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.
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?
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!
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.
...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.
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 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.
Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
I've stated repeatedly in this forum that overpopulation is the #1 problem facing humans.
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?
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.
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]
the only reasons you "Think" we are overpopulated is because our technology is what determines population cap for a society
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
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
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.
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 to say i did love your book, it made some very valid points about managing resources. It was however a little to optimistic.