Population Control Necessary?

Hello, everybody. I'm brand new to the community although I've been keeping tabs on you "nutjobs" for a solid 4 months. I love the balance of discussion here and am happy to be a part of it. As for the reason for the new thread...

I've been hearing a lot of conspiracy rhetoric about eugenics programs being implemented around the world with ulterior motives. Some speculate these are taking place through immunizations, municipal water facilities and sources, and even the dreaded "chem trails." I hate to play the devils advocate so early on but my question is, with the world's population BOOMING, would it be too insensitive to suggest we start heading in that direction?

For example, the United States of America can sustain 150 million people a year if you were to enclose it's borders (Let's not turn this into a "That's why there's international commerce" discussion) which is half of the current population of the country. Seems we're asking quite a lot from our planet without limiting the detrimental effects of overpopulation. Taking that into consideration would it be too much to ask to put limits on child birth in this nation if not worldwide?

ABC reporting on world overpopulation

or..

Alex Jones' take on things..

Eugenics. Evil or Necessary?

Population stabilization is a critical component of human survival. The simple fact is that our resources are limited and our production processes are inefficient and reliant on 'profit' and 'marketability' both of which ultimately contribute nothing to the betterment of the human condition but do provide, in many cases, a bourgesoise middle class with cushy jobs and bigger cars than the peasants have...

Perfectly put. I don't think the majority of people understand the importance of sacrificing growth for sustenance. The topic itself is sort of a moral roadblock for some and almost incomprehensible for those of us living in comfort. I know here in Utah, it's a moral obligation for Mormons to have children. Which would be completely understandable in the early beginnings of a religion or culture but isn't really applicable in this day and age.

Good post. Do a Google on Global 2000 Report with Cyrus Vance.
This was officially signed off by Carter etc

Population controll should be handled by nature,period.
And anyone in favor this idea could start by commiting suicide.In fact everyone who supports such an idea should kill themselves,afterall its a good start and for the benefit of Earth.

Nobody,and I mean nobody should be a decider on a issue as critical as life.The Earth handles population control,through natural disasters and disease.

And if people still think this is a grand idea,please be the first to volunteer your family for this project.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Black_Fox]

Population control is not about killing people, children or unborn babies. It's about not getting pregnant in the first case. There are many birth control devices that would be fine for most people to use, without any moral problems.

So now its ok to tell a woman when she can and cant have a kid?
Or when its ok to start a family?
No way!
If its by a persons choice,then I have no complaints,but if a governments ok is needed,then no.

Population limits itself. If there are too many humans, more will die, like in any system. Humans are animals too, and they cannot survive above the carrying capacity of the planet.

Though thanks to technology and the industrial revolution, that carrying capacity is much higher than it has ever been in the past.

So we allow the population to eventually take it's "natural" course and overwhelm every ecosystem around the planet? You do know along with more people comes an equal amount of problems within the society in which is being overpopulated, right? I think the human race has shown itself to be extremely inefficient when it comes to things like reason and judgement, even regarding our own sustenance. Excuses like "It's none of my business" are extremely short-sighted, if not potentially dangerous. I think it's that very same outlook that may in turn cause such a government program to be implemented because we've displayed a complete lack of responsibility for our selfish nature because it's simply "what we do." Cause and Effect.

reply to post by Johnmike

---

I don't think that natures system is efficient enough for something as uncontrollable as the H variable. At least not effecient enough for it to limit us before we wreak a substantial amount of damage to our planet.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues

---

You should ask the dinosaurs if they think nature's system is not efficient enough.


[edit on 17-9-2007 by Black_Fox]

Indeed, exponential growth in animal populations eventually leads to food shortage which inherently kills off the population, sometimes to the brink of extinction or worse.

But the issue here is about sustainability: Exponential growth can be curbed and population can be sustained, so that we don't have to experience massive depopulation and all of it's associated ills, due to food shortages.

Many societies in the past kept their numbers sustainable. I find it interesting that the practice was abandoned.

The people that are so against stabilization of population need to realize the eventual outcome of exponential growth.

Ahhh..reminds me of a few good movies:

An oldie but goodie, aptly title ZPG and then the newer Children of Men.

At some point is someone going to seriously consider that even if there were some sort of population control that the Earth is just to small? When are our people and our respective countries going to get off of the butts and seriously talk of expanding? At some point, if we as a species, do not move out in to space, we are in my opinion, doomed.

It is alleged that one of the driving agendas behind the actions of those at the top of the power structure, behind the black curtains, is indeed population control and what to do about it. Call them NWO, aliens, elites, whoever, whatever, it is alleged that there was commissioned a study on population control and what to do, and the scientists returned with proposals for sustainability that can be broken down into 3 interweaving categories:

1) Prevention
2) Reduction
3) Expansion to other planets and star systems

Currently, the powers that be have implemented 1 and 2, but for 3 we need to either release the alleged black project technology, or develop our own materials and propulsion to a degree that would allow interplanetary and then interstellar travel.

As a plasma cosmologist, I have always been a proponent of option 3, while understanding the necessity for options 1 and 2.

Before I go into this again, I want to ask the members advocating population control what your definition of population control is?

Also here's my views on population control so I don't have to type out these particular facts again.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edited to add the word particular. I have lots more facts as well.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by GAOTU789]

reply to post by Black_Fox

---

The logic behind that is pure genius. "I'll eat everything I want until I reach a weight that my body can't physically sustain but you know what? I'll die anyway." I don't think this is rational thinking. WE need to make decisive adjustments to our social structure to accommodate following generations. Doing otherwise would compromise the living conditions of following generations. Similar to the energy crisis in my generation.

the problem with not implementing some sort of population control or at least incentives to have fewer children world wide is that when the chickens come home to roost if we let the earth "naturally" take care of this problem, the 1st world will be pressured and guilted into sending aid and money to help the poor countries who are experiencing the problems of this 'natural correction'. the citizens of the first world will be forced to pay for food, water, and monetary aid on a scale even larger than we do already.

the problem with overpopulation is just like the problem with climate change. the first world needs to do its part, but the real and dire problems lie with the developing world.

also, it should be said to all those advocates of letting the earth deal 'naturally' with population control, humanity is already flouting that by keeping people alive longer through medicine and other such advances. it could be argued that this is an artificial means of survival. how many people could really survive if they didn't have their glasses or their insulin or other things that make normal life easily possible for people who would be handicapped if not for these advances?

Your responses seem a little reactionary Blackfox, we are discussing regulation of the population to ensure the sustainability of human existence here and not ways to impinge on the rights of women.

The plain fact is that due to low health care standards in some countries some people believe that they need to procreate at an unsustainable rate to produce future generations. However the world cannot support this excessive growth of population. The intelligent proposal would be to make a global effort to improve health care so that excessive procreation becomes unnecessary. This does not involve any requirement for people to have 'permission' to have children, that would be ridiculous, rather people should be required to understand the dangers of overpopulation and behave in accordance to the risk.