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: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I have an idea on how to fix the problem of "over-population".

How about you take these guys and make them give between 1 to 10% of there profits each year to the third world countries. They make a large percentage of their profits off of exploiting these people so they could donate a share back to them. Then, instead of most of this money going to corrupt politicians or back into the pockets of the corporations again, they could actually spend it on the infrastructure needed to improve the conditions in these parts of the world. They could build hospitals, schools, irrigation systems, proper farms instead of the one season crop monstrosities we have now. Maybe we could even get the central banks to forgive most of the imaginary debt that cripples alot of these countries.

The reason that most of these places are in the state they are is because of the centuries of exploitation by the western world. We haven't caused all the problems but we have done are share. Africa, India and Asia for the most part were European colonies for the better part of 300 years. And although we've stopped overtly running them, we still control what happens in places like Africa and Asia with foreign aid, trading partnerships, outsourcing, etc...

It was posted earlier in the thread earlier in the thread that a good portion of the foreign aid that America sends overseas is spent in America. I would like to know how this helps any struggling nation rid itself of their problems?


Genocide or mass murder( a human holocaust by any name) to "fix" a problem we have created is morally repugnant at best. If greed wasn't the driving force behind so many things most of these problems wouldn't exist.




posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Third World Man


Originally posted by slackerwire

Originally posted by Astyanax
You do, in fact, formulate your view of reality on the basis of alleged facts drawn from studies you have only heard about.

Basing your opinion on a single instance makes you out to be a bigger moron than I gave you credit for being.

My opinion is based on the multitude of falsehoods and twisted perceptions you have kindly supplied on this thread, commencing with your original post. The 'single instance' you refer to merely confirms the opinion.



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.

This does not answer my question, which was: what makes you think a high rate of growth from a low base makes a country unproductive? A man who gets a ten percent return from an investment is more productive than one who gets five percent, whatever the size of the investment. It is you, not I, who needs to brush up on his economics.


What exactly do they produce besides war, disease, death, and poverty?

Forbearing to repeat myself, I refer you instead to my second post on this thread.


If you read back throughout this thread, you will see I said ALL aid, not just American.

You said nothing about it one way or another. But if you think bringing in other donors helps your argument, you really don't know anything about the business of international assistance. Try reading some of the documents generated by agencies that handle bilateral aid -- USAID, BMZ, ODA, CIDA and the rest -- or transnational institutions like UNDP and other NGOs who are involved in the process. You'll discover that you're talking through your pretty little Minuteman tricorn.


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.

Why should I want to do that? What makes you think I disagree with you that overpopulation is a problem? I only disagree -- and vehemently -- with your violent, repellent, useless ideas for solving it.

They're hardly original, you know. Neither is your concern with population -- every racist demagogue worth his tar and feathers, including many you've never heard of in parts of the world you don't even know exist, spouts the same sort of paranoid demographics you do. We've heard it all before. It doesn't sound any sweeter, or more practical, coming out of your mouth.

I don't have to discredit you; you have already done a very thorough job of it yourself.


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.

Which topic? Overpopulation? Foreign aid? Economics?

Overpopulation: well, my native country is among the most densely populated in the world -- though oddly enough, it is far from crowded, overfarmed or thirsty. It has had a successful, non-coercive population management programme in place since the 1960s. Components of the programme include educating children on the benefits of small families as part of the national social-studies curriculum. The evils of overpopulation are spelled out.

I have lived, worked and travelled extensively in countries such as India, Bangladesh, Thailand and the Philippines and seen both the consequences of overpopulation and the effect of responses by governments and civil society with my own eyes. Have you?

Foreign aid: I worked as a consultant to organizations such as BMZ, GTZ, UNDP (look them up) and others throughout the Eighties. My latest assignment for UNDP was completed in May this year. I serve on the editorial board of a magazine published by a French NGO; the magazine is distributed free to children in a certain third world country and is financed by international assistance. I have also worked on bilateral aid projects as a consultant to my own country's government.

Economics: I have no formal education in economics. I am, however, reasonably well informed on the subject, far more so than the average 'educated layman'. I have to be, considering some of the work I do. Judging by the statements you have made on this thread, I know considerably more economics than you do. No doubt you disagree. Others will make their own judgements -- as I stated several pages ago, I don't care two hoots for yours.


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

And an arrogant third world douchebag at that. Look:


Originally posted by slackerwire and addressed to Terran Blue
You stated you or your family were from one of those 3rd world nations right? Ok so that explains your thinking that everyone who doesnt agree with you is a bigot. nuff said there.


Terran Blue's response
Actually, no I didn't. Assumptions again! I am from you would class as the First World.

You're getting your antagonists mixed up, a very dangerous thing to do. As I've noted before, your powers of debate appear to be a little... shall we say, slack.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
Your perceptions of me mean nothing. I couldnt care less what idiots think of me.


Awww... You called me an idiot. How cute.


Ever thought of heeding your own advice?


Answering a question with a question! That's really good. But still my question stands. And like I have said, If you don't like people thinking you're a sad little freak with size issues and a genocide fetish, then maybe don't come onto places like this and spew hatred?



I have no NEED to prove what I say,


And therein lies your problem.


*YAWN*

There is no problem at my end. You've done much of my work for me in destroying your own credibility with your childish rants, full of personal attacks.

Like the post I am currently picking apart no less. Not to good with the old strategy are you?


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?


Lmao... douchebag. A hippy, dredlocked one no less. Don't like the hairstyle? Is it a bit... afro-carribean for you?

And btw, it is possible to be both a fascist and a bigot at the same time.


Post a single comment I have ever made referring to myself as a military hero.


I see once again you have failed entirely to grasp sarcasm. Are you a fifteen year old by chance?


You cant, but facts mean nothing to you do they?


Please demonstrate upon what you base this claim. Demonstrate with EVIDENCE.

If you like, I can go and find a definition of the word Evidence for you.


Assuming is your first mistake. Stop assuming you know what I am thinking. You dont.


If you imply, or state your stance, then I don't need to assume.

Do you want me to find the definitions of both assume and imply for you?


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?


Oh, I'm a douchebag again. I am so hurt...

Oh look! I was wondering when the term leftist would come into play. I am surprised it took this long actually. Your kind usually plays that card sooner or later.


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 don't take offense to words? People reading your posts in this thread, which after all is nothing more than mere words, would see for themselves that you clearly DO get offended by words.

Thus, by your own tongue, you paint yourself as a weak minded fool.

Oh dear, looks like you just shot yourself in the foot there, chap.


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

Stop assuming moron.


Maybe you will remember that when next you assume things about others. Do as you would be done by, as I have said.

Oh, and by the way, you should look up the term deduction, if you have any spare time/know what a dictionary is.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Perhaps we have a psychologist visiting this thread? If so, could someone with such a background please review slackerwire's posts. I see a hint of a genocidal maniac being outed here. A closet nazi perhaps. Another shooter out to remove the unwanted population.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 

May I suggest that all of you kind hearted people that want to give large amounts of money and resources to African and other recipients please do it on a personal basis. That way you will get credit for it, you will feel good about it, and you will not be passing the buck onto say some other taxpayer or businesses that you believe is remissant?
I've been in the Peace Corps in Africa, I have seen what American Aid does for Africans and most of it goes into exactly the wrong hands ie. war lords and greedy government types. So do the right thing and give your own money to these causes, not other people's money! Thanks!



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by GAOTU789
I have an idea on how to fix the problem of "over-population".

How about you take these guys and make them give between 1 to 10% of there profits each year to the third world countries.


That's called communism.

The best way to solve over population is to realize there is none.

All you have to do is:

Genetically mutate trees to grow faster, then BANG! you solve the wood problem.

Breed massive amounts of cows and plant wheat then BANG! you solve the food problem.


Then you're done. At best we have a lack of housing.

Colonize Mars. It'll take about 15 years to terraform if done right.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by 2believeor0
 


This thread is a great read. I can't believe it does not violate ATS terms and conditions, because I feel threatened.


Anyway, this guy probably suffers from a personality disorder, probably a narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Hitler most likely had a borderline personality disorder and/ schizophrenia.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_medical_health

Darth Vadar, if not work of fiction, would be considered to have a borderline personality disorder.

www.cbsnews.com...

To be on topic, I think depopulation is one of the most horrible ideas to date and really not even worth discussing. The solutions to our problems in 50 years will be around by then, because we as humans like to survive and are pretty intelligent. If we started living more efficiently and less wastefully that would probably be a good start. There is always a way around issues, and every generation faces uncertainty. Depopulation is the talk of alarmists, who don't understand much, if anything.

I personally like the "Trade in your reproductive rights get a Playstation deal." Hey, it worked for guns.


Shalom



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Off topic; a break from the hate


Originally posted by plumranch
I have seen what American Aid does for Africans and most of it goes into exactly the wrong hands ie. war lords and greedy government types.

And that's only the ten or fifteen percent of it that gets spent in Africa. The rest, as I pointed out in this post, actually goes to individuals and corporations in the United States.

But I disagree with you that the way to solve the problem is through private charity. That's fine if you're Bill and Melinda Gates and have the kind of money that enables you to talk turkey to recipient organizations and governments; for the rest, private charity is idiosyncratic, unreliable, often ill-targeted and generally unsuitable for sustained programmes and projects. No, the way forward is international aid reform -- people of integrity and goodwill on both sides of the aid table should call their governments and bureaucrats to account, demanding that aid be generous, disbursed humanely and cost-effectively; that programmes be appropriately designed (which includes finding ways to eliminate aid dependency) and that delivery mechanisms are kept as lean as possible.

The warlords and kleptocrats, sadly, will remain a problem until concepts of national sovereignty and international law are modified -- as is happening now, though slowly, in respect of those charged with war crimes. It's a little naive to believe that private charity can circumvent such well-embedded parasites. The protection racket in many poor countries begins with the village headman, who taxes his people to pay off the local warlord, who in turn pays off the regional governor, who must pay of the central government, which must pay off the head of state and his cronies. Private charity, unless it's Gates Foundation-sized, doesn't stand a chance against a set-up like that.

Speaking of personal experience, I saw at first hand what happened after the Asian tsunami of 2004. The wave of devastation was followed by an even bigger tidal wave of aid, much of it private. I saw the way that private aid -- money as well as things like drinking water, food, medical supplies, tents and so on, generously and charitably donated -- was put to use, or rather, abused. Most of it ended up in the wrong hands. Some people ended up with more rice than they could ever eat and no water to boil it in. Others wound up receiving medication for diseases they didn't have. On the streets of the capital a week or two after the tsunami, you could buy all kinds of things from marbles to toothbrushes at derisory prices -- tsunami aid that had turned out to be surplus to requirements or, worse still, had been diverted from those in need and re-sold for profit on the open market. This is what happens when aid and relief efforts are private, ad hoc and uncoordinated. Funnelling aid through national and regional governments and through large private charities has its drawbacks (their name is legion) but it is rarely as haphazard as this.

Aid reform. That's what we should all be agitating for. Aid reform.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch

May I suggest that all of you kind hearted people that want to give large amounts of money and resources to African and other recipients please do it on a personal basis. That way you will get credit for it, you will feel good about it, and you will not be passing the buck onto say some other taxpayer or businesses that you believe is remissant?
I've been in the Peace Corps in Africa, I have seen what American Aid does for Africans and most of it goes into exactly the wrong hands ie. war lords and greedy government types. So do the right thing and give your own money to these causes, not other people's money! Thanks!



If you reread my post, I am saying the exact same thing as you are. I agree with you that most of the money that makes it to these countries end up in the wrong hands and doesn't help the people suffering the most. I have done my share to help. What I am pointing out is that alot of the companies on that list make those billions of dollars of profit from these very same places and people. It is a cheap labour force for them. They pay little or no taxes in these countries. There are few, if any enviromental laws to contend with. They don't try to improve the quality of life of those suffering.


Originally posted by Gorman91

That's called communism.

The best way to solve over population is to realize there is none.

All you have to do is:

Genetically mutate trees to grow faster, then BANG! you solve the wood problem.

Breed massive amounts of cows and plant wheat then BANG! you solve the food problem.


I am not talking about communism at all. I am talking about, as I stated above, about having the companies that are causing and perpetuating the problem to contribute top fixing it. I agree with that it isn't a problem. The distribution of population and wealth is the problem. But don't advocate for GMing anymore stuff on the planet. We are altready playing with enough of mother natures work to to cause enough problems


[edit on 20-8-2007 by GAOTU789]

[edit on 20-8-2007 by GAOTU789]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   
So, basically your saying that the USA should stop all illegal and legal immigration because you think the immigrants and lazy and are not helping the USA?

Well, that's constestable, they come in poverty, they don't have the money to live in expensive houses, nor to go to university. But they have to get jobs to survive, so they get the jobs the people don't want, like dishwashers.

In all cases, I consider the human lives saved when going into the United States to be a lot more important than a "perfect" population. All you need is food, water, shelter, sex, clothes, and everything above that is superficial and will not contribute to your happiness. I think the large majority of people in the USA has what I just mentioned, and that won't change no matter how many immigrants come to the USA. Saving the superficial lifestyle of the americans or save human lives? Human lives anyday.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Lol you cannot kill innocent people regardless of your reasoning, this is murder plain and simple.

however OP u seem firm in your beliefs so i guess you and your family will be the first in line? when the big cull comes .. i suggets you volunteer now..

now what can really be done besides murdering people.

Birth control? then attempting to manage resources better,

Why do you think china has a 1 child policy? it HAD to be done this is the only thing that could be enforced to some degree and have any impact.

To say people can have no children go's against one of the most basic instincts of human nature but eventually it may have to go that way i guess.

Mass birth control in the water supply , and an antidote supplied to couples going through some type of parenting course? maybe this would cut down with accidental pregnancies..

i dunno just throwing out ideas to the disccussion

i really think that better resource management is the way to go , we need energy and with the ongoing energy crisis it is forcing companies to review alternatives , lets hope they crack free energy then we probably won't have this problem at all.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   


private charity is idiosyncratic, unreliable, often ill-targeted and generally unsuitable for sustained programmes and projects.
reply to post by Astyanax
 
From what I have seen first hand, government aid is worse. People, ie. donars do have input with private organizations, citizens have little influence on bureaucrats and you don't need to be a Bill Gates! I have seen shiploads of food spoiling and rotting on the docks because of bureaucratic neglect. Entire convoys of aid disappear. Bureaucrats in small undeveloped countries are the fat cats, the creme de la creme. They sit around and think of ways to make money for themselves from the silly American aid people. I had to leave. The corruption was too much. Only way to get anything done was to pay off the bureaucrats. Americans and their high ideals! I was one... for a while.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   


What I am pointing out is that alot of the companies on that list make those billions of dollars of profit from these very same places and people.
reply to post by GAOTU789
 
The citizen workers in those little undeveloped countries thank their lucky stars they have work, they earn a wage for their families! Those workers are many times better off than those with no work, no hope, nothing! Companies make a profit, if they don't they are gone in no time. And they probably don't make outlandish profits for long. Otherwise competition would prevail.
My little country had no industry except a small shoe company, Bota. They tried raising a fresh vegetables like strawberries and flying them to the European markets. Minimal income. They needed some of your "mean, awful industry"!
They need industry, economy because that is the ONLY way to solve the overpopulation problem in the long run. People with a higher standard of living have fewer kids! It doesn't happen by throwing money at the problem. Thanks!



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Plumranch, I'm not saying your wrong. Of course people need to have a means to support their families. And I'm sure not all the industries set up in Africa and else where are greedy companies looking for the cheapest labour market and cheapest commodities. I understand that these companies provide the only means of survival to alot of people in these countries. Thats where the problem lies.


They make a large percentage of their profits off of exploiting these people so they could donate a share back to them. Then, instead of most of this money going to corrupt politicians or back into the pockets of the corporations again, they could actually spend it on the infrastructure needed to improve the conditions in these parts of the world. They could build hospitals, schools, irrigation systems, proper farms instead of the one season crop monstrosities we have now. Maybe we could even get the central banks to forgive most of the imaginary debt that cripples alot of these countries.


This is what I said earlier in the thread. I added the bold to show you that I do agree with the points your making. Complete agreement. I'm not saying through money at the problem, I"m saying to use the money in the way it was meant to be used. I know their is many problems with my theory, but I was offering a viable option to the global holocaust that the OP was insinuating. And yes, after a generation or two, through education and improvement to the standard of living, I believe that there would be a balance to the birthrate/deathrate.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I volunteer to be "Culled"


No but really I think that population reduction would be a great thing. The problem is that nobody wants to be killed off. We all want to survive. And who would decide who lives and who dies? It wont ever happen where the elites conduct a mass genocide. The people just simply wouldnt let it happen, There would be a massive war. Of course maybe thats what the whole point is..Wage a huge world war simply to reduce the population of the entire planet. That is definentally possible.

I think that its more likely that there will be another plague in the near future. We are well overdue for one. And the people who would be affected most would be the 3rd world where its unsanitary and starvation is rampant. Either way its going to happen, its not a matter of If, but when.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
One form of population control is fast food. Notice how all the fast food companies have dollar menus? yet the people who eat there because of it, are broke low class Americans. They eat it in excessive amounts because it is so cheap and to the point heart failure and high cholesterol come into play. That food is NOT good for you. I don't know how they can even call it food, its Salt,Sugar and Fat. nothing nutritional. Better yet, get the kids in on it, lets train them that it's ok to eat fast food because it's cheap.

What a way to kill off the low class population. go America!



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to FIRST post post by slackerwire
 


you say reduction but you don't mention any ideas of how. Definately killing or anything un-human would not work, rather simply make things worse. But if thats what you meant, then would you sacrifice yourself for us, thanks. I believe there is solutions, but ones that would actually help us in progressing as kind humans that treat everyone equal. Simply because someone is born in a third world country means nothing, when compared to a say US citizen. Help them, give them the right means etc and they would flourish, but the problem is we are egoistic and concerned about ourselves, we dont understand that we must think of all humnas as one and look at the similarities instead of the differences. Instead of spending billions on war and oil we should spend billions on helping others and giveing education, imaigne if we doubled or tripled our number of great scientist ex. We definately would already be conqouring our solor system. The easy way out is never the best.


[edit on 20-8-2007 by luis9343]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Global birth control is the way to go. Lots of people die naturally every day, just leave that normal, and just slow down the births world wide. In a few years the population will shrink, if there is less births than there is deaths.


I think people should have a license to raise a kid, just like you need a license to drive a car.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   


I think that its more likely that there will be another plague in the near future
reply to post by gravytrain
 


Hi Gravytrain, Apparently the news media thought the Bird Flu was going to do the trick. They hammered us for months with every new case that was found. Never mind that it never seemed to spread like they expected and wasn't very contageous. The media loves to predict doom and gloom so I suppose they were really disappointed when their disease didn't pan out for them! Thanks!



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I have another Idea. I think we should mesh several ideas together. We should hand out free birth control pills, and condoms, and spermicide to the contries with the highest birthrates, but first you have to educate them about birth control because there beliefs about pregnancy and contraception are different from ours. Then you have to consider that many of them wouldnt use the contraceptions anyways. So, we should make them get a liscense to have a kid and only so many liscenses would be given out each year.

But this idea is flawed, because how are you going to enforce the liscense to have a kid law? In china they have a similar system, but thousands of "illegal" babies are left at baby drop off's at hospitals each year. So this wouldnt work either...hmmmm, there is no easy solution to this problem... I say we do the first two things i said. And see how effective it is.

I cant think of anything that would work short of lining people up and shooting them systematically. And i really hope that doesnt happen. But it could happen if say a plague starts spreading and governments of the affected countries get scared and for the sake of "containment" of the disease commit mass genocide.

Response to post by plumranch:
I agree about the bird flu, it was made to seem far worse then it was. But it never did mutate to be easily transmissable from human to human. So its still possible that it could mutate in the future. But there are lots of diseases, and someday one will mutate and become quite deadly. Im sure of it. Its happend in the past (bubonic plague, black death, smallpox, etc.) And I am convinced that it WILL happen in the future.


Lifes a B****



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join