Should the Planet be depopulated

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I know that title may be an NWO asperation but can we continue our headlong rush into oblivion or should we be upfront and tell the truth.

That the Planet has finite resources that are not going to last for ever and sooner or later we will need to do something about it. Yes we can all do our bit for the environment and more besides but its the numbers that are the issue.

We can get rid of plastic, use more fuel efficient vehicles we can do many things but can we cope with an extra billion people every 20 years.




posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Maybe. maybe not.

The question is whether we can grow plants underground - there's still an awful amount of earth down there that we haven't even begun to resource prospect (i'm talking about going deeper than your average oil or gas field here).

A solution would be to find some way of making life support and making giant spaceships with which to blast into the nether regions of space - although of course that would be tantamount to manslaughter on a huge scale if we don't know what we're doing.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I think depopulation is inevitable, whether it's man-made or not. The Earth is a living thing, and it's gunna try and shake itsself of the virus we've become.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Who makes the decision to do what? Put me in charge, vast areas of the planet will become available. Someone else may or may not have the same areas in mind.

My thoughts on this are Mother Nature strikes a balance in all aspects of the planet with population control of animals and insects one way or another. Humans are just to egotistical to think we can outsmart nature. Give nature time to adapt, it will strike back and balance things out. It will not be pretty or politically correct, but things will be in balance.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I dont think depopulation is necessary. A better relationship with our environment? Absolutely.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
yes in a way it should



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


One way or another it's going to happen. Sooner or later.

With the logistics systems we now have in place, there really is no need for such population densities as in some areas of the world (err Hong Kong springs to mind) to really happen. Borders need to come down, then we can spred out and chill!

MonKey



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
People have to power to depopulate the world peacefully over time, if they just had less children it would be as simple as that. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't though.

Still though, the choice of how many kids to have is there for everyone to make, and it is their individual choice and their right to have it. Nobody owns this world, it is everybody's. Anything less would be unethical and unfair.

So I believe that the people of the world have the power to do this on their own (peacefully even) whether they know it or not, there is no reason for anyone to ever "step in" on this matter. There are some things we can't be taught. This is one of those things we have to learn on our own, if we are ever going to learn it.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


There is way more knowledge available to deal with the population and then some. 99% of it is being suppressed the the #heads running the planet www.whale.to...

We don't need to use oil for example.

Depopulation is the the cover story for the reptilian genocide of humans.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphin23
 




reptilian genocide of humans


Ok dude, you've just lost your credibility.

I agree we're being lied to about several things, but I don't think that's one of them.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I'm a huge proponent of a humane human eugenics program. My first thread was about population control with some very good points on both sides. Even though we're coming to a "plateau" in the industrialized nations, we're seeing spikes in third world nations. I think there needs to be a drastic cut in both existing population and population growth regardless of where it is. The 200-300 million proposed by Ted Turner sounds about right. It would be selfish and ignorant to think otherwise.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I think depopulation will happen naturally. Volcanoes, earthquakes, tornado's, hurricane's, war etc. I just wish we'd quit using the earth's resources for our fuel. There's got to be a better way to heat our homes and fuel our vehicles out there. It's just the government doesn't want that to happen. Free energy will take away all the powers of the big wigs that are in control of the earth. I bet right now we have cures for every disease on this earth, but there goes all that money the pharmaceutical companies will lose if that happens.

Yes I do agree with Novise on people making better choices with how many children to have and can afford. I'm still waiting on 2012 to come along just to see if depopulation starts there. Oh how I wish everybody could get along and governments quit dumming down our children. So many minds wasted in public schools. I want to see science, electronics, computing, astronomy, genetics, biology, quatum physics in grade schools. Just imagine what a young mind could do if taught right the first time.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   
I have no problem with losing a few billion people from the planet, or even holding steady at the current population. We can get a good balance at this point. Still seems to be plenty of food and water. Most people starving now are doing it because of politics, not supply.

I don't want to be one of the ones killed to bring the population down, though. So it would probably work best to develop some sort of airborne virus, maybe a mutation of a cold virus, that very sneakily attacks adult reproductive systems. Men and women both, to be fair. You get the sniffles, a mild fever, and you just can't have kids anymore.

Simply not having kids would be a bit kinder than killing people off. Or even ordinary, natural species die off, which so often involves starvation. That would be unpleasant.

Then after a couple decades the virus would probably naturally mutate to a benign form, and all the former babies and people who would naturally be immune, who didn't get the virus, would then be mature enough to start having kids of their own, and we could get it all back on track. And if the population gets out of control again sometime in the future, we can do it again.

Somebody get working on that, please. Thank you for your help.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I believe with new technology will come better ways to support a growing population on the planet. Imagine indoor factory farms spread out across the moon or an ocean full of wind tunnels producing infinite energy... the possibilities are endless.

Anyone who supports exterminating fellow human beings with unnatural means is probably on the verge of loosing their own soul.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Solarskye
 


Too few and far between. You should see a timeline of worldly disasters and you'd be amazed at earth's ineffeciency at shaking the human scourge. We can't rely on the earth to naturally correct a variable that it's not really designed to correct.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Techsnow
 


Most of us are speaking in very general terms here, we're not saying get the guillotine out, we're saying "let's take some provisions out." I don't agree with extermination either, but preventative measures.


Always black and white with you people.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Fear not. Mother Earth will see to it. The failure of the bee populations to CCD is the first step in the process. Einstein said 50 yrs ago (and for the life of me I don't understand why) that if the bees died so would we 5 yrs later.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   
when Mouther earth had enouth, then like every thing in life we will to go away



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
Then after a couple decades the virus would probably naturally mutate to a benign form,..

Somebody get working on that, please. Thank you for your help.


Or the virus would mutate to a more aggressive, non treatable form and bang, you just wiped out all of humanity.

I think that population control is a very real issue. But it is the politics behind it that makes it so difficult. There are no easy answers. If eugenics is your answer, where do you draw the line? I mean, I am colorblind, so I probably wouldn't make the cut. So, naturally I am a bit biased.

You could also regulate the breeding of the people, but then you would have the civilized nations losing their population while the 3rd world countries are continuing to grow exponentially. Then you would have a huge power swing as resources get diverted to support the 3rd world. Which could end up causing a big step back in the advancement of humanity. The developed nations wouldn't be advancing as fast as they should, or could stop advancing all together while the whole world plays catch up while we wait on the 3rd world to develop.

It is just a hard issue. Ultimately, the most likely scenario for thinning the population will be war.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by Techsnow
 


Most of us are speaking in very general terms here, we're not saying get the guillotine out, we're saying "let's take some provisions out." I don't agree with extermination either, but preventative measures.


Always black and white with you people.

The 200-300 million proposed by Ted Turner sounds about right. It would be selfish and ignorant to think otherwise.



I hope you know Ted Turner supports unnatural means of achieving his goal, meaning he would prob support a virus created by his own government to wipe off a few 5 and a half billion people... so long as he lives to see the ends of course


Do the ends justify the means? What will history hold for the future?

Year 2050: Whats in the news?
A past secret organization that planned the annihilation of 5 billion humans exposed! All 300 million citizens of Earth are shocked that the virus that killed 5 billion people just 50 years ago was created by a secret organization for that exact reason.





top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join