It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"Attenborough warns on population" A slip up by the BBC on gov. controll infertilization?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:23 PM

"Attenborough warns on population" A slip up by the BBC on gov. controll infertilization?

The broadcaster Sir David Attenborough has become a patron of a group seeking to cut the growth in human population.

On joining the Optimum Population Trust, Sir David said growth in human numbers was "frightening".

Sir David has been increasingly vocal about the need to reduce the number of people on Earth to protect wildlife.

The Trust, which accuses governments and green groups of observing a taboo on the topic, say they are delighted to have Sir David as a patron.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:23 PM
This, however is not what struck me hardest in the article, but as i am posting it in a news area on the forum, i feel oblidged to post in what the article is fundermentaly about.

What i was most interested was in this little paragraph.....

[/quote/]BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin said population was a fraught area of debate, with libertarians and some religious groups vehemently opposing measures by governments to influence individual fertility.[/quote/]

Here, it clearly states that goverments have already acted on trying to manipulate human fertility, right there on the BBC.

I have heard and read alot on the effects on many chemicals found in such everyday things such as the fluride on the tap water, was just thinking, could this be a slip up of the BBC? Have they just released information on something that we should not know, hoing that we would just dissregard it for the article goes into very little depth at all in the matter?

Never the less, strikes a few thoughts to fly around your noggen.

Oh, and please excuse the bad spellings :>
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 12-4-2009 by Trolloks]

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:49 PM
I think if we really, began creative thinking on this, there would be much easier way to handle "over population" if there is such a thing.

Instead of the A plan of just killing people off, or excessive hysterectomies and vasectomies

If they spent half as much time on this as they do global warming........

First it's to hot, then theres too many people.

*Reason why there may be global warming, there blowing too much smoke out there .... *

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:51 PM
reply to post by Trolloks

Don't forget about cell phones and lap tops. These too are supposed to be big contributors to the problem of infertility.

It appears that infertility is becoming a growing problem for quite a number of people. It is not hard to see why some believe that much of it is deliberate.

Makes you wonder how far we are away from the movie "Children of Men."

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:58 PM
yea, there are far too many too count these days, with all these chemicals in our food and drink, and all the signals constantly flying around, the majority of our children will most likley be infertile.

It just strikes me wierd how a company such as the BBC would mention that the government are involved in certaine programs, and not even batter an eyelid, and yet its apparently realy is not as important that someone had an operation so that they can carry on eating pizzy

Sad thing is, the majority of people that will read the article in the news papers tomorow will just ponder, "well, there is too many people, he is right, wow, im glad ive already had my kids so i dont have to do anything they ask me too"

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:13 PM
Ah well you can always do basic mathmatics to sort it out.

One of 8

Enjoy -

we are DUMB mathmatics 101

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Trolloks

[/quote/]BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin said population was a fraught area of debate, with libertarians and some religious groups vehemently opposing measures by governments to influence individual fertility.[/quote/]

Here, it clearly states that goverments have already acted on trying to manipulate human fertility, right there on the BBC.

I would imagine the availability of contraceptives influences individual fertility also ........ yeah.

We manipulate human fertility everyday.

Experts say female hormones from the contraceptive pill and HRT are being washed into our rivers and causing male fish to produce eggs.

Human health could also be at risk, with oestrogen from contaminated food and water building up in our bodies.

though there is no conclusive proof, it is thought the hormone, which has similar actions in fish and humans, could be partly to blame for falling sperm counts in men.

British men's sperm counts dropped by almost a third between 1989 and 2002, and one in six couples now have difficulty conceiving.

Prof Tyler said: 'There is certainly the potential for it to have an effect in humans - and possibly a marked effect.'


....more research needed .

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:27 PM
Maybe he was referring to cultural resistance to condoms and birth control pills which limit human fertility. Certain cultures think it important to breed a lot and the Pope himself is not hip with birth control at all. In certain areas of the globe there are too many people to live without outside support of basic needs. This will become painfully evident when one or more calamities cripple the modern day safety net. Many of the people interested in population control are following a sincere benevolent interest in limiting human suffering and ecological collapse. There are probably others that could care less and are looking to cut losses, to put it bluntly.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by mandroid]

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:41 PM
I think it's not the number of people but how much each person in an industrial society consumes. i mean people do not make up that much of the world's biomass.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:54 AM
What makes me laugh is this uk society has the motto "stop at 2"....

Don't they realise that the huge explosion of people in this country is immigration? They are lining up abroad to get over here for free health-care, money and accommodation. You only have to walk through the centres of some cities in the UK and you are now feeling as-if you're in a foreign land. It's crazy.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in letting certain people in to help or who are in dire need due to danger etc. but I know so many that have come over here just because it's SO easy to have so much more and for 'free'.

Population control starts at the border if you ask me.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:11 AM
reply to post by Trolloks

Its strange huh.

What age is Attenbourgh now??

Hes had his time and kids in peace, let others have theirs.

Shame on him for supporting things like this.

What goes around comes around and I am sure it will shortly if he keeps making statements like that.

The phrase "grumpy old git" springs to mind here.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by XXXN3O]

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 09:32 AM
I didn't realise a thread had already been started on this subject. Here's a bit more info on the Optimum Population Trust.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 09:49 AM
We Native Americans have already faced this issue.....

During the late 1960s and the early 1970s, a policy of involuntary surgical sterilization was imposed upon Native American women in the United States, usually without their knowledge or consent, by the federally funded Indian Health Service (IHS), then run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). It is alleged that the existence of the sterilization program was discovered by members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) during its occupation of the BIA headquarters in 1972. A 1974 study by Women of All Red Nations (WARN), concluded that as many as 42 percent of all American Indian women of childbearing age had, by that point, been sterilized without their consent. A subsequent investigation was conducted by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), though it was restricted to only four of the many IHS facilities nationwide and examined only the years 1973 to 1976. The GAO study showed that 3,406 involuntary sterilizations were performed in these four IHS hospitals during this three-year period. Consequently, the IHS was transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services in 1978.

More Info

Keep in mind governments do whatever they want up until someone brings to light just what they've done

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 09:50 AM
In addition to biological attacks such as bird flu - what do ATSers think of the following scenario?

A new world order would be virtually impossible in the kind of world that we live in at present. There are over six billion people with such diverse beliefs and customs, too many dissenters and and too many power seekers.
Taking into consideration global wind patterns, the NWO have probably calculated how much nuclear material and toxic gases would need to be released to kill off most humans on the planet. They already have the data from the aftermath of Chernobyl to work with.

Belarus suffered from approximately 70 per cent of the fallout from the Chernobyl catastrophe. There are high rates of morbidity in Belarus than anywhere else affected by the Chernobyl catastrophe. And the elevated cancer rates in Belarus are 16 times higher than in those countries not affected by Chernobyl.


(1) Has research been undertaken on animals and/or humans every few years since the Chernobyl disaster (1986) to try and determine when it would be safe to introduce humans and/or animals into a location that has experienced heavy fallout without those animals and/or humans experiencing harmful ailments/defects/side effects or fatalities ?

(2) I live in the UK and have never been to Belarus. If I were able to live and work in Belarus this year (2009), am I very likely to be harmfully or fatally affected by the remnants of nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 (22 years ago)? Or has the residue from nuclear fallout now dropped to a level that is considered safe to human health?

Data collected about nuclear fallout, from locations such as Belarus, would give government an indication as to whether a deliberately planned global nuclear catastrophe was a realistic option for reducing the world human population and how long survivors would be required to live in underground camps/cities before reinhabiting above ground areas.

For those chosen to survive underground; carbohydrates, protein, fats and vitamins could be stored in packets/containers. Above ground, radiation would contaminate almost everything that humans would have hoped to survive on - plants, animals, tinned food, packaged food etc. Radiation would be in the air, getting into every nook and cranny and it would probably also destroy harmful viruses such as HIV/AIDS and bacteria such as MRSA. What a way to deal with many of the world's problems at once!

People living underground could probably be fed for decades using methods such as this
Slaughtered battery hens can be processed into soups, baby foods, stock cubes etc. Battery hens are bred to be lean, to eat little and lay a lot.

Wind farms and other forms of renewable energy, could possibly provide the electricity for those safely tucked away in underground camps/cities. Water from the sea could be desalinated.

If most life were wiped out by a nuclear catastrophe, genetisists among the survivors, in underground camps/cities, could breed organisms such as blow flies that would be released at numerous locations and multiply as they fed on carcasses. Genetic engineering could possibly also be used to increase the species/number of plants, mammals, insects etc so as to replenish the earth once it was safe to do so.

When the human survivors came above ground to live, the released blow flies and other organisns, would have left them with more manageable skeletons to clear up.

Those chosen to survive would possibly be given identity cards, details of their DNA would be on a database to make crime detection easier, one set of laws would cover all continents and everyone would be taught to speak the same language.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:02 AM
reply to post by AlwaysQuestion

You hit it!! If it wasn't for immigration, the UK population would have actually DECREASED.

Despite EU laws stating that immigrants must seek asylum *IN THE FIRST EU COUNTRY THEY ENTER*, France is doing a dandy job of housing all those immigrants waiting to enter the UK.

Note carefully people - they are in FRANCE, an EU country.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:07 AM
reply to post by BetweenMyths

I think your being a bit naive and melodramatic... if you read my post just above your own you'd understand that when a government wants to remove a segment of the population they just do it without starting wars or risk endangering the chosen survivors....

If they want you dead they just dig a deep hole and drop you in... it doesn't get more complicated than that...

[edit on 14-4-2009 by DaddyBare]

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:24 AM
Did anyone else's warning bells go off when they started that campaign for the HPV vaccine and made the thing mandatory? I mean come on! It's not like women and girls are dropping dead from this thing and if reproduction is truly as out of control as they say, why make unprotected sex safer?

Children of Men again. She never said what made everyone infertile, did she?

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by DaddyBare

Thats just f#cked up. Can you trust the us gov? sure, just ask an Indian.

new topics

top topics


log in