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.
Originally posted by mystiq
If it were truly free-enterprise, we would be buying from each other, with almost non-existant unemployement amongst employables, and have a large tax purse that we would intelligently expect to see boomerang back into our communities to produce civilized and beneficial and advanced win/win solutions, because otherwise someone truly is stealing your money for their own nefarious schemes!
I am suggesting that we go back to morals and ethics in business.
Originally posted by Essan
Heilke: I was being ironic before ........
Nature has been able to control over population for 4,000 million years. Until now. Humans are the first species on the planet which only they themselves can control.
[edit on 4-8-2008 by Essan]
Originally posted by Heike
And call me a radical whatever, but I think a first important step would be to change the "first world" systems of social services to discourage people from having kids they can't support.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Global Warming is the ultimate power control religion. It has several parallels to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
In place of Yahweh, God, or Allah, we have Gaia, the spirit of the earth.
In place of the coming Messiah, Jesus, or Muhammed, we have Al Gore.
In place of Satan, Satan+demons, and the Infidels, we have the Corporations and conservatives.
All must bow to the will of Gaia. This will is only expressed through the prophets (agenda-driven scientists) who alone know the will of Gaia. The lives of all those who choose to inhabit the land of Gaia must be purified (go green) or be sacrificed for the greater good of Gaia.
Those who lead this religion are greedy and will stop at nothing to advance their own wealth and power, all the time declaring how holy (green) they really are. They control the masses in their congregation through intimidation, deceit, and law. Anyone remember the Inquisition?
The big advantage to this particular religion is that nothing is written in old books that cannot be changed. Everything is fluid and can be spun around to fit the needs and desires of those at the top of the religion. Also, since it is by definition world-wide, the potential congregation is the population of the planet, not just of one nation or even a group of nations.
Notice, if you will, how fervently Gaia followers attempt to destroy any vestige of Christianity. Why? Simple. It is a competing religion. I actually see little difference between the most fervent Gaia followers and the radical Islamic terrorists. Both wish to destroy any competing religion.
TheRedneck
You know redneck i gotta tell you that was the most offensive thing ive read. First off you highjack the subject and infuse this type of hatred and misunderstanding.
You started off well with "Global Warming is the ultimate power control" from there is where you lost my respect. The fact that you know little of the religion you try to link with all this hatred. You have the right idea of "Gaia" being the spirit of earth. But Al Gore a prophet I dont even know where you would get a idea like that. Then you say corps and conserves are the devil I belive in capitalism and free market.
Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
Things are not always what they seem and there are a lot of hidden agendas that obfuscated on purpose.
Originally posted by Heike
Perhaps in some respects I am only a product of the propaganda. I keep thinking I've heard somewhere that, if overall human population growth continues at its current rate, we will exceed the Earth's ability to feed us in the fairly near future. O
Whatever the solution may be, if we don't enact it, then the natural course of events will reduce our population anyways, through famine.
Originally posted by Heike
When animals overpopulate an area (which does happen, especially now because humans have eliminated many of the natural predators), the weak starve to death until the population is reduced to what the area can support.
The same will eventually happen to us if the human population continues to increase.
The Earth's resources are finite, and there is only so much land that we can grow crops or raise livestock on.
In fact, people are already starving to death in some countries because they can't raise enough food to support their population.
I'm not in favor of killing people, but to put it bluntly humans need to stop having so many kids.
And I think that that is what many people mean by "population reduction." Not that people who are already alive need to die, but that the rate of population growth (i. e. reproduction) needs to drop to where we are only replacing the people who die, or even a little less than that.
Unless you'd like us to go "soylent" green?
Originally posted by StellarX
Actually if no food can be found anymore all plant eaters starve with the weakest of the largest species dying off first.
If human ingenuity is not fully exploited that may perhaps become a possibility but as things stand the planet could sustain twice or three times as many people. Africa alone could feed additional billions and have sufficient hydro potential to power itself as well as feed a few billion.
Stellar
Originally posted by johnsky
Nobody here has a viable solution to the problem, but the facts are, the earths resources are finite, there is only so much room for crop growth etc.
Originally posted by Heike
Not exactly. When resources become scarce, animals begin to compete for the resources (like food and water). Competition can be violent, even among normally placid species. The weaker animals begin to succumb to injuries, illness, and malnutrition. When a sufficient percentage of the population has died, there is again enough food for the stronger survivors and the population stabilizes at a lower number.
Originally posted by Essan
I know! I've even heard of some people in the USA object top their town's population increasing by 50% due to immigrants from outside the of the USA. How selfish is that?
Surely we should all be sharing what we have, and be happy to have less in order to sustain a greater population?
Originally posted by Essan
Heilke: I was being ironic before - it's those who question the need for population control and/or say there are not too many people, but who also are less than happy to see their own country over-run by immigrants from elsewhere that I was attacking.
I believe there are too many people. There's a quarter of a million more people on the planet today than yesterday.
We have finite resources and, human nature what it is, we will always want more than we actually need,
thus ensuring in the process that the majority have less than they need.
Equal distribution of wealth and resources will only happen when the ant people take over
So what do we do? Do we permit, even encourage, continuing spiralling population growth?
Or do we permit natural forces to control population? In which case, stop sending food aid to those suffering famine
Do we accept that we must all become poorer to sustain such population growth?
Or do those who already have, hold on to it and watch the numbers of poorer people grow and grow and grow?
Nature has been able to control over population for 4,000 million years. Until now. Humans are the first species on the planet which only they themselves can control.
Originally posted by Heike
I am unashamedly a capitalist, not a socialist or communist. This means that I get to keep what I have earned by working for it, and you get to keep what you have worked for.
On a personal level, sure I share eggs and produce from my garden with my neighbors and coworkers. On a larger scale, I don't appreciate 1/4 of my income being taken from me to support people who don't want work to support themselves.
Supposedly I live in a capitalist country, but it looks less and less like one every day through my eyes.
If I work harder than you, or have taken the time to learn more valuable skills, why should you get to have the same lifestyle I do?
Share and share alike works okay in kindergarten, but on a larger scale it's communism. Or at least socialism.
Anyway, give me one good reason why MORE people is a good thing?
It's called empathy and it takes a great deal of propaganda and schooling in general to rob people of it.
Because more people means more brains and unless misdirected more intelligence is always a good thing as it simply enables more productive output
Originally posted by Heike
What intelligence? Where is it? I don't see it. A tiny percentage of the population is responsible for all of the advances of humanity. The rest can barely think their way out of a cardboard box, let alone their reality box. In order for more brains to increase productivity, people have to actually use them. Most people don't.
you should also understand that idealism is by no means resrved for starry eyed, sentimental wussies with their heads in the clouds, the term could very well be used on the Nazi movement for example and chances are that you are more of an idealist then StellarX (board time tends to reduce idealism, but that's just an observation)
Originally posted by Heike
I said "tell me why more people is a good thing"
Stellar said "more people equals more intelligence"
I said "no, I dont think so and here's why"
Originally posted by Heike
I'm not in favor of killing people
Why would 'board time' reduce idealism any more than life experience? I have plenty of the latter and accept reality - and humanity - for what it is, not what I would like it to be.