Should the Planet be depopulated

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Matt, your wrong people obey laws every day of their lives its a case of changing the mindset and educating people. Using China as an example is not correct as their ideas were wrong and were ill thought out.

Here in the UK my parents had large families 6- 8 children, my generation has an average of 2 no one made us do that it was a choice, there is no need for large families in the developed countries any more.

The reason why large families in the developing world have them is because of infant mortality rates. So improve the health and education of those people, remove war and famine and there is no need for such numbers. Thats how easy it is, no killing, no draconian laws just people being responsible for their actions.




posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I see what you're getting at. I agree that much of the underdeveloped world could benefit from social reform. At the same time, we have much to learn in conservation and sustainability from them.

What your plan doesn't recognize is that those third world nations are not the ones using up our resources. They eat what they provide for themselves, when they get to eat at all. They use the leftovers for other purposes. They don't throw out a chicken bone that still has half the chicken on it because "the skin was the best part anyways" or "the meat's a little dry."

It's the developed nations with smaller families but bigger appetites that are sucking the lifeblood out of our planet. If we, as the "civilized" nations, were to drastically decrease our footprint then we will automatically make room in our small world for others.

Reducing birth rates will not decrease our footprint, not one bit. It will merely keep it the same. Especially by your plan; it will do us no good whatsoever to decrease the birth rate of those who are not causing the problems.

Population control in "developed" nations will fail, because whether China's plan was ill-concieved or not, it's the only way you can effectively regulate something like reproduction. People follow laws all the time, agreed, but people break laws all the time as well.

But if we merely try to stop having too many children, we will fail miserably. The world will only sustain its current population for a short while longer. Reduce human birthrates if you wish, but we will still leach this planet dry as if over 6 billion people where living on it.

If we, as individuals, were to cut our environmental footprint in half and lead the world to follow our example; and if we do so unanimously and succeed in that goal, then the world would only feel the impact of 3 billion people. If every 20 years we get another billion people, we would still only be increasing the footprint by 500 million's worth.

That means it would take 40 years to increase our footprint by a billion of today's peoples' worth. In order just to get back to where we are now in terms of resource consumption, it would take 120 years! And by then, we'll have even better abilities to enhance sustainability.

Wow... a 50% cut in resource consumption. It's a big goal. It might look out of reach because getting that many people to cooperate with sustainability efforts sounds difficult. But if it sounds impossible, it's because you are one of the ones who does not want to cooperate.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Depopulation = Nazism regime.
Pro population = Moral Obligation to help the whole.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Nohup, but how would that be regulated?


I don't know. Our social systems are not in any way set up to regulate reproduction. Until a hundred years or so ago, it was hard enough to keep babies alive and the laws and customs were set up to help with that.

Picking one batch of people over another isn't really a good idea. Some group is bound to feel like they're being targeted for genocide. And eugenics is a short-cut to an unhealthy and genetically vulnerable population. Mutts are best. A totalitarian government can get away with passing laws to limit births, and even then the consequence is usually that female babies are killed.

I keep thinking that the best way to do it would be to create a limited-duration sterilizing virus and apply it equally around the world. It would have to be done in secret, though, because it would be extremely unpopular. It probably wouldn't be that hard to do, but bacteriological agents are notoriously unpredictable and difficult to control. Even Hitler wouldn't use them in a war he was losing.

So I don't know. It's a tough one.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   
The heaadline alone is quite frightening......I imagine that is something Hitler was thinking in the lines of......One might agree with the question asked, but the only reasonable answer is.......If mother nature itself solves the problem.

Editing for preaching to the choir, I replied before reading any answers.

[edit on 31-10-2007 by Steff]



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Depopulation = Nazism regime.
Pro population = Moral Obligation to help the whole.


You know, of course, that when you invoke the Nazis in any discussion on the Internet, you automatically forfeit.

As for our "moral" obligation, just look at any natural population that grows beyond its available resources. As it is now, we do a heck of a job trying to upgrade the health of the world's population and keep them safe and allow them to live a good life and have as many kids as they want. And then their kids. And so on. We've done okay so far. We've done the moral thing.

But how long can we keep doing it? At some point, basically when people are starving to death by the millions, the moral thing will be to bring it under control to reduce the suffering. Oh, sure, everybody loves babies. But starving babies? Some people would like to try to avoid that scenario.

So do we let it go until we reach the absolute maximum population the Earth can sustain? We don't know what that is right now, but even assuming it's a big number, like 100 billion people, we are going to be there sooner than you think. Is it okay to do something about it then, or should we just let it go past that level? Let "nature take its course" with starvation and disease?

Personally, I'm not going to live long enough to see the day. Hopefully, you won't have to help make that choice, either. But it's important to start considering this stuff before we get to the point where our inaction causes more suffering than our actions.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Steff
The heaadline alone is quite frightening......I imagine that is something Hitler was thinking in the lines of......One might agree with the question asked, but the only reasonable answer is.......If mother nature itself solves the problem.


Fine. Here's Mother Nature's usual solution:



Maybe we can do a little better.

[edit on 31-10-2007 by Nohup]



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by Steff
The heaadline alone is quite frightening......I imagine that is something Hitler was thinking in the lines of......One might agree with the question asked, but the only reasonable answer is.......If mother nature itself solves the problem.


Fine. Here's Mother Nature's usual solution:



Maybe we can do a little better.

[edit on 31-10-2007 by Nohup]


That is QUITE fine with me.........Nature at its finest!



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by Steff
The heaadline alone is quite frightening......I imagine that is something Hitler was thinking in the lines of......One might agree with the question asked, but the only reasonable answer is.......If mother nature itself solves the problem.


Fine. Here's Mother Nature's usual solution:



Maybe we can do a little better.

[edit on 31-10-2007 by Nohup]


That is QUITE fine with me.........Nature at its finest!.....Unless of course, the scenario in the question is due to robbing of natural resources leading to starvation of animals. (and man alike)



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
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.


yes, Führer.
and probably you are another CIA poster.dn:

@topic
earh will get rid of its virus once more when its time.this will have nothing to do with the NWO.
::



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
The masses need to be educated on overpopulation... and that is currently happening. Problem is with those who don't think it's a problem or don't care and have 10 kids anyway. Then those 10 kids each have 10 more kids of their own, thereby compounding the problem to the point where it simply cannot be fixed.

Creating a virus and spreading it to reduce the population is only treating the symptoms, not the problem. Letting mother nature take it's course will have the same effect. We'll grow beyond our capacity and have one die-off after another if this trend continues.

We can't impose 2 children per couple worldwide without catastrophic fallout. The world might turn to anarchy, and we can't have that either. People need to be given a choice.

What I would suggest is setting aside an island, or a country... or maybe even underground or on the moon. Somewhere shielded from the rest of society. In order for people to live there, they would have to agree to a certain set of rules. 2 children per couple would be one of the rules. If they don't like it, they'd have to live with the rest of the population... which will no doubt be reduced eventually by mother nature, war, or famine.

Mankind will need to grow up, be responsible, and live by a certain set of guidelines if we are to flourish. Those who don't like the guidelines can take their chances in the wild. This is the best solution I can think of. It doesn't impose rules on those who don't want them, and it doesn't require murdering anyone.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kruel
What I would suggest is setting aside an island, or a country... or maybe even underground or on the moon. Somewhere shielded from the rest of society. In order for people to live there, they would have to agree to a certain set of rules. 2 children per couple would be one of the rules. If they don't like it, they'd have to live with the rest of the population... which will no doubt be reduced eventually by mother nature, war, or famine.

But then the billions of people crowded together, each with their 5 children, suffering the pollution and disease that their overpopulated land brings; they would begin to argue that they have a "moral" entitlement to this spacious land currently monopolised by the sensible 2-child people. Then it becomes an issue of borders and immigration laws. Funnily enough, there seems to be somewhat of a rehearsal of this situation in certain countries. Here in Britain, the white population is fairly stagnant, while immigrants are mostly responsible for the accelerated population increase, both in terms of their migrating here, and in terms of their birth rates (source). I believe the same is true of Germany.

People will always go where prosperity and space are, and they will spread their seed there. If they are not allowed, they will fight for their right to do so, or they will do so illegally. I'm afraid that in an grossly over-populated world, a single sane country who have earned space and clean living through reproducing sensibly will have little hope of fending off the outside masses.

But I agree, this may be a solution. But it would require the control of a militant, powerful, and quite probably fascist government.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Depopulation = Nazism regime.
Pro population = Moral Obligation to help the whole.

Do you honestly believe that we, mankind, have caused no regrettable harm to the non-human elements of this planet? Tell me just how moral it is to devestate the habitats of species, to the point of exctinction, just to home oblivious humans. How "moral" will a future where millions are starving or dying with disease because there's not enough crop land in their country to feed everyone be?

You hold an incredibly anthropocentric view. Do you not think that it's better, and more moral for a human to not be born at all than for them to be born into an overcrowded world of suffering? I'm not calling for anyone to be killed and I'm not calling for the total elimination of the human race. I'm simply asking the world to reproduce a little more sensibly so that there's no need for mother nature to decimate us.

Nazism has nothing to do with conservation and sensible ecology. I wish people would stop calling everything that involves some kind of drastic action "Nazism".



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by anti72
 


Yeah... A 21 year old CIA agent with numerous tattoos and pierced nostrils and fronts as a bar tender. Gotta' start somewhere, I guess.

Depopulation is necessary. It's not evil, it's not the boogy man, or the giant living in the hillside. For the welfare of the people and the planet, it's the only sensible course of action we can take as the problem that will significantly improve the condition of the planet. If we "wait for earth to fix it" we're only causing further damage to our host planet and are ignorant to the urgency of which something like this would need to take place. If you read the previous discussion, I think some of us bring up poignant matter that should make the average person say, "Hey, you know what? Maybe it's not so bad, and maybe I shouldn't have 3 - 6 children for sake of the earth and everybody who wants to continue living in it with any amount of comfort."

If you would have some common sense, maybe even the slightest amount of intelligence, you wouldn't relate "population control" with "Adolf Hitler." That is called "simple relation." It's what takes place when you don't have the mental aptitude to "see the bigger picture," or see two different subects as being unrelated.

Yes, killing billions of people would be bad. Would killing billions of people be likely? No, little guy, probably not, therefore you have nothing to worry about and you can stop with all the nazi talk.

Some people, you know?




posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   
DeadFlagBlues:

´´Depopulation is necessary. ´´
´´Yes, killing billions of people would be bad. ´´



well ..very intelligent..



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
We could have a colony on Mars by now, with an atmosphere almost fit to breath. We just have not done it. We have room for us on other planets.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthman4
We could have a colony on Mars by now, with an atmosphere almost fit to breath. We just have not done it. We have room for us on other planets.


well, perhaps future generations can do that.
this is much more intelligent than

´´depopulation is necessary. ´´ or ´´Yes, killing billions of people would be bad. ´´



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by anti72
DeadFlagBlues:

´´Depopulation is necessary. ´´
´´Yes, killing billions of people would be bad. ´´



well ..very intelligent..



Considering we're not talking about "population extermination" or "cleansing." Because "depopulation" and "extermination" are two completely different means in relation to how they're achieved.

You can achieve depopulation through regulating the amount of children a single family can have, limitations on age and being permitted to have children, and also through non-invasive ways like standardized birth control (although, I'm not a big fan of the last).

Depopulation doesn't necessarily mean murder, very smart guy.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by earthman4
 


Why not just cut back on the amount of people our planet has?

I don't understand the rationale behind "WE COULD TAKE OVER OTHER PLANETS AND PUT PEOPLE OVER THERE."

Yeah.. Or we could do some pretty common math and reduce our overall population, thus reducing our overall consumption. Save you the long boring trip, the artificial atmosphere, being eaten by space creatures and everything.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthman4
We could have a colony on Mars by now, with an atmosphere almost fit to breath. We just have not done it. We have room for us on other planets.


Interplanetary colonization is an interesting concept, but it won't work, and not just because of the expensive technology. Imagine two oranges, one covered with mold. Say for some reason you wanted to move half of the mold from the one orange to the other one, but you could only do it a few spores at a time. You'll never get half of your spores onto the new orange. The relatively few spores growing on the new orange will quickly cover it on their own. Then you'll have two mold-covered oranges.

Like with the colonization of America. It's not like Europe suddenly emptied out in the 1800's.

Besides, we only have one planet we could possibly colonize within the next 1,000 years or so, and that's Mars. And it's a frozen crap hole that would have a hard time supporting 10,000 people, much less 20 billion.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join