Population Control is Logical and Needed, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 12:53 AM by slackerwire
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 posted on 7-7-2008 @ 12:57 AM by ImaginaryReality1984
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.



reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 01:09 AM by pai mei
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]


reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 03:46 AM by Ryan Lloyd
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.


reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 05:28 AM by dawnstar
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.


reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 05:44 AM by Cythraul
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 posted on 7-7-2008 @ 06:05 AM by Izarith
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.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



Virginia House Bill 1160: Nullify the NDAA
  Posted 14 days ago with 10 member flags
pro Israel or aginst them read this asap!
  Posted 17 days ago with 7 member flags
The Solution
  Posted 2 days ago with 7 member flags
2010 Hate Crime Statistics
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags
Ron Paul\'s fans are building like legos
  Posted 12 days ago with 1 member flags