It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Population control 'needs debate'

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
We are heading into a scenerio in which there will be less and less arigable land, less water, less liveable land.

So the planet is rapidly going to curb our population growth for us if we do not do something soon. And we sit around in these discussions.

Generally nature takes care of this problem for us. We sometimes think of ourselves as standing outside of nature, observing, but our very minds are a part of this natural system.

Like some other animals, when the population gets too thick to live comfortably, they off each other. We start wars.

If that does not work, too dense populations invite disease. We get things like Hanta and MRSA, etc, to help nature along.

People have criticized the West, but most people would opt for this lifestyle, even now. Do not think, for one moment, if we cut our population down to zero some havenot country would move right in and rev up the motors. Those innocent non-Western countries are doing all that they can to industrialize, are they not?

We have our lifestyle because of industry. Would we elect to go back and weave our own fabrics and sew our clothing by hand and eat pretty much only what we have planted on our grounds? Run around on donkeys? The family cow and chickens for food? Human dung for fertilizer?

Even if that were practical, few would choose it.

The solution MUST be to curb population growth where it IS growing, which might mean rewarding those who only have one child and taking the stipend away when another arrives. I would be willing to be taxed for that. Those remaining must be brought to good health and trained to earn a decent living without the necessity for large families.

Our governments should be investing in more alternate fuel solutions and mandating their use. New homes must have solar panels on the roof. Any remodeling must include this. Industry must use some geothermal or other non-polluting means to power it. Monies must be invested in how to make nuclear waste harmless. Such does not exist now.

Years back birth control was a dirty thought in some circles, just as abortion is to some now. We will end up burying ourselves if we stick to such primitive thinking which originated in regions in which multipicaton was considered the best way for religious and tribal growth.

I have no problem in making a deal to lower our lifestyle so that third world countries can have it better. But their part of the deal should be one child per household. period.

In but one generation, if we have that long, we would see a great improvement, and at least our dwindling resources would be able to sustain our dwindling population. Hopefully, by then, some of that government research money would be paying off and we would have better fuel solutions.

It would not have to be forever, just until technology caught up with the rate of population growth.

I doubt if third world countries would be complaining about us so much if they got paid for only having one kid. We could have an 'adopt-a-third-world-family' charity. Maybe THEY could have lotteries to be the lucky couple who would get adopted. (these were jokes, people) Lotteries certainly work here.

I have heard that the 'Indian miracle', with so many US jobs going over there is only helping the middle class. The money is not filitering down to the poor, so they sometimes do not even help their own people. I guess people all around the world are really equally as selfish as the West, when put to the test.




posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Brilliant post WyrdeOne



Originally posted by WyrdeOne
(Edit: a good example - if food was grown closer to the places where it is consumed, there would be a great deal less pollution, but people would rather have dense cities and wide-open empty farmlands, separated as if to prevent cross-contamination. The smart thing to do, it seems to me, is to grow food where people are eating it, and drastically reduce the monetary and environmental cost of said food.)

We would also rather have food wrapped in several layers of plastic than actually have to wash the dirt off it ourselves. In Brtain we are completely dependent on imported food - not to mention imports of every other form of consumable - we have a population that is completely unsustainable. If our imports were cut we couldn't actually feed the people that live here, home grown produce would only feed about 20% of the population as the situation stands. If that.

We do have the land, but the restrictions on the use of that land are so stringent and the cost of it so prohibitive that those that are still producing are reliant on government and EU subsidies to even eke out a living for themselves. My husband and I have been searching for a piece of land to enable us to enjoy a more self sustainable future for over three years now - planning regulations and developers pushing the land prices up make this entirely prohibitive. If our government actually cared about us and our future they would be encouraging us and offering incentives to those of us who want this lifestyle. They are doing the complete opposite, only the rich can support themselves in this way. Land that could be used to create small holdings is instead sold to the highest bidder for develoment as a housing estate while brownfield sites, lie unused and redundant blighting the urban and rural landscape.


Originally posted by WyrdeOne
So often the proponents of population control simply take that position to advance their various prejudices - the argument goes something like this. "There're too many damn people, so let's kill off all the Africans" or "There're going to be too many damn people, so let's make it so only White, upper-class, Christian Americans can have children."

Precisely, I would be willing to accept legislation that restricted family size as long as it was completely egalitarian - no exceptions. Too many people (or rather a select group with too much power) have a superiority complex and propose that they know best, when clearly all they are interested in is preserving their way of life.

There are far greater problems to be tackled, such as ensurung that those children that are born are looked after, that parents are given the life skills and support required to raise happy, healthy, contributing future members of society.

Population control does nothing to solve the problem it simply puts it off until the next generation or creates a whole new set of problems. China is now facing the problem of having too many men, sure this is due to cultural bias towards males, but even so by restrictive measures they have increased their economic and social problems for the future not lessened them.

Why aren't these people actually addressing the real difficulties that we face instead of looking for quick fixes that penalise the poor and the powerless.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Precisely, I would be willing to accept legislation that restricted family size as long as it was completely egalitarian - no exceptions.

And thus, we have the foundation of fascism - those who would so quickly give up individual liberty for a problem that doesn't include it in the solution.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by goldengrain
If that does not work, too dense populations invite disease. We get things like Hanta and MRSA, etc, to help nature along.

And the population will fall.



Originally posted by goldengrain
The solution MUST be to curb population growth where it IS growing, which might mean rewarding those who only have one child and taking the stipend away when another arrives. I would be willing to be taxed for that. Those remaining must be brought to good health and trained to earn a decent living without the necessity for large families.

And you therefore would give such power to the government. Additionally, you think that everyone should get money from the government by default! Talk about a communistic redistribution of wealth, but this is the government taking your own money and holding it over your head! That's disgusting, I'll have as many damn kids as I want. If I can afford them, then fine. If not, then I'm screwed. But population will take care of itself naturally. Prices will go up gradually and the growth will slow.


Originally posted by goldengrain
Our governments should be investing in more alternate fuel solutions and mandating their use. New homes must have solar panels on the roof. Any remodeling must include this. Industry must use some geothermal or other non-polluting means to power it. Monies must be invested in how to make nuclear waste harmless. Such does not exist now.

Nuclear waste is fine if you dispose of it properly. We have the facilities in the Untied States (Yucca Mountain will be opened relatively soon). We just need to actually set up the nuclear reactors - and we have people protesting against them, forcing us to use fossil fuels.


Originally posted by goldengrain
Years back birth control was a dirty thought in some circles, just as abortion is to some now. We will end up burying ourselves if we stick to such primitive thinking which originated in regions in which multipicaton was considered the best way for religious and tribal growth.

Well abortion is a disgusting thought. Birth control, I don't think so.


Originally posted by goldengrain
I have no problem in making a deal to lower our lifestyle so that third world countries can have it better. But their part of the deal should be one child per household. period.

Yeah, you enforce that. We'll see how it goes.

I wouldn't accept such a totalitarian thing, screw you people.


Originally posted by goldengrain
In but one generation, if we have that long, we would see a great improvement, and at least our dwindling resources would be able to sustain our dwindling population. Hopefully, by then, some of that government research money would be paying off and we would have better fuel solutions.

The private sector researches alright on its own, so the thing isn't just throwing money at it. It's actual scientific advancement - we're getting there, it's just not easy. Fusion is hard, fission works but idiotic hippies prevent us from setting it up. It's not practical on a small scale, either.


Originally posted by goldengrain
It would not have to be forever, just until technology caught up with the rate of population growth.

It already did, and population growth is actually trying to catch up now. Population can't grow past a point of sustainability or it will die, and this will happen on its own. If technology advances more, population will grow even more. It's that simple.


Originally posted by goldengrain
I doubt if third world countries would be complaining about us so much if they got paid for only having one kid. We could have an 'adopt-a-third-world-family' charity. Maybe THEY could have lotteries to be the lucky couple who would get adopted. (these were jokes, people) Lotteries certainly work here.

Sorry, I don't want my money going to a third world country that can't run its government properly and tries to do stupid economic things like socializing industries.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Fair point.

I concede the point and withdraw the remark.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I wasn't necessarily referring to the poor people outside of the U.S., because there are a lot of people here in the U.S., despite all those numerous opportunities out there for a career and financial stability REFUSE to find a job, REFUSE to get educated and decide to make a living by making babies and living off the government. Those types of people should be EXPORTED out of this country.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I oscillate between feeling totally discouraged for the future of humanity due to it's inability to think as a whole and do what is best for the "herd" vs. hoping that somehow we will continue to scratch out a survival despite the odds against us. In the past, disease, malnutrition, wars, violence were the scourges that kept the population down. Then we discovered how to convert petroleum into food and we have grown to take advantage of this new food source. Now, that food source is running out; peak oil was reached in 2006: 76,000,000 barrels were pumped in 1 month; it has been falling since then despite a rise in the price which should have triggered a higher rate of production. We may see temporary rises in production, but the trend is downward. So, as someone mentioned above, we are part of nature and not outside of it; even though most of us are a few steps removed from growing plants and killing animals, the increases in food prices resulting from the rise in oil costs will rapidly trickle up to all of us. We now spend less per capita on food in the US than people did in the 1800s; the difference is now spent on "entertainment" and wasteful consumption(houses, vehicles, stuff we don't need). As oil rises in price many things will have to change; driving will become so expensive that people will abandon the wasteful suburbs and move back to the cities where they can walk to work. I imagine farming will become local again as it becomes too expensive to fly vegetables from foreign countries. The big box stores will likely disappear as they can't get cheap stuff made in China anymore when fuel costs to transport it become prohibitive. Domestic US manufacturing will revive. If necessary, houses in the suburbs will be dismantled and the ground used for farms. People will eventually become so strapped, they will demand government help(like in the Great Depression) for heat, food, etc. This will naturally lead to a tyrannical dictatorship as it did in many European nations; people will happily give up their rights to reproduce, vote, etc in order to get food and heat when it comes to that. Of course, that is when the government will say, get sterilized in order to get benefits and people will do it. I highly doubt that the people in charge will tolerate wholesale destruction of the earth in the name of hungry hoards eating everything in sight. A disease will be released, wars will be started, the population will drop. To see what the outcome might look like, just look at Hong Kong or Tokyo or Mexico City or San Paulo. People are willing to live right on top of each other for a marginally better life. The majority of people in the west have been living an artificially wasteful life due to cheap oil. As that changes, the US will resemble the rest of the Earth more: dictatorships(Bush is only the beginning), megacities, pollution. But theses third world nations don't use their farmland for suburbs...they grow food on it. At the end of the day, say in 100 years or so, hopefully humanity will somehow have weathered this crisis. Hopefully we will then have better social constructs in place so that we all act in a way that is best for the whole rather than just acting for ourselves even if that is by government edict at the barrel of a gun. That is certainly preferable to squalor and disease.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by laiguana
 


This is perhaps the most amazing in a series of incredible posts in this thread. So in your mind the solution to welfare babies is not changing the gov policies that make such a lifestyle possible, but deporting anyone who would take advantage of such a policy? Is there no room in your world view for individual freedom? Is the gov always right?

I think you’ll find that wherever the people have been left to their own means that food has been plentiful, the population has matched the productivity of the land, and that there has been no reason to inflict control of birthrates upon the people.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I really hate the scare tatics about population control. We have 71% of ocean out there that has yet been discovered. We can build underwater habitats and communities in this huge area. Let's dream big and build big.
Dubai is building Hydropolis right now and will soon be complete. If this project works then I bet alot more investment will go towards populating the oceans.
Hydropolis




posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Sorry, but the Population Explosion is dead.

It was alive and well in the 1970s along with oil-depletion paranoia and ecological doomsaying. But compare population growth rates now and then. The industrialized world is facing a population implosion, and even formerly fecund China, India, Mexico, Turkey, Iran, etc. are drastically slowing their breedings. The only places where birth rates still increase is in Africa and some Islamic countries, and even there they can't keep going up forever.

It's all a matter of sacrifice. There are certain groups who want people, especially those in comfortable environs, to martyr themselves for the less fortunate, whether it is poor people, animals, plants, or "the Earth."
Go find some other sacrificial lambs!



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:10 AM
link   
in australia it is very differant we have a population of 20 million and the goverment are giving 4000 to 10000 dallars to have children because they fear that in years to come there will be not enuff people to look after the elderly in the 70s everyone chose to have a carrer and cars and houses and set up there retirerment but they could not do this and have a family because it take so much money to raise them now australia has big problems our inflation is rising partly because theres not enough people to fill vacant jobs in 20 years i have not seen unemployment so low we may have to open the flood gates to immagrents but with the war on terror who do you trust if you have one child mankind goes backwards two and you replace your partner and yourself any more and you are populating the earth this populatoin control will happen in the form of a licence a marrage licence which the west will adopt i opose this as im cathlic as for global warming it is not man who is totally at falt the planets in our solar system controls our weather just like the moon controls our oceans its like a big clock and theres nothing we can do to stop it but let it run its corse10000 years hase passed time for another iceage tic tock tic tock
imagen all the ice melting at earth polar caps and the earth toppling of its axis spinning out of control until forming a new poler axis wooooow!!!!!!



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I AM SICK OF FEARING FOR OUR SPECIES, under the tyrant hands of the Draco Reptilians... - If there were no space weapons, we would've been helped by now, for they are just TOO 'good' at manipulation, & it's been too many years since the disclosure project's efforts to get us to know about clean technology that would elliminate 80% of poverty when we don't have to pay for oil & coal for electricity & transportation, & thanks to media creating the norm that UFOs should be laughed at, while NEVER airing Disclosureproject on the mainstream media, & all the people who never checked it out, we not only will continue being slaves to the oil industries, but we very possibly will be the slaves of the Dracos, according to their plan, & it will only be them laughing.

- POPULATION IS NOT THE PROBLEM; IT IS THE DESTRUCTIVE, DIRTY 'TECHNOLOGY' THAT IS SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!! - I know that the Reptilians who have created the government are the REAL threat, & are literally a DISEASE on this planet, threatening the well-being & freedom of EVERYONE!
- If I could, I would have them all tortured, & sent to the heart of the sun. - I AM SICK OF THEIR BLATENT EVIL.

criticalunity.org... (looks like crap in IE at the moment, use Firefox)



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo
Sorry, but the Population Explosion is dead.

It was alive and well in the 1970s along with oil-depletion paranoia and ecological doomsaying. But compare population growth rates now and then. The industrialized world is facing a population implosion, and even formerly fecund China, India, Mexico, Turkey, Iran, etc. are drastically slowing their breedings. The only places where birth rates still increase is in Africa and some Islamic countries, and even there they can't keep going up forever.

It's all a matter of sacrifice. There are certain groups who want people, especially those in comfortable environs, to martyr themselves for the less fortunate, whether it is poor people, animals, plants, or "the Earth."
Go find some other sacrificial lambs!

Great post. Curious though, where are these statistics? I haven't personally done any research on it, really.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
This idea is part of the "conspiracy" web of lies!


If the Human race(of Earth) was allowed to have robust space program then the British gov would not be having that debate!

Overcrowding Earth would be solved through allowing space exploration and colonization.

OFCOURSE, the reptilian/draco syndicate would not allow such a thing. This is one of the many reasons the Pleiadians are 'punking' them for their pudding ( future confrontation ).

This is why the U.S. space program and NASA is a fake endeavor since the late 60's. NASA and others are under the control of the Illumanati/secret gov./reptilian/Draco B.S.!!!

Yeah, population control to change and monitor the human beings of Earth!!!



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Quoted material cut for brevity!

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo
The industrialized world is facing a population implosion, and even formerly fecund China, India, Mexico, Turkey, Iran, etc. are drastically slowing their breedings. The only places where birth rates still increase is in Africa and some Islamic countries, and even there they can't keep going up forever.

Great post. Curious though, where are these statistics? I haven't personally done any research on it, really.


You could try a casual search of the web for statistics and extrapolations. Even most of the doomsaying websites admit that birth rates are starting to decrease, and will decrease even further, in most of the Third World. It will take a few decades for actual populations to stabilize, though.

Something else to notice is that the population and quality-of-life forecasts for most regions get better each decade. In the 1970s, Ehrlich predicted mass world-wide starvation around 1980! He sure had to eat his words. Of course, there are and will be problems with population growth, and resource management, and all that, but minor ones that can be solved.

From the Wikipedia article on Overpopulation:


For the world as a whole, the number of children born per woman decreased from 5.02 to 2.65 between 1950 and 2005. Europe 2.66 to 1.41. North America 3.47 to 1.99. Oceania 3.87 to 2.30. Central America 6.38 to 2.66. South America 5.75 to 2.51. Asia (excluding Middle East) 5.85 to 2.43. Middle East & North Africa 6.99 to 3.37. Sub-Saharan Africa 6.7 to 5.53. In 2050, the projected number of children born per woman is 2.05. Only the Middle East & North Africa (2.09) and Sub-Saharan Africa (2.61) will then have numbers greater than 2.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cris7500
Overcrowding Earth would be solved through allowing space exploration and colonization.


That won't work.

Even a someone like myself who loves space, and wants to see space exploration and fusion-powered metropoles on the Moon and Mars, has to admit that moving people into space cannot solve overpopulation. People breed faster than they can be moved off earth given any realistic technology. And who will pay the bill, especially for mass deportations of starving peasants? Sending up rockets is expensive as all hell.

Even sending masses of people from Europe to the Americas on 18th century sailing ships was difficult and expensive, and did little to uncrowd the slums of London.

The only technologies that could possibly allow cheap transfer of thousands of people and their tons of living materials (food, water, air, shelters, fuel, machines, vehicles) into space are miraculous ones such as teleportation or wormholes.

Deal with the problems on Earth first. As for overpopulation, there is every indication that this problem is slowly solving itself, as I mentioned in another message.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   
For the definitive documentary on the New World Order's plans for population control see Alex Jones' ENDGAME. www.infowars.com...

If all humanity lived in accordance with natural law, over-population would never be a problem.

Each family unit should live on their own parcel of land from which they could independently sustain themselves.

Concentrated populations as exist in cities that are dependent upon others for their sustenance are an abomination and will readily submit to anyone who gains control over their food source. If you live by the big box, you will die by the big box.

The majority of the world's population has been suckered into a corner. If you are not self-sustaining and self-reliant, you will have to knuckle under to the NWO or die!!



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo

Originally posted by Cris7500
Overcrowding Earth would be solved through allowing space exploration and colonization.


That won't work.

The only technologies that could possibly allow cheap transfer of thousands of people and their tons of living materials (food, water, air, shelters, fuel, machines, vehicles) into space are miraculous ones such as teleportation or wormholes.

Deal with the problems on Earth first.



Okay, first of all you are correct, except who says our living materials include cumbustion engines????? Let me make this clear, because their main reason they want to exterminate us is so the people of the world will be eisily controllable, & their main excuse is because of pollution from industry, when THEY ARE KEEPING CLEAN TECHNOLOGY from us! - There not only exists FUNCTIONAL devices to solve our energy problems IN A DAY, but if we did need to go into space, first of all, I don't think the ridiculous act of burning ANYTHING for energy would be welcomed to any extent ANYWHERE else in the universe, when everyone is accessing the energy in space itself; free energy, and if we did need to go into space, we would certainly need to use the PROPOR technology; The reverse-engineered alien craft, AKA, UFOs. And there is GREAT, legitamite concern
for what is not only happening to our planet from this CONSTANT pollution (just had to close my window, for some idling dieseler just HAD to be in front of my lair)... - And it is not only caused by the sun. - The plant's don't breath Carbon MONOXIDE, & pollution is actually doing a bit of population control itself, by killing millions of people every year. - There is so much great info, but unfortunately it is ridden with DISINFO, (eg. Endgame, with Alex's OPINION precariously thrown in there, regarding Global Warming).
Sorry to throw so many subjects together, but it all DOES tie together, like we all tie together.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Kill 'em all, drop the nukes! scorch 5 billion all at once. Then the rest will die slowly of radiation poisoning or be sterile. Then we can all come back in a few hundred thousand years as an ameba and start all over again.

Naaaa... God said go forth and multiply so don't let the idiots who with a pen tell you what to do, listen to God and pop 'em out like rabbits. It's more fun and more enjoyable (unless your a retard that can't raise a kid) and none of us are getting out of this alive anyway.




posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
THere are some people who are confused about nuclear power. There is currently no safe way to dispose of the waste.

The Yucca Mountain thing is dead, after all the fighting, because

this land that the government was telling us was an ideal burial place for nuclear waste is actually RIGHT ON TOP OF A FAULT!!!

Europe is aware of this huge problem and is dedicating much money to research how to make the waste inactive and harmless.

I was thinking about this issue.
If we DID find an acceptable alternate fuel source and did not require oil, it would plunge many countries in the mid-East into poverty, no? If that happened they might not be any threat to us any longer, and we might pull our troops out of the area, thinking it would be a waste of money.

If we pulled our troops out, how would that affect Israel?




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join