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.


How A Pathogen Could Reduce the Worlds Population Without Killing Anybody…

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 05:29 PM
Firstly how to do it: We need a humane, non-lethal sexually transmitted disease that will render the infected infertile, but which will be curable using modern technology that only individuals belonging to the wealthiest of nations could easily afford.

For example by using stem-cell technology it will probably soon be possible to re-grow any component of any reproductive organ in either sex.

About the Disease…
It should be carried by both sexes (to increase transmittance) but (in order to moderate its affect) should only reduce the fertility of one sex.
The sex most affected should probably be male, as it will be easier to repair the damage because these reproductive organs are more external to the body (and therefore more easily accessible to healthcare treatment).

Herpes Is A Prime Biological Candidate

So out of 192 nations (worldwide) here’s Who’d Be (most) “Saved”…
1. U.S.
2. Europe
3. Japan-(nearly forget Korea)
4. Canada
5. China
6. India
7. Russia
8. Australia
9. and Israel

Why This Order…
1. These nine countries have the economic strength to impose their interests on the other countries, but the other 183 nations of the world (even strength combined, do not have the might to impose their will on us. Therefore this order is the most stable, and therefore the most pragmatically realistic.
2. In addition no country can impose the needs of the planet on their people (especially in an economic downturn) without politically destabilising themselves; and thereby making the whole objective politically self-destructive- i.e. self defeating.
3. The nine countries are the engines of world economic growth. Although this makes them the first cause of the planets destruction, this only because they’ve succeeded in doing what almost all the other nations aspire to do

It’s the possibility of too many citizens from developing nations successfully aspiring the lifestyles of the developed nations that posses the gravest, global environmental risk.
E.g. World population is scheduled to grow by 50% within 41 years time:
But Africa’s is to double in just 18 years K:375023,00.html

4. The more the poor nations are affected the more lee-way the western nations will have to develop technological solutions that can improve, and perhaps one day restore the equilibrium between mankind and planet.

If (in contrast) if the most developed nations were affected most; time would surely be wasted just for the developing nations to socially bring about effective leadership, capable of committing the large or vast resources required to urgently implement the required technological developments?
I.e. We could easily be talking about a century or more delay, during which time the Third World would continue to e.g. clear pristine forests to e.g. graze cattle, emitting carbon that way, as opposed to the more cost effective route of doing the same through smokestacks-exhausts (as this does at least raise more money, a portion of which can be extracted without making the masses attracted to revolution). Or the Western method of emitting almost no waste through nuclear power, or possibly fusion.

The latest, scientific predications, state the world only has ten years to avoid “run away global warming”
are in fact ten years to prove that political free will, of independent democratic nations, is capable of making an impact.
Otherwise more authoritarian solutions be needed.

And without these solutions all nations will suffer, and the suffering will not be equal, and is still likely to be far worse for the (poor) i.e. third world, than the alternatives that could be provided by covert, international Western action.

Some Critical Conclusions…
No doubt the moralistic, humanitarian idealists will continue to argue that if only all the nations came of the world came together, at some great tea-party, then all the leaders of the world would agree that all people are equal.

No doubt a new (binding) international law would justly regulate population shrinkage. The violators of whom would be made to report to an impartial commission of university children, who would possess the power to e.g. dismiss global leaders, and place them in a cell where will be fed only cookies (apart from the times they are allowed to scrub the floors of the U.N. and donate time to African charities).

Unfortunately the world doesn’t work like that; and if it does then the good news is the liberal left still has time to come up with something (i.e. they’ve got about 10 years of the 40 they’ve already had left).

What do you think?
Would you privately vote for it (if you could)?
Or do you know another pragmatically realistic alternative?

Or do moral emotions get the better of you? Perhaps to the point where you’d prefer to let nature’s way of mass disasters and mass starvations become the only solutions.
Why should we (as humans) be so dumb to follow such a course?

Maybe NWO really does have the answers?
Just a matter of acedemic debate!

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 05:33 PM
reply to post by Liberal1984

Good thread, but to rate the "deserving" countries in order that they are able to exert their will is flawed at best.

I don't think traditional country boundaries would have anything to do with deciding those who falls into the have, and have not categories.

EDIT: You should see Children of Men if you haven't already.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by king9072]

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 05:48 PM
There is really no reason to only pick one gender to be sterilised. If you for instance create and spread the infertility with the aid of certain hormones, then the location of the reproducing organs is of no importance. Best, and most FAIR thing in those cases to do, is to affect both genders, as the cure would also be of use for both.

That said, it is a horrible idea, and the only solution to a huge population is common sense and knowledge, and make people realise that there are more important things to deal with in the World right now, than to reproduce.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 05:49 PM
Why is it flawed at best to list countries in the order in which they can exert their will? One look at human history and you’ll this is almost an unbroken theme.
It’s also the most stable way, as it’s when the weak get their way in spite of the economically strong (whoever they may be in time) that a war or conflict becomes inevitable.

These 9 countries are the same countries where many prominent NWO people have their families. So no way could it go any other way.

I don't believe in their being a just way other this issue, or at least certainly not one that's both just and practical.
But I do believe there is a way that's practical.
And I believe that's better than natures truly barbaric ways of disaster (i.e. man causing her failure) ultimately leading to starvation.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 05:51 PM
Ultimately, the greatest tragedy is that our planet is actually able to support 6 billion people. The problem is that the people in power designed it so that we were wasteful, profit driven animals doing nothing in a sustainable way.

If free power were given out, and things weren't designed to be replaced a month later, or designed to brake in a year, our world could definitely support the population. But thats not the way it has been designed.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 08:20 PM
reply to post by king9072

So lets move to this sustainable, resource based economy utopia I've been hearing about. Then we will experience a population boom like no other and will move from 6 billion exponential higher every year.

Putting us very quickly right back at the problem we have now.

new topics

top topics

log in