Should the Planet be depopulated

reply to post by jpm1602


I actually posted the same thing on the "Where did the honey bee's go" forum about a month ago. I'm glad somebody pays attention to words of the wise. I think all our GMO foods will combat immediate famine or anything similar to that nature.

Originally posted by magicmushroom

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.

Getting rid of plastic will mean that we have to use up more natural resources (metals) in the place of plastics. Plastics were invented as a solution to the overuse of our natural resources, so getting rid of them would worsen the effects of our over-population problem.

Yep just wipe out the country China, India. Theres over 2.3 billion gone. About 1/3rd of the worlds population.

Otherwise as ted turner said. 300 million.... there goes america.

But i dont think 300 millions going to be enough.

Anyways, im sure the population will sort itself out. one way or another. Another ice age? Another mega volcano explosion. Another world war. Hell just the release / slip of a virus would do the trick. I'm sure something will be happening.

reply to post by DaRAGE


300 million carrying capacity. As in "end result."

And if you'd do some reading, or even read a few posts above, a natural solution to an immediate problem will not happen in our lifetime. Natural disasters aren't a reactive component, but a naturally occuring and predestined one.

In the case of earthquake, volcano, blah blah blah, hypothetical blah blah. I think emissions might have something to do with the frequency of tropical storms though. Waiting for something to drive that theory home.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues

In the case of earthquake, volcano, blah blah blah, hypothetical blah blah. I think emissions might have something to do with the frequency of tropical storms though. Waiting for something to drive that theory home.

Oh no, not global warming again. Emissions causing tropical storms. Ok, where's all those hurricanes we were supposed to have this year. It's always the same. Katrina comes along and everybody blames in on emissions, man or Bush. Talking about hypothetical

Depopulation happens naturally and manmade. I think humans will cope with it through technology.

reply to post by Solarskye


Like I said.. "WAITING FOR SOMETHING TO DRIVE THAT THEORY HOME." 3,4, and 6 are pretty interesting....

And it seems you've missed the point of the thread entirely. The question isn't how we're going to "cope," but whether or not it's necessary.

de-population is the most morbid aspect of humanities future there is i think. the reason for it happening would be natural though, no one of this age would either be able to, or would destroy a large portion of the population, we just want to live too much.

i think that a virus would be the main cause of huge population losses, war can contribute, but not to any useful amount.

in fact i dont know of any way that a man made solution to this problem can be created, rather than creating something resembling Logan's Run.

ill put my bets on hopefully an ice age as i would rather die in the cold than in some manky bed surrounded by thousands of other dying people. i say put our humanity to the test and freeze the planet.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


NO!! The planet shouldn't be depopulated. Not intentionally anyway. Everybody deserves the right to live here on this planet. 3, 4 & 6 has no scientific fact to it at all. They don't know enough about the past and the earth's cycles to come to that conclusion. Here's some facts for you.

Global Warming Again and Again

Statement of Global Warming

The Great Global Warming Swindle

CO2 Science

reply to post by Techsnow


I threw a hopefully helpful U2U your way. I hope you soak it up.


All I hear is speculation, speculation, speculation. You can say what you think someone is saying, but all you're doing is putting your own delusional twist on what "someone might say, sometime, if he has the same perspective I assume he has."

It is utterly pointless to think this way.

"Should the planet be depopulated" - don't you think that's like saying, "Should I kill myself?"

As far as for saying that, I think that's like saying you want to kill everybody, just for more space.

If bus was crowded, and you were in it - would you murder some people just for more space, when you have no choice to kick them out or asking them to take the next bus (when in reality, drivers usually say that when bus is full)?

Earth is bigger than you think.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by TheoOne]

No and heres why.

A: genocide is evil and i dont believe humanity has a right to judge humanity as they hardly know themselves yet.

B: A little enginuity would suffice for the starving masses.

C: disease is eliminateable in our day, its just subtle and hidden.

D: Depopulation is the final solution for the mastermind..not me, but one that is forseeable, lingering on the outskirts of our modern reality.

If mankind cant fight back, what have they become?

reply to post by mastermind77


Hey dude, I gotta kill you, sorry man I have to.

(/sarcasm)

Would you say something like that, magicmushroom?

[edit on 29-10-2007 by TheoOne]

reply to post by TheoOne


You should really enlighten yourself. Look up the arguments for "Earth's carrying capacity" and see what side of the argument you fall under. Generalized claims like " the earth is bigger than you think" or better yet some lame proposal of "killing dudes" is not going to cut it. Bring a serious aspect of the discussion to the table.

Originally posted by Solarskye
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues

 

NO!! The planet shouldn't be depopulated. Not intentionally anyway. Everybody deserves the right to live here on this planet. 3, 4 & 6 has no scientific fact to it at all. They don't know enough about the past and the earth's cycles to come to that conclusion. Here's some facts for you.

Global Warming Again and Again

Statement of Global Warming

The Great Global Warming Swindle

CO2 Science

Look. You're exaggerating a very small portion of my first post. This isn't a global warming thread and I was more or less having fun, although I can put your argument in the dirt if you'd like to U2U me, or find an old thread we can rejuvinate.

And no. Not EVERYBODY and ANYBODY deserves to live here. It's not even scientifically feasible that EVERYONE lives here, as if the earth is this infinite mass.

It's simple to get rid of this problem, people need to be educated on this issue, just have one child, and we will depopulate in time, sounds like a reasonable way to me, better than to kill 50 procent of people on this living earth.

reply to post by pepsi78


Once again, to clarify. We don't have to murder anybody. We have to slow the way in which we reproduce. Whether through written regulation or other. This is a very delicate and intricate subject that we could go on for hundreds of pages before we could come to a collective agreement on how to implement the means and by who/which get to reproduce. This isn't a cut and dry scenario, but one that not a single one of us, maybe even collectively could answer in it's entirety. This thing is a lot bigger than ATS.

Thanks for the bash, DeadFlagBlues.

I'm just really tired ATM. I was trying to bring an open explanation as it was serious. I don't see why "Earth is bigger than you think" would be impossible. If you think I was promoting the extermination, then I'm sorry - what drugs are you on? But then again, I actually thought how cool it would be to see a team of mathematicans and scientists to find the exact maximum human population that Earth can carry. A research for that would be great.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by TheoOne]

reply to post by TheoOne


I wasn't referring to your comments about "genocide" or anything of that nature but more your "earth is bigger than you think."

They already have and it varies. There's also "sustainability" to consider. I have a Eugenics thread and the rounds a few of us went put me through so much boring reading than I've ever done since school. Overall, it's a pretty amazing discussion. A real eye opener.

I left my thread a proponent of population control, if that tells you anything.

On a serious note and considering how many trees and plants we've destroyed to accomodate human lifestyles we better come up with better solutions. The basic needs for humans is food, water and shelter. Everything else can go. I don't see people giving up their lifestyles to make room for more people. Look at the history of the past for depopulation. The black plague, influenza, aids is pretty big. Hitler and his killings of jews was big. But in this day and age it will probably be a pandemic like some manmade airborn virus that's accidently gets let loose into the air. But to intentionally depopulate humans is evil and wrong, but what can we do?

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by pepsi78

 

Once again, to clarify. We don't have to murder anybody. We have to slow the way in which we reproduce. Whether through written regulation or other. This is a very delicate and intricate subject that we could go on for hundreds of pages before we could come to a collective agreement on how to implement the means and by who/which get to reproduce. This isn't a cut and dry scenario, but one that not a single one of us, maybe even collectively could answer in it's entirety. This thing is a lot bigger than ATS.

No..because I would have to agree with you, if it's absolutly necesary and we begin to run out of space, china already implemented such a law simply because they are begining to run out of space for their population., I also think that' is why people are exacuted there so fast, this problem can be solved with out the waste of human life, but it would have to be in agreement with everyone, it's against the law to pick up the gun and shoot some one in public, if people do that and they do why do you think they are not going to have more than one kid, it would work but it would be hard to implement, especialy when it comes to religion.