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.

 

Going "Green" = People Must Die! Why?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   

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!


It seems to me like those who are forwarding the green = people must die agenda are criminals plain and simple. Transferring wealth through fraud and muscle.

I'm sure the powers that be are reluctant to change because their model of fraud and intimidation works and works well.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by xman_in_blackx
 





I am suggesting that we go back to morals and ethics in business.


Well, I can certainly agree with that. After bad experiences trying to work for big and small businesses, I got so disgusted that I now choose to work for a nonprofit. It puts me in a very low income bracket, but at least I can feel good about my job because we actually help people.

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. Or, perhaps, it is only that our cities and towns and farms will overrun all arable or livable land and there will be no forests, rainforests, jungles, or wildlife left. I understand that humans are supposed to be more important than plants and animals, but I personally would still see that as a tragedy.

I agree with you about societal trends too, especially in the USA. I've escaped to the boonies and have my ten acres and intend to work on becoming self-sufficient. I'm tired; I've given up on fighting to change the world and I'm just trying to survive in it now.

I think the Native Americans had the right idea; live with nature and be part of it, and naturally limit your population to what the land can sustain. But it's too late for most of us to go back to that now.

PS I, too, enjoy civilized discussion and debate. I get annoyed now and then, but seldom get angry and even then I try to remain courteous and polite. The worst I usually do is a bit of sarcasm, but most adults can take that - and respond in kind.

Edit to add PS


[edit on 3-8-2008 by Heike]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   
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.

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Essan]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

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]


Sorry, Andy, I totally missed it. NOW I understand where you're coming from.

I don't think it's quite true that Nature can't control human population. It just hasn't gotten really serious about it yet. Supervolcano, really big earthquake and massive tsunamis, asteroid strike ... The scientists keep telling us it's not a question of if, it's a question of when. Maybe that's what 2012 is really all about .. just a thought.

Anyway, I really do think that part of the solution would be to start changing public perception of having several kids. Being an only child has its advantages.


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. Women on public assistance (welfare etc.) should be required to accept birth control (shots, IUD, etc.) in order to get their checks. Reproduction is not an inalienable right if other people have to pay for your children.

This could be extrapolated to famine-stricken countries, too. I don't want to be party to children starving to death, but maybe passing out birth control along with the food would help over time.

/me hits the [post reply] button and starts looking for her flame-retardant suit.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

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.


I'd call that common sense!

Trouble is, as soon as you start suggesting those on welfare/social security shouldn't be able to have a dozen children - all paid for out of our taxes - you start getting called a nazi or some such.

Personally I believe bearing children should be a privilege not a right - a privilege anyone can readily earn should they wish.

The fact I have no paternal instincts whatsover may however make me a little biased on this subject!



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 03:15 AM
link   

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.
Gaia is some how controlled by scientist intent on using us for there control. If you knew anything of Wicca you would know that the religion is almost impossible to control. With no leadership roles of the church "No Pope, Cardinals, Bishops". It is the person themselves who is in control of there belief system. There is no one who rules our thoughts but ourselves.
We have a Golden Rule. The SAME golden rule that every other has. Do onto others as you would want done to you. In this is where our greatest emphasis of our daily lives and how we treat each other. Peace & Understanding is what we strive for and are actually encouraged to study other religions. Keep in mind my mother was raised catholic, but in our time we have studied many religions. I personally have been baptised and have studied many religions including Buddhism, Christianity and Mormonism.
Now i do belive that those in power do have there hands all in our problems. You where right when you said the wealth and power but wrong people. Where better off looking at the BANKERS!!! For they are the power brokers who have the money and power to move governments.
Why go "green" because its profitable and its in its infancy. Sure it has the environmental side which i look to as a plus for my childrens future's. But grabbing a piece of that fast growing sector with increasing profit margins is just simple economics. Its a high paying sector with increasing demand. Requires a high skilled workforce which means better pay. The industry isnt going any where it just got here. The fact of the matter is some of the highest profits ive made trading stocks is in the venture capitol. As for food for our rising pop two words "Highrise Farms"



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Drakos

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.

Really? Offended? Wow, I don't know what to say... maybe get over it? As a Christian, I assure you I live with much more offense than you do.

Hijacking? By pointing out that the very purpose of the green movement is to provide a false religious fervor that is used as a control mechanism? By pointing out that there are definite parallels between the green movement and the major religions for this purpose? Gee, you either have some serious blinders on there, or you just simply missed my point.


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.

I was not referencing Wicca; I was referencing the green movement. I know a couple of Wiccans and they definitely do not feel as I mentioned in my post.

If the reference to Gaia was what bothered you, I suggest you aim your ire towards those who are 'kidnapping' her for their own personal religion. I am not doing so, nor do I have any problem with you worshiping whoever/whatever/whenever you wish, just so long as you do not force me to do so or try to tax my breathing for it. You're absolutely right that I know nothing of Wicca, but wrong if you think Wicca was the religion I was referring to.

Al Gore as a prophet? Yeah, that is laughable. But take a few ganders through some of the posts that have been made on this subject at ATS. The man is literally worshiped by so many it is sickening.

Capitalists and corporations as the evil one... sounds reasonable to me. Look at how the oil companies are being vilified for their 'unconscionable' 'windfall' profits of 8%. Look at how anyone who identifies themselves as a capitalist is immediately branded a 'hate-monger', accused of denying 'basic human rights' to others in need.

If you are making some cash in this fiasco, then good show. There's nothing wrong with profit. I do urge you to watch the political scene closely and be ready to grab your money and run, because I think this whole house of cards will buckle soon.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

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.


totally true, imho, i've recently told an AGWer in quite certain terms what i think of his agenda:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

it's instructive to note that every single thing the climate change preachers use to bolster their clout and to place demands on the public is in fact merely a tool to them. if you follow the link i gave you will find that Greenpeace is actually against CO2 sequestration because that would allow us to use more fossil fuels without exceeding our air tax credits!

so, the CO2 scare is just a trojan horse, and in all likelyhood, completely baseless. i think it's time to understand that a few set goals were dreamt up way before the 'solution' of cheaply tricking people into submission ie. global warming was even formulated. disproving AGW, like i've tried before is only going to have limited effect, because all it would take to undermine the entire effort is to invent another scare, like ocean acidity, aerosols from combustion or what have you. can't destroy a moving, regenerating target, can you?!


whether depopulation is just another scare tool or a real objective, i don't know, all i know is the AGW agenda has to be exposed and therefore stopped, because hostile and uncompromising people are riding in its wake. identifying their true goals could still be helpful to an extent, because they'd have to postpone or amend, because a revealed agenda is a weak one.

=========


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


i would advise a more differentiated view of matters.

there are societies which are living by a strength-in.numbers-mentality, which account for a lot of immigration into western countries, btw.

take a look at the birthrate in western societies, we're well on the way of decline, but other countries are bursting at the seams and they will not be bothered by any amount of talk or even a phoney incentive system.

what these societies all do have in common is a disregard for women, period. if you keep immigration up, assimilation of immigrants and birthrates low, you'll see a radicalisation of society as a whole along the lines of the immigrants' cultures and a massive loss of women's rights, which should concern you a bit i think.

look at France, look at Australia's rape gangs and apologetic muslim clerics. the proof is in the pudding and the writing on the wall and if you're unwilling to see it then you deserve the headscarf.

conversely if i'm unable to get across, i'll 'deserve' being displaced or killed in fighting. there's no justice and no magic to save us from ourselves, just hard causality patiently waiting to drop on our heads


the ideal of 'strong', populous nation states was most likely born out of war implementing general draft - a western 'invention', so to speak and it worked well for the winners, didn't it? so it'll take more than just words to convince them of the opposite!

ever wondered what role 'developing aid' plays in this context? Kyoto air tax included.

[edit on 2008.8.7 by Long Lance]



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
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.

Whatever the solution may be, if we don't enact it, then the natural course of events will reduce our population anyways, through famine.

That's of course assuming we don't kill most of ourselves off fighting over those resources.

Eventually we will hit a population level that we simply cannot support.
Whether our numbers come down voluntarily, or through famine and war, is the question.

There has to be a viable voluntary solution to this, because losing a huge chunk (if not the majority) of our population through famine and war isn't exactly desirable.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by johnsky]



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by johnsky

Whatever the solution may be, if we don't enact it, then the natural course of events will reduce our population anyways, through famine.


Ummm...

That sounds like the old joke. "Don't just stand there do something, even if it's wrong". How exactly do you enact a solution without knowing what it is? Why exactly would anyone try?



TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   

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.


Actually if no food can be found anymore all plant eaters starve with the weakest of the largest species dying off first. Predators are only a serious problem when they are fenced in with their prey as under other circumstances they will naturally spread from a central location to 'colonize' under exploited environments.


The same will eventually happen to us if the human population continues to increase.


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.


The Earth's resources are finite, and there is only so much land that we can grow crops or raise livestock on.


And we have not used much of that land or used what we do very effectively to date.


In fact, people are already starving to death in some countries because they can't raise enough food to support their population.


Well people are starving to death because they have no land to cultivate due to wars, dictatorial land grabs and similar political fallout. We have enough land under irrigation today to feed everyone currently around plus a few billion more and that's just if we got rid of a few types of cash crops or give land back to a few hundred million peasant farmers all over the world. This wont hurt anyone but a few capitalist types so i think we should all vote if such a referendum ever came up.



I'm not in favor of killing people, but to put it bluntly humans need to stop having so many kids.


Actually more human beings are better as basically intelligence is produced which can then ( in a few years time) be applied to further order the environment to produce food and other resources or aid in the discovery of better methods of employing this planet.


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?


Then easiest way to slow down population growth is to make people wealthier and give women more independence which is very likely going to result in them not wanting to overindulge in the 'hassle' that raising a child ( to say nothing of having one) really is. When women are allowed to make these choices without outside pressure i can guarantee that we world population will stabilize very soon indeed. Since medical technology is probably going to keep people alive longer and longer i'm not sure we are going to see the world population declining any time soon but as i said more brains will never be a bad thing if employed to solve the problems we have and will have in the future.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   

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.


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.



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


Hmm.. where are you getting your figures from? I'm finding a lot of information that says just the opposite.

Human Overpopulation

Human Population Crisis

That's just a couple. There are dozens more if you want them ....

Besides, if our population continues to increase at the current exponential rate, we will have 2 to 3 times as many people in the not very distant future.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   

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.




these issues are well known, there is a viable, if inhumane strategy which can and eventually will bring a permanent solution. starvation is a local issue, unless you start trading like mad and give away food to overpopulated areas, thereby creating dependency. note that the term 'overpopulated' should be used in its relative sense, ie. anytime when available resources needed to sustain a population are inadequate the area is overpopulated, no matter if it's one person per sq. mile or 100.000.

sooner or later, nations with extreme reproduction rates will be left to fend for themselves, which will get real ugly. food price hikes are already part of this development and it should be understood that it was a concerted effort.

Secret report: Biofuels caused food crisis

...which indicates that the food market left to itself would have sustained the development for some time to come.



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.



that might be true as long as division of labor isn't present. when animal populations are decimated, a new generation can instantly take advantage of increased resources (food, water in this case) per head, human societies cannot, however.

if a civilisation is nudged past the point of collapse, it does not recover, humans have to go feral and it took hundreds of years to start over after the Roman Empire'S collapse and approximately a millenium to reach a similar level of sophistication. none of this was a given, though, many cultures never recovered at all.

what i do not understand is why overpopulation practiced in certain parts of the world should lead to our demise, when western reproductive rates are already very low. cause and effect should pertain to those who are responsible, first and foremost.

again, how does 'developing aid' factor into the equation?



[edit on 2008.8.8 by Long Lance]



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   

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?


Not the worse attempt at sarcasm i have seen but certainly not your best effort either. While people may not mind sharing in a small town type of situation this is hardly the case when people from other countries move in illegally to use services and infrastructure they did not contribute towards. If these 'new' citizens were at least legally there the situation would be better but being caught between cheap labor and a government that doesn't seem willing to do anything about the inflow of illegal immigrants i can easily understand how hostility can exist.


Surely we should all be sharing what we have, and be happy to have less in order to sustain a greater population?


No one would have to do with less to sustain world populations of at least twice as much as currently. There is ample space, clean water and farming land and it really is just a question of organization and allowing the people of the world to control the flow of the resources in their countries.


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 don't see the connection? Why should one ideally have to put up with the refugees of political crises elsewhere? What does that have to do with knowing that the world could sustain more people?


I believe there are too many people. There's a quarter of a million more people on the planet today than yesterday.


You would, yes. That's 250 000 more people that can change their surroundings in very progressive ways if they are allowed a measure of education and prosperity.


We have finite resources and, human nature what it is, we will always want more than we actually need,


That is not human nature; please do not confuse capitalism/greed with human nature.


thus ensuring in the process that the majority have less than they need.


Capitalism, not human nature.


Equal distribution of wealth and resources will only happen when the ant people take over


Or when the people of the world finally gain control over the world resulting a implementation of the policies they keep voting for. Why blame the people of the world for the problems when they are not in control?


So what do we do? Do we permit, even encourage, continuing spiralling population growth?


Well if capitalism is the aim then yes, that's what you do. If you want to do as most people would want, and vote to, people grow wealthier, populations stabilize in a few decades time and new sustainable energy generation technologies are introduced.


Or do we permit natural forces to control population? In which case, stop sending food aid to those suffering famine


Like much food is being sent today? If it were not for international aid agencies and their privately given funds things would be quite a bit worse than they are today as the UN seems to get just enough funds to pay it's staff and hold endless meetings that results in developed countries sometimes promising much but mostly giving very little.


Do we accept that we must all become poorer to sustain such population growth?


No we don't because it's obvious and typically bad propaganda from those who don't have much sympathy with humanity in general.


Or do those who already have, hold on to it and watch the numbers of poorer people grow and grow and grow?


It's like technology does not exist and imperialism did not wreck dozens of countries resulting in GDP's declining by half or more. The numbers of poor people will only keep growing if capitalist insist on cornering the market on everything and using it to drive large segments of humanity into artificially induced poverty.


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.


So why all the nonsense earlier? Shouldn't we focus on why so much intelligence is applied towards the end of keeping the poor poor ( or poorer) while making the rich richer still? What kind of insanely logic is that and when did we, humanity, get to vote on that?

Stellar

[edit on 8-8-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   

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.


But this is true for peasant labourers all over the world which are not surviving day to day. To suggest that private ownership alone is sufficient reason to believe a capitalist is in my opinion mostly missing out the fact that most capitalist ( the majority of the world) very poor and largely staying that way.


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.


Why do you presume that that 1/4 is going towards social spending and not towards building roads, power stations and the like? Would you not rather pay a small percentage of your tax towards a national health care system as well as the security ( police/army) that would best allow you to protect what is your from those who are less fortunate and desperate enough? Doesn't it just make most sense to share wealth in common interest in anticipation of the possibility that things might not always go in your favor?


Supposedly I live in a capitalist country, but it looks less and less like one every day through my eyes.


Very few people do not live in capitalist countries today ( i can't even think of any atm) and that then hardly serves as much of a definition considering the variety of practices that exists under that title. I can assure you that the most wealthiest are not about to do away with capitalism ( private ownership of property/ resources and sometimes means of production) so when you do see changes form the top down they will mostly reflect the will of those in control and thus largely have to do with gaining access to the taxes citizens generate.


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?


Because work should be about satisfaction and not about making a living? Learning should happen in the interest of better understanding the world according to your own interest and not in the hopes of gaining a larger salary? Why should a opulent lifestyle be the aim for learning or harder work? Aren't you just explaining what's wrong with the system and how hundreds of millions of lives are destroyed in the vain pursuit of 'better' lifestyles in the few hours they are not dedicated to doing work they dislike or learning things they don't care for?


Share and share alike works okay in kindergarten, but on a larger scale it's communism. Or at least socialism.


It's called empathy and it takes a great deal of propaganda and schooling in general to rob people of it. We might not have chosen to become nation states but now that we are here we might very well enjoy some of the benefits associated with sharing in the risks of others as well as in their success. That is what socialism is largely about and that's why socialism moderated by private ownership enacted trough democratic processes has made Europeans wealthy while Americans work ever harder to achieve something approaching Europeans standards of living.


Anyway, give me one good reason why MORE people is a good thing?


Because more people means more brains and unless misdirected more intelligence is always a good thing as it simply enables more productive output. In the same way that access to energy can in large part be associated with independence of action one can associate more intelligence with more organizational ability.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Your logic and your point of view are good, except for one thing. Your entire position is based on the fallacy that human beings are as you think they should be. Your view of humanity is unrealistic and idealistic, in my opinion. Someday your rose-colored glasses may break, and if I am there when they do I will not even say "I told you so." That is more compassion and empathy than you will get from most people.

Most of the people I know, and have known, would not work if they didn't have to. If a society or a community allows all members to share equally in the resources of the entire community, most of the work will be done by a few people and the rest will do the absolute minimum to get by.

I have worked all my life to get a home of my own and a small piece of land. If I couldn't do that, if I couldn't acquire the comfort, privacy and amenities that I want by working for them, what would be the point? For the "greater good"? Yeah, right. When other people start caring about the greater good I'll start thinking about it. As long as most of the people around me continue to be selfish and greedy, I must have a similar outlook in order to survive.



It's called empathy and it takes a great deal of propaganda and schooling in general to rob people of it.


Quite the opposite. Young children have no empathy at all. You have to teach them to share, teach them that it is wrong to hurt others, teach them to accept not getting everything they want immediately when they want it. As much as you may not like it, selfishness and greed ARE human nature. Humans were selfish and greedy back when they lived in caves and whacked each other with clubs over hunting territories and women, and they are still greedy and selfish today, capitalists or not.



Because more people means more brains and unless misdirected more intelligence is always a good thing as it simply enables more productive output


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.

In a perfect world populated with Mother Teresas, you'd be right. But it's not a perfect world, and Mother Teresa was an exception, not the rule.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

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.



the catch is that you can't seperate the the geniuses from the rest, last time i've checked*. i also wonder what kind of role you envision for yourself, considering the very low chances that you've done something that you would consider 'advancing humanity'. tbh, it's none of your business anyway, as long as these people don't bother you and are fending for themselves.

you are apparently placing demands on the entire world, which can be summarized as 'conform to my ideal - or die'. viewing people as revenue generators may currently be fashionable but trends don't last very long very often, do they?

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), but your ideal isn't funny. it ain't popular either (gee, who would have thought) and i'd wager it's nothing new and in fact quite old.

improving humanity.

that's how i take it, correct me if you consider me wrong, but rest assured that this particular type of ill(de-?)lusion is by now known to promise heaven and deliver hell on a regular, repeatable basis.


*whatever a person does, its consequences cannot be estimated over time, so killing the majority of mankind, aside from inducing a consciousness altering shock that would last forever would only reduce the number of possible interactions. i don't see how that's supposed to be a good thing. if people who 'advance humanity' could be bred like rabbits, rest assured, it would be happening already.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Have you actually been reading the thread? If not, please do. If you have, may I suggest some courses in reading comprehension?

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"

So where do you get all that stuff about me placing demands on the world or trying to improve humanity? All I'm saying is that more people doesn't necessarily equal more intelligence, especially not since it seems like we have to breed a few thousand people to get one that actually has the intelligence and USES it for something. So she (or anyone) has yet to give me what I consider valid reasoning for why more people is good.



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)


I was being polite. Idealism was a relatively nice way of expressing my opinion about her view of humanity. 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.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

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"



have you ever heard of the term false conundrum?

i'm not going to nitpick, the total number of people is interesting only for statisticians, their effect on systems, ranging from the biosphere as a whole down to such mundane things as food markets.

this little distinction, while obvious is often lost and sadly, that cannot be attributed to an oversight. it has become all too clear that you (and many others) don't wish to focus on individual problems but rather on favorite solutions, which you so eloquently described in previous posts and while you said


Originally posted by Heike
I'm not in favor of killing people


don't outright favor kiling people, acceptance would just seems logical, right?

you know what's really and obviously wrong with the depopulation concept? it is one dimensional and shallow, because it's based on the belief that a statistical quantity, if altered will somehow solve any problems. it won't and it can't. overpopulation is just an indicator of deeper seated issues, which need to be adressed individually. if fusion power was invented tomorrow, you can bet that people would quickly forget about all these perveived ills, not so much because they'd no longer be there, but because of different things available to get agitated about.

PS: if you want to see someone who's naive, take a person i met on the forum who believes that there should be a tax incentive for people without children. the west, especially western europe's reproductive rate is already through the floor and more patriarchal societies will surely adopt the scheme
it's much like gun-control, those who are targetted aren't part of the problem but tell that to anyone.

be careful what you wish, you might just get it.




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.


some people have real success with their idealism or they just don't let experience get in its way, for reasons i don't fully understand, furthermore, how often do you discuss topics like those on this board face to face? i know i don't , people would have me institutionalised i think. how often do people just look the other way and simply don't listen? on a board, those people just don't show up again, do they? iow, if you stay, you'll get to see more silly games and dishonesty with more people involved than you could ever meet irl.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


It may simply come down to the fact that we disagree, and if we do that's all right. Only time will tell which of us is correct, and it's likely I won't live to see the answer anyway.

But, I don't have any favorite solutions to put forth nor am I unwilling to address any problem in particular. The OP asked "Why does going green mean that people must die?"

I suggested that other people may, as I do, think not that anyone needs to die, merely that it might help if our exponential population growth rate slowed down because we may, in the future, reach a population that the Earth can not support if it doesn't. That's all. If you got anything else out of my comments, you misunderstood me.

I did also probably hint or imply that I think people shouldn't have kids they can't support. Yes, that is how I feel and I will stand by it. If a person or family doesn't have enough resources to feed, clothe, and shelter a(nother) child, they shouldn't have a(nother) child.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join