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.

 

Population Control "A License to Breed"

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Please don't take the term, "stupid people", personally. I'm not talking about you or me.
Stupidity used to be nature's birth control. People did stupid things and then weren't around anymore to breed. Now it is against the law to do most stupid things. You can't climb skyscrapers or go over Niagra Falls in a barrel - legally - because laws protect people from doing stupid things.
Get rid ot all the "common sense" laws, the population will go down, and the overall IQ of the Earth's population will go up.


[edit on 3-2-2009 by Tippys Dad]




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tippys Dad
Please don't take the term, "stupid people", personally. I'm not talking about you or me.
Stupidity used to be nature's birth control. People did stupid things and then weren't around anymore to breed. Now it is against the law to do most stupid things. You can't climb skyscrapers or go over Niagra Falls in a barrel - legally - because laws protect people from doing stupid things.
Get rid ot all the "common sense" laws, the population will go down, and the overall IQ of the Earth's population will go up.


[edit on 3-2-2009 by Tippys Dad]


It's funny you mention stupidity being nature's birth control... this is the premise behind the film Idiocracy. It's hilarious... and frightening at the same time. The president is a professional wrestler, and everyone has UPC tattoos. This explains everything: video.google.com...



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Avarus
 


I think all ppl who are too poor to have kids, get fixed to get
government assistance.

We don't need more generational welfare crack heads.

Asking them to take birth control has not worked, not even close.

In my state it is norplant, you want money, you get implanted
birth control and it can be removed if you get your act together.

Welfare is retarded, give them a hand up not a hand out.

Give them jobs, give them day care, make them part of society,
but do not fund a system that rappers make fun of in their songs
of how they abuse it and then sell albums with that song and
make millions of dollars making fun of the idiotic system.

That is where we are at right now.

Rappers making songs of how they abuse the system and put it
on their albums.

It is friggin retarded.

Even Chris Rock talked about it on his comdey album and how
insane it has become. You know it is bad when a black man
stands up on stage in front of black ppl and says it.

The criminals are mocking our system and yet it continues.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Ex_MislTech]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
The only hope for the race is that genetic engineering results in a massive improvement of the human gene pool.

Otherwise Idiocracy is prophecy.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 



You have a point there. Perhaps most here are not against fascism per se, but simply in favor of fascism so long as it operates on their terms. (As our ex-president once said, a dictatorship would be great as long as he got to be the dictator.) So these proto-fascists would be perfectly fine with implementing their eugenics scheme on the greater mass of humanity, just so long as they were the ones making the rules. But just let someone propose laws that would sterilize them until such time as the government deems them fit to reproduce and they'll be shrieking about the evil NWO and fomenting rebellion.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
I thought Eugenics died 100 years ago, except a few places like China?

Used to be those who bred like rats, worked like rats as well. But in this World, everything is backwards. You are "rewarded" with welfare for being lazy, and having sex all the time.

Perhaps ending "support" systems would be better then eugenics?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Well I made over a 100k last year and I only have one kid. As a matter of fact I work so much that I don't have sex as much as the average joe. I spend all my time offshore in the gulf of mexico so a lot of sex isn't a good thing. Now I don't want to have another kid because well life is stressful and kids are expensive. I do think people should be responsible before they have kids because its not fair to them if they are born to some stupid welfare crack head. It burns my butt that so many people take children for granted and pretty much treat them as a curse. Hell maybe one day We will see a consumption tax that will tax the people with gaziliions of kids more. Now You can call me what ever You want but its a proven fact that wars are caused due to shortages of resources... So in essence as far as I am concerned if We had less people We would have more resources and less war.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xenophiles
reply to post by Blaine91555
 



The solution he's really groping for is the final one. Maybe that's what these eugenicists believe all those FEMA Death Camps should be used for.


It does make sense, ya know.....
sucker a portion of the population into being dependent on the government does lower the unemployment numbers. then, letting the monster grow till it's out of control and devouring the economy kind of angers the people, add all that propaganda that has been put out about the poor women driving the marcedes with her 10 kids living on welfare, well....that provides the right mentality in the population... and well, by the time they are done, the dependant are really quite unable to care for themselves and their families and there is no choice but to do what their masters say....

actually, I don't think the eugenicists care who all those fema camps are for, as long as it isn't them....
unfortunately, as our economy tumbles, many of those $100,000 earners are learning.....they just might be for them also as they go from $100,000 earners to dependents of the government.

of course, it is always possible that the government saw the economic collapse coming, knew that the weather was gonna become more violent, and well, was acting in our best interest when it built all these shelters for us....wait a minute.....our government, having foresight?? acting in our best interest??

na......take the smokers, take the alchoholics, take the fat people, take the poor!!! take the gays, take the non-christian, take the idiots!!
just, don't take me!!

this thread is just one of many that's spread across the internet with the purpose of trying to convince society that a certain group of people are not, for whatever reason, deserving of the same basic human rights that the rest of us deserve. consider it kind of like them conditioning us, for when the time comes....we will watch them come and take our neighbors, and be glad they did!! they deserved it!! and besides... there's now a position open in the business he worked for, if I hurry up, maybe I can nail it before the ad hits the paper!



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by JMartinMahoney
reply to post by Dewm0nster
 


Is it possible Dewm0nster, that you, and others like you, are simply resting on the "scientific" conditioning (and I would like you to seriously consider the term "conditioning") that has sunk so deep into your psychology that you spit it out verbatum at any chance without your consciously realizing it? If you are quick to answer than I'll bet there is much that you do not realize about yourself. I also believe such responses come from the inate, instinctual fear of survival, you are afraid that someone will come and camp out in your spacious backyard. Simply put, there are plenty of resources on this planet, food wasted by the TONS (by our own country) that could....could feed the world, and plenty of space. Some of it just depends on how well we want to get along with our neighbor.


Your only post in this thread is an attack on my character?
It isn't conditioning. Science is real, tangible, and mathematically correct.
So yes, I cling to such ridiculous things as "Proof" and "Evidence" and "Math".
It's pretty foolish, I know.
My "spacious back yard"? I could literally pee from my from porch to the street.

I don't know how some people can deny a population problem.
In a perfect world, where everyone shared- Where everyone experienced hard ships, together, and where we weren't all bent over an oil barrel; then it wouldn't be as much of a problem so soon.

Howvever, one can't simply say "Well, we'll colonize the moon" or "Create space stations" or simply say "We'll find a way."

For a number of reasons, mankind will fail.

In a perfect world- Many answers are at hand.
Our world is far from perfect though- So, reality, is what we'll be working with.

a) Airable land- Valuable land that could be used for crops is quickly vanishing. In less and lesser countries, especially, as opposed to the More countries. The reason for this is the Less and Lesser countries are producing cash crops- So that they can afford to feed their families, and keep their farms.
The cash crops draw nutrients from the soil like there's no tomorrow, and yield no true "value" outside of their sale price.
Worse still, farmers all around the world, are selling off their land for housing- Because the money just isn't enough otherwise.
When we consider that, 71% of the Earth's surface is water, and 27% of the Earth's surface is desert (Hot, and cold.), it leaves us with 2% of the world as airable land (farmable.).
Oh, and biodiesel- Forget that, let's keep our precious farmland for consumable crops, not lowering gas prices.

b) Water- Of the 71% of water that covers the Earth's surface, no more than 2% is fresh water.

c) Simple growth- By 2050, the population is expected to exceed 9.3 billion.
That's over three billion people in just forty years.

With all this in mind, it's important to remember that, capitalism makes the world go round.
If something doesn't turn a profit, ultimately, you can expect it to fail.

There's no sense in arguing on that last point- Because, we do live in a capitalist society; and as much as some may believe in humanity banding together to over come hardships, the simple truth is our greed will likely prevent that.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Dewm0nster

Thankyou - I greatly appreciate your post.

Science and reality - over emotions and self indulgence - imagine that.

When I look at our planet as a living thing - - I don't see humans of having any great value or contribution.

As I said in a previous thread - there are animals that halt their reproduction when resources are not available to support them. It doesn't take rocket science.

On the other hand my hubby's grandmother simply says: its God's plan - he will provide - he will replenish what we need. Needless to say - she lives in a very cloistered world.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
People who don't have children should just shut up. The impact on anything important for you will be over in less than 80 years anyway.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I'm now a grandmother of 3 - from 2 daughters. I guess I can keep talking.

Yes - by choice I had only 2 children - as I supported population control back in 1968 when I had the first. Zero population is about replacing yourself.

But with age/knowledge/information - - I would support no more then one child - for reduction in population.

I prefer science & logic - - over emotion for this important crisis.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
People who don't have children should just shut up. The impact on anything important for you will be over in less than 80 years anyway.


That's an excellent attitude to have. "Let's just leave it for someone else to worry about later.. even if it's too late to do anything about it by then... it's not my problem."


Additionally, you don't have to have children to pay into the system that supports them (welfare, shelters, orphanages, etc). 10-12 Billion world population projection is estimated for 2050. If my math's correct, that's certainly not 80 years away.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
The global fertility rate is only 2.61, and most developed countries are lower than that. That's not very alarming.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
People who don't have children should just shut up. The impact on anything important for you will be over in less than 80 years anyway.


I too have a son, six weeks old now, thanks.
It doesn't change my opinion of humanity, or what we'll face.

The only change in my how I see thing, is how I truly do pitty the future generations- My sons generation.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The very fact is that I actually have investment interest in the future, and those who don't breed or do so very little have little investment in how things turn out.

Kind of like being lectured by a psychotic homeless person on your retirement savings.

Further, undermining the cultures who do show reproductive restraint by tyrannically installing unnecessary controls on their fertility is an ideology that literally withers on the vine.

You want to slowly annihilate the cultures who practice restraint through attrition. So that they slowly lose population, and power. Thereby becoming absorbed into cultures that don't practice such a self-defeating practice.

Which in turn, will show how this ideology is useless and drive people away from it as being ultimately self-defeating.


Explain to me again how this is a good idea.

Of course, if you don't have any g-g-grandchildren around to worry about them being essentially conquered through being bred under, your worry for the future seems bit contrived.



Originally posted by Avarus

Originally posted by Aeons
People who don't have children should just shut up. The impact on anything important for you will be over in less than 80 years anyway.


That's an excellent attitude to have. "Let's just leave it for someone else to worry about later.. even if it's too late to do anything about it by then... it's not my problem."


Additionally, you don't have to have children to pay into the system that supports them (welfare, shelters, orphanages, etc). 10-12 Billion world population projection is estimated for 2050. If my math's correct, that's certainly not 80 years away.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
If Aubrey De Gray makes a breakthrough and it's given to the masses, I'm sure we'll have a big problem on our hands. Something will most definitely have to happen then.

I didn't say it was a 'good' idea aeons, I was just curious of what people thought. It seems it's about 65%-70% Hate the idea, and the rest think it will eventually be necessary, especially under certain circumstances. Even if it's an unlikely or even far fetched situation, what do you think would be an appropriate situation to control the population? Would it be the consummation of our food resources?

Also, there are plenty of people who have contributed to the society and our future that didn't bear children. Are you saying that people who are sterile have no value in society?

[edit on 2.4.2009 by Avarus]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Their concern for the future that they have no stake in is somewhat less concrete.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Their concern for the future that they have no stake in is somewhat less concrete.


I'm sorry, but by making 10 babies, you also, have no personal stake in the future. Sure your children will grow up after you've brainwashed them into believe exactly what you believe, but you still won't be there... so that's mute.

It's about making the world better for your fellow man... for future generations of YOUR society. We may not live forever, but your lasting contributions will.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Parents brainwash.
People without children care more about the future.

You don't even see the family/child hating in yourself at all.

You really think that people who have no stake in the future care MORE about it than people who do have a stake in the future.

Someone who has no children has no real tie to if all the oxygen on the planet just disappeared in 60 years. The person who has children does. The person who has no children has no real grounding reason to care about lack of food in 60 years. But the person with a pregnant grandchild does.

Logically, psychologically, vitally, between the person with children and the person without there is a difference in concrete stakeholder status in the continuing function of the planet and the culture.

To try and paint people who have children as not caring is ILLOGICAL on its face.




top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join