Should the Planet be depopulated

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


No, I never said pollution would take care of itself. And, New York is significantly cleaner these days because of stricter pollution laws.

You're not seeing headlines like this anymore:

"New York smog incident kills between 170 and 260 people."

www.eih.uh.edu...




posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Most people I know drink tap water. They show no signs of chlorine poisoning. I'm pretty sure my grandparents never had bottled water or water filters and they got pretty old. *shrug*

Hey, for the record folks, I think less people on Earth would be great. I don't agree that it can be accomplished without causing massively deadly side effects. I'd think an intelligent person would try and show me, specifically, how it might be accomplished while addressing any issues about protecting human life.

Thus far, I've repeated my concerns a thousand times and have yet to read anything except, "there, there, it'll be ok, I promise!"



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


I am obviously not getting through to you. Your grammar and syntax should have told me I was biting off more than I could chew, but I ignored my instincts. Depopulation is in the midst as we speak. There's no way to circumvent the inevitable constricts that will be put on society as a whole. These will be fought with all we have, but in the end we'll look back and say, "Yeah.. Oh.. Okay."


"You can lead the herd water, but you can't make them drink."


I'm finished here.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


Yes, my conclusions are the extreme ones and i am simple minded. Preserving the friggin environment is the most extremestust thing EVER and regulating how many children other people are allowed to have is totally within the realm of the boring and mundane.

I'm so simple minded I have yet to explain, exactly, what happens to babies that weren't authorized to be born despite being asked many many times to do so. I'm so simple minded that I can't come up with an answer as to how a poor farmer in a third world country with no money to pay wages is supposed to keep his entire farm operational with one kid.

Er wait... no... that's your side that can't do that.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Well you know what, I thought water should be free, and I should not buy water to drink, I can't drink tap water, it looks like milk, but it's not milk.


People get sic from food and they develope all kind of illneses like alzheimer part of it is because the soil is simply intoxicated with bio degadable products that can't be cleaned up once they degrade.

FACT: people live longer in the country side because less people , everything is cleaner, water, food, and less polution.

I would rather live 100 years and have one child.

Plus it's nice to have a little space, rather than live crowded, places where it's nice and quiet will be a thing of the past.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


Grammar and syntax? Are you kidding me? Next why don't you call me an idiot. But I need to tone down my rhetoric?

Well if you're done here, good riddance. Maybe the OP will come back and actually answer my questions instead of making veiled insults at my intelligence for five pages. I sure hope so, because I'd really like to know.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

Well you know what, I thought water should be free, and I should not buy water to drink, I can't drink tap water, it looks like milk, but it's not milk.


People get sic from food and they develope all kind of illneses like alzheimer part of it is because the soil is simply intoxicated with bio degadable products that can't be cleaned up once they degrade.

FACT: people live longer in the country side because less people , everything is cleaner, water, food, and less polution.

I would rather live 100 years and have one child.

Plus it's nice to have a little space, rather than live crowded, places where it's nice and quiet will be a thing of the past.


Ah. I see. Well let's just all get vasectomies so that you'll have more room when you turn 80.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Most people I know drink tap water. They show no signs of chlorine poisoning. I'm pretty sure my grandparents never had bottled water or water filters and they got pretty old. *shrug*


findarticles.com...


Almost all U.S. drinking water contains toxic contaminants. Whether they actually pose a health risk depends upon the extent to which they get into a person's body.

To date, health analysts have tended to base their risk assessments on how much tap water people drink, observes Robert R. Vanderslice, a toxicologist with the Rhode Island Department of Health in Providence. But a pair of new studies indicates that ingestion may not prove the toxicants' primary route of entry. Moreover, the current focus on ingestion may actually hinder recognition of which of the body's organs are most vulnerable.




www.dancewithshadows.com...


Plastic is one of the major toxic pollutants of our time. Being a non-biodegradable substance, composed of toxic chemicals, plastic pollutes earth, air and water.

There is no way whatsoever you can ‘safely’ dispose of plastic waste.

Plastic causes serious damage to environment both during its production and disposal. So the only way to reduce the hazards of plastic is to reduce the use of plastic and thereby force a reduction in its production.

Plastic plays the villain right from the stage of its production. The major chemicals that go into the making of plastic are highly toxic and pose serious threat to living beings of all species on earth.


More people more plastic bags.


[edit on 9-11-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 01:44 AM
link   
So stop stores from handing out plastic bags like they're going out of style. Make people bring their own bags.

Or get a water filter.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


Yes, my conclusions are the extreme ones and i am simple minded. Preserving the friggin environment is the most extremestust thing EVER and regulating how many children other people are allowed to have is totally within the realm of the boring and mundane.

I'm so simple minded I have yet to explain, exactly, what happens to babies that weren't authorized to be born despite being asked many many times to do so. I'm so simple minded that I can't come up with an answer as to how a poor farmer in a third world country with no money to pay wages is supposed to keep his entire farm operational with one kid.

Er wait... no... that's your side that can't do that.


Alright, I'll bite, I'll bite. I almost U2U'd you, but I would like for other people who may think your point is somehow valid, why exactly it's not.

America was established as a "Christian" nation. The morality derived from a religion to this day, specifically dictates what we may and may not do. Abortion is allowed but highly regulated and in some cases restricted, depending on the state, even county that you live in. There's no possibility of "baby killing" on a national scale due to the laws that may be inacted incase of a population crisis.

Law would regulate how many children a certain type of family can have, varying from state to state, county to county, based on a national consensus. I imagine the law would fine or tax a family for the first baby they had over the established limit, maybe even a severe warning. The second time, may be something like forced another imposed fine, lein, or even forced adoption and as harsh as a tubal ligation if there's obvious disregard for the law. Finally leading to the 3rd offense, if there would be one, would be a state enforced ligation. If you've proven yourself to have a blatant disregard for the law and your fellow human being, than that would be the imperative to control your actions directly.

If your baby was ever given up in the adoption scenario, I'm sure they wouldn't be "slaughtered" or made in a wall for you to "bash" through, but given another chance at life through a federal, state, or maybe even an NGO institution that would provide a loving family who are unable to have children. The morality of this country alone, would not let it stupe to killing born babies.

I know it's pretty shocking. Adoption and tube tying. You can gasp, I won't tell anybody.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   
The Western world is already depopulating (birth rate less than 2). When 2nd and 3rd world countries reach breaking point, nature will take its course i.e disease, starvation, civil wars, over-pollution. I think in the future we should aim for China, India and Africa to have a population of 200 million each and South-East Asia 50 million. We could then keep the world population stable at 3 billion.

Also, don't forget that in the near future their going to have the ability to stop people from aging and even dying. This will be good in the West because the low birth rate would allow us to maintain a steadily growing population without the need for immigration. Although in 2nd and 3rd world countries this could be a disaster, so I would assume that this technology would be withheld from the public.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
So stop stores from handing out plastic bags like they're going out of style. Make people bring their own bags.

Or get a water filter.


It amases me how inacurate your posts are, simply pointless.
Water filter
that won't help you out
why use toxic chemicals when they them self can just put a water filter? and it will solve the problem? water filters don't eliminate small microscopic bacteria and toxic elements, the water element is it's self is part of chemesty so how are you going to filter it?

If you sustain this theory there would be no need for toxic elements to be added in the water , they would just add an water filter right? and it's all fixed


Bring their own plastic bags?
what if the plastic bag breaks? just go buy another one? how about the bottles how would they sell you pepsi and coke? you don't want them to use iron do you, oh my god they would go out of bussines because the material to build a bottle would be so expencive, how about your milk?it comes in a plastic container does it not?
don't forget about electonic cases like your computer monitor that you are looking at right now, it's made of plastic , you will throw it away at some point and get a new one.


I'm so disapointed in your posts, really you make it too easy for me.


[edit on 9-11-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 02:09 AM
link   
I can't find a sentence in whatever you just said about water filters, forgive me. Or better yet, just read my previous posts and see that I'm the one proposing we do a better job of preserving the environment to begin with.

Use a cloth bag.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


Oh, that post made me gasp alright. Not likely for the reasons you expected it to.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


Well, it's spelled out for you. You can keep acting like a jerk, or learn, grow, and reflect. It's up to you..



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I think the thread is getting a bit derailed, the question is depopulation.

Maybe there are factors that we are unaware of and therefore cannot bring into the calculations , theories or idea's, the animal kingdom overall has mechanisms that control population growth, usally the same as ours such as food supplies and space.

No war, famine or disease todate has made any impact on population numbers but it is obvious that in the planets history there have been events that have denuded the Planet of 95% of all life. This may well be the mechanism that will acutually control our growth as no other source can. Yes we have virus's and nuke's but even they are nothing compared to a global catastropy.

Again nature has its means of settling the scores, perhaps the shift may come through medical breakthroughs, if we could double our life expectancy that in itself would reduce the population greatly, so whilst we may have some control the endgame is that we are living on a fairly unstable terra forming Planet flying along in the path of objects that could flick us off this rock in no time at all.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Indeed, nature always finds a way. Apologies for the multi-page argument on your thread, sometimes I get a little carried away late at night.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I'm sure with government greediness and war that the depopulation will happen. We've had WWI & II, vetenam, and I'm sure somewhere down the road WWIII will begin. It's all part of the plan to take all that money that a person has payed in taxes and social security that we'll never see. That money come's back to the governments. And then it starts all over again. All the federal reserve stock holders like the Rockafellers and others will get their interest whether the government pays it to them or the life of a human being and the money they leave behind.



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by mattifikation
 


I am obviously not getting through to you. Your grammar and syntax should have told me I was biting off more than I could chew, but I ignored my instincts. Depopulation is in the midst as we speak. There's no way to circumvent the inevitable constricts that will be put on society as a whole. These will be fought with all we have, but in the end we'll look back and say, "Yeah.. Oh.. Okay."


"You can lead the herd water, but you can't make them drink."


I'm finished here.

If depopulation is already occurring, then why are you arguing for us to accelerate it? I think we should just let it occur naturally as it is, in my opinion, the only ethical and humane way to do so. At the same time however I see no reason not to invest time and money researching new technologies that will allow us to continue to support larger and larger populations. I see no reason not to strive to have colonies on other planets. Though I will point out that unless major breakthroughs are made in regards to how we reach Earth orbit it is going to take hundreds if not thousands of years for us to transfer a sizable portion of the Earth's population to another world(s).

I know that most of you are not talking about mass genocide or killing, but at least a few of you have proposed forced sterilization and even outright murder via biological viruses or nuclear weapons, and let just say that you people are disgusting. No one here has the right to tell anyone else when they can or cannot reproduce or how many children they should be able to have. If you ever try to enforce world wide legislation that punishes and incarcerates parents who give birth to more than one child then prepare to fight a world wide insurgency. In the end it is YOU who will be purged, not them. They will then continue to reproduce naturally and if they reach a point that the Earth cannot sustain them then nature will take its course.

Furthermore, how would you avoid the problem China is currently having with its male to female ratio? What do you do when you have finally brought population levels down to an "acceptable level" but now it is falling too rapidly? Now you have eight men for every one woman on the planet? By the way, how did you figure out who was cheating the system and having more kids and who wasn't? Do you have security cameras on every street, a branch of law enforcement specially dedicated to sniffing out parents and taking their kids from them? A secret police if you will. Do you carefully monitor everyone's spending habits and make sure they aren't buying more than normal? Perhaps you just decide that everyone will be allotted a fixed ration every month?

It seems to me that in order to enforce such a law (no matter your good intentions) you would have to get very intrusive and Orwellian. You complain about Bush wiretapping now, but that's nothing compared to what would be necessary to fight the insurgency guaranteed to erupt after you enact your policies. Lastly, if you truly think that regulation of birth rates is superior to letting nature take its course; letting people starve to death. Then I ask that you take a gun and walk into an Africa village, somewhere in Ethiopia where thousands starve to death each day. Walk in and tell them that you are going to execute every one of them to end their misery. What do you think will happen? Will they celebrate your cause for its humanity or will they kill you on the spot? Either way, what you got to loose anyway?



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   
the human population will continue increasing until there is not enough resources to sustain their existence.

there is nothing in humanities history that gives me any hope that they have the foresight to not consume their vital resources beyond replenishment.

consumerism is the nail in the coffin.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join