Should the Planet be depopulated

OMG, now the loony religion-nuts who overpopulated the place in the first place have discovered the thread...

Survival of the fittest is always the law of the day. We can hide it a bit by caring for the poor, the stupid, the handicapped, but when it comes to it, we all know what will happen. Governments are becoming more intrusive and controlling all over the world. Just look at the supposed democracies of Europe, Russia and the US and how they have changed in the name of fighting terror or achieving economic parity. These same nations will use the poor for cheap labor, but if the interests of the rich nations are really threatened, the poor are done for. A war or an epidemic will fix the problem, even if it is in their own country. China is more enlightened than the west in their 1-child policy. With the police state to come, I can see similar laws coming to pass here as well as in the third world as terms for getting western food aid or loans. The religious right wing has had it's day here in the US; now we will have government by the pragmatists who will support birthcontrol and sterilization programs in the third world. Also, the toxins being pumped into our food, water, and air are slowly sterilizing the inhabitants of the industrialized world; as the third world becomes industrialized and polluted, they will lose their fertility as well.

reply to post by BloodthirstyCapitalist


Thanks, Bloodthirstycapitalist.

That's why sometimes it's best to have a real discussion instead of bashing on people.

The fact is, whenever I hear or read of "the population control", it makes me think of killing (who doesn't?). Because killing is all merged into one - wars, virus, etc., you name it.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by TheoOne]

In a strange way, the human race is getting a slow education in living on extraterrestrial worlds or space colonies by being forced to deal with the slowly deteriorating environment of earth. As bad as it has become here, the worst place on Earth is still more forgiving than the best spot on Mars to say nothing about the vacuum of space. As the population grows, we will learn how to recycle everything, to produce food and energy with high efficiency and even to preserve the wild areas and other species--not becaus we like them, but because we need their genetic diversity and theiy occupy crucial links in the environmental web. As the government becomes more controlling, even reproduction will no longer be a birthright, but a privilege. These are all skills and changes to our social structure that are necessary to survive off this planet. You can't just breed ad libitum in an off world colony where resources are rationed. Eventually, we will graduate from this planet having learned from it how to terraform Mars or how to build self-sustaining lunar colonies. We will learn this by learning how to fix the mess we made of Earth with our billions of eaters. Of course only the wealthy will get to live in the off-world colonies, probably with sterilized slave laborers; that is how it has always been. The rich get the newest and best real estate while the poor live in squalor. I think Bladerunner was a good window into the future.

Ah yes, I almost forgot -

What about immportality? Would it help the population control with the ability to live longer?

That is, when you live long, say, 500 years? That's the answer I'm looking for. Would it help?

Theoritically humanity should reduce its population due to excessive use of resources. Philosophically humanity should continue to thrive and exploit the universe. Religiously humanity should not worry about what is happening to Earth. In reality humanity should not be restricted or massively exterminated. Naturally, based on my assumption, the human population is kind of like the function xsin(x), with a restricted domain value; our population may also subject to the harmonic motion. Nature would not be able to restrain us because we have ambition.

Well all in all who do you think will go. I bet the Government would say let the ignorant stay so we'll stay rich and get rid of the middle class and the rich non-political people. There was a movie I saw but can't think of the name right now. But you were allowed one or two children and if you had two miscarriages then that counted as two children. I guess that would be the best way. Except for the miscarrage part. And I really wish people would get off their a#s and get a job to support their kids. That's one of the major problems here in America. Parents know that the more kids they have the more money they get from us tax payers. But yet they have cell phones, tv's, nice cars etc..

This thread is quite thought provoking...to say the least...

I suppose something I have never been able to wrap my head around is to why people continue to have kids (in 1st World countries anyway)? I mean I would never want to bring a child into this world! Maybe I'm just crazy?

I believe the best solution will be education (which is really the answer to many of the worlds ills). We need to not just educate the 1st world, but more importantly the so called "3rd World" in the use of birth control, etc. In addition, we need to be providing them with birth control (as many of these people would be unable to afford it)...

Originally posted by yahn goodey
by the time they get thru starting a war they lose control of till it blows up in their faces when the present god of this world---their real master satan takes over -----the worlds population will be reduced somewhere between 50-10% left over.

Only one thing wrong with leaving it up to Satan. You can't trust him to do the job right. Besides, regardless what some dusty old book says, which do you think Satan would like better... billions fighting and dying in what they believe to be a glorious and noble fight, or billions of innocents dying slowly of thirst and starvation and beseeching a Lord that has time and again shown his utter indifference to such things? Hmmm... WWSD?

[edit on 30-10-2007 by Nohup]

Originally posted by CaliGuy
I suppose something I have never been able to wrap my head around is to why people continue to have kids (in 1st World countries anyway)? I mean I would never want to bring a child into this world! Maybe I'm just crazy?

Well, in some parts of the world they don't have anything like Social Security, so the best you can do is have a lot of kids and hope that at least one of them has enough smarts and ambition to be able to do well, make a decent living, and take care of you when you become too old and sick to work. Perfectly reasonable and logical.

Love and liberty will kill us all.

I must admit I'm a little bit shocked at some of these pro-depopulation declarations. How come nobody has any imagination anymore. The Idea that the solution to the present crisis we have on earth is the slaughter of billions of people is just outrageous. First of all we need to look at countries like India to understand that we can sustain a much larger population than now exists. But that is only the beginning. If you seriously look at the United States, we have large poplutions in the towns and cities, but anyone who has gone on long car trips knows there are vast expanses of empty land - plenty of room to grow. I have even recently discovered from studying maps of our country that nearly half our land is uninhabited simply due to state and national forestry. Then consider Canada - A country as big, maybe bigger, than the US with a population of only 20 million, Yes you heard me right - 20 million. 2/3 of the planet is ocean - how about floating or underwater cities - I think that would be a better alternative than the slaughter house. Anyone who convinces you we need to be depopulated is a liar and a madman with no vision. We have barley given recycling a chance - we can do much better - We don't need to depend oil - this is another myth perpetuated by the oil cartel. We have the technology, Don't be fooled - Advancement has been suppressed by greedy and vicious corporate monopolies. I have always thought that the best way to Heal the earth would be to live in the sky like cloud city from starwars. If we could get our cities up in the air, and leave the earth to the plants and animals I think human population growth would be nearly unlimited. At any rate, nature does have a way of balancing itself as well and there are many countries now where population is already declining - what's the rush?

Again let I remind posters, this thread is not about killing anyone, the question is that the Worlds population is set to rise by a billion every 20 years. So with that in mind do we need those extra billion people and will will have the resources for them.

Many populations are growing unchecked for no real reason other than choice. Do the Chines or the Idians need a workforce of a billion no they dont. As mentioned before the way forward is through education and responsibilty, that as much as we think we can do what we like we cannot and our actions have consequencies for all.

The time has arrived where we have to look at this a a global issue rather than just locallised one or to be ignorant of it completely.

reply to post by magicmushroom


You just wasted your time.

They DO NOT UNDERSTAND the concept of preventative measures or noninvasive ways of slowly declining the population over time.

They think depopulation means murder, and it seems not me or you are going to change that.

For example the first 3 pages of the thread.

A few points:

For anyone who believes that depopulation is inhumane:

"What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship's axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat."

Pentti Linkola

Think about that! Those of you who support exponential population growth are actually the ones acting contrary to the interests of life.


For anyone who believes there is plenty of space left on the planet:

Geographical room does not equal ecological room! Just because there are vast expanses of wilderness left on this planet, does not mean that we should fill every last nook and cranny with humans. Mankind (particularly Western man) has a proven inability to live in harmony with his/her natural surroundings. My favourite example is the depopulation of wolves in much of Europe and North America simply because man didn't feel 'comfortable' sharing land and resource. These untouched wildernesses are the last remaining refuge for some creatures.

I've argued this point many times on various forums. NEWSFLASH - we're not the only species on this planet! We passed the point of equilibrium a long time ago. That was the point at which we ceased to deserve unconditional residence here on Earth.

Besides, I don't know about anyone else but I quite like the fact that there are still areas of untouched wilderness out there.


For anyone who thinks science will save us:

Are you mad? Our last 50-100 years of 'science' amounts to little more than industry and pollution itself. When will we learn that we can't control nature, our science can't control nature, and nor should it attempt to.


I'd like to think that the majority of us would be sensible enough to limit or halt our reproduction, but I can't see it happening. Stupid people seem to be involved in some kind of breeding competition - 4 kids here, 6 kids there (government benefits don't help the situation). The only feasible peaceful method I can see working is goverment restrictions, like China.

Cythraul and others - you make me laugh As far as

"What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship's axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat."

A real hero would pull a person up on that boat and jump off - Are you willing to take the leap?

Think about that! Those of you who support exponential population growth are actually the ones acting contrary to the interests of life.

Not supporting regimented depopulation is all.

My favourite example is the depopulation of wolves in much of Europe and North America simply because man didn't feel 'comfortable' sharing land and resource.

This could've been and probably was orchestrated by a handful of people in charge(probably the same ones who will want to depopulate you) not a result of population growth.

Are you mad? Our last 50-100 years of 'science' amounts to little more than industry and pollution itself.

As I mentioned earlier, pro-environmental and humanitarian science has been suppressed and shelved by the powers that be. These powers(governments, corporations, wealthy families) are in large part the ones responsible for the trashing of our planet - And now these same powers are blaming the mess they have created on the population. How can anyone fall for this BS. Now their solution is depopulation and thats what they are trying to brain wash you into believing. Don't be fooled.

When will we learn that we can't control nature, our science can't control nature, and nor should it attempt to.

Exactly - That's why depopulation should not be attempted or implemented. Nobody should try to play God on this planet - however it's already happening - and I don't like it.

If our best and brightest scientist were funded to find positives solutions to real problems instead of focusing all of their time and money on creating bigger and smarter bombs, deadlier viruses, etc. etc. - we would be living in a vastly different world - maybe one in which people would be asking questions like - what can we do to support the growing population instead of what can we do to reduce the population.

You simply can't take preventative measures to depopulate the wold. There's no such thing as "preventative" when it comes to depopulation. I already posted quite a bit explaining why, which nobody seems to have read.

Look at China if you think you can simply "prevent" population growth without murder. Facing an exploding population, they created laws limiting most families to one child.

The first thing that happened was everybody wanted a male child because they were more "useful." So females would be murdered and the parents would try again for a male. Get that? MURDERED, in the name of "preventative measures of depopulation."

The second thing that would happen is people would accidentally get pregnant with a second child. Birth control fails, and abortion isn't available world-wide. What happens to that second child? Why, it gets murdered! MURDERED in the name of "PREVENTATIVE MEASURES."

You claim you aren't advocating murder because you lack the foresight to comprehend the consequences your desired policy would create. Your foolish plan will either fail because you have no way to enforce your birthing regulations, or it will lead to the genocide of "unauthorized" newborns.

So which would you be, if the world is indeed stupid enough to leave you and your NWO friends in power? Would you be the fool who passes a toothless law, or the scum who advocates the disposal of unauthorized children?

reply to post by j_kalin

China is more enlightened than the west in their 1-child policy.

In some way I can see your point but if killing of the girls babies because you want boy babies is enlightenment I will eat you hat.

Chinese woman has 26 needles in body

"They wanted her dead," said Qu Rei, a spokesman at Richland International Hospital in Yunnan province, which has agreed to surgically remove the first six of the 26 needles in her body today. "The fact she is still alive is a medical miracle."

Female infanticide is common practice in cultures that prize boys. China's strict one-child policy has exacerbated the age-old prejudice by making the male heir an even more precious commodity. Lopsided sex selection through such means as abortions has skewed the gender ratio; it now stands at about 119 boys to 100 girls. In industrialized countries the balance is closer to 107 to 100.Thousands of baby girls are abandoned every year. Some are left on the street or even in the trash.

www.latimes.com...


Humans screw up everything they aim to do in one way or another.

Malthus disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated–or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more "scientific" approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more "practical and acceptable ways" to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.

reply to post by j_kalin



Another thing Jkalin, if you do some research, which I did quite a bit a few years ago on eugenics, you will find many people that were behind the eugenics movement of the early 1900's were Christians.

This is not a criticism of Christians, BTW

www.medterms.com...

www.blackgenocide.org...

Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race. He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this "population crisis." According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people. His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood Founder
www.plannedparenthood.org...

And you can trace the roots of this right back to Darwins selection of the species, who Hitler admired BTW, and yet it goes farther back even the darwinism.

WILD

Ancient Eugenics
www.plausiblefutures.com...






[edit on 023131p://bTuesday2007 by Stormdancer777]

[edit on 023131p://bTuesday2007 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by CyberTruth
At any rate, nature does have a way of balancing itself as well and there are many countries now where population is already declining - what's the rush?

Of couse, the Earth is not nearly pushed to its absolute limit yet. Estimates vary as to how many total people can be supported by the ecosystem if you spread all the people out and farm every square available inch of land and sea. Maybe there's a way for our technology to allow us to pack ourselves together like sardines and still survive.

But just because we can support 60 billion people on the planet, does that mean we want to, or have to? Personally, I like a little elbow room.

Yes, the birthrate in industrialized countries declines by itself, as a result of choice or stress or pollution or whatever. But as somebody pointed out, the resource consumption rates get higher. So even if India and China were to suddenly become highly industrialized overnight, it will take a little while for the population growth to slow, while at the same time resource usage will skyrocket.

The toughest fight is against the basically instinctual, egotistical urge to reproduce, coupled with religious messages that encourage reproduction, and political systems that have established reproduction as a fundamental human right.

At some point, however, we need to figure out just how many people we're comfortable with on this planet, how many we can comfortably sustain, and how we can go about making the proper adjustments so that nature doesn't step in an start mowing us down with pandemics and starvation.

[edit on 30-10-2007 by Nohup]

reply to post by Nohup


Norhup, but how would that be regulated?

reply to post by Stormdancer777


It would be regulated by murder. There is simply no other way to control population growth. Trying to limit reproduction will result in a need to kill people just as surely as rounding people up and executing them. There is simply no other way to deal with unauthorized reproduction. People surely will not willingly give up their right to decide how many children they should have. That right would have to be taken from them by force.

To make claims that you can regulate population growth without killing anyone is either ignorant or a lie. China has attempted to limit its population growth, and the result is millions of dead babies as well as complete failure to achieve that goal. Many other countries would see families die of neglect when their large-family support systems collapsed under reproduction regulations.

People will not willingly let others make the decision as to how many children they can have. When they defy the rules, what will you do? Kill their extra children? Kill them for breeding? When they stand and fight for their rights, how will you win that fight without murdering them in cold blood?

Clearly there are two options. We can depopulate, or we can adapt.

I suggest that those of us who wish to adapt begin doing so. It's time to start recycling, conserving energy, quit wasting food, and advocating cleaner, more sustainable lifestyles to our friends and families. Get involved politically to try and bring about change on a local scale. If each person who gets on board with this idea can convince their friends and family to do the same, and those people convince their friends and family to do the same, then a huge difference can be made.

And those of you who want to depopulate the world should follow the same example. Give up your own right to reproduce. Get out on the streets and start telling people not to have kids. Oh, and good luck with that.