Should the Planet be depopulated

there are plans to ´depopulate´, probably with genetic programs, so

firstly we should do ANYTHING POSSIBLE to get rid of our destroyed, unhuman pseudo-capitalistic systems before talking about depopulation.

nobody has the right to play god.next steps are welcome.

reply to post by Nohup

satans timetable ?
when you are totally evil and have eternity on your hands with nothing better to do than torture those you hate i suppose you would drag the whole affair out making it last as long as possible-----if you only had a short period of time allowed by Those in charge you might want to speed things up to make sure you got all your adversaries ?

reply to post by anti72


Somebody is going to have to "play god," or we'll be the witnesses of the complete and utter obliteration and exploitation of nearly every eco-system on the planet. The blame doesn't lie within a sociopolitical program or system. Absolute fault is of modern man, and the natural occurence of overpopulation, as is the case with any flourishing species. We need to address the root of the problem, not a social byproduct of the problem, although, even that will be affected in the process by proxy.

reply to post by Nohup


people suffering and calling out to a G-D that doesnt care?how would you know?do you know everyone on this planet ?prophetically we have coming a period of 3 1/2 years of war and concentration camp captivity /torture in ww3 due to earths population following by their own free choice either lying teachers or the dictates of their own consience-----or they can read the scriptures and try the best they are able to live by them-----the choice is up to us but if the wrong choice is made we have to live by and experience its results.myself i feel my inadequateness and dont believe i could keep myself alive forever by myself which is what i think i see G-D offering us---if everyone else thinks they are smarter than G-D or knows the "shortcut" have fun trying---its your life your gambling with --not mine.

My Opinion

The planet should be depopulated and moved to another world where there are

more resources to exploit.

Possibly several colonies on different moon's and planets.

reply to post by yahn goodey


I think Nohup is making a cynical point about our individual responsibility to the world. We have a lot of people in this world crying out for help to god, all the while being very capable of contributing themselves.

Well if you were talking about forced depopulation, that = Nazism, no forfeit. If it be by nature, then it's not going to work. This is because richer nations will have more food, and lesser will die off. We need more people, because then more people will die and the masses will become angered by lack of action. SO things will solve it themselves.

no. as long as´depopulation´is the plan of our NWO-friends, we will do anything other than what they want.

its the right time to take use of our civil rights, and NOT giving it away in ´voting´ a political puppet next year.

stick your´intelligent , good reasons´for depopulation upwhere else.

love.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by anti72]

Originally posted by anti72

stick your´intelligent , good reasons´for depopulation upwhere else.

love.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by anti72]

You mean common sense, right? I'd rather give it to you than stick it anywhere.

Originally posted by Miishgoos
My Opinion

The planet should be depopulated and moved to another world where there are

more resources to exploit.

Possibly several colonies on different moon's and planets.

..yes..another planet..and another..

[edit on 1-11-2007 by anti72]

I find it funny that you think that depopulation is going to be votable. Realistically, 3rd world nations where 4 billion people reside will be the first to go. WHY, cause the majority of them are poor and ignorant to the industrialized capacity to destroy in wholesale. This being said, having 3rd world nations develop is not in the best interest of the people that are in power. Why you ask? A noble needs his peasants to rule over, and and army to control them. What do you think is happening in the world now. We are just a massive fuedalistic society. Once you realise this, then you must realise that in order for your nobles to survive, and pass power on to there kids, they need to thin the ranks a bit. My opinion, you already see it in africa. Give them another 50 years, and there population will be a 10th of what it is. The whole scope of world depopulation is something that will not be fair and not be democratic. The poor and the distitute will die. It will be a slow and painful death, such as mmm let me think, AIDS? an interesting concept, what if AIDS became airborne, infecting people like the common cold. This would cause the industrilized nations to kill and burn the bodies of those infected, and probably bomb the areas with massive infected populations that are poor, such as India, Pakistan, china, all of Africa, parts of South America, and S.E. Asia. As far as bombing goes, it will most likely be incinderary bombing, burning if you will, after all, why destroy the area permanently when you really only want to kill the population. Once the poor populations have been nuetralized, recolonization will start. This time though, there will be a burn earth philosophy. This way you can keep the Colonized population seperated from the indiginous population that carries the disease. Once they have suffieciently been eliminated, a vaccine will come out that makes the colonized immune to becoming infected, therefore, whats left of the population will be welcomed back into the communities, to die peacefully drugged in hospitals, since they can't infect anyway.

If I was the NWO, this would be my idea for depopulation.

Have a nice day

Cheers,
Camain

The strange thing is, we have overpopulation,

Or have we?

www.principalvoices.com...

www.fee.org...

The result was that the sixfold increase in world population was dwarfed by the eighty-fold increase in world output. As real incomes rose, people were able to live healthier lives. Infant mortality rates plummeted and life expectancies soared. According to anthropologists, average life expectancy could never have been less than 20 years or the human race would not have survived. In 1900 the average world life expectancy was about 30 years. In 1993 it is just over 65 years. Nearly 80 percent of the increase in world life expectancy has taken place in just the last 90 years! That is arguably one of the single most astonishing accomplishments in the history of humanity. It is also one of the least noted.

if the entire population of the world were placed in the state of Alaska, every individual would receive nearly 3,500 square feet of space, or about one-half the size of the average American family homestead with front and back yards.

The idea of less people is really sound and makes alot of sense

The problem is who decides who lives who dies, who has kids who doesn't

(I say this in jest to illuminate the point.) Shouldn't those who believe in depopulation start with themselves?

OK, my point is current depopulation is targeted at lower classes. Taxes for having more kids is a way for the rich once again to have the ability to have families while the poor are punished.

This does not even touch on the chemical attacks on world fertility. the drop in male fertility(average sperm count) has dropped on an average of 1% a year since 1950. This way only the rich that can afford fertility clinics can have children.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
if the entire population of the world were placed in the state of Alaska, every individual would receive nearly 3,500 square feet of space, or about one-half the size of the average American family homestead with front and back yards.

Well, I guess that's the solution, then. Force everybody on Earth to move to Alaska. At least for now. A few years down the road, when the population's doubled again, we'll have to either let a few people into the Northwest Territories, or cut everybody's personal space down to 1,750 square feet.

The argument isn't about total capacity. Sure, we can keep stacking people and shoving them into smaller spaces until everything is like the "real world" in the Matrix, with people occupying little tubes. That solves the space problem. Then the only things we need to solve are the food, water, clothing, employment, health and resource usage problems.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Well if you were talking about forced depopulation, that = Nazism, no forfeit.

I whole-heartedly suggest you read up on the definition of Nazism. Perhaps you were looking for the word "fascism". That would be comprehensible, and somewhat more relevant, but the Nazi's were a political party who stood for Nationalism and a degree of ethnic cleansing. Their agenda is completely irrelevant to the topic of depopulation. Only dumb punks use the word "nazi" to describe everything that limits their freedom in some way.

And for THE LAST TIME - none of us here who are condoning depopulation are promoting genocide or killing in any way. We're talking about peaceful, sensible, measured steps to reduce child-birth, with a view to halting world population growth.

What positive impact will allowing population growth have?

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues

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.

Common math won't work in this situation because you don't know how many people will voluntarily adhere to your ideas. I suspect very few, because people believe they have the right to reproduce. I'd be suprised if you could get more than a tenth of the world on board with your ideas. The rest would continue living their lives as if you weren't their king, and have as many kids as they want.

The only way to successfully bring about passive depopulation would be by creating worldwide laws requiring it. And that would lead to murdered children, not to mention a big freakin war when people started imposing laws on the whole world.

I still think this just comes down to you being so lazy that you'd rather dictate to the entire world how many kids they can have than try to help people live less impacting lives.

Why not cut back the number of people the planet has? BECAUSE YOU FREAKIN' CAN'T!!!!

Originally posted by Redge777
The idea of less people is really sound and makes alot of sense

The problem is who decides who lives who dies, who has kids who doesn't

(I say this in jest to illuminate the point.) Shouldn't those who believe in depopulation start with themselves?

Exactly! I for one do not believe in the institution of marriage or having children. I disagree with both on so very many levels. Maybe those of us who believe will actually make a difference, maybe not. Only time will tell.

reply to post by mattifikation


Here... I'll make it quick.


CHINA


Thank you.

Also, this subject isn't just one dimensional, either. There's a multitude of issues that need to be discussed. I wish it were as easy as "Less people, see ya." I couldn't even imagine the kind of complex questions we'd have to ask and the solutions to those questions that would have to be carried out.

You do realize that people have been murdered as a result of China's depopulation attempts, and that in spite of this their population has never decreased, right?

Ineffectiveness
Some criticism declare that this policy is ineffective. Stephen Mosher gave a speech in Chinese Martyrs Catholic Church in Markham, Ontario, which strongly criticized this policy. He argued that "Demographers have no conception of overpopulation. What they mean is poverty...Famine and starvation does happen in the world, but it happens as a result usually of government interference with the production of food... We produce enough grain that everyone could eat a couple pounds of grain a day. We have a problem with distributing food, but we don’t have a problem with overall food production. The world today could feed about 12 to 14 billion people." [53] He further argued that China used propaganda and brainwashing sessions to encourage its citizens to agree to abort their child. Comparing Mao Zedong's failure of the Great Leap Forward, he argued that it is government mismanagement and government intervention that led to famine and sortage of food. Mosher further declared that this policy hinders China's economic development, while the Communist Party believes that it is the opposite. He argued that population growth is the main contributor to economic growth.

Stephen Moore from the Cato Institute declares the One child policy as "genocide". He believed that government intervention is ineffective as it creates pollution, food shortage and famines, but free market capitalism is the solution to solving its environmental problems and overpopulation. [54]

taken from wikipedia

Yeah, sounds like a dream. So effective, also!