.


You're judging the birth control methods, education, religion, etc. on very biased terms (your very Western terms). Their education for surviving daily life would not be the same as one in middle of nowhere U.S., vs. suburban U.S., etc. Who are you to say they are "uneducated"? By what or whose standards? Yours? That's not good enough...

My point, which you proved so nicely, is that it IS the users, the developed nations, that are to blame, not the third world citizens. How is accepting aid sucking up resources? Are they polluting the rivers, the air, or the soil as much as companies from developed countries do?
You may be trying to argue in the tiny little world of MONETARY resources, but all of that exists in the realm of NATURAL resources.

You say they don't contribute, but on what terms? GDP? Oh please. That's not a good enough argument, try again.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by appl3sh3rb3t


Really, would that be the answer to make it stable? What if it were more balanced, rather than just being limited? Would it REALLY guarantee a better standard of living with so many other problems we have? How so?


If populations of 3rd world nations continue to grow, they will inevitably begin moving en masse to more modernized nations, which will lead to a decline in the standard of living for everyone. In my area (Las Vegas) we have recently seen a large number of Somali immigrants here, and there little part of town already resembles a 3rd world nation. If that were to increase exponentially, where do you think the rest of them would go?


Completely ceasing all immigration is not a practical answer nor would it be an intelligent one.
Why?




How cute...saying socioeconomics doesn't apply to race...but if you were to dig in a little further, you would be able to see correlations. Maybe you're not being racist, but still...[/quuote] Correlation does not equal causation. If you look deep enough, you will find a correlation of just about anything.




You're judging the birth control methods, education, religion, etc. on very biased terms (your very Western terms). Their education for surviving daily life would not be the same as one in middle of nowhere U.S., vs. suburban U.S., etc. Who are you to say they are "uneducated"? By what or whose standards? Yours? That's not good enough...
Judging by the irresponsible choices they make (having kids they cannot feed) how would you believe they are educated?

[quote[My point, which you proved so nicely, is that it IS the users, the developed nations, that are to blame, not the third world citizens. How is accepting aid sucking up resources? Are they polluting the rivers, the air, or the soil as much as companies from developed countries do?
You may be trying to argue in the tiny little world of MONETARY resources, but all of that exists in the realm of NATURAL resources.
If they did not exist, would that aid be needed? No. Would currency be taken out of our pockets and transferred to them? No.


You say they don't contribute, but on what terms? GDP? Oh please. That's not a good enough argument, try again.


I didnt bring up GDP, another poster did. They do not contribute anything to the planet, feel free to prove me wrong though.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Everyone is on notice...

That civility & decorum will be the order of the day. Any further indescretions will be dealt with administratively.

Mod Note: How Not To Be Banned From ATS – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Posting Conduct… Play The Ball – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
This has gotten intensely out of hand.

No more personal insults, no more baiting, no more attacks.

I realize it's a touchy subject, but if we can't discuss it with civility, we can't discuss it.

To all parties involved - chill out.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Acewombat, check out your u2us. It's up in your tool bar. It's red.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Those communities would look like that because Las Vegas is a desert. If people don't have the money to grow grass on their lawn or pay for huge amounts of landscaping (which I know can cost about $13,000, and most of the gated communities in Henderson and Las Vegas are where you see that), it'll look like the desert...point simple.

Read up about Spain and their issues and you'd see why ceasing immigration would not solve the problem.

And where does this causation come from for socioeconomics and race? If you are prejudiced of people based on economic worth, it will have a racial component to it.

Las Vegas is like the epitome of wasting resources and sucking them up.
::sigh::
Good day! I think a lot of us have proven our points well.


[edit on 19-8-2007 by appl3sh3rb3t]

[edit on 19-8-2007 by appl3sh3rb3t]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Most of California is in the same boat.

It's got little-to-nothing to do with immigration, and everything to do with our lifestyle.

Why should a few million have to die just so one fat bastard can continue to zoom around the globe in jets, sucking down drinks and laughing like the Muppet he is?

Hell with that...

If we actually realized the potential of hydroponic farming, there would be no excuse for these Draconian reactions to the problem of overcrowding.

Sure, the cities are packed, but most of the country is nothing but crickets and sagebrush. We have enough land, and we have enough fuel - water is the trickiest bit, but it can be solved by recycling and perhaps even desalination on a much larger scale than we're used to here in this country.

It's just my opinion, but the impact of a few hundred thousand 'undesirables' pales in comparison to the impact of one fat cat with all his unnecessary opulence.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   
To all these quasi-intellectual statements on this topic: Population reduction means eugenics policies, engineered plagues, ethnic bio-weapons and wars. Watch Children of Men, read Brave New World, or go to China. Government intervention, one-child policies, street abortion/vaccination vans... the only ways to reduce the population are eugenics and genocide! It's not okay. "Population Reduction, Why not?" Why not? I hope your mother is the first in the reduction campaign. Stop entertaining stupid philosophies, tune into your compassion/intuition and fight the New World Order! www.myspace.com/sheeplerevolt

[edit on 19-8-2007 by freight tomsen]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Does anyone else besides me think we are doing BAD by helping the enviorment. It HAS survived 4.5 billion years of death and destruction. Why can't the plants take the .03% of CO2 left anywho? I thnk CO2 is good due to rampent plant death. Nature has doe fine with and without us, screw it all, we'll be using plants to colonize Mars anywho, so life will always be along side human lines.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Wyrdone and freight tomsen...

Thank you! Thank you for seeing past shallow rhetoric! Thank you for helping me to clarify my ideas and points.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join