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.

 

Two children should be limit, says green guru

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   
and here the my original post


posted on 3-2-2009 @ 03:38 single this post edit"quote"REPLY TO:



*There are plenty of women at Womens Shelters with their children and they are often flat broke and have nothing.... Go give them five percent of your next paycheck. You know you won't.



true, never ill gonna give them a cent, because thoses are not my kids and if they wasnt responsible enought to not breed thoses kids, i dont have to pay for it.




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by OTTOKARMA
 


"and here the my original post"

Are you using a translator site or program?

Is English your Primary Language?

Or are you just joking with us?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 
of course not, but if their parents cant provide them food, place to live and education for their well being, better if thoses parents dont give birth



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   
lol i edited it sorry otto i agree with you...



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   
1/ im extremely tired

2/ i have the flu

3/ i have 3 fingers broke and its not really helping me to type


if you have any suggestions to help me , proceed



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by OTTOKARMA
reply to post by Exuberant1
 
of course not, but if their parents cant provide them food, place to live and education for their well being, better if thoses parents dont give birth



What about the children who already exist - what do you think should be done about them?

*Are you going to keep ignoring my question?

If you are just let me know so I can declare victory. ;-)



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   


reply to post by Exuberant1 of course not, but if their parents cant provide them food, place to live and education for their well being, better if thoses parents dont give birth


i dont want thoses kids killed or anythings,im just thinking if the parents cant afford food,place to live or anythings, better for the parents to be controled in matter of breedings to prevent future suffering kids

anyways if the parents still want to give life to future suffering generation.what can we do ?

and no,ill fight you till death, just lemme grab my sword


[edit on 3-2-2009 by OTTOKARMA]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   
or at least, we can turn thoses poor kids into food for other kids.....cheap food and of course , infinite supply



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by OTTOKARMA
or at least, we can turn thoses poor kids into food for other kids.....cheap food and of course , infinite supply


Disgusting.

Only a certain type of individual says such things about children....



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Or peoples without any sense of humor can take the sentence without thinking its a potential joke



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Well, I don't know about propaganda. Actually I think the majority of propaganda in this arena were exposed to in our culture is biased heavily in favor of the "life is precious" viewpoint. I've arrived at my position by way of my own rational assessment of what I've witnessed of the world. Nobody told me what to think here.

Yes, your progeny will own the future. I have no siblings or close cousins, so my gene line will die out, much to my parents' chagrin. I choose to opt out of the breeding game. My reason for this is a firm conviction that it doesn't really matter whose genes are perpetuated. Genetically, humans are all so similar by now that it's really pretty irrelevant what stock is preserved and what dies out. The thing keeping people stuck in your mindset (MY genes! MINE!) is pure ego-driven conceit. No offense, but that's what it is. The soul of mankind isn't in our genes, it's in our ideas and our culture. These are now largely preserved through judicious application of technology. As long as the gene lines that survive aren't plagued by crippling mutations, who cares whose children are around in 200 years? Are you going to be there to get to see them running things? Do you know or care much about your ancestors 200 years ago? Do you think your descendants will have any more regard for you?

"Vanity of vanities, the whole thing is a vain parade; it has no meaning."



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
cue justification:

Muslim Population Rising 10 Times Faster Than Rest of the UK

interesting how perceptions are changed so that limitations are no longer so appaling. with a little more time and effort, even genetic screening before marriage & general licensing of children won't raise as much as a murmur.

predictable, all NWO talk includes a depopulation and more importantly, Eugenics at its core. if this scenario ever comes to pass, continuous escalation will inevitably force ai inbred feudal cast system on the world and bye, bye human species.

i've always known that the current creed of 'Green' is misanthropic

Green idealists fail to make grade, says study

Planet saved without taxation! Well, almost...

i know these people probably can't help it, that's just how they are, what i cannot understand is why they're so popular.

[edit on 2009.2.3 by Long Lance]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   
there is no misanthropy in my words, i just dont get the point to give life to kids in a already ruined world, its just the selfish desire of having a baby.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by MillionEyedMask
 


"The thing keeping people stuck in your mindset (MY genes! MINE!) is pure ego-driven conceit"

My parents had 12 children, and it wasn't anything to do with "ego-driven conceit'...

Large families used to be the Norm and still are for much of the world. The small family is a product of a Modern Urban Civilization - when I was a child the most advanced contraption around was still an accurate wristwatch or a steam engine ;-)

By having a large family my parents were able to take full advantage of the farmland they owed and keep what profits they made. This is still the case in much of the world.

We are lucky to have the option of a small family. My children will probably have small families.

Have you ever read anything by or about Dr. Spock?


[edit on 3-2-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   


when I was a child the most advanced contraption around was still an accurate wristwatch or a steam engine ;-)
did they know about "coitus interruptus ?"





My parents had 12 children, and it wasn't anything to do with "ego-driven conceit'... Large families used to be the Norm


it WAS the the norm, but things changed , you know , time passed, everythings changes

[edit on 3-2-2009 by OTTOKARMA]

[edit on 3-2-2009 by OTTOKARMA]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I think there are too many old people that have worn out the welcome, lets start rounding up the elderly and kill them off, most just sit and create waste in a nursing home anyway, we can just call it late, late term abortion.

So get your grandparents to report for their abortion, they have wasted enough already, besides they dont pay full fare for anything, once they are recognized as being old they get discounts on everything. That doesnt help the economy at all.

Oh, if you think that too many people will damage the earth, then you too can contribute to saving the earth by killing yourself, if you really want to help you would kill yourself to save Gia right now, why wait for your late, late term abortion? You know Al gorbal warming would praise you if you aborted yourself right now.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Hey, I agree with this. I mean, it shouldnt be law, but people should exercise common sense when it comes to breeding (mom in Cali with 14 kids now, anyone?)..

Its stupid and irresponsible. Or go to the ghetto and see the 20 year old moms with 4 kids. Right... Far be it from us, the taxpayers to tell the irresponsible CHILD how to live. She is obviously wildly successfull with her own family planning.

I know this may come as a shock to some of you, but there are indeed people out there who reproduce to simply gain more income. More income from the taxpayers, which bleed the system dry (California, anyone?)

Im not suggesting mandatory abortions, but perhaps a welfare cutoff. If you are currently receiving benefits, and your decide to crap out a few more to get a raise, you shouldnt get it. You should have to figure out to live within your means.

People like that do not benefit society. They are a leech on it. They contribute nothing and reap everything. Its wrong.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
2005 Update: A fascinating new article by a prominent environmentalist points out what should be obvious: the overpopulation scare was just a scare, and now it's time to move on. I refer to "Environmental Heresies" by Stewart Brand, the founder of The Farmers Almanac, printed in MIT Technology Review, May 2005. He makes the following points:
For 50 years, the demographers in charge of human population projections for the United Nations released hard numbers that substantiated environmentalists' greatest fears about indefinite exponential population increase. For a while, those projections proved fairly accurate. However, in the 1990s, the U.N. started taking a closer look at fertility patterns, and in 2002, it adopted a new theory that shocked many demographers: human population is leveling off rapidly, even precipitously, in developed countries, with the rest of the world soon to follow. Most environmentalists still haven't got the word. Worldwide, birthrates are in free fall. Around one-third of countries now have birthrates below replacement level (2.1 children per woman) and sinking. Nowhere does the downward trend show signs of leveling off. Nations already in a birth dearth crisis include Japan, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Russia--whose population is now in absolute decline and is expected to be 30 percent lower by 2050. On every part of every continent and in every culture (even Mormon), birthrates are headed down. They reach replacement level and keep on dropping. It turns out that population decrease accelerates downward just as fiercely as population increase accelerated upward, for the same reason. Any variation from the 2.1 rate compounds over time.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Over population is a lie perpetrated by TPTB to get us to kill our children.

www.juntosociety.com...

If you allotted 1250 square feet to each person, all the people in the world would fit into the state of Texas. Try the math yourself: 7,438,152,268,800 square feet in Texas, divided by the world population of 5,860,000,000, equals 1269 square feet per person. The population density of this giant city would be about 21,000 -- somewhat more than San Francisco and less than the Bronx.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Azgard123
 


Its not about running out of room, its about running out of resources for take care of all of them who lack the ability to take care of themselves.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join