It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Population Control Necessary?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:51 AM
I wouldnt say population control is necessary, but i would say that humans need to develop ways to deal with more population. One of the best i would say would be to expand into space, start to colonize other planets and such. If we were to colonize mars, that would pretty much be another earth that could sustain about the same amount of people on earth, that is after we figure out how to support life on another planet on that scale. Itll take a loong time so hopefully someones already got a head start. In my opinion, the world should already be developing ways to do that instead of fighting wars and all that other nonsense on earth. We shoulda started thinking about that a long time ago and got to it.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:00 AM
Humans only need few necessities for survival. The problem is man is greedy so they come up with this idea that there will not be enough STUFF for everyone. You can buy all the Walmart plastic stuff in the world but in the end it comes down to 3 things. Food,water, and shelter. The culling of billions will be the result of greed and fear. The truth is the planet has plenty of room and trees are renewable and will not run out like oil. People scare me when they become so reliant on technology they forget the natural things in this world and the basics.

I saw a show where a man was breaking down mentally because he did not have his blackberry. LMFAO!

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:06 AM

Originally posted by Johnmike
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.

i agree with you on this..

i know this is a stretch but lets take rabbits for example. i use rabbits because they reproduce so rapidly.

if you live in an area where rabbits of any kind are common, then you might have noticed that some years you see them every where and some years you have to look hard to find them. this cycle can roughly be averaged out to about 2 years. there population explodes beyond what the environment can sustain and the result is they die off. then the cycle repeats its self.

the simple fact is that no amount of science can sway nature. we as humans will have to learn to control populations or nature will do it for us. its that simple.

i would like to add that i believe less government is the best government, but lets face it we are not gonna do this on our own..

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Black_Fox
Population controll should be handled by nature,period.

I agree with you. The Earth has been here long before we were, it will be here long after we are, barring some major catastrophic event that sends the earth hurling into space.

I do think that we are contributing to many species going extinct, mostly because of our materialism and need for things and resources- look at global warming. But I also think our Earth will repair itself. Plagues can wipe out millions of people. AIDS and starvation currently reak havoc in many countries in Africa. And I do think that is sad- I am certainly not making light of it. My point is that in areas where very little resources are, and very little farming can be done, and herds die quickly, nature keeps the population in check.

(And please don't flame me... I feel for people in countries where starvation and disease run rampant.)

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 05:38 PM
Well what's rational thinking, you know? Instead of limiting birth through law or medicine gradually and humanely, we're going to wait until..

1. We colonize space


2. The Earth naturally "purges" itself correcting the imbalance regardless of how long it takes to reach a natural population.

Yeah, okay... I'm taken back by the brilliance.

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 09:05 PM

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
2. The Earth naturally "purges" itself correcting the imbalance regardless of how long it takes to reach a natural population.

It does it naturally. Populations will cease to grow as they reach the carrying capacity. No massive purge or anything equally idiotic.

posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 02:04 AM
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues

Yes, but HOW do you regulate birth through law and medicine gradually and humanely. Who decides what's humane?

A little background about me- I am 32, single, and do not have kids yet (only because I have not had an "oops"). I wouls like children in the future- the number I have will depend on many factors- my age, my health, and how many children I can provide food for and attention to.

I agree with offering birth control options to those who can't afford to care for their young. I do not agree with forcing it. For all of our "enlightenment" humans are really just animals. Nature will deal with us as she us other animals who perhaps wore out their welcome.

posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 02:16 AM
First off fertility rates have dropped in half world wide in the last 50 years. This is across the board every country. I found that odd since it does not explain culture differences and unequal losses after ww1,2 being replenished.

It use to be you look at your girlfriend and she might get pregnant, now it seems everyone spends 8 months 'trying' before having kids.

I agree less people would be better, I do not agree this should be done with economic sanctions. The rich should not be the only ones allowed to have families, like it is currently being done in China.

posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 03:30 AM
reply to post by Redge777

It's funny you say that, because I thought of that, too- I have had several family members and friends have trouble conceiving, and 3 have used fertility drugs and artificial insemmination (spelling?). I sometimes wonder if living near power lines, and the chemicals we put in our body from fast food and processed food have something to do with that. I have never even had a scare- and it wasn't for lack of trying.
(That's a joke, I was usually safe.)

But I also think, in a way, that society and economics shape how many children you have. Back in the day Catholics and Mormons especially had larger families. My Dad was 1 of 5 kids, my Mom 1 of 4. I am an only, and most of my aunts and uncles had with 2 kids. Although I had a "stay at home" Mom that is not the norm anymore. There are a lot of two-parent-income homes now; the idea of stay-at-home Moms has been falling to the wayside more and more. Women's lib also put a lot of women in the mindset of a career first, marriage and family later. Couples are also choosing to get married later in life. I think in many ways these are contributing to fewer births.

I think the baby boomers are the largest segment of the American population... I could be wrong though.

posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 02:00 PM
This is about sums it up for every argurment.

I did some research and evidentally there is a time around 2100 that the world will come into a natural "stabalized population" due to an efficient birth and death rate. Which is good news for the earth but I still have some issues with the here and now. Take a look.

My bias.

The next 100 years is crucial to human survival. If we don't start limiting populations now, we're going to witness the complete deterioration of our planet. Ideas concerning who, what, when, why is a completely different thread. I don't think we can realize how sh*tty life is going to get for the lot of us if recourse isn't taken.

posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 08:07 PM
my views:

naturally all creatures posses innate abilities for self, and species sustainence, the consumation of food for self preseervation, and the creation of progeny to fed the future of one creatures species. but man has already gone considerably outside of the boundaries of both areas in relation to modern necessity. in the ancient beginnings of humanity we had to indulge as frequently as possible, as food was scarce and difficult to come by. similiar with reproduction, it had to occur as often as plausible to keep the species alive. i cop this all up to evolutionary cycle that has yet to catch up with man's appetite... or libedo, and slow them to a rate acceptable by todays standards.

posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by Mysteri


It seems to be the common understanding that man can breed unchecked until the end of the world, which is disturbingly untrue. Just because it's what we do, doesn't necessarily mean it's what we should do. People just need to look in their own back yard and see the kind of urban sprawl taking place to accomodate an ever growing population.

They just don't get it.

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by Ionized

Well ionized, Considering your preference for #3 it is obvious you have certainly lost an electron.

posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 05:18 PM
Population control is only necessary for total control. The ‘population bomb’ theory is a red herring of the same type as the global warming scare. They are both about total control and little else. Well ok, global warming is about separating you from more of your money as well.

Billions of people are very hard to control. Get it down to 500 M, as the Georgia Guide Stones suggest, concentrate them in the cities where they can be watched 24/7 (to protect the wild places of Goddess Gaia of course), and then get about a third of them to be your tattletale spies to coerce and intimidate the rest into total compliance. The road to a Stasi utopia.

They are chasing the original lie: ‘ye shall be as gods’. And they clearly have plenty of usefull idiots to pull their cart.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 05:02 AM
it's pretty clear there are too many human beings on the planet at our current rate of consumption; we're never going to back to 1800's style of living, the BRIC countries aspire to one thing and that is the top of the tree, and lifestyles like the USA and Western Europe have 'enjoyed' for the last 200 years. The Earth cannot cope with the numbers aspiring to be 'middle class' but in her terms, we've only been consuming above her capacities for a very very short period of time, she's reacting... but to us it'll seem very slowly.

I am 100% ok with the concept of population control; and in my mind, anyone who isn't, is simply not looking at a big enough picture, or is stuck in some religious dilema, or is not intelligent enough to grasp the concept.

There's no need for great numbers of us to go running off the nearest cliff, lemming stylee, there's no need to neuter great numbers but there is a good case to be made for euthanasia. Young and strong replacing old and weak.

3 of my grandparents died last year, all of them in their 90's. 2 of them were adamant the last 10-15 years of their lives physically and mentally were a waste of time; they appreciated meeting their great grandchildren but that's about it. I asked each one, if, by taking a fatal pill when their first great granchild was born, or their first granchild turned 21, they could ensure the survival of their offspring in a better world than the one we have today, would they have done it. A resounding yes from all 3.

Fathers and Mothers out there; if you could ensure a future for your kids and their kids by topping yourself at a certain stage, would you do it? I reckon there's not many who wouldn't.

If it started as above, dependent on offspring ages etc. meaning you could die naturally if you had no offspring or outlived the guidlines, it'd reign in teen pregnancies, people would start breeding later and population numbers would decline swiftly even outside of all the old people getting whacked... as an offshoot, there's a fair chance selfishness would get bred out of the human race pretty quickly.

The human population HAS to come down; whether the Earth herself does it through natural disasters, disease etc, whether we do it through war... it's going to happen. The first step to resolving the problem is being bright enough to see the problem. If we don't, the commodity price spikes you saw in 2008 are gonna be a cakewalk compared to what's around the corner and we WILL GO TO WAR over resources, yet again... and it won't be as pretty as WW1 or WW2.

How much extra do we consume as a species prolonging individual lives beyond any meaningful benefit to the family, the species and the planet as a whole?

We got into ecological debt earlier each year, we have to nip it in the bud now because we're not getting off this planet anytime soon, and why should we? It's been a pretty decent place to hang out.

People spend ages on here railing against the NWO types who advocate population control. If those same people were smart enough to realise and accept it's enevitability then we could engineer it so it didn't have to be done via the nasty flouridated water/swine flu vaccination/3rd world war back door... it can be done in a civilised fashion and it can be done before the Earth herself has to do it but we've gotta wake up and smell the coffee pretty soon.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 05:07 PM
Okay. Let me just say that I am totally against population control.

Population control is impossible, and morally wrong. First of all, has anybody ever read the book "Among the Hidden"? It perfectly describes what will happen if laws are enforced. Secondly, why should children die for us? Shouldn't we die for them? Anyhow, I don't see population control anywhere in the current future.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:30 PM
Population control is purely that... Control, the population part is just to make a large number of people who think its needed to agree with it when its brought up.

Ive said this before on posts about this subject and my opinion will all ways be this.

There is no need for this, if one simple thing was addressed, poverty, fix that issue and people wouldnt feel the need to have a little tribe of their own. Its a fact the more well off a people are the lower their average family size is overall. not to mention their desire to have children is reduced, after all look how many in the west nowdays weigh career over children, and put off starting a family untill in their 30's or 40's and for the most part restrict their family to 2-3 children over their total life span.

As for food issues and resources, stop eating so much damn useless food and turning growing land and liveable land into useless farms for growing fing biofuel crops and nutritionally bankrupt meat. Start replanning and building workable citys and towns that dont just sprawl all over the place, build up, or down, hydroponics heck even Aeroponics. Harvest renewable energy sources more efficiently by using a single plot of land to do more than a single task like every house ever built or in existence is by law and through tax funding (which is what taxs should be used for rather than having most of em funneled into making the war machine function) has a solar collector tied into the grid on it or an arboreal roof top garden planted on it for the family living under it along with water collection.

Or better yet, get that statistic I heard once of where on average every 1 American eats enough food per yer for 3 people down to a 1:1 ratio... sorry to bash you lot in the US since its not just you, but the west in general, but as it is... the resource to population drain in the world is way off balance and America has a huge hand in that.

Do even half that and we'd be fine... unfortunately its something im more and more convinced 'they' dont want to happen. Since it would mean we'd be all working together for a change.

On a side i wonder just what sort of interplanetary progress we could make in 20 years if even half the amount of cash that gets shoved into black op military projects, foreign wars, general military spending and propping up corrupt economic systems in every country in the world was redirected into a world endeavor for getting our species off this rock.

Originally posted by dickbar
How much extra do we consume as a species prolonging individual lives beyond any meaningful benefit to the family, the species and the planet as a whole?

Wow, thats a dangeous premise, and at what point would you think it would go from, grandparents 'voluntary' to 'mandatory' for all people based on guidlines... lets no longer prolong the lives of the intellectual handicapped, infirmed, chronically unemployed, those with a surplus of skill sets that arent required at the present time, genetic conditions with a potential for complications. the list can go on and on...

Whats the most effiecnt period to cut off a human, 60, 50? technically most humans reach their peak around 30 physically and mentally and start to go down from their so lets make all people over the age of 40 are drains on society and the family and the planet...

Wait wasnt that 'Logans Run'?... if an old person wants to go let them im all for that as long as it isnt abused, im for voluntary euthanasia personally.

Originally posted by dickbar
We got into ecological debt earlier each year, we have to nip it in the bud now because we're not getting off this planet anytime soon, and why should we? It's been a pretty decent place to hang out.

So just because the flats fridge ran out theres no point in trying to go out to restock since the flats got such a cushy sitting room and its been a great place to live so far... sounds like someones to lazy to try and find more than a single solution to the problem that doenst involve offing your other flat mates so that last slice of sofa pizza can last you a day longer.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by BigfootNZ]

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:41 AM
wilt 456, you clearly haven't read what i wrote at all... children dying for us?

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:44 AM
bigfoot kiwi, i'm coming back... i need to spend some more time; i don't think we're a million miles away from each other in sentiment about over consumption but you appear to have more faith in mankind than i do... i'm small busy at work so i'll come back later; not ignoring you.

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:38 AM
i still haven't forgotten... i've been hellishly busy at work... surprising for a stockbroker these days... this is a good read from today...

i'm still coming back... it's slower today so i may have time

sorry folks, i know it's slack


new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in