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.

 

Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   
I can't believe what kind of crap people fall for.

Over population, global warming, swine flu, etc.

If one just takes a second and look at the fact that 1% of the people in this world CONTROL 80% of the MONEY SUPPLY, then you can see the bigger picture.




posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
Yeah EMM gets it, except one thing, I DO think depopulation would be a good idea, I don't advocate doing it quickly.

I don't think that no one should have kids, just think that less people should.
And then less, and then less...bring down the number of people having kids gradually generation by generation until you have something manageable. Think about it, small efficient populations with advanced technology, this is the stuff utopias are made of.

You have to think for yourself and live life on purpose, not on instinct. How do you define cretin?


A cretin? no human being is born a "cretin", we are all a product of our environment. So its our culture and system that produces the cretins you speak of.
Of course i dont believe we should all go around following our animalistic instincts, but to deny the fact they drive most of what you do, would deny you being human, an animal. You may like to think you use your free will to make your decisions, but those decisions are driven by instincts. at the end of the day its about education. Sex education, contraception. Not having the pope tell the African world to not use condoms.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   
I have a much better idea! We create a new death sport where we hunt the rich and divide up there riches! 95% of the worlds wealth resides with only 5% of the worlds populous! Now we declare an open season on these vermin that are ruining the earth and we ching ching ching or way to riches and with every bullseye!
Hey it might even televised on cable!


I wonder if the Cabal would be open to that idea!



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
I have a much better idea! We create a new death sport where we hunt the rich and divide up there riches! 95% of the worlds wealth resides with only 5% of the worlds populous! Now we declare an open season on these vermin that are ruining the earth and we ching ching ching or way to riches and with every bullseye!
Hey it might even televised on cable!


I wonder if the Cabal would be open to that idea!


I second that motion. Although it will probably end with people being the strongest, most psychotic and ambitious that end up with most of the booty. Is that really change?



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by bobbylove321
 


why does the argument keep coming back to starvation? We all get that there is enough land to grow enough food to feed everyone and then some. Doesn't make it realistic, and furthermore why would you want to head that direction? Here's a better idea....same amount of land, less people. Am i the only one who understands logic in here?

Let's not forget starvation is only one problem, what about the amount of waste produced(diapers, pepsi bottles, ANYTHING PLASTIC), forgot about that huh? Do you think more humans are more likely or less likely to alleviate this problem...??

What about jobs? How many more vague administrative and corporate jobs can we come up with? What about all the pointless middlemen? Should we be creating more or less of this?

Infrastructure? Can we keep building cities and bridges, and power sources, and schools, and transportation systems to deal with a never ending growing population? Guess where the funds to attempt to pay for all this stuff comes from?



Every single problem in the world can be alleviated somewhat by reducing the population, that's enough reason for me to advocate it. I don't know why everyone else won't quite monkeying around and get onboard with it.


the clear difference between the posters in this thread are those that prefer quality and those that prefer quantity.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by bobbylove321
 


why does the argument keep coming back to starvation? We all get that there is enough land to grow enough food to feed everyone and then some. Doesn't make it realistic, and furthermore why would you want to head that direction? Here's a better idea....same amount of land, less people. Am i the only one who understands logic in here?

Let's not forget starvation is only one problem, what about the amount of waste produced(diapers, pepsi bottles, ANYTHING PLASTIC), forgot about that huh? Do you think more humans are more likely or less likely to alleviate this problem...??

What about jobs? How many more vague administrative and corporate jobs can we come up with? What about all the pointless middlemen? Should we be creating more or less of this?

Infrastructure? Can we keep building cities and bridges, and power sources, and schools, and transportation systems to deal with a never ending growing population? Guess where the funds to attempt to pay for all this stuff comes from?



Every single problem in the world can be alleviated somewhat by reducing the population, that's enough reason for me to advocate it. I don't know why everyone else won't quite monkeying around and get onboard with it.


the clear difference between the posters in this thread are those that prefer quality and those that prefer quantity.


I understand logic and agree with you. The sad reality that people don't want to face is that people who are below the poverty line are not productive members of society. I know this sounds very cold, but it makes sense. Those that are very poor cause anguish for the middle class people around the world. This is because these people don't have the resources and/or will to create anything useful. This forces the middle class to work extra hard just to keep the poor alive. That is who the real victim is of overpopulation: the middle class.

I know this makes me sound very cold, but I'm not. I wish that every single person in the world could be financially secure, live in peace and have long fulfilling lives. It is just not a realistic outcome because the world has LIMITED resources, and what seems to be LIMITED intelligence!

[edit on 25/5/2009 by Dark Ghost]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
A very interesting journal article I just found, that makes the case for radical "post-carbon" restructuring of global society and economy, with many historical examples:

Energy and ecology: why societies really succeed and fail

This is really an informative read! A few excerpts:


...The ultimate causes of collapse on Easter Island were: 1) Genes: All living creatures are genetically programmed to maximize their reproductive potential. In humans this is augmented by enhancing personal status through power and possessions, and through subservience to those more powerful in the clan. This is why humans accumulate wealth far beyond what is necessary for a comfortable life, and why people typically engage in leader-worship and do as they are told to do by authority figures, and, 2) Mind: the human capacity for thought and rationalization largely functions in service to the dictates of the genes. From the perspective of carrying capacity, and especially in conditions of overshoot, this creates a conflict between ecology and biology, between the ecological limits to growth and the biological urge to maximize reproduction. Yeast in a wine vat will grow in number until they have consumed all of the food in the container and they have poisoned the environment with their own waste. The question has been posited more than once, are humans smarter than yeast? On Easter Island humans were not smarter than yeast.



...Looking briefly to modern industrial society, it can be seen that the conundrum of the individualistic, biological imperatives of the human genome is in some conflict with ecological principles, those being, as enumerated previously, 1) energy for life comes from the sun, 2) the resources necessary for life are limited and must be constantly cycled through the ecosystem, 3) soil is the basis of life on land, and 4) all ecosystems have a limit, a carrying capacity for each species.

Industrial society gets its energy not from the sun but rather from fossil fuels, which are finite in quantity and are now declining in quality. Resource use in modern society is linear; materials are mined or otherwise acquired, fabricated into material goods, which are used relatively briefly and then disgarded in a “dump.” After the nutrients critical for plant life—nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium—pass through the human body, they are disposed of in waterways rather than cycling them back to the soil for renewed plant growth. The current world population is approaching seven billion people, while the estimate for the human carrying capacity of the planet under sustainable conditions is two billion people. We find ourselves in a condition of considerable overshoot.

In a development analogous to population overshoot, modern society constructed a financial system based on the biologically-driven urge for endless growth. A financial system whose foundation is debt (transferring costs incurred today to the future) and interest (which compounds the debt owed in the future) can only persistent in an economy that grows constantly. From an ecological perspective such perpetual growth is impossible, as the earth and all of its ecosystems are finite. Sociologist Hazel Henderson called modern economics “a form of brain disease,” because it has constructed a quasi-religious belief system based on perpetual growth on a finite planet.

Most members of modern society are also currently psychologically bound by the genetic command to obey the dictates of the clan; they are largely incapable of thinking and acting from an ecological perspective. World military expenditures illustrate this point; while the ecological and humanitarian needs of the world go begging, global society taken as a whole spends two trillion dollars a year on technologies and organizations whose function is the destruction of living organisms and ecosystems. This sum represents the majority of human discretionary wealth and resources. Individuals who wish to rectify this misguided abuse of available resources will want to make other arrangements for the assets flowing from their lives. Sustainable human culture will be impossible until the individual’s first allegiance is to the earth and ecological integrity.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206


If the cretins won't stop breeding you have to take drastic measures, we all know thats what this meeting was really about.



I agree. Why don't you give the first example and give up of the right to breed and to have a heir? Like that you'll avoid to be part of the cretins group. According to all the calculations done, Earth has enough space and resources to host three times more people that we have today. The problem is not overpopulation but the division of the resources, wealth, power and management. And most of all the good will to improve the life for all the people in the planet and not just of some sons of the gun who control us and think that they have the right to decide who lives and who lives not. Sorry to say that dude but your comment is the most immature, mean and nazi like comment I've read in a while in this board.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 



I understand logic and agree with you. The sad reality that people don't want to face is that people who are below the poverty line are not productive members of society. I know this sounds very cold, but it makes sense. Those that are very poor cause anguish for the middle class people around the world. This is because these people don't have the resources and/or will to create anything useful. This forces the middle class to work extra hard just to keep the poor alive. That is who the real victim is of overpopulation: the middle class.


I somehow think that TPTB with their billionaires look at the middle class the same way you view the very poor. How productive are pencil pushers really?
Big wage but not very productive.
If our value for existence hinged on how "productive" we all are, not too many of us would be alive right now. And it would encompass ALL CLASSES.
Technology has replaced our need to be productive in an old fashioned sense.

To take that scenario a step further, what if everything in the world was automated TOMORROW. There would be no need for people to work, in the sense that we understand work.
Does that mean we should all die?
Or maybe it would be a great opportunity to move onto a total new human existence?
We aren't born to be slaves to any system.
We're just slaves to the system because at this particular moment in time there is no escape from it because of the way the world is run.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
I've stated repeatedly in this forum that overpopulation is the #1 problem facing humans.



I disagree.

the only reasons you "Think" we are overpopulated is because our technology is what determines population cap for a society

for example 100 years ago the Earth seemed quite overpopulated, but several TEchnological advances in Refrigeration and enhanced farming techniques allowed the population cap to increase significantly due to the increase in food availability and quality

in order to solve overpopulation problems (or squalor)

we must invest in developing better farming / agricultural technology and create multi-story hydroponic farming complexes etc

so rather than genociding them like Nazi's , why dont we just increase our technology (population cap) and start building space ships to send our extra people to the moon, mars , etc to colonize new areas for us

killing them off is just plain evil AND stupid



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by bobbylove321
 


why does the argument keep coming back to starvation? We all get that there is enough land to grow enough food to feed everyone and then some. Doesn't make it realistic, and furthermore why would you want to head that direction? Here's a better idea....same amount of land, less people. Am i the only one who understands logic in here?



this is exactly my point, you didnt even consider multi level stacked hydroponic farms

your assuming that its OK to murder millions of people over false arguments

not only that, but your acting like Earth doesnt have enough room for all of us

also since you and other overpopulation proponents simply refuse to suicide yourself (to help solve our overpopulation problem)

because these people refuse to kill themselves, i am forced to assume that they are no more than Nazi pipedreams about mass genocide

see, they want all of US dead, so that they can use the Earths resources all for themselves...

it is amazing what lengths people will go to justify the murder of millions of people (for their own personal benefit)



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Telos
According to all the calculations done, Earth has enough space and resources to host three times more people that we have today. The problem is not overpopulation but the division of the resources, wealth, power and management.


You are absolutely correct about the second part.

But i assure you, Earth can hold 300 billion humans (thats close to the max IMO)

possibly upwards to 380 billion

the moon can hold at least 80billion



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Why do we all (well, those who advocate massive reduction in population) keep coming back to a scarcity paradigm?

If we gave every man, woman and child on this planet 1/4 acre of land in Australia (1/4 acre is what it takes to sustain a human), we would still have a chunk of Australia left over.

Now granted, not all 1/4 acres in Australia could support a human, though a great many could. But then, we would have the whole rest of the planet.

If we took the mass of all 6.7 billion of us, it would fill a single side canyon of the Grand Canyon - with room to spare.

As was pointed out, it is NOT a lack of resources. It is a VERY badly managed distribution system, run by profit motives and not by the caring for the Humans who live on this planet.

We can change this, however. And to that end, I wrote my book.

We haven't much time to spread the concepts and start things going, though. The PTB are planning on "harvesting" us - killing off at least 6.5 billion of us. If we don't do something NOW, it will be effectively over for the Human race.

There just might be enough time if we can get the ideas to the tipping point.

Please read my FREE book. It is linked in my sig. Then, pass it on in whatever form you can. Send and post the link. Print it out to give away to others.

[edit on 5/25/2009 by Amaterasu]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I can see what you're trying to say but in the end the figures do not match up. You see you need water to produce those crops, areas that have irrigated land using large lakes, lakes so big they coudl be mistaken for oceans have dried those lakes up. Not all land is suitable to live on.

You talk of a 1/4 acre but people need far more than that. It's hard to pin it down but when you think of some simple things, like the clothes you are wearing, the desk you may have your computer on, the computer itself, those acres start to stack up. There is limited room and in the end, if you look at it logically you will admit thae earth only has so much space and therefore can only support a certain number of people.

EDIT

Edit to say i did love your book, it made some very valid points about managing resources. It was however a little to optimistic.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
So no one can have kids now. those who want to raise a family, continue their dna line. humans are here to reproduce like any other animal. Everything in life we do, is about finding a mate and procreating. We are driven by instincts to procreate. Humans want to live as long as they can and instinctively want to pass on the genes, keep the species going. But if your willing to never have kids. Then fair play for taking one for the team. But family to me is THE most important thing in the world.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by woodwardjnr]


You know it's also in human nature to walk upon the ground, yet we have airplanes and space capsules and submarines. Just by saying that something is "what we're here for" really makes us just another mindless animal in the end. Now what separates us from what we have evolved from is our ability to adapt and change.

So perhaps it's our nature to breed, well at some point we need to change that. I will actually say that I do believe in a global one-child policy, however I also believe it's impossible to put in effect without hurting other rights. I, myself, have not had children nor do I ever intend to.

My primary motivation in this, is that kids will slow better half and me down, make us less productive at work, and we'd have to give up a lot of the economic and chronological freedom we currently have. In short, we believe that the quality of our life is better without kids.

On top of this, and I will freely say this, neither the woman nor myself like children, at all really, and we can't be alone in that.

If more people would agree with us, honestly I don't think population would be as much of a problem. However we have to raise the standard of living globally before people can make that same decision. If you do truly believe that we have the resources on this planet to support hundreds of billions of people, (I think you're gravely mistaken but for the sake of argument here) think of what kind of life you could give a smaller number! If we can make 100 billion+ able to survive, think how good 6 billion would have it!

I've got no problem "giving up my right" (I'd say making the choice) to not have kids in order to have a more enjoyable and productive life. We need to make that choice available to everyone on this world.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by ProjectJimmy]

[edit on 25-5-2009 by ProjectJimmy]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Telos
 


Telos, I've already addressed everything you're talking about in your post. You read my 1st post and jumped to some ridiculous conclusions like all the other cretins in here.

Fact the matter is, I've been beating your little horse to death for the past few pages....take the time to read up and stop wasting space with your comments that have already been addressed, repeatedly.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





the only reasons you "Think" we are overpopulated is because our technology is what determines population cap for a society

True, technology is our friend, if we found out a way to find and colonize other planets then our population would not be an issue. if you think we'll figure that out before we become another easter island, you're dreaming.



we must invest in developing better farming / agricultural technology and create multi-story hydroponic farming complexes etc

or we could just decrease our population and use the new tech thats coming anyway but will go much further and create a much higher quality of life with less people around...I still don't get why you guys want sooo many humans on the planet, this whole thing is really kind of weird.




so rather than genociding them like Nazi's , why dont we just increase our technology (population cap) and start building space ships to send our extra people to the moon, mars , etc to colonize new areas for us

killing them off is just plain evil AND stupid

Jeez!! you people are genocide fanatics!! Every time depopulation comes up, you immediately think people are gonna get wiped out(NEWS FLASH!!! Overpopulation will be more likely to wipe us out.)...I've already explained alternative methods, involving voluntary depopulation, do you guys even read my posts?

So I think that peopl should be more responsible and start to control their destiny as a species by become a smaller, better equiped, smarter, more efficient society.

You think people should be able to do whatever they want not worry about the consequences, and just build some intergalactic star ships and a means to colonize the galaxy.

it doesn't take a genius to see which method makes more since and has more chance of success. It would in fact be much easier to design successful space programs, if there were less people.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   


your assuming that its OK to murder millions of people over false arguments



I am? why are you saying this about me?
You're assuming that I'm assuming this, which there is no basis for, is everyone seeing what this guy is saying? I have repeatedly said this is a bad idea and discussed alternatives.



not only that, but your acting like Earth doesnt have enough room for all of us

Nope, we already discussed our land can supply for more people, we all know that blah blah blah, this is like beating a dead horse. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO INCREASE THE POPULATION? to what does it serve? you're own precious desires to procreate



also since you and other overpopulation proponents simply refuse to suicide yourself (to help solve our overpopulation problem)

wow, you're a thinker.....



because these people refuse to kill themselves, i am forced to assume that they are no more than Nazi pipedreams about mass genocide

Keep talkin', yeah, keep talkin'



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I can see what you're trying to say but in the end the figures do not match up. You see you need water to produce those crops, areas that have irrigated land using large lakes, lakes so big they coudl be mistaken for oceans have dried those lakes up. Not all land is suitable to live on.


There are two things that solve that. The Dean Kamen water purification device (Dean Kamen of Segway fame), and the free energy hidden in black ops. Watch the interviews of Gary McKinnon, who broke into black ops computers (on a 56K dial-up modem!). He found free energy, antigrav, aliens and more.

But there are more out there that have claimed it exists. Gary is just so definitive. If we add this, and a robot team to transport water (clean, dirty, salty, whatever) to the Kamen device... Problem solved.


You talk of a 1/4 acre but people need far more than that.


Nope. To sustain life, 1/4 acre is enough. Sure, it would not provide abundance, but then we have billions upon billions of acres planet-wide, a great many of them suitable for producing abundance.


It's hard to pin it down but when you think of some simple things, like the clothes you are wearing, the desk you may have your computer on, the computer itself, those acres start to stack up.


Well sure. But with billions upon billions of acres to work with... This planet can provide for a much larger population than we currently have.


There is limited room and in the end, if you look at it logically you will admit thae earth only has so much space and therefore can only support a certain number of people.


Yeah, you're right. Somewhere between 50 billion and 300 billion...


Edit to say i did love your book, it made some very valid points about managing resources. It was however a little to optimistic.


And I don't agree. I see a wide world of abundance for our rather paltry numbers here. (Many alien populations are reported as being in the hundreds of billions... I mean, if you credit such reports.)

[edit on 5/25/2009 by Amaterasu]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join