Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation

reply to post by liquidsmoke206
Look, we all get what you are saying, but the genie is out of the bottle. What you are saying is not feasible, the breeding will continue no matter what! No one will ever convince everyone to get on the same page.

We all know China has the highest population on the planet. (1,330,044,544 July 2008 est.)First off I am not condoning the following but just to put things in perspective on how fast people are breeding, I heard that if you took the Chinese and put them shoulder to shoulder 10 wide, next row at arms length and started marching them off a cliff into the ocean, you would never run out of marchers. Makes you think a bit.

Add the 2006 figure of 1.31 BILLION Catholics worldwide who do not condone birth control and you have problems. Between these two you have half of the worlds population right there.

Short of cataclysm or genocide there is no other way in reality. So allocation of resources and energy is the only way. We must end the greed and hoarding of a few to help the many.


edit to add: or come up with a way to terraform another planet.





[edit on 25-5-2009 by timewalker]

Nuke China and Japan, there's 4 billion humans off the planet.

That's what the *Snip* NWO needs to do, instead of planning some **** to kill their own citizens, why not just take out 2 very, very, VERY overpopulated countries and solve the problem instantly?

I mean I'm sorry, but I'd rather that then the *Snip* NWO killing us all.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/26/2009 by semperfortis]

reply to post by liquidsmoke206


You are confused.

There's a reason for why the population grows and it's not a "over population" problem. If we lived in a society that you think of where less population equals better, then that's the equivalence of Nazism.

Because then who decides which people are "reduced"?

It will lead into a caste system with two groups.

One group is the untouchables who will never be "reduced", and then everyone else is in the other group. And guess who'd be at the top of the caste? The billionaire boys club with such members as David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, George Bush, etc.

reply to post by Deus Ex Machina 42


People like you should not breed. Hopefully you won't. Who made you god ? I mean, you are saying to murder billions of people. How do you live with yourself ?

Before you come back and say, that's what the NWO is gonna do, think, this makes you no better.



[edit on 25-5-2009 by timewalker]

reply to post by timewalker


Because they are under the delusion that they are ONE OF THEM and not one of US.

reply to post by timewalker

What you are saying is not feasible, the breeding will continue no matter what! No one will ever convince everyone to get on the same page.

Not so fast! A few things on this....
I believe that convincing people to not breed irresponsibly is every bit as feasible, if not more so, as colonizing the galaxy before we reach critical mass, as some have suggested. Once people realize that it's a lot easier, improves the quality of our lives and makes more sense to slow our reproduction rate, then they will go along with it, they probably just need a taste of the alternative...

The argument that we aren't even close to critical mass may have been brought up at this meeting if they are indeed having a discussion on population control. But the fact that they would have meeting at all suggests that control or reduction is imminent(in their eyes) and needs to be implemented now. Same page or not. Which is why I also think that the idea, and how to pull it off of decreasing a population rapidly(genocide, disease, war, famine, etc...) was probably also discussed. Honestly tho, I think they would use a multifaceted sterilization strategy before they went str8 to killing everyone off. Then again, I'm sure that group knows something we don't. So who really knows.

We all know China has the highest population on the planet. (1,330,044,544 July 2008 est.)First off I am not condoning the following but just to put things in perspective on how fast people are breeding, I heard that if you took the Chinese and put them shoulder to shoulder 10 wide, next row at arms length and started marching them off a cliff into the ocean, you would never run out of marchers. Makes you think a bit.

First of all I'm not sure that that's true. But even if is, China has saved themselves by allowing only 1 child per 2 people. It's hard to imagine how things would have gone over the past 20 years if that policy had not been in place. The policy itself is an example of how peaceful, long term ways of keeping populations at sustainable levels can include the cooperation of all citizens. The elusive, "same page" you were referring to.

Short of cataclysm or genocide there is no other way in reality. So allocation of resources and energy is the only way. We must end the greed and hoarding of a few to help the many.

You might be right about the cataclysm or genocide, but we have to try the alternative. allocation of resources would make the world into one big repressed society. Everything will need to be rationed out. I do think it would turn the world into one huge third world nation, so to speak. I think it would be a lot easier to help the many, if their weren't so many of them.

reply to post by bobbylove321

There's a reason for why the population grows and it's not a "over population" problem. If we lived in a society that you think of where less population equals better, then that's the equivalence of Nazism.

Because then who decides which people are "reduced"?

For the 8 billionth time, I'm not an advocate of genocide!!! Holy Christ!? Do I have to put that in every post? You deny ignorance in negative capacity.....never seen anything like it.

One group is the untouchables who will never be "reduced", and then everyone else is in the other group. And guess who'd be at the top of the caste? The billionaire boys club with such members as David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, George Bush, etc.

It's ironic that you think I've been promoting genocide during this thread, and yet you post this paragraph which pretty much agrees with and supports my original post as if it had never crossed my mind.

Yes, the people that would do the "reducing" would be the richest most powerful people, funny, wasn't this a meeting of the richest most powerful people?? Gee, I wonder if the idea, of "reducing" the population by less than humane means came up.....????

why wouldn't it?

reply to post by liquidsmoke206


Do you consider your parents "cretins" for breeding?

reply to post by stuff1


you're missing the point.
Not everyone should be breeding, and I'm not saying how you decide who does and who doesn't. but I think if a lot of people took a look at their lives and really asked themselves if kids is that smart of an idea, then I think a lot less people would be doing it.

I have little doubt that my parents would have lived much richer lives had they not had kids, or waited, or had only 1. This is a no brainer guys.

You guys are only against it cuz society tells you to be. when you think about it, there are way more advantages to NOT having kids.

seriously, just think about it for a few minutes. If you need any inspiration then I'm here for ya.

I'm one who had kids (2) because it was the expected thing to do.
All my friends were having them.
I never really in my heart of hearts wanted them at all and would have been much happier without.
I would certainly have been MUCH better off financially.
I'd could have had a cabin in the mountains for summer and a condo on the beach in Fla for the winter.
As it is I am wondering if I will run out of money before I run out of time.

None of you advocates of perpetual population increase have bothered to tell us exactly what good more people would do for the planet.

Do you really want to live like ants in an ant hill?

Why should I sacrifice my food or my pleasures just so you can bring 10 kids into the world?
Why exactly should I be confined to 1/4 acre when I can now have a whole acre or 1000 acres if I wanted it? 1/4 acres is a plot of land that is 75'x 150'. Not much bigger than the average lot in a housiing development, many of which are 60x120.
I defy you to live on 1/4 acre and raise ALL of your own food.

You are incredibly uninformed, inexperienced and unqualified to make such statements.

reply to post by OhZone

None of you advocates of perpetual population increase have bothered to tell us exactly what good more people would do for the planet.

Do you really want to live like ants in an ant hill?

Why should I sacrifice my food or my pleasures just so you can bring 10 kids into the world?
Why exactly should I be confined to 1/4 acre when I can now have a whole acre or 1000 acres if I wanted it? 1/4 acres is a plot of land that is 75'x 150'. Not much bigger than the average lot in a housiing development, many of which are 60x120.
I defy you to live on 1/4 acre and raise ALL of your own food.

You are incredibly uninformed, inexperienced and unqualified to make such statements.

Exactly, and nice work having the cojones to come forward and admit that starting a family was maybe not the best idea, most people would never admit to that. Even tho everyone knows its true. Maybe if more people would admit to it then less people would fall into the trap.

There is no good reason to increase the population while there are numerous good reason's for decreasing it. It's sheer lunacy to argue against it. But people just gotta have more kids, they are suckers for the lifestyle. They just keep crankin out kids without ever thinking about it.......cretins.....