Population Control is Logical and Needed

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

I believe we do need more people, we need more manpower.

There is always a use for labour, even if it is labouring to create a better tomorrow.

There are plenty of people unemployed right now, we have plenty of man power.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

Then we protect what we do know and protect what we acheive.

If they aren't willing to give us the technology, then we have to make it for ourselves.

Well it seems whenever someone develops something good, organisations like DARPA buy the technology.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
Even a small advancement is better than none, i'm sure you agree.

Yep i agree, however i think if the growth continues as it is we won't have time to develop as you think. We're already doing a lot of damage, certain fish stocks are close to being depleted and many people already starve. Of course if some people didn't eat more than they need and people stopped wasting food then we would have more. However in the end, our population is already approaching that tipping point. I don't think we're there but we're on our way.

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant



It is a problem they caused themselves through unchecked breeding.

It isnt a duty, or a responsibility to aid them in their suicidal mating.

reply to post by slackerwire


I'm afraid that isn't quite true. Many african countries have been ruined by warlords, they don't know how to run a country and let their people starve. Crop growth isn't as good as other countries and many parts are still in a state of war. I have no problem helping in a humanitarian effort and remember, one day you might need food. Its easy to say such things when you have a full stomach.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

I believe we do need more people, we need more manpower.

There is always a use for labour, even if it is labouring to create a better tomorrow.

There are plenty of people unemployed right now, we have plenty of man power.

Then the problem is not over-population, but as what slackerwire said - waste.

Human lives are going to waste.

I don't care if there are riots, famines, wars and ecological disasters. It just isn't right to take away individual liberties. The long term effects of that approach are far worse.

I assume that's what "population control" means. If it just means sex-ed and handing out condoms, I'm all for it.

well look at it this way, we managed to transform dry and arid southern california into a bustling livable place, then why can't we do that to the rest of the country? there's so much open land all over the world, and if we only invested time and money to try and make most of the world suitable for modern human life.
then again, we could convert ourselves into an agrarian society...either would work.

The population boom was caused by the invention of artificial fertilizers. It allowed us to grow a lot of cheap food. You need coal oil and natural gas to make them

Did you know that sailing ships used to go all the way from England to Patagonia to collect bat guano for fertilizer ? That was before artificial fertilizer was invented, shows how important it is.
Now, because oil will run out, food will become more and more expensive, because fertilizers become more expensive, and there will be no need for population control, the population will correct itself

If you don't use fertilizers, the land will eventually become a dessert , look at this description of Greece by Plato :

What now remains of the formerly rich land is like the skeleton of a sick man. . . . Formerly, many of the mountains were arable. The plains that were full of rich soil are now marshes. Hills that were once covered with forests and produced abundant pasture now produce only food for bees. Once the land was enriched by yearly rains, which were not lost, as they are now, by flowing from the bare land into the sea. The soil was deep, it absorbed and kept the water in loamy soil, and the water that soaked into the hills fed springs and running streams everywhere. Now the abandoned shrines at spots where formerly there were springs attest that our description of the land is true

There are other ways to do agriculture, without the need for fossil fuels, insecticides or machinery :
How to grow winter wheat

See this :
The oil we eat

Walk from the prairie to the field, and you probably will step down about six feet, as if the land had been stolen from beneath you. Settlers' accounts of the prairie conquest mention a sound, a series of pops, like pistol shots, the sound of stout grass roots breaking before a moldboard plow. A robbery was in progress.

Today we do the same, only now when the vault is empty we fill it again with new energy in the form of oil-rich fertilizers.

So we should learn how to grow food in a sustainable way and without use of artificial stuff. It can be done, but the production will fall.
And grow everything locally. Anywhere people need to import food - any city for example, that place is not sustainable

Daedalus24, to do what you say you need cheap oil and natural gas. Do you know how much natural gas is used to extract oil from Alberta's tar sands ?
A lot, and here you see that there are better uses for it :
www.petroleumnews.com...

Agrium is closing its nitrogen fertilizer operations on Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula by the end of September due to a shortage of natural gas

[edit on 7-7-2008 by pai mei]

Originally posted by 38181
What is it going to matter to you in 50-100 years when your 6 feet under?

This might have been said in jest, but this is why this planet is in the state it is. The people who are in control, the people who own big businesses and factories which damage the atmosphere and water think that way. They don't care what happens after they die as long as they keep on making their billions.

Originally posted by Lannock
They don't care what happens after they die as long as they keep on making their billions.

Ever wonder why?

It's a terrible thing, to be looked down on by someone who has more money than you...

Let the forces of nature control population.

Mankind performing nature's work in this regard is just excusing the desire to control and murder.


Population controlists haven't seen the wide open spaces of the midwest and canada. This world is still full of miles and miles of nothing but empty miles.


Population control? Gimme a break...


The question isn't "are there too many people" but rather "are those people being responsible with this world?"

Our cleverness can work to use our resources more responsibly. Waste less. Do more with less. Pollute less. When people who call themselves clever design ways to kill people, that's not clever, it's evil.

Rather than blaming the people who need energy (which pollutes) why not put some effort into creating an energy source that's clean?


All the arguments I hear for population control originate from people with a pathological addiction to control and death. They think they're smart because they can find clever ways to package and sell the ideas to the public, when in reality the public that buys these ideas are themselves the targets.

there is already population control in this world its called the united states government by way of straight out war or by undermining governments around the world causing unrest and the deaths of thousands of people

reply to post by Faaipdeoiad


Look what we are doing to this planet, do you realy think its wise to destroy another planet? Personally i think we deserve what we get, people take things into granted on this planet.

I agree that we as human being need to be more mindful when it comes to reproduction. As a whole, the world's infant mortality rate is dropping and people are living longer. What we can't do, however, is select only certain groups of people to practice population control; I can't agree with saying, "Your poor, you shouldn't have kids." Population control needs to be enforced across the board. Preference shouldn't be given to those that can "aford" to raise multiple children because, at least to me, population control is way to conserve resources not merely to ensure children are born into a certain standard of life.

But how do you go about enforcing population control anyway? Forced sterilization after the birth of the first child? What if the child dies before reaching adulthood?

And for those that say that we should just colonize other planets.. Let's take things one step at a time. We haven't we colonized the moon or even landed astronauts on another planet. Perhaps planetary colonization lies in our future but in the interim we need to do something to ensure that the Earth is able to sustain our population.

Hello,

I have to disagree with you. I think that man kind will always feel that over population is a problem.

But this is the main reason we have come this far on this planet.

Over population is inevitable and it will force us to look for new life in new places.

Life would not be cool if they controlled the population.

Selective breading, forced neutering of people who don’t hit the beach mark, The eradication of anyone who brakes the law or has a simple mental illness but the first to go would be people who log into ATS!!

We got a whole universe to fill up and you guys think we can overpopulate? Well that’s as silly as saying Earth is running out of drinkable water. (for the people who don’t get my joke Earth is almost completely covered in distillable water)...........

And if I’m wrong I think Earth itself will scratch the second we start to itch, don’t think we need to help earth in that regard.........

TA!! Izarith

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

Originally posted by Lannock
They don't care what happens after they die as long as they keep on making their billions.

Ever wonder why?

It's a terrible thing, to be looked down on by someone who has more money than you...

Why?

Is it better to be looked down at by someone who has less money than you?

When I get looked down at I only feel terrible if I did something wrong. If I did nothing wrong then I just look up at them and say “Wow your tallllll”.

TA!! Izarith.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Being_From_Earth

 

Maybe i should have mentioned this originally, i am not advocating the killing of anyone, whilst i think we need to control population, i don't think killing anyone is correct to achieve this goal. to promote such a thing would end in another holocaust and that isn't something i could ever agree with.

seems to me, that would more than likely be the end result of the problem weren't addressed. mass shortages, scapegoating, and then the killing off of unwanteds, or hey, maybe we could just blast them off to the imaginary colony on mars....that way, no one would know any different.

I 100% agree with the OP (ironic, considering our recent gentlemanly clash in the "we weren't designed to eat meat" thread ).

"What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship's axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides."
- Pentti Linkola on the issue of over-population

When mankind chooses to breed beyond our means and resources, then we have ceased to be a responsible, logical, pragmatic race, and have become a hedonistic, nihilistic virus - blinded by our anthropocentric hive instinct. I'm not quite sure why so many people whole-heartedly support exponential population growth - their reasoning and justification confuses me, because as far as I can see, controlled population levels will result in the least amount of suffering (for both humans AND wildlife), whereas uncontrolled levels will result in a rude, horrific awakening, and will do nothing to better the human race.

As represented by the Pentti Linkola quote above, it is more humane to come to terms with reality and consciously limit global population numbers, and more cruel to ignore the issue and pretend we can keep growing and growing.

I don't support culling either, for the record. Heavily limited immigration (which would prevent some ethnicities from breeding beyond their borders), better sex education, stricter child benefit controls, and a stern 1 or 2 child policy are probably all that is necessary.


[edit on 7/7/2008 by Cythraul]

reply to post by Cythraul


Hello Cythraul,

I hope I don’t get you confused or anything but let me try to break this to you gently.

They HAVE been controlling the population in the world for some time now!!

Look at Africa, that’s population control is it not?

Look at the fact that the majority of ruling class people in all first world countries have no more than about two kids and will face a very big problem in the coming years due to the elderly out numbering their young.

You want to see suffering? Just wait till they put you down like a dog for not being the one in the raft.

To think that you or me or anyone on this site would be here if people of the past listened to and did what you advocate is delusional.

Stop tying to play god or we will end up like China with no women.

Never fear, World War III will solve the problem.

Originally posted by truthtalker
Never fear, World War III will solve the problem.

Hello Truth,

Ah a world war population control at its best.

I’m telling you guys. They are trying to control the population but they just can’t!!

Life finds a way even if we must aim for the stars savvy?