It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Radical Depopulation Of The Earth - The Solution To Mankind's Problems?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:20 PM
I am amazed by how many people I talk to and how many posts I see on the forums these days that agree with the "need" to reduce the population.

It seems like everyone is going crazy! I see calls for a "one child policy", calls for making large families an "eco-crime" and calls for eliminating 90 percent of the earth's population all over the internet.

It seems as though more and more people are buying into the propaganda of the New World Order. Look at what the following article is saying about this situation:


Radical Depopulation Of The Earth - The Solution To Mankind's Problems?

Today the call for depopulating the earth has grown louder than ever. College professors are given standing ovations by their students when they call for a 90 percent reduction in the human population of the earth. Ted Turner states "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal", and the global elite applaud him. The Georgia Guidestones which call for us to "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature" are quoted more and more with approval by our leaders.

What is this world coming to?

It seems as though for the global elite, every major crisis these days is an opportunity to further one of the key pillars of their agenda:

Less people.

Problem: Gas costs too much and we are faced with "global warming".

Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and we will use less gas and we will produce less "greenhouse gases".

Problem: Medical costs are increasing.

Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and kill off the elderly and we will have fewer medical costs.

Now Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, has the perfect solution for the "food crisis":

Get rid of a whole bunch of people......


Article continued here:

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:39 PM
Well, pure clinicly speaking: Yes it is away to solve a bunch of problems but it's a bit like torching a forest because some trees are in need of trimming. The trees do not need trimming anymore but it is not the most logical solution.

depopulation is a way to end hunger and the energy crisis, sure enough but there are so many more options to choose from but we/they won't. I'm convinced that free energy is possible and has been discovered already. And there are many other possibilities to get more food and energy without depleting the planet.

Depopulation is not a means to an end but it is the end for people that need a docile and controlable population. If we rise up and revolt now anyone that stands against us is finished but with 500 million the chances of a succesfull revolt are greatly reduced.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Harman]

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:57 PM
This has been the plan since time began.
kill the useless eaters and no one is standing in line to be first.
I expect any day - someone will say :SYKE just joking....

Population control would be more effective if you didn't have a Pope demanding people go forth and multiply...
this is part of it - I just cant figure why both sides of who control earth choose different sides of the same coin, sort of to speak.

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 03:02 PM
Scientifically speaking, sure....less people = less problems but, instead of depopulating the earth we should be trying to branch out and start colonizing the rest of our solar system. It would reduce the population still and we could also get resources (metals, gas) without raping our planet.

This is an interesting thread. I just read "Rainbow Six" from Tom Clancy in which this is the scenario the head of this corporation decided to act upon and the Six team had to stop them.....great book btw.

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:07 PM
I think its mostly an asian and african problem.

Depopulating the world through planned or unplanned disasters is not the best answer.

Less drastic but equally efficient in the long run are:
Passing laws to strongly discourage big families.

Educate people about birth control.

Get rid of all those corrupt regimes.

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:24 PM
Listened to the news lately? Seems it is happening.. 60-100K dead in Burma, 10K dead in China...How desensitized we have become when these numbers seem routine daily news.

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:25 PM
Anyone think of a genuine, serious,problem that wouldn't be more readily solved, if not vanish altogether, if we cut the human population by 90%?

Problem is how to do it. Whatever the method, there would be short/medium term problems more serious than any we currently face. But benefits for all in the long run.

Although I fail to see any problem for me personally if we reduced the human population to just me

(meanwhile, human population is rising by around 80,000,000 per year - we need at the very least a Burmese cyclone and chinese earthquake every single day to make any difference at all!!!!!)

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:54 PM
Well we can't keep on going like we have since the industrial revolution indefinitely. Space colonization isn't really an option as I don't see millions of people relocating to other planets within any reasonable timeframe.

The way I see it we have two options: wait and let Planet Earth sort it out (I'm thinking Day After Tomorrow-like scenarios here) or do the horrible deed ourselves and save thousand of species from extinction in the process and leave a proper planet to the survivors. Both will lead to massive depopulation. If anyone knows of a feasible third option I'd love to hear it.

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:56 PM
I quit coming into ATS for awhile because I found myself getting more and more paranoid about the world around me. While in here originally I participated in many conspiracy theories that collectively claimed the following: The "Power's that Be" have been systimaticlly weakening us body, mind, and spirit over many centuries, by poisening our food and water, and through propadanda our minds, and continue to do so with the ultimate purpose of eventually seizing our properties and killing off the masses.

I still can't imagine why they would do this, I get the whole decrease the population and you decrease the stress on natural resources thing, but science has also shown us that when a preditor is removed from an environment the prey overtake it and chaos happens. My point is if they kill off 90% of the population then who builds, makes, and produces the luxuries that the rich and powerful enjoy? And, by that token, who buys the products that the rich and powerful make their money from? If I know this then certainly the ppl in control of the planet know this so I've doubted that their is any credibility to this theory until last night when I heard the following information on the news. (see link below)

All of a sudden I'm seeing this whole theory become a more serious threat. But the question is what to do? I don't have to worry about the government seizing property from me since I have none. lol but if the entire speculation has credibility then in the not too distant future the "Powers that Be" will begin to kill us off. How does one fight this?

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:21 PM
reply to post by Essan

Depopulation (and its moral aspect is very very arguable) is not going to solve anything without a shift in values of our society. Right now 300 million consumers in North America (as all the people in the "first" world) consume much more resources then India's population. So what makes you think that 300 million consumers world wide who have the same values as us now and have much less competition for resources will consume less then our 7 billion? And just look who lead this idea - top 1%.
The problem is not numbers - it is our common appetite. With correct use of resources this planet can sustain our current population and all flora/fauna. At least shores of deserts could be made habitable, sea can be colonized (wisely - not marine lumberjacks). Areas in Canada and Siberia could be populated much more - but everyone must compromise to a certain degree on his level of life. Why change TV every couple of years if it works? Why change car? And so on. Depopulation is just easy way out while keeping elites safe happy and on top, while majority will have to "vanish".
Problem is overconsumption which leads to otherproduction which leads to pollution which leads to poisonous enviroment which leads to "need" to depopulate.

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:29 PM
Haha, what? Just you? wouldn't you want at least a few say 100 women to survive with you Essan?

[edit on 13-5-2008 by QBSneak000]

[edit on 13-5-2008 by QBSneak000]

new topics

top topics


log in