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.

 

Slash population to save the world: green lobbyist

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
The earth has it's ways of dealing with over population, we don't need any government regulations regarding the size of families. How many were killed in that tsunami in a matter of minutes? I know it was in the hundreds of thousands range. One little earthquake in the middle of the ocean, and nobody knew what was coming quietly at over 500 mph. That's what nature does, it regulates. It uses tools like new viruses and asteroids. We will be depopulated sooner or later....




posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
I think everyone who thinks there are too many people in the world should do the right thing and kill themselves to save the planet.


Of course, these people won't think it is their existence that is the problem - which is the very definition of hypocrisy.


Regarding the fools proposing this in Australia, reducing the population by 14 million out of 6 billion accomplishes exactly what? Do the math - it's only .2333 %.

Oh, and their other argument - of course - will be about "showing the way" to the rest of the world. All these idiots will really accomplish is to "show the way" to find underpopulated land for countries like "chindia" with no real intention of dealing with their own population issues.

National suicide for Australia.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I guess one of the theories is that 'developed' countries may use more resources/cause harm to the planet (simply because more of us would expect things like fuel, products from deforestation etc) than those living 'simpler' lives. I can understand that, but could never agree with these kinds of population limits. Especially to the (relatively) small number of Australians? I agree with everyone else on this topic too that we could easily manage the people we have now, and more, if we just used the land better, and used cleaner fuels. But somehow it's just not happening and these crazies want already small populations to dwindle even more.


I also wonder what kinds of families these people have - if any. Were they unable to have children? If they do, would they be happy with losing, say, one or more of their siblings? I'm sure there's some behind the scenes emotions/psychology coming into play here. No average person would accept these policies unless they're living in a country with 1 billion+ like China. Maybe then, but not 21-22 million Australians, I'm sorry.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
And speaking of "chindia", we should also mention china's failed social engineering experiment with limiting families.

The chinese typically view a boy as more "valuable" than a girl, so girl babies were killed to give the families another opportunity at having a more valuable boy under the child limit laws.

The results of this experiment after a generation? An excess of men to women of over 150 million!
That's right, over 150 million chinese men with no hope of finding a woman to get married to - unless maybe one of their sisters was allowed to live.

Now hopefully australians wouldn't also resort to infanticide, but this goes to prove that they also won't have much success in "showing the way" to the parts of the world that really do have the population problems.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
It's kind of amusing to see exactly how far these FAUX GREENS are out on the plank.



The really funny part is it's based on Absurdism (You normals... Read: 'Science').

It's been argued there is NO SUCH thing as 'global warming' (now: 'climate change')...

It is quite simply a fabrication.

The world is supposed to MAYBE be inundated due to rising ocean levels... A REALLY tough case to make considering the ocean levels have only risen something like an inch (1 inch!) in the last one hundred years (100 years!).

The really funny part is that the entire Absurdist understanding of the history of the Earth is a fabrication.

Someone with a brain...

might realize Velikosky had it right...

Not only in terms of catastrophism...

But in terms of CONTINUOUSLY shifting poles...

But also shifting ICE MASSES. (Read: No 'ICE AGES' per se...) due to the displacement of the poles.

Northern Europe/North America appear to have been in the polar region, just prior to the last shift.

Another big lie...

The scarcity paradigm. Not based in fact, just a social (and economic
) control mechanism designed to put pressure on the population... manipulate them towards the perceived need du jour...

In the Pacific Northwest (USA), we experienced PRICE INCREASES due to water shortages in years with record rainfalls.

Hey! Could someone point out to me which part of these alarmists/chicken little scenarios have ANY credibility?



Thanks!



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by d2che

Maybe because we, the human race, all share the same planet and are entitled to live wherever which choose to?


Aren't humans a nomadic species by nature? Aren't we all immigrants to some extent? Shouldn't we be above petty namecalling and territorial pissing by now?




Yes we do all share the same planet, but the world is a different place now and we can no longer just go pick up and live wherever we choose. Pick a country other than where you live now and see if you will be allowed to just enter that country and stake a claim.


People were nomadic in the past so that they could follow their food supply, the world is a different place now. If you were born in the country that you reside in , no you are not an immigrant, your ancestors may be immigrants but you are not. I don't remember calling anybody any names, and there are valid reasons for "territorial pissing".


The point is that you do not tell people that they should limit the number of children that they have to bring down their country's population, but in the same breath tell them to allow their population to grow by the addition of immigrants.




Edit for error

[edit on 4/23/2009 by chise61]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigfootNZ

Originally posted by Animal


Not getting at you directly but heres the rub to me, I personally live on the outskirts of a small town, my neighbor is a farmer and from my backyard i can see most of the extent of his and a few other farmers properties out to the horizon... now guess what.

All that pasture (not sure of the size but the 3-4 farms it encompasses go out to at least 10x10 sqaure kilometers) for what amounts to around just 200 cows for producing milk and meat for the dairy industry... I mean you could easily build enough comfortable housing with a decent backyard for the kids and pets for at least 1000 families on that alone, with enough space for parks and community gardens to help support them to a degree to boot.


Not boasting just sharing here but as a professional with a masters degree in landscape architecture and one in community and regional planning I can assure you the above statement is a common misconception in today's USA.

Do a little research into 'suburban sprawl' and you will quickly learn that the spread of our built landscape into the 'rural' or 'natural' landscapes is generating MASSIVE negative impacts.

....Habitat Fragmentation, Habitat Loss, Loss of Arable Lands, Pollution, etc...


You then begin a critique of the industrial-agricultural-complex and I completely agree with you. We are led to believe that the extreme 'value-added' agricultural products such as milk and meat are what are best for us when in fact they are both detrimental to our health (in large quantities) as well as an unacceptable burden on our planet's resources and a major source of resource consumption and pollution. On this we are in total agreement!



All i see from this is the high ups are using any old excuse to bring in depopulation, and unfortunately theyve found the green movement to be rather popular at the moment, which destroys any good the movement does. They kill two birds with one stone, give people the idea population reduction is for the best, and ruin any human shift to an environmentally friendly mindset by making it sound all crazy like.


Sorry but I do not completely agree with this statement either.

While I see how the conversation about 'reducing the population' sounds fringe and 'crazy like' population adjustments are a NATURAL part of any species habitation of an environment.

This can be seen in what is known as r/K selected adaptations of species.




In r/K selection theory, selective pressures are hypothesised to drive evolution in one of two generalized directions: r- or K-selection.[2] These terms, r and K, are derived from standard ecological algebra, as illustrated in the simple Verhulst equation of population dynamics:[3]

(REMOVED EQUATION - see link)

where r is the growth rate of the population (N)

and K is the carrying capacity of its local environmental setting.

Typically, r-selected species exploit empty niches, and produce many offspring, each of which has a relatively low probability of surviving to adulthood.

In contrast, K-selected species are strong competitors in crowded niches, and invest more heavily in fewer offspring, each of which has a relatively high probability of surviving to adulthood.

In the scientific literature, r-selected species are occasionally referred to as "opportunistic", while K-selected species are described as "equilibrium".[4]
link

This highlights the inherent tendency for a species to either act as a rapidly growing 'r' adaptive species which rapidly reproduces to FILL and empty niche (like we humans did as we populated the entire planet.)

-OR-

It also highlights that this form (r) is based on instability and its exponential growth rate sets the species up for failure in the long run. It's focus is on FILLING a habitat niche, not surviving in it int he long term.

Whereas on the other hand a 'K' adaptive species has a tendency to grow according to the CONFINES or finitude of its environment. Such adaptation allows such a species to take root permanently, as it lives within the bounds (carrying capacity) of its environment.


In areas of major ecological disruption or sterilisation (such as after a major volcanic eruption, as at Krakatoa or Mount Saint Helens), r- and K-strategists play distinct roles in the ecological succession that regenerates the ecosystem. Because of their higher reproductive rates and ecological opportunism, primary colonisers typically are r-strategists and they are followed by a succession of increasingly competitive flora and fauna. The ability of an environment to increase energetic content, through photosynthetic capture of solar energy, increases with the increase in complex biodiversity as r species proliferate to reach a peak possible with K strategies.[5] Eventually a new equilibrium is approached (sometimes referred to as a climax community), with r-strategists gradually being replaced by K-strategists which are more competitive and better adapted to the emerging micro-environmental characteristics of the landscape. Typically, biodiversity is maximised at this stage, with introductions of new species resulting in the replacement and local extinction of endemic species.[6]
link

This second quote highlights how there is a tendency for a transition from r to K selected adaptation types as an environmental niche fills up. This allows the creation of a 'climax community' that, save for disturbances by catastrophe, can live on indefinitely WITHIN the bounds of its environment.


It is MHO that humans have been operating as a 'r' adaptive type and have thus rapidly filled the planets 'empty space' with its own / our own population.

Now that we have 'over shot' the carrying capacity of the planet we must exercise our 'reason' and switch to a K adaptive type of behavior to secure our sustained existence on this spaceship earth.






[edit on 23-4-2009 by Animal]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Good for them. We don't need a crapton of kids anyway. Why can't you people be happy with ONE child that you can spoil and love? Having more than one just spreads you out thinner and thinner.

We simply do not have the resources to care for so many people on our planet. We simply do not have the space to house so many people on our planet. We simply do not have the space to give jobs to everyone on our planet.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


This statement contradicts the ongoing effective policy of AU government to repopulate the Australia.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
The earth has it's ways of dealing with over population, we don't need any government regulations regarding the size of families. How many were killed in that tsunami in a matter of minutes? I know it was in the hundreds of thousands range. One little earthquake in the middle of the ocean, and nobody knew what was coming quietly at over 500 mph. That's what nature does, it regulates. It uses tools like new viruses and asteroids. We will be depopulated sooner or later....


Munkey also said this, and I'd have to agree. I generally ignore political arguements for controlling the earth, since it is basically about control.

Sure we do breed like bacteria, and cover the planet, but I'm of the opinion that the planet, sun and solar system have cyclical mechanisms in place which wipe the slate clean. It may be one reason our life spans are so short.

I also imagine that at some point in human history, information about a tipping point came to the awareness of a small class of people. It spawned the Eschatology philosophy and current Carter Catastrophy which indicates a sudden decline in human population.

What if there was proof positive that the Eschatological catastropy was linked to a specific tipping population point? It would make sense, if you wanted our species to continue, that some form of population manipulation would be undertaken. From estrogen disruptors in our water and food supply to an over reliance upon OIL based agriculture. Nothing would be sacred in the goal to prevent reaching that number.

That must sound really whacked?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jacob08
 


Exactly, friend.


What is being advocated is trading (alledged)'environmental suicide' for the certain cultural/racial genocide of Australian whites.

Not a politically correct thing to say, but accurate nonetheless.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
The Earth could support 15+ billion people if they all lived like Zen monks. You could fly over the planet and wouldn't even know we existed.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
This is the most ridiculous garbage I've ever heard in my life. The more people that are born, the more potential technical innovation global society will accumulate. As a result we will trod along but another inch ahead of total despair and desolation, just as we have been for the past 10,000 years scraping by just barely through our on dependence on a highly volatile agricultural world economy. Civilization has always been on the brink of collapse. If world trade stopped for a single week, billions of people would die.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
The entire population of the world, shoulder to shoulder and front to back, would occupy a land surface about 120 miles long and 10 miles wide. The presence of people is not the problem, it is what the people are doing to the environment to sustain their lives and standards of living. How many homes does a rich mogul need? How many cars? How much food do we really need to maintain our weight? Why do we have to commute so far to work? At least with the internet we're saving trees.

The problem likely started with shoes. Try walking barefoot, see how far you get. Next, clothes. Try going outside when the weather is ***not*** comfortable, naked. See how far you get. By our adaptations, we can work this environment high, low, deep, far, day and night. That's not enough, so we have to go into space and junk that up, too. I'm for more free time, agriculture, arts. Maybe the way the ancients made their massive buildings was really, really slow and with loving care for the environment. When you think about it, there isn't much left of most of them but their bones. We, however, have mountains of disposable dirty diapers, barges of trash, large seas of subsurface floating plastic in the Pacific ocean, chemicals in our ground water, chemicals in every living thing in the ocean..... I'm thinking there is going to be a natural reduction in population due to disease resistant strains of something that is going to wipe out 3/4 of the world population....like the black plague did in Europe. The environment has a way of balancing itself. You see the same sort of thing in animals when they are caged together----colony collapse or colony disease.

Don't be surprised...

[edit on 23-4-2009 by Jim Scott]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Ha what a godamn joke, the government are the ones who push the type of darn resource guzzling society we have all become accustomed to, the government are the ones who hide technologies that could allow us to populate offworld, but most importantly, they hide technology that would allow us to live in unison with the planet, twoing and froing as she does, as Tesla dreamed.

It is the reliant-on-government-for-evrything-we-need society that they have pushed on us instead of promoting self sufficiency, instead of pursuing energy that is not centralised, ultimatly it all boils down to Greed, power, and perverse plods who are at the top and you can bet your ass they want us depopulated, us "useless eaters".

Wake up people, any word of depopulation from a government party, dont even consider it, it sall BS.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Amen brother!

You could fit the worlds population shoulder to shoulder in Ohio. America alone can feed 2/3 of the population. Provided distribution and corrupt governments would allow the resources to reach the people. Every year millions of tons of food rot in silos, because of f'ed up laws and corrupt governments stealing food due to ethnic cleansing s!

This over population scam is just another control tactic used by the PTB. They want to push there own agenda. If they would free up bogus laws and allow the food to reach the intended demographic. Then we would have alot less starving going on. I feel this tree hugging, save the earth bull crap is the new religion forced upon the masses. It doesn't take much energy to investigate what is really going on. For every tree hugging global warming, over population report that can be found. I can find four reports that disprove it.

Fact is the global elite want to get rid of what they call "useless eaters" from the world and reduce the population to 500 million. That makes us more manageable. Problem with that is the reduction includes everyone including family's reading this post.

Do you really want to sacrifice yourself and your loved ones for those fat cats? They pay for the science. They determine who gets tenure and who doesn't. That being said, what would your "science" support? What would your findings be?

We are being scammed people. Do a Google satilite search at night over the US. Notice how much open space there really is.

We have had 5 mass extinctions before man. If "mother earth" was truly over burdened. Then she would retaliate and man would disappear. I don't need the Rockefeller's of the world telling me its time to go.

Don't fall for this guys! If the world is pushing it. Doesn't that in of itself beg further investigation?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Quote bigfootnz: “All that pasture (not sure of the size but the 3-4 farms it encompasses go out to at least 10x10 sqaure kilometers) for what amounts to around just 200 cows for producing milk and meat for the dairy industry... I mean you could easily build enough comfortable housing with a decent backyard for the kids and pets for at least 1000 families on that alone, with enough space for parks and community gardens to help support them to a degree to boot.”

****So we should pave the world with housing developments? Tell me why?
You are not doing the logistics. How about solving our current problems before adding millions more of both people and the accompanying problems.

Quote wcyck:“I think this article is ridiculous, 100% of the worlds population could fit into 75% of Australia,”
***Someone else who is not thinking logically. Do you really like that all our waterways are polluted not only with chemicals, but with human feces?

Oh, and now we have them standing shoulder to shoulder in Ohio….standing in their own excrement huh? You people are totally nasty.

Obviously those who are not born do not know the difference, and neither do the parents nor potential siblings.
The world and all the people in it would be so much better off if there were no new babies for the next 10 years.

“colonize the Solar system” dream on buddy. There is not proof that this is a viable alternative, and then what happens when each of those planets are overflowing with people and all their refuse? Try to think logically. Put yourself in a movie and play this scene out. In your mind, live a few years in an Earth with 168 billion people on it. Then come back here and describe just one week of your experience and that of the people in this world.

Cobzz, who is saying that they are better than anyone else? We are not talking about reducing the population by killing anyone -- Wars are acceptable to you? They have been a means of population control since the beginning.

If anyone is playing “holier than thou” it is those who think they have some kind of “right” to have large families.

All Immigration from one country to another should cease. It has never done anything other than create chaos for all concerned. It usually decimates the existing population.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
as a species we without a doubt MASSIVELY exceed the carrying capacity of the planet.

i agree, our population must be reduced in size for our species survival as well as the survival of many other species on the planet.

how this is to be achieved is what makes this diabolical or rational and good.


Why is that so? because the elite, and some crazed environlunatics claim it is so?...

We have seen starting a few years back from "some" environlunatics claiming that there must be some kind of "depopulation in the world to save it", to now several environlunatics, and more and more environmentalists getting on the bandwagon believing this lie, and even the elite is now going along with the whole "let's save the planet by depopulating the world"...

Can people not see what all of this has been really about?

The mega-rich and their companies are not being made to "save the planet" but rather the regular Joe, and Jane are once again being blamed for another lie.

The mega-rich, their companies, as well as the governments of the world are not being "demanded" or "blamed" for not helping start enough towns, and more cities to help with the overcrowded cities of the world, but rather the blame is one more time on us, the regular citizens, and we are once more being told that now we need even a more devious Socialist/Communist program, such as the one child policy in order to "save the world"....


Wake the hell up people...



[edit on 23-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Couple of thoughts....

It's a self-curing problem.

Just like an island where deer over populate, wolves and the like come in, decimate the deer population and leave for 'greener' pastures.

The deer gain in population and if the wolves don't come back, the plants etc. the deer graze on are eaten until they can't come back.

The deer either die off or just a small few hang on.

Plants come back and the whole thing goes full circle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Strikes me as well, that if a country like Australia reduces its population radically - and going to a third of what it is now is radical - will tempt a much larger country to invade since they need room for their excess people.

And the wheel goes round and round....



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Why is that so? because the elite, and some crazed environlunatics claim it is so?...


No. Because it is KNOWN that this planet, like all systems providing for LIFE has what is known as a CARRYING CAPACITY.

This is an undeniable FACT.

It is also a known fact that a CARRYING CAPACITY can only sustain X-AMOUNT of LIFE.

As such there is a LIMIT to how much life the planet EARTH can SUPPORT.



We have seen starting a few years back from "some" environlunatics claiming that there must be some kind of "depopulation in the world to save it", to now several environlunatics, and more and more environmentalists getting on the bandwagon believing this lie, and even the elite is now going along with the whole "let's save the planet by depopulating the world"...


What exactly are you talking about? I see you have disdain for environmentalists and you like to talk like a Savage Weener, but I do not understand the information you are trying to pass on.



Can people not see what all of this has been really about?


Yes, I see it as REALLY being about GOOD stewards of our planet.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join