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.

 

I'm not sure a "depopulation conspiracy" would be all that bad of a thing.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
When I was a kid the planet had less than half the population it has now. There was more work available. People couled intereact with nature and have big spreads for less. Life was more laid back. Everything from food and energy sources to wating in line or getting stuck in traffic was less of a hassle.

Imagine how pleasant it could be if there were, say, 1/10-1/000 of the people (managed in the right way)? We'd all have massive latifunda and robot servants to wait on us. Each person would "matter" more because we would be more like actual individuals than interchangable cogs. You'd be more likely to have people doing spiritually meningful jobs and stuff with their free time instead of vedging out in front of the tv. Nature could potentially take on a parklike, almost garden-of-eden aspect.

I know, I know, there are a number of big problems with this: A) deciding who gets to live and who gets to die; B) coping with the very real ethical implications of mass murder, even if it was "for a good cause" (The road to hell is paved with good intentions); C) how would you feel if your grandmother/mother/child/or even yourself was among the "culled" (a stitstical likelihood); and D) making sure the post-dieoff world comes out in a utopian rather than a chaotic manner.

Still, and while I'm not defending the NWO/Illuminati de-population agenda per se (so please don't put words in my mouth if you argue against this), I can easily see why this vision has taken over the imaginations of many.



[edit on 3/4/09 by silent thunder]




posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
well it's a valid point however you look at it.

the population growth will hit 0% growth no matter if we like it or not or if we instigate it or not. there's really no need for the govts to do anything about it. if exponential growth were capable of being sustained then bacteria would fill the entire universe.

as a passing thought this seems like a viable idea but you've got to remember several things.

1. humanity didn't make it this far by being weak losers. whatever you throw at humanity will be adapted to. this is evidenced by the fact that people like oprah winfrey. we've survived rabies, black plagues, galactic dark lords and eternal saviors. nothing can stop our insatiable desire to survive!

if you start tring to kill the population you had better have a really good scheme to fool everyone into doing it to themselves or else you'll wind up with something completely new and exciting.

2. if population reduction happens that means that the elites will pass on those nauseating traits that we all love so much. we can't have that now can we? the captain will not go down with the ship.

3. population reduction will only last for a few hundred years at best. there's no way the can check every nook and cranny and put a bullet into everyone's head. there will be cultures that survive in the wilderness that will come out of nowhere and stab the self righteous winners in the face with their stone spears.

4. if even by some miracle population reduction worked; you're still going to be surrounded by &#$&holes that want to horde power.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


I think it's great that you are so open minded about such a vile subject.
I suspect you will be volunteering to be the 'population reduction' poster child by volunteering to be euthanized first.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


Think of how much your life means to you, how much your parents or siblings lives mean to you, now think if your family was killed to depopulate the earth. Everyone you know and love being shipped away and killed.

The problems we suffer from today are the direct result of decisions we've made in the past. We cannot just try erase the mistakes we've made it doesnt work like that. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, when will we learn that in order to change a problem in this world we have to work together as a society to change. Not erase the board clean and start over it doesnt work like that we must learn from our mistakes.

Why is the world overpopulated? People have no value for sex anymore, they feel its a pleasurable act. We abuse it and so our world is overpopulated. We must work to change our society in order to fix this problem. More birth control, tell kids to honor themselves and their bodies and dont tell them to honor their bodies for god tell them to honor their bodies for themselves.

Murder is never an answer.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
people please, don't turn this into some wannabe humanitarian conversation. the OP did not state that he wanted to see other people's friends and families being murdered.

and besides, if you're going to be so pro life why odn't you head down to iraq with a few posters, some magic markers, and a couple of ham sandwiches. i'm sure i won't be seeing you at the airport.

just because it's the internet doesn't mean you have to come chip away at teh obvious faults of a decent idea.

population reductino is a reality. you can claim all your rights as a citizen of the universe that you like but you cannot change the fact that people die everyday and will continue to die in larger numbers as the population grows exponentially.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Not a bad idea at all.

How about you start the line.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Did you know if you clear away all the buildings you can fit SIX BILLION people shoulder to shoulder on Manhattan island.

Simple solution.. spread out. I read in a Scientific america magazine in 98 I belive that said there is enough room in Texas alone that every person on earth could have a medium size lot.

The problem with over population doesnt come from too many humans, it comes from humans congregating together in herds.

So once again simple solution.. SPREAD OUT. no one has to die unless a person is just fixed on the whole sociopathic principle.

It is quite probable that if everyone were spread out totally it would be a very rare occurrence that a person would ever see another one but a few times in their life at best.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by snowen20]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I think no one questions the fact that the planet is over-populated. The problem with any theory or effort towards reducing humanity's numbers is the point where people start trying to think of who should be killed or sterilised, what should be done with the "unwanted" children that are born anyway and who gets to decide all of this. Because then we're just inevitably talking about a genocidal dictatorship any way you slice it.

Eugenics is all fun and games until someone starts deciding who has a right to live and who doesn't.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   


I'm not sure a "depopulation conspiracy" would be all that bad of a thing.


silent thunder

I think this is precisely what is being planned. So the elite can have a park like atmosphere without the irritation of the rabble to destroy their serenity.

Pity though, you will be one of the rabble sacrificed or perhaps you can be one of the lucky ones and live a life of servitude to the elite.

It's a brave new world, welcome to the monkey house.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 


spreading out is not the issue and will not solve anything. you don't understand exponential growth. only so much coal and oil can be produced at a time. the world will not run out of oil or food or coal. it will run out of the capability to sustain 5-7% population growth with a high demand for those products.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I don't think population size is what's the problem, I see over-consumption as the biggest threat. Even if the Earth's population were halved, we would still see the irreversible effects of over consumption on our lands.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Mozzy
 


I understand exponential growth completely. My point was simply opinion and nothing more.
In it I propose that spreading out slows population growth. I expect full well that humans will still manage to increase in numbers. Infact spreading out may only make things worse seeing as how it could be misconstrued as an open opportunity to reproduce at an even more alarming rate.

It was an opinion and I made it sound dogmatic. Sorry everyone.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
When I was a kid the planet had less than half the population it has now. There was more work available. People couled intereact with nature and have big spreads for less. Life was more laid back. Everything from food and energy sources to wating in line or getting stuck in traffic was less of a hassle.

Imagine how pleasant it could be if there were, say, 1/10-1/000 of the people (managed in the right way)? We'd all have massive latifunda and robot servants to wait on us. Each person would "matter" more because we would be more like actual individuals than interchangable cogs. You'd be more likely to have people doing spiritually meningful jobs and stuff with their free time instead of vedging out in front of the tv. Nature could potentially take on a parklike, almost garden-of-eden aspect.

I know, I know, there are a number of big problems with this: A) deciding who gets to live and who gets to die; B) coping with the very real ethical implications of mass murder, even if it was "for a good cause" (The road to hell is paved with good intentions); C) how would you feel if your grandmother/mother/child/or even yourself was among the "culled" (a stitstical likelihood); and D) making sure the post-dieoff world comes out in a utopian rather than a chaotic manner.

Still, and while I'm not defending the NWO/Illuminati de-population agenda per se (so please don't put words in my mouth if you argue against this), I can easily see why this vision has taken over the imaginations of many.


Each birth a new crime.
Any ideas on how we can speed up the aging thing?



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
You must not be too serious about it, because you are still here.

I have no problems with how many people are on the earth. If you want to kill others for your own pleasure, then you should start us off.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
The easiest way -supposing of course that we have an overpopulation problem, what I don't believe- is to hand out contraception.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowen20

no one has to die unless a person is just fixed on the whole sociopathic principle.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by snowen20]


That is the issue here.
Some people do feel that it is their right to remove others so they have more elbow room.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


Some of what you said is true....

BUT, you could blame the mass media for heavily promoting sex directly which not only may have contributed to overpopulation but also to the steep decline in humanity's moral standards.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
When I was a kid the planet had less than half the population it has now. There was more work available. People couled intereact with nature and have big spreads for less. Life was more laid back. Everything from food and energy sources to wating in line or getting stuck in traffic was less of a hassle.

Imagine how pleasant it could be if there were, say, 1/10-1/000 of the people (managed in the right way)? We'd all have massive latifunda and robot servants to wait on us. Each person would "matter" more because we would be more like actual individuals than interchangable cogs. You'd be more likely to have people doing spiritually meningful jobs and stuff with their free time instead of vedging out in front of the tv. Nature could potentially take on a parklike, almost garden-of-eden aspect.

I know, I know, there are a number of big problems with this: A) deciding who gets to live and who gets to die; B) coping with the very real ethical implications of mass murder, even if it was "for a good cause" (The road to hell is paved with good intentions); C) how would you feel if your grandmother/mother/child/or even yourself was among the "culled" (a stitstical likelihood); and D) making sure the post-dieoff world comes out in a utopian rather than a chaotic manner.

Still, and while I'm not defending the NWO/Illuminati de-population agenda per se (so please don't put words in my mouth if you argue against this), I can easily see why this vision has taken over the imaginations of many.



[edit on 3/4/09 by silent thunder]


yep..cool...so youll be the first to accept your government saying you cant have children..or not complain when you find out youve been poisoned?



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ahnggk
reply to post by silent thunder
 


Some of what you said is true....

BUT, you could blame the mass media for heavily promoting sex directly which not only may have contributed to overpopulation but also to the steep decline in humanity's moral standards.


Sorry, but that is insane. I don't need the media to want to have sex or any of that stuff. Looks to me like you are just trying to place blame on other people rather than being responsible for our own selves.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
When I was a kid the planet had less than half the population it has now. There was more work available. People couled intereact with nature and have big spreads for less. Life was more laid back. Everything from food and energy sources to wating in line or getting stuck in traffic was less of a hassle.

Imagine how pleasant it could be if there were, say, 1/10-1/000 of the people (managed in the right way)? We'd all have massive latifunda and robot servants to wait on us. Each person would "matter" more because we would be more like actual individuals than interchangable cogs. You'd be more likely to have people doing spiritually meningful jobs and stuff with their free time instead of vedging out in front of the tv. Nature could potentially take on a parklike, almost garden-of-eden aspect.

I know, I know, there are a number of big problems with this: A) deciding who gets to live and who gets to die; B) coping with the very real ethical implications of mass murder, even if it was "for a good cause" (The road to hell is paved with good intentions); C) how would you feel if your grandmother/mother/child/or even yourself was among the "culled" (a stitstical likelihood); and D) making sure the post-dieoff world comes out in a utopian rather than a chaotic manner.

Still, and while I'm not defending the NWO/Illuminati de-population agenda per se (so please don't put words in my mouth if you argue against this), I can easily see why this vision has taken over the imaginations of many.



[edit on 3/4/09 by silent thunder]




Uh.... you realize that your part of the 90% that gets exterminated right? That doesn't seem to ideal for me.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join