Should the Planet be depopulated

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Yes, your currency has been devaluating recently, our exporters are going mad. But atleast now american goods are cheaper compared to what they were so demand for american goods should increase.

And your super expensive war isnt helping either. Increasing the deficit, pushing up interist rates, mortages go up, even less money to spend.

Its a snowball effect, and as you said its goindown hill and a snowall effect on a downhill isnt a very good thing




posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Theirs a huge differince between top soil and fertalizer and compost....


Not really, you can grow stuff straight out of poo....

Sadly I know this for a fact. I work as electrical and instrumentation designer for an industrial engineering firm. Over the years I working in many industries and have learned about many different plant processes, include a poo poo plant. I work on a poo poo plant in Mississippi that was getting busted letting to much poo out in the waters. The solution was take some of the poo and run through a process that separate the solid crap (and I do mean crap) from the liquid and then sell the solids as a fertilizer. There is catch however, they could not do this all the poo, they would have too much fertilizer and couldn't get rid of it. Human poo per U.S. laws is only go for a few crops, mainly crops that are being grown to feeding live stock. Stuff grown in human fertilizer is consider not fit for human consumption, not because it's bad for you or anything, just because of the gross factor.
The fact is it makes a really good fertilizer.
I personally would no mind eating something grown in human poo, as long I didn't know were it came from.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by mattifikation
 


The 6.5 billion we have right now are doing IRREPARABLE harm to our planet. There's no way around it. There's nothing wrong with less people. Get over it.


If you stop doing the harm, then there's nothign wrong with the same number of people. Get over THAT. There may not be anything wrong with having less people, but there is no path to achieve that goal that isn't dispicable. Furthermore, you are not advocating making the world a place where people are better off. You are advocating getting rid of other people so there is more for you. Well, I'd say I'd rather die making improvements to the world, then be killed to make room on it.

I have to ask something. Why are you so incapable of understanding that it is the nature of life to reproduce and expand in numbers? You cannot just say, "Okay, we're going to educate everyone and increase living standards and then there will be less people on the planet." China has a 1 child policy, their population continues to grow at alarming rates. It doesn't work. China is not depopulated, they have increased their education and industry, and they are now using more resources than ever before.

But you know what? Europe's population was reduced by the Black Plague. The flu has decreased some populations in its lifetime. So has smallpox. So have wars. I'm pretty sure Hiroshima and Nagasaki can give you a few good ideas on how to depopulate places. YOU CANNOT DEPOPULATE THE WORLD WITHOUT KILLING PEOPLE. And yet you say nothing is wrong with that?

I leave you with a quote I know you will agree with: "Supporting something you don't see the devastating and irreprarable effects of in real time, makes you a coward by proxy."



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Techsnow
 




I hope you know Ted Turner supports unnatural means of achieving his goal, meaning he would prob support a virus created by his own government to wipe off a few 5 and a half billion people... so long as he lives to see the ends of course


Do the ends justify the means? What will history hold for the future?

Year 2050: Whats in the news?
A past secret organization that planned the annihilation of 5 billion humans exposed! All 300 million citizens of Earth are shocked that the virus that killed 5 billion people just 50 years ago was created by a secret organization for that exact reason.



Okay. Prove it. Prove without a shadow of a doubt that they have a supervirus and are ready to unleash it. You have to take everything you hear or read and take the truth away from it, not take everything to heart. You're falling into the same kind of "terror!!" propaganda that your average American is, just from a different perspective.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


Get realistic.

Do you think 6.5 billion are going to drop the kind of life they've been living and turn it all around for the sake of following generations and the planet they won't be around to see? They won't. We've proven ourselves to be totally unconcerned with the subsequent effects of our daily actions.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ebe51
 



Originally posted by ebe51
Theirs a huge differince between top soil and fertalizer and compost....

Not really, you can grow stuff straight out of poo....


Yes their is, if you throw fertalizer (which is poo) onto poor top soil yor plants wont grow.

Here is what top soil is.
definition of topsoil!

And fertalizer
Definition of fertalizer

Basicly "Fertilizers are compounds given to plants to promote growth" and "Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil, usually the top 2 to 8 inches"

And wait theres more "A major environmental concern known as topsoil erosion, occurs when the topsoil layer is blown or washed away. Without topsoil, little plant life is possible. It takes approximately 500 years for one inch of topsoil to be deposited, but there are 25 billion tons of topsoil lost each year."

So if you can grow so much straiht out of "poo" why is top soil erosion such a problem if they can just throw "oo all over the place and grow all the want from it ????



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   
How come people are bashing each other in this thread?

I've done nothing but to post my view and opinion, and yet I got bashed for it.


[edit on 8-11-2007 by TheoOne]



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation

You cannot just say, "Okay, we're going to educate everyone and increase living standards and then there will be less people on the planet."

YOU CANNOT DEPOPULATE THE WORLD WITHOUT KILLING PEOPLE.


Yes, exactly, education decreases birth rate but overall it always increases.

Here are some estimates for pop. growth world population

Killing people is the only solution to depopulate the planet.

Wheter we can change our ways of consumption is the determining factor to whether we should depopulate the planet by killing people (the only way)


Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Do you think 6.5 billion are going to drop the kind of life they've been living and turn it all around for the sake of following generations and the planet they won't be around to see? They won't.


Exactly.

Our natural resources wont keep up with our population growth, so either we can let depopulation occur naturally threw famine or whatever or we could kill alot of people.

But we still have a few years to change our ways before were screwed and have to kill



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by mattifikation
 


Get realistic.

Do you think 6.5 billion are going to drop the kind of life they've been living and turn it all around for the sake of following generations and the planet they won't be around to see? They won't. We've proven ourselves to be totally unconcerned with the subsequent effects of our daily actions.


It's a crapload more realistic than controlling how many children EVERY PERSON ON EARTH has. 6.5 Billion can be made to use more renewable resources, if governments got on board with it and started making laws to preserve our planet. If squiggly bulbs were the only bulbs on the shelf, people would buy squiggly bulbs. If every car on the dealer's lot got 35 mpg or more, people would buy 35 mph vehicles. If electricity came from a dam or a windmill or a solar farm instead of a coal factory, people would still use it - these things don't affect us, really.

Now if you tell 6.5 billion people, "Okay, from now on, one kid per family!" then well, I would imagine most people would rather kill whoever passes that law than kill their own second child.

Once again borrowing a quote from you, "Get realistic."



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


This thread cannot go on very long without the inevitable happening.

People will try to ask you what people you would 'depopulate' and then claim you are a racist/bigot/sexist/extremist etc.

This is a discussion for behind closed doors, where racism/bigotry/sexism/extremism etc are more acceptable. Not on a message board where racists/bigots/sexists/extremists etc have hate-speech volleyed their way like artillery shells.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


I've always thought ideally it would be. It should be done by a natural disaster, or some other cataclysm. I don't want to leave it to the Illuminati to decide.

We will need major technological innovation to support the levels of population that are projected into the future, otherwise IMO a massive reduction in population is inevitable.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I am sure a natural event will explode on the scene and clear a patch of earth. This could be from a celestial or terrestrial event. The thing to ponder is why some agencies are building underground bunkers. Our government has so many underground facilities one has to wonder whats up. Than we have tom cruise and followers of Mormonism following suit.

I just watched a DVD movie called believers. It was about a group calling themselves the quanta group. They were made up of scientist, mathematicians, doctors and other high level bodies. Seems they found gods message in a math formula reporting the end times. God communicated with numbers and they were going to depart the earth for a new beginning on the other side of the universe.

The formula, as deciphered by the teacher, was a message the end of times were coming by fire raining down on the earth within weeks of there leaving. Of course this was to wipe out all life on earth.

I dunno, I'm not religious but read similar writings in the bible for fire and brimstone raining down as well as floods and famine. Perhaps, as we so often read in science journal reports, the big one is on its way.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 



It's a crapload more realistic


How much exactly is a "crapload," as you say? Is that greater than or equal to "a lot a lot?"


than controlling how many children EVERY PERSON ON EARTH has. 6.5 Billion can be made to use more renewable resources, if governments got on board with it and started making laws to preserve our planet. If squiggly bulbs were the only bulbs on the shelf, people would buy squiggly bulbs. If every car on the dealer's lot got 35 mpg or more, people would buy 35 mph vehicles. If electricity came from a dam or a windmill or a solar farm instead of a coal factory, people would still use it - these things don't affect us, really.


You're not understanding, Matty. If we pursue that route, the population grows exponentially, in turn delaying the inevitable eco-crisis for future generations. Raw materials are raw materials, and our presence on this earth is putting an undeniable strain on this earth eco-friendly lifestyle or not. There is no harm in limiting families to a certain amount of children for the sake of the greater good. As we regulate the amount of births a woman may have, we will simultaneously becoming more and more environmentally aware through forced technologies. The pairing of those two things will make a substantial difference in the world's living conditions without the increase of poverty, starvation, and crime that you see with crowding due to overpopulation. Maybe after we correct our initial mistakes, we can collectively start to procreate again, and it'd be an uneducated or unrealistic to think otherwise.


Now if you tell 6.5 billion people, "Okay, from now on, one kid per family!" then well, I would imagine most people would rather kill whoever passes that law than kill their own second child.


Once again, another irrational approach to a very possible situation. Regulation and moderation isn't a black and white issue. Nobody is going to tell anybody "HEY, this happens now!" Especially concerning birth rights and what have you. In America, there would be strict regulations only after regulation through moderation. That's how laws work. It's ulimately the people's choice, and I don't see this happening very soon in the United States, for that very same kind of blind outrage to a very attainable and beneficial reform.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


OK, that's just a creepy post. Do you really have that little faith in the ability of the human race to continue it's onward and upward march towards lower mortality rates and higher population concurrently? What of the vast resources of space?



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mentalempire
 


Oh, good piont. Tell Captain Kirk to beam us all those raw materials from the galaxy Urinox and we'll be set.

What was I thinking?!



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


Ayup...we'll never achieve the heartstopping pace of thirty miles per hour on those flimsy iron rails!



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Let's not ged delusional, depopulation is possible with out a masacre, there can be laws that would throw people in jail for having more than one child, I say it's better than killing bilions of people, the law would be harsh but in a time where simply there is no alternative I say implement it, and use it by force, better that doing something like a world wide masacre.
Any way the world is not at a critical stage now, there is a balance, but when the time comes and we start feeling a bit crowded and problems start to show in my view I would wellcome such a law.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Why do we have no alternative other than limiting our population? Please explain your response.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Okay smart guy. What do you propose happens to people who decide, to hell with depopulation, I'm having 8 kids and they each get a puppy, three goldfish, and a kitten?



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


If they can support these organisms, nothing. It's the norm in a lot of places, such as Utah.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join