Is it worth it? A question to ponder...

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Ok, so this post is a bunch of assumptions, so please don't attack that. The point is to find out the opinions of some of the members here on ATS.

So, would it be worth it if there WAS a NWO according to the Georgia Guidestones? And based off of incredibly advanced gov't technology?

ASSUMING that things I've read are true, about an advanced human race, healthier, no suffering from disease/disfigurement, happier, stronger, more civilized, smarter/more knowledgeable, UNITY, faster advancement, a Utopia; would it be worth the obviously drastic change our current world would have to go through and the lives lost (compared to all the future lives)?

BTW, if you're not familiar with the Georgia Guidestones, here is a link:

en.wikipedia.org...

And here is what they say:

Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
Unite humanity with a living new language.
Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
Balance personal rights with social duties.
Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature


So, according to ATS members, would the changes and the lives lost be worth what could be and all the future lives to be had?

Thanks.

[edit on 12/24/2007 by bigbert81]




posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   
probably if you believe in reincarnation, but i dont so future mankind isnt vastly important to me, the world will end for me long before the centuries out maybe if i had kids i'd think differently, truth is no one has the right to decide who lives or dies and being in the majority still doesn't give anyone that right to decide, this utopia could never exist because whats heaven for one person is hell for another, and besides who takes charge of this world change, you could bet it would start with good intentions but still end up corrupt, i think if utopia is ever reached it will be by the very few in power at the cost of everyone else.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Hmmm, good point you bring up about reincarnation. I can definitely see what you mean.

If reincarnation is true, then what a world we'd be waking up to.

On the other hand, it still doesn't really make that much of a difference. Mass population reduction now, for a better brighter future for the entire population...hmmm...

And corruption is terrifying to think about. I guess it comes down to other's true motives, and good people still to come.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 03:22 AM
link   
No, what are the chances I would be one of the 500,000,000? Killing off 6,100,000,000 people to benefit a few doesn't sound worth it to me. Killing off basically 11/12th of the world population is pure evil.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


For starters that'd be a huge increase over the 144000 some religious groups claim as the number of people to be saved...

Limiting the population to some arbitrary number by force wouldn't likely work unless it would be achieved by using WMD who in turn would render much of the earth inhabitable or at least cause major damage to the environment.
I also fail to see how it would be possible to limit the population if the nations would rule internally and only taking external disputes to world court - what else the world court would have to do than resolve issues of population control?
Something on the back of my head is telling me that this kind of reduction in population wouldn't be achieved with arriving to the same ratio of people/nationalites as we have now, if there was (is?) NWO behind it all. A scheme like this wouldn't have much use for the 'unwashed masses', IMO.

I wouldn't volunteer myself or my wife or anyone else to be the first to be killed off to achieve that, but if it really would start to look like it'd happen, I wouldn't mind being one of the 6.1B - the resulting world wouldn't be one I'd like to live in.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Personally, I don't want Earth to change into some place Spock (Star Trek) would feel at home in. We're humans, with a human destiny. And with the basic human instinct, when not suppressed, that all life is valuable.

If 500,000 was a goal, fine. Achieve that by mass exodus into the Solar System and beyond. When you extinguish the majority of your population, you also extinguish the linage for countless variations of geniuses that might do so much for the overall good of our specie. How many parents of people like Mozart, van Gogh, Hawking, Jung, and so many others would this deprive the future of?

I can't see a rational or moral reason to take the easy way out of the population problem.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
True, much would be lost to history. Cultures, art, beliefs, and so much more just gone with only 500,000,000 people around.

To tell the truth, living in that future world would definitely have it's ups and downs. The loss of so much uniqueness, yet the loss of disease and poverty as well. No war no famine no pestilence. The loss of so many lives now, yet the gain of so much in the future. A unity of mankind.

I'm not saying which I think would be better or worse, I'm just laying out on the table what kind of things are going across my mind when I read things about genetic engineering, and an NWO, and gains in technology, and where things seem to be going.

Thanks for the input so far...


[edit on 12/26/2007 by bigbert81]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by R-evolve
 


Since time is merely an illusion, reincarnation should have no bearing on how we "preserve" the earth. It is very likely that we will be reincarnated to vast periods in the history or the future of mankind.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


I agree exactly, the only ethical way to reduce the population, being a so-called advanced civilization with spacefaring capabilitys. We should mass exodus into space.

Now. If the govt hadnt been so greedy and hid this tech In the First Place, we wouldnt be in this mess to begin with. lol

Anyways, if they just release this crap now and get the ball rolling so we can start colonizing the solar system and beyond; forgiveness would be made much easier.

No need to "kill anyone". Lets just expand and explore into the vastness of space.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


The problem is though, that it's probably not profitable enough to do that for these rich SOBs.

How cool would it be though?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   
time is not an illusion, more of concept built around observation firstly we cannot go back into the past that is a fact and we cannot travel into the future all we have is the here and now everything else is based around it for our convenience as for reincarnation im afraid i do not believe it at all no matter which way its painted and promoted



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by R-evolve
time is not an illusion, more of concept built around observation firstly we cannot go back into the past that is a fact and we cannot travel into the future all we have is the here and now everything else is based around it for our convenience as for reincarnation im afraid i do not believe it at all no matter which way its painted and promoted


Where is is proven that we cannot travel in time? I thought it was exactly the opposite? We just don't have the means at present.

When you look at a star, you are looking "back in time". If you could fold space & travel there in an instant then wouldn't you be traveling in time? I thought it was relative to one's point of view?

2PacSade-



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   
to say we can travel in time by folding space is nonsense, we cant travel in time, so to say we can by doing something else we cant do, does not explain a way to do it ( if that makes sense ). if i said i can fly to the moon in one second you would say nonsense if i said ahh but if i fold this hippogryff i can, you should still say nonsense, its no answer just using what at the minute is fiction to explain fiction





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join