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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
the title of the implications of the thoughts invented by imaginitave idiots is astounding to me.

There is no need to createe depopulation, thats a trick by elitist wealth sicophants and mocking "normal" people who are under a spell or deliberate in being a certain way to get some money or any other flittering fancy's that whisp into a fools head,. if there is such things in a completely dynamic universe, as normality beyond specious relationships. Peace is a joke to many who harbor ill will against another, due to inhibitions culturaly or classist or fascit thnkings.




posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
................

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.


I see, so are you going to volunteer yourself to have no kids at all? or are you going to give your life away to help depopulate the Earth, since "we need to get rid of some humans right now" apparently according to those who think like you...

Or are you one of those people who thinks you are one ofthose who has to survive and someone else must give their lives to "save the Earth"?

The amount of "cows" or meat on the planet has no detriment whatsoever on the planet. This is nothing more than another lie trying to control people by puting the blame on them.

Earth has had more atmospheric CO2 yet there was never any "runaway global warming" and Earth has seen all three, cold, warm, and hot climates when the atmospheric CO2 content was much higher than now.

As further proof we know for a fact that during the last three major Climate Changes, the Roman Warm, the Medieval Warm, and the Little Ice Age atmospheric CO2 content did not change much at all, yet temperatures changed dramatically from one period to another.



[edit on 24-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

I see, so are you going to volunteer yourself to have no kids at all? or are you going to give your life away to help depopulate the Earth, since "we need to get rid of some humans right now" apparently according to those who think like you...


Well, do a little research into the quote at the bottom of every post I make, that may anwser your question...



Or are you one of those people who thinks you are one ofthose who has to survive and someone else must give their lives to "save the Earth"?


What? Do I think I am better than everyone else? Nope. I am willing to sacrifice the present day standard of living along with everyone else in the name of preserving this spaceship Earth for future generations.



The amount of "cows" or meat on the planet has no detriment whatsoever on the planet. This is nothing more than another lie trying to control people by puting the blame on them.


Wow a truly outrageous and ignorant comment.

Are you serious? NO detriment? Obviously sharing ideas with you is going to be difficult as you seem entirely detached from reality.

What I like best about this above statement is how you equate an attack on the meat portion of the agriculture-industrial-complex as an assult on he average joe and jane.



Earth has had more atmospheric CO2 yet there was never any "runaway global warming" and Earth has seen all three, cold, warm, and hot climates when the atmospheric CO2 content was much higher than now.


No arguments with these ideas; however I do not see them as a justification for not being good stewards TODAY because the Earth underwent changes in the past...



As further proof we know for a fact that during the last three major Climate Changes, the Roman Warm, the Medieval Warm, and the Little Ice Age atmospheric CO2 content did not change much at all, yet temperatures changed dramatically from one period to another.


Again all good and fine but what does this have to do with this thread??

This thread is about OVERPOPULATION as a threat to the well being of the planet.

While Global Climate Change is one threat there are MANY others as well.

Because you can show us information that apparently is intended to dismiss GCC that still leaves over hundreds of other issues that must be dealt with.

So while the person article calls for population reduction to avoid cataclysmic GCC I call for it or a host of other reasons IN ADDITION to GCC.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


No, this thread is about what one group in Australia thinks they should do to deal with the problem as they see it.

Did you read my posts relating to the OP and how foolish such a plan really is?



[edit on 4/24/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


The thing to keep in mind is who is pushing this type of agenda.

It seems to be an embedded theme in the Western media. You are a gluttonous people and you should be wracked with guilt to the point of dying.

Much like the social disease that has gripped the Scandinavian countries... and is starting in throughout Western Europe.

It's based on Absurdism (read: mainstream 'Science').

They wouldn't lie to us would they?




posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Look at my last post cen, obviously I read the story.

And while the, AS I NOTED, person being discussed in the story was talking about GCC, I see the issue as MUCH broader.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Again, as I said I my last post, GCC is ONE of MANY issues endangering the well-being of our planet. Our tendency to get hung-up on that issue alone is regretful and dangerous.

Although I am admittedly expanding the scope of the conversation by bringing in other issues and making this about planetary well-being in general and not just GCC I feel it is both relevant to the topic at hand and a set of valid and rater important issues to address.




[edit on 24-4-2009 by Animal]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


YOU were the one telling someone else they were off topic in that post, so I simply pointed that you were off topic as well. Deciding to make the thread about overpopulation in general was your choice, and not the intention of the OP.

Is THAT really so hard to understand?

You want to talk about overpopulation in general, start your own thread. We're here talking about the absurd ideas put forth in this australian proposal.




posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
Heres a small idea,why not say no more kids are allowed until the worlds orphans are all adopted.
It seems selfish to have kids when kids need parents as much as a person wants and needs kids.
I also agree with the guy who mentioned the immigration factor.



I absolutely agree with this, and I think if I was more aware in my younger days, I would have adopted instead of having two kids. Hubby and I both are "spayed and neutered" now though, and there will be no more biological kids from us, but we do plan on adopting two school aged kids to get them out of the system and give them a chance and a loving home. I can't really speak about being selfish because I have two kids biologically, but I feel like (since my mind has opened, thank goodness) that we are all one race, and one people. I think it's messed up that people have kids that cant take proper care of them, but what can we do? It's politically incorrect to say anything about that. but China, in my opinion, has the right idea.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Colonize our orbit and nearby moons and planets, population problem SOLVED. Scientists around the world are already working on this:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Let me you refer you to the name of this thread:

Slash population to save the world: green lobbyist

I can understand keeping the topic based on a singular, and I would add fractured focus, does little to advance ideas.

Over-population is very clearly the topic at hand and the information and ideas I provided to the discussion I will stand by as valid in their relationship to the topic at hand.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join